DO NUMBERS HELP?

---

...
about the Web abound. You may find such ...
In general, when I look at the research ... Iget a feeling it's ...
The Web is so vast, I don't ... possible to f Demographics about the Web abound.
You may find such datahelpful. In general, when I look at the research available, Iget a feeling it's incomplete.
The Web is so vast, I don't thinkit's possible to find a small representative sample from whichsignificant results can be obtained that reflect the whole. Inthe end, what is reported with numbers may not matter to you, even though the source is impeccable.Numbers Don't Always Work For example, it has been reported that 330 million people are"on the Web." I have not read closely enough to know if thismeans daily, occasionally, or somewhere in between.
To me itdoesn't matter. Even if this number were doubled, it would still mean nothingto me.
I am interested in reaching an extremely small fractionof web users. The implication I've been seeing in spam messagesof late is that I can reach all 330 million people.
This is alie. But there would be no gain in trying to do so in any case.Honest Numbers Can Be Wrong I recently read a report that of nearly 100,000 spam messagesreceived by one firm, about a third were promoting po-rn sites.
(I used a hyphen in hopes of ducking blocking software.) Whatdoes this mean? Numbers are funny. I never doubt such reports fromrespectable firms or people.
But I am always skeptical about thenumbers themselves. Sure, those were the results obtained.
Iwill accept this without hesitation. But they often do not seemin accord with my experience.
I get lots and lots of spam. Less than 3% is po-rn related.
Do I thus conclude the report was wrong? That they were lyingfor some devious purpose? Not at all. It only means their sample of email received was not representative of what I receive.
In like fashion, it is doubtful my email is typical of yours. 100,000 spams messages is a very small percentage of what ismailed each day.
It is so small, results from this sample havevery little, if any significance. These results were obtained,that's true.
But they may have no meaning relative to you. Leave the particulars of demographics to those keen on thetopic.
Your best plan is to ignore such numbers and focus oninteractivity with readers and visitors. In every way you can,seek input, then derive your own demographics from it.Your Log Files Can Mislead Recently I was chatting with a fellow who was having troublegetting a page to load under a specific condition in Netscape.
Since he uses Internet Explorer, which handled this casecorrectly, he hadn't noticed the problem until I pointed it out. When I did, he commented, "Hey, I don't need to worry.
Only5% of my visitors are using Netscape." This fellow is wrong in two ways. Of visitors to my site, over 40% are using Netscape.
So haveI got it wrong? Or is the fellow reporting 5% wrong? Neither ofus is. We are both reporting accurately.
Why Are There Such Great Differences? The apparent dilemma stems from the fact that we all have ourown set of visitors. Each comes to us from a vast pool of manymillions of Web users.
Those who show up on my site may nevereven hear about yours, let alone visit. Thus my visitors are not representative of yours, except asto the fundamentals.
For example, all site visitors ask first,"What's in it for me?" Such basics relate to every site. Thespecifics do not.
Even if a massive, well respected study reported only 1% ofsurfers use 640 x 480 monitors, it still might not apply to yoursite. For as suggested above, the pool is so vast, hoping todraw a truly random sample from it is impossible.
Further, things change rapidly on the Web. Not long ago,Netscape was the browser leader.
As Microsoft continued todemand Internet Explorer be installed on all new systemsdelivered, the dominance of Netscape began to fade. Even afterbeing acquired by AOL, market share continued to drop.
Can you assume it will continue to do so? That would leaveus with only one major browser. A Microsoft product.
A companyalready at odds with the Justice department in anti-trustactions. It may prove to be in their best interest to assurethat Netscape regains a significant share of the market.
What seems so today is suspect, for it may not be sotomorrow. Rather than making assumptions which may prove falsetomorrow, the better plan is to accommodate all possible optionstoday, and be prepared to make changes tomorrow.The Mistake That Matters Most But the second mistake made by the fellow mentioned above is in ignoring Netscape users however small their numbers be.
Suppose only 5% of my visitors use Netscape. To toss away thismany potential customers is foolish at least.
I take the time to make it work for them.Hasten Slowly JavaScript has been available for some time. Is it wise touse it if N% of systems can not deal with it? The better plan is to offer an alternate way to access your site for those who can not.
Plug ins are popular of late. Will users take the time todownload and install one so as to see your site in all its glory? I doubt it.
What's best is to offer the option to do so, but besure your site functions effectively without it. One of my systems uses a Pentium II with awesome supportingresources.
However, it doesn't have a sound card. A site thatrequires I have one, will hold my attention only so long as ittakes to hit the Back button or enter another URL.Killer Assumptions If we make assumptions about the power and tools our visitorshave readily available, to the extent we are wrong, we aredriving them off our sites.
When you consider how hard it is to draw a new visitor,driving even one away seems a pretty silly thing to do. Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com .