What is Reddit's opinion of
Quantcast?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
45 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
Ask and ye shall receive. (WARNING: PDF)
Very basic. I'd be more interested in seeing stats for the common gossip sites, etc. But my Google fu has proven too weak.
EDIT: Google triumph! It occurred to me to look up one of those egotistical gossip blogger types specifically, rather than general stats. Success: Perez Hilton Reader Demographics.
There doesn't need to be a 'winner' of the database race and in fact I think you shouldn't even want there to be one - although I appreciate you wanting it to be me :) The competition is a good thing!
The folks at Zam certainly have a lot of advantages over a site like mine, and the traffic knotor receives is still tiny compared to torhead who receives between 1.5M and 2M pageviews a day according to quantcast. But Knotor is growing as more people hear about the site. And if it weren't for sites like mine, what incentive would they have to improve? When was the last time wowhead added any innovative new feature to their site? If I can force them to spend more of their resources on improving torhead, then all the better for everyone playing the game in my opinion.
I had no strong opinions about this article (LIKE MOST OF /R/GAMING SEEMS TO HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK). I agree that it's not fucking Shakespeare or Ebert or what-have-you, but your criticisms are needlessly harsh and come off as a petty ad hominem attack on this reviewer. You know another thing they teach in middle/high school English? Knowing who your audience is.
Quantcast's most recent estimates for ign.com demographics in the US
The majority of IGN's site traffic comes from people with no college education.
I'm not saying the review was written "well" (whatever something that subjective can mean). I'm not saying the review lacked substance (it did). What I am saying is that /r/gaming's collective opinion - that this review reads like a young person babbling - is correct because that was the entire point. If the writing staff at IGN can relate and appeal to their target audience, they are likely to keep that audience. If that means writing in a way that sounds shallow to us but like a "bro" to those who do not have, nor aspire to have, a college education, IGN will supply reviews written that way.
...the end.
EDIT: grammar
From the article:
> Perhaps when this generation of aging white males dies off, aging women, aging Latino and black males, and young people will become the readers of journals such as The New York Review of Books, and they will endow symphony orchestras.
> I suspect not. And if not, the Left may come to regret its contempt for this particular group. Without aging white males, I doubt the New York Times would survive. How many young people, females, Hispanics, and blacks subscribe to the New York Times?
Ask and ye shall receive (sort of): Here is the quantcast data for the readership of the New York Times online.
Interestingly, 47% of the Times's readership online is female. And while 75% of its readership online is Caucasian, Caucasians underindex for Times readership vs. general internet usage, while African-Americans and Asians overindex.
Takeaway: The reason aging white Republican males like Dennis Prager are dinosaurs is that, in addition to looking down their noses at women and minorities, they can't be bothered to conduct a simple Google search... which is all I did to find this info.
For one you're patronizing the same company right now by using Reddit. About 3.7 million people visit nola.com on an average month so even if everyone on this subreddit never used nola.com we wouldn't even put a dent in it.
What is it with mormons and their love affair with inflated membership statistics?
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/exmormon.org/ : January, 2011 monthly stats: 33,422 unique visits / 207,349 total
http://www.quantcast.com/exmormon.org : avg. monthly: 15K people / 471K visits
Wolfram Alpha gives some info about daily page views.
Quantcast has even more stats about demographics, but I've no idea how reliable that site is. Never heard of it before.
And Snoosecret has more data again, but it seems to all be about a year old.
Interesting stuff. Hope this helps.
United States traffic to Al-Jazeera's website has almost tripled in under a month.
It went from ~200k to over 600,000. It's also worth noting Quantcast normally low-balls estimates.
If you'd like the data:
http://www.quantcast.com/garyjohnson2012.com
He's at 100,000 hits/mo in September.
Jill Stein uses Quantcast, so here numbers are here by comparison:
Some basic demographics for Reddit.
In short, 67% of traffic is 18 to 49 years old, and 59% makes over $60k per year. In addition, 41% have attended college and an additional 15% have attended grad school.
But ad hominem attacks are easier.
For full disclosure -- I work at Quantcast.
Our service is most useful when the site in question is being directly measured by our pixel trackers -- as other posters have noted, the estimates range from reasonably accurate to wildly flawed when the actual data isn't being tracked. Statistical inference is a powerful tool when used carefully, but there is always a confidence interval to take into account. It's entirely possible for wildly inaccurate metrics on sites, as observed by Thirsteh (though I'd be interested in the details, feel free to PM me, sir).
To respond to jonosprings below, we do actually look at cookie deletion rates and our models account for this phenomenon to some extent (noted here, and in more detail here.)
> literally millions of people go on 4chan, it isn't that small of a percentage.
And there are literally billions of people in the world.
It is way less than .001% of the population.
According to Quantcast, 4chan sees about 3.7 million people a month. Even if we're generous and say it's 4 million a month, and even if we're generous and say it's different people every month, that's, at most, 48 million people in the past year.
There's a little over 7 million people in the world. I'll wait for you to do the math.
And that's just the people who visit the website. Cut out the people who visit once or twice and never come back, and the number shrinks. Cut out the people on the boards that are not major users of the *fag slurs (because remember, different boards have different cultures), and the number shrinks more.
The other day I was amazed to see that Twitter is the 4th most visited website in the US. A dust cover isn't hard to change in the future, but for the time being it isn't going anywhere. Smart marketing by Twitter as well.
editing note: changed "quantacast" to correct spelling
web analytics is just website statistics, in which basically you're tracking down webpage information as how many people visit a site, who is visiting your it, and how'd they get there.
from being used in the same sentence, a guess based on the word itself, and some googling, I'd say web analysis is a type/form/example of data mining itself. basically it's the same thing, but would pertain to much more than the web.
tl;dr data analysis
ex: what does this data say to you, what can you learn from it, etc.
IDK as to where you can learn more (or maybe I'm too lazy to think right now), but you can get hands on experience/real live examples with google analytics or any other website tracker *(i use statcounter a ton), you dont need a website to see the ways data is interpreted.
You can also view sites on quantcast.com check out reddit and see how they interpret data.
oh, and it is interesting, as you can see from quantcast. businesses rely on that info to market advertisement or build products that will attract the right customers to their services/products
Absolutely. Check the traffic analysis using tools like Compete and Quantcast (it's way up):
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/yelp.com/
http://www.quantcast.com/yelp.com
The buzz for any service dies down as tech/startup/marketing blogs/news outlets find it less innovative, but mainstream adoption continues well past the "buzz" fading.
Just double checked that at quantcast and it seems you are right.
That feels good, but I still have trouble believing I'm mature enough to be hanging out with adults.
Actually, on Reddit you are far less likely to meet someone under 18 than other places on the web. Demographics/Index. Notice the "under 18" index is really low. There is a larger concentration of college-educated people here than other places on the web.
Oh, you're almost there! Maybe I can help your reasoning along with some refined logic.
What demographic is both aware of YouTube's existence and overwhelmingly uses the internet?
What demographic has the time and wherewithal to view videos on YouTube?
If you're not interested in exercising a scientific thought process, you can always just look up the statistics here.
And if you continue to rebut the facts, the 18-24 demographic is still composed of children. The prefrontal cortex does not complete maturation until beyond age 25. Here.
YouTube's top-tier shit-comedy is geared toward children. That is a fact.
This is not me calling you out, but you yourself have linked to
From their about section:
>The American Action Forum will lead the policy debate and will seek the input of center-right leaders
Also the American Enterprise Institute blog, which has articles that mostly lean to the right.
Which leads me to my point. What is reputable is subjective. It is not as easy to distinguish as reliability is, as we agree with Wikipedia's standard on that.
Alternet consistently gets over a million unique readers a month, with millions of page views every month.
They have won the Edward M. Brecher Award for Achievement in the Field of Journalism
I consider them a reputable source, with a bias in their reporting.
As far as biased sources go, I can't speak for the other mods. I allow them as long as there are facts present in the article that can be scrutinized and vetted, I don't allow them if the articles rely solely on speculation.
Just because a source is considered non-reputable by someone, does not mean it immediately falls outside of our guidelines for reliable sources.
>I'm willing to bet that there are at least five men for every one woman on OKC.
You're on! I'm willing to put every penny I own into this bet. Quantcast numbers Please let me know when I can collect, I accept cash only, unmarked bills preferred, marked bills acceptable.
Hold it! I can do the math for this!
Ok, so we start out with 100% of reddit, or 1.00
From Quantcast, we can determine that about 43% of reddit is female, or .43, leaving about .57 available males. According to Wikipedia, The gays make up about 4% (.04) of the population, or, put another way, good God-fearing heterosexuals account for 96% (.96)
.57 * .96 = .547
Now, as for those who are interested in Pokemon, lets assume it's 99% of the population because, lets face it, everyone loves poke'mon
.547 * .99 = .541 or 54.1%
Last of all, those available redditors who are good at math, I really have no idea. I was going to do this last part wrong as a joke about me being bad at math, but I have lost all interest as I am want to do. I'm... I'm so sorry.
Inferred, in the great tradition of western reasoning. Visitors are 68/32 male/female according to Google Analytics; commentators are likely much more male, however (for reasons similar to wikipedia editors being overwhelmingly male, despite the fact that visitors are almost 50/50).
Statistics generally support your demographic theory http://www.quantcast.com/reddit.com
As for the active vs passive ... that kinda makes sense too. A woman can typically ally get dozens of messages a week. So "profile critique requests" (PCR) wouldn't be needed. I do see many women in the comments of PCRs so maybe this subreddit is more 55/45 than we think, but with the majority of the links being from men.
Some basic demographics for Reddit.
In short, 67% of traffic is 18 to 49 years old, and 59% makes over $60k per year. In addition, 41% have attended college and an additional 15% have attended grad school.
But ad hominem attacks are easier.
Gaia may have been bigger at a time, but it has shrunk dramatically while at the same time 4chan has continued to grow. Pulling my data from public directly measured quantcast numbers: http://www.quantcast.com/4chan.org vs http://www.quantcast.com/gaiaonline.com
http://www.quantcast.com/minecraftforum.net http://www.quantcast.com/minecraftwiki.net
I count them as one site, it's a stupid habit, but combined they do ~70m a month, for December it was just shy of 69m, 68.8 I think. Switch to "page views" and then "monthly" (we use quantcast on the sites, it's not guesstimates, this is what we see via google analytics etc)
I took a look at your site, and the style is nice. It's flat, clean, and works well. :)
The content is scatter-shot, for sure. However, I'd like to offer some advice for that:
For now, this is your blog - do your thing, do what you enjoy. BUT, (there's always a but) at the same time, keep an eye on your analytics. Keep at least two metrics ready, like Google Analytics, Clicky, or Quantcast, and learn them.
Use your analytics to really learn, what gets readers, and what gets ignored by people. Start to temper your focus at that point, to really hammer down the stuff that works, and make the stuff that doesn't into more irregular features. Basically, they can become, say, a monthly article, rather than a weekly or daily. This way, you can continue to offer the variety of content you want, while ensuring a consistent voice and niche focus that will grow your brand as a whole.
For your content, always take a second read. Learn to spot missing commas, unusual apostrophes, etc. and really tighten your content (I noticed a few odd sentences that needed punctuation in my look-through). It gives your work a more polished feel, and really helps to project the idea of authority, due to your mastery of the content and your ability to convey it.
Hope this helps!
I'm not saying there aren't outliers, I just expect that the stats on who liked the show would fall along the trend of who watches HBO; 25-34 appears to be their biggest age group.
I don't see the numbers saying 75%. I also can't find the site that I saw that had the 90% number. So I guess I'll call that a wash.
Edit: found it, but I found another one that says 78%. And it's more recent. Meh. http://www.quantcast.com/okcupid.com/demographics http://www.giveyourhandabreak.com/sites/okcupid/
quantcast estimates 45%/55%, but I doubt they're very reliable.
Of course, given that everyone on reddit uses adblock etc, none of these estimates are very reliable.
No. There have been a couple of times where someone's account was suspended or removed on Google+ and his or her followers created a tag, like #bringbacksoandso and within a very short time, with relatively few posts, that tag would show up in the Top 5 Trending on Google+.
If there were over 100 million active users tagging posts on various popular topics, such limited interested tag like #bringbacksoandso would never have a chance of getting anywhere near the Top 5. It's ironic considering that Google+ inserted that feature as a way of self-promoting activity on the service.
This estimation based on visitors tracking, although a few months old now, is a better and more accurate way to gauge who has how many real active users:
Quantcast.com | http://www.quantcast.com/ (January 30, 2012 - February 28, 2012)
- Facebook 150.0 million visitors
- Twitter 92.5 million visitors
- Gmail 15.0 million visitors
- Tumblr 12.0 million visitors
- Pinterest 5.7 million visitors
- Google+ 5.0 million visitors
- LinkedIn 4.9 million visitors
EDIT: I just checked Quantcast: http://www.quantcast.com/plus.google.com
- Google+ 13.5 million visitors
They appear to have grown considerably but are still nowhere near 150 million active users. lol
Actually that's a pretty fantastic number considering those 75 million check it daily for about 12 mins average. ~~Facebook was estimated to have 135 million per month in 2011.~~
Bad stats, but a good set are here.
Facebook took four years to grow to 75 million active users. They at some point after reaching 500 active users, began defining active users as a monthly returning user, rather than daily. This may have artificially inflated their numbers and does not really show the number of users daily.
Our freelance pitch guidelines are here. Keep in mind when pitching, though, that our audience is heavily American (at this moment, Chartbeat tells me that only 4 percent of the people reading our site are in Canada and Quantcast says that only about 6 percent of our monthly unique visitors come from all of Canada), so Rob Ford isn't going to be a particularly known quantity with most of our readers and adjust pitching accordingly.
I agree with what you say about usage habits, and as for growth in membership, yeah, it's a case of the law of diminishing returns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns
I'm really hoping that Tumblr becomes the network of choice, at least within the US. I don't know how Pinterest got so popular so fast, but whatever.
20 pinterest.com 45,843,052
23 tumblr.com 42,106,840
If you want to think broad, then think demographics. Build a couple profiles of what said business owner would be like. Use Quantcast & Google Ad Planner on competitors sites and see what their demographic is and what related sites or services they may be searching and visiting. Those should give you some good ideas for broader keywords.
I don't know what issues were encountered in the previous campaign, but if you aren't already, make sure you're setting up ad groups on state and city level and explicitly calling out that location in the ad copy. Try different angles and appealing to different emotions in your ad copy rather than just listing out features. keywordspy can give you some good idea to start with too.
Quantcast has different estimates. Would be interesting how useless these all are.
Most redditors have cookies disabled (as far as possible), ads blocked, and no toolbars installed. So there might be a lack of valid data.
Compare the demographics of <strong>SA</strong> with those of <strong>reddit</strong>.
Reddit has about as many women and minorities as the internet overall, and all age groups above 18 are represented pretty proportionally, whereas SA has far fewer women relative to the rest of the internet, and mostly 18-24 year olds. SA also has far fewer black people than the internet average.
The only thing where reddit is different from average: a lot more redditors than internet users in general make $150k+ per year.
tl;dr: SA are male, poor college nerds. Reddit are people from all backgrounds and ages, the only thing unusual about redditors is that there are a lot of high earners.
Reddit is not a male oriented site. 55% is male, 45% is female - and that means this is one of the more gender even sites I go on. Source.
Certain subreddits are probably more male-oriented, sure, by future of the community, not the website. This is the first experience I've had on reddit trying to perpetuate that men and women are lyke totally different OMG - the exact thing I was trying to avoid when I left 9gag. Then again, I spend most of my time in /r/atheism, /r/politics, and /r/aww, so perhaps the culture of those communities are simply more egalitarian and progressive.
And yes, we have cultural expectations about how men and women will behave in society. True. Granted, of course, those differences are shrinking as we become a more progressive society. Can you believe there was a time when people didn't think women got horny? LOL
However, people don't live up to the expectations as much as they thrust those expectations upon others. You probably don't live up to the male or female ideal, whichever you are. You know there are exceptions and you're not like every other man or woman out there.
But as people tend to do, they do hold those exceptions up for other men and women. When they want to perceive people as different, they will. And that becomes extremely evident when you don't know the person's gender (internet) and can suddenly understand them just fine.
Did anyone check out the Quantcast measurement of site traffic to the site? I love how traffic goes down by half on weekends because less people are at work and therefore less people need programming help.
Compete.com or Quantcast.com are better. And BOTH say Reddit is getting more traffic than Imgur: Compete: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/imgur.com+reddit.com/ QuantCast: http://www.quantcast.com/imgur.com vs http://www.quantcast.com/reddit.com
Alexa is the Hotbot to Compete's Google and Quantcast's Bing
>There is no formal empirical evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of NASCAR or that the right market is even being targeted.
No you mean you dont know if there is any formal empirical evidence. Also for sprouting on about evidence, you have presented a startling lack of any.
Seriously it took me less then 10 mins to find this info
Pages 7&8 Show NASCAR demographic data, which shows high levels of 18-24 year old males who live in the south who live in low to middle class households, basically prime military recruits.
Here is another one not as good doesn't break ages down but it help corroborate the first numbers.
Yet more data which highlights the fact that NASCAR.com sees high levels of traffic from males in their 20s to early 30s.
The fact that you didn't even try to present any data (took me all of 10 minutes to get what I have) makes me believe that you dont care if NASCAR is a good place to recruit or not, you would rather spout off about how its such a bad idea instead of taking the small amount of time to gather any evidence. While my data isnt able to show if this advertising is effective it does show that the target demographic is watching and in large numbers, which is far more then you unsubstantiated claims can say.
Also since the Military is undoubted going through a PR firm to do these advertising I highly doubt that there is no information at all on the effectiveness of this advertising. Its simply a matter of knowing where to look. In all likelihood the information is probably freely available to the public, who just have to know who to ask to get it.
> Data? Why do so many people on reddit assume that there is just magical data out there to prove every point? I'm not writing a thesis here.
Why are you being so confrontational with this guy. If you had actually bothered to put any real effort into your argument you'd have seen that there's tons of demographics data out there. Here's some I pulled from the first google search I did...
http://www.quantcast.com/youtube.com
http://www.quantcast.com/reddit.com
According to these (admittedly estimated) figures, reddit users have a higher median age, income, and standard of education than youtube users. All of which would seem to support your original hypothesis.
Pity your debating skills do the opposite.