the same population, when averaged, tend to be accurate predictors of
the population average. So your idea about gather data on different
sites would give you a somewhat accurate idea of what the real numbers
are.
larry
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:20:24 -0400, Jim Davis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I never claimed this reflected anything but the readership of those two
> sites. I'm sorry if I seemed to indicate otherwise. Although those two
> sites (my mostly computer and tech site and my brother's performance
> stock-car site) get about equal traffic and have widely differing audiences.
>
> Seeing the bigger sites would definitely provide an answer appropriate to
> the "general public" label, but I would think that Google and Yahoo's
> numbers would be the absolute best (since news sites have only news but
> eventually everybody searches). ;^)
>
> Still - collecting the data from a lot of small-to-medium, widely disparate
> sites can definitely give you an idea of things.
>
> Jim Davis
>
> i dont think you can possibly deduce that this is indicative to the
> "general public"
>
> lets see the stats for cnn.com, msnbc.com, cnet.com
>
> that would be the REAL litmus, i think. geeks are making the exodus,
> firefox, etc...i for one am not, but i feel a trend in this direction
> just by the chatter on this and other lists.
>
> wouldnt you think?
> tw
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
