I'm Getting So Tired Of The Non-Instant Web

Tap... Tap... Is this thing on? (Reloads)

At the end of 2008, my #1 prediction for 2009 in the world of tech was that the real-time Web was going to grow in awareness and importance - and that a growing number of early adopters and fast followers were going to turn to sites that delivered instant updates, without waiting for filtered analysis. But there are other aspects of the Web that seemingly should be instant, and are nothing but. Brick and mortar institutions that have moved to the Web still have the delays common with their offline institutions. Pure online plays can't manage to update their data as months and years change. And the result is frustrating. As I find some services doing a fantastic job of updating instantly, it's those that lag that drive me absolutely nuts.

Back in 2006, when this blog had maybe three total readers, myself being counted twice, I encountered an issue where eTrade took seemingly ages to send from my account to a third party bank. As the two posts on the matter, from August 20, 2006 and August 24, 2006, show, a simple process of selling stock, converting it to cash and shipping it to Bank of America, that should have happened practically immediately, took about a week. While at the time I was mostly just annoyed, near the end of the year, in what looked like an instant replay, I actually bounced checks for this very reason.

As I've written about a few times on the blog, I opened up a checking account with eTrade near the end of 2007. Given the crisis at many financial institutions in 2008, it seemed a good move to have some of my cash at Wells Fargo and some at eTrade, in case one had issues. But at the end of 2007, I had to write a check that exceeded the amount of my holdings at either bank, but was less than the total amount between the two. So, planning ahead, or so I thought, I transfered money from Wells Fargo to eTrade. Days later, I wrote the check, knowing I had enough cash to cover it. But days later, I got notification my check had bounced, and eTrade did me the favor of charging me a $25 overdraft fee.

Meanwhile, I substituted the old check with a new one for the same amount, and resubmitted, as the deposit made its way through. But instead of the second one going through, and the first begin canceled, eTrade billed me a second overdraft charge, saying now that the first check had passed through, and the second had bounced. Freakin' brilliant.

So... we're dealing with that. Meanwhile, with my eTrade bank account in a thinned-state, the mortgage came due, automatically debiting from my wife's B of A account (we're working on closing that out). I wrote her a check to cover the amount, while at the same time, selling stock on eTrade's brokerage side to transfer to the checking side to give the appropriate cushion. That was done at the end of last week, but only just tonight did I get the chance to transfer the funds to the right place. Annoying. The last thing I wanted to do was bounce, yes, a third check, and then have my wife bounce her own account and have us in trouble with the mortgage company, when in fact, we did have the money, but just didn't have access to it.

I know financial institutions have these old-fashioned rules that allow a certain number of business days to make funds available, and that things aren't as easy as simply dragging and dropping money from one account to another, but given the seeming simplicity of the Web, I've got to believe there is a better way. Why should I have had to check in with eTrade first thing every morning, multiple times during the day and again at night to see if their system would let me have access to my own money? The Web should remove the restrictions not just of physical limitations, but of time as well. Just get it done.

Which gets me to my next item...

It's January 7th, right? So why, oh why, is there any reason that Compete.com's data still stops at November of 2008? Are they still waiting for those year-end reports to trickle in from December? It makes absolutely no sense. At 12:01 a.m. on January 1st, I could have given you the exact statistics for this site. Sitemeter just checks in with real-time data, and it keeps going. But Compete.com, the Web's easy way out when it comes to getting comparative traffic stats, is asleep. Call Alexa all the names you want, but at least they show December and the first part of January. Ridiculous.

But those services aren't alone...

Web digerati from Steve Gillmor to Gabe Rivera have been slamming FeedBurner's slow pickup of news and translation to RSS. RSS is practically the lifebood of today's connected, always updated, mobile content world, and the Google-owned property has put innovation on hold by hitting the snooze button.

I've seen this many times myself, as I go through Google Reader, seeing posts that took place hours and hours ago. I used to blame Google Reader for the issue... (See: Warning: Google Reader Congestion of Up to Five Hours) but now it's clear the offender is FeedBurner. If FeedBurner is destroying the capability of the real-time Web, there needs to be an alternative. There's really no good reason with so much technology at Google, and on the Web in general, that we can't find a real real-time solution.

I could keep going... but I am going to reward those services and companies that get the real-time instant Web right. There's no reason I should have to wait for my money, my data, my feeds, or any of that. I'm done with waiting.

Quantcast Shows Which Services Rely Most on Their "Addicts"

If you're like me, you have a list of sites you visit just about every day, without fail, and some may even be visited multiple times a day. Whether you're a frequent visitor of Google News, CNN.com, Facebook or Twitter, site and service owners know they can count on some consistent traffic from their regular visitors, in addition to natural traffic from external links or search engines. Web traffic measurement company Quantcast tracks much of this data, and has even gone so far as to categorize the most frequent visitors to some sites as "addicts", defined as those who visit a site more than 30 times in a single month - the "hardcore segment of a site's audience". As it turns out, some popular Web services rely on these so-called "addicts" for more than a third of their total traffic, and at major social networks, that number is as high as two-thirds of all visits.


Quantcast Defines Addicts as 30 or More Visits a Month
While Quantcast isn't as well-known as its competitors, including Compete.com and Alexa, it is making an attempt to track site and service's traffic, giving significant demographic information for sites, and helping advertisers try and find a perfect match. While the service doesn't claim to have sufficient visitor detail for all sites, many of the largest are now being directly tracked, meaning the data is extremely accurate.

This means that Quantcast isn't simply returning a site's total visits in a given timeframe, as well as whether traffic is increasing or decreasing, but what its users look like, and if they're addicts, regulars, or just passing through.

Some notable data shows:


FriendFeed Trails Twitter In Less-Addicted Regular Users
Twitter.com: 1% of all users are addicts, who drive upwards of 34% of total site traffic. An additional 25% of users are regulars, who deliver 40% of site traffic, meaning that the remaining 26% of traffic comes from the 74% of users who are merely passing by.

FriendFeed.com: Less than 1% of all users are addicts, who deliver 25% of all total site traffic. An additional 4% of users are regulars, who deliver 8% of site traffic. Fully 96% of users are seen as just passing by, accounting for 67% of visits.

This data tells me that FriendFeed has a real problem in converting casual visitors and making them regulars. You are either one of the "addicted", or you're probably not using the site at all. There's practically no middle ground. Twitter also clearly has its addicts, but it also has a healthy middle base of users who check in less regularly.


Facebook and MySpace Primarily Cater to Their Addicted Base
Facebook.com: 11% of all users are addicts, who drive 62% of all site traffic. A robust 53% of users are regular visitors, who give 34% of visits, and the remaining 36% of passers-by only deliver 4% of traffic.

MySpace.com: 20% of the users are addicts, providing 74% of all site traffic. Another 58% are regulars, giving 24% of visits, while the 22% of passers-by are only giving 2% of traffic.

That "addicted" users of Facebook and MySpace provide greater than two-thirds of page views is no surprise. Instead of being engaged on the "real Internet", many users log in to their walled gardens and stay there for some time. And there's not much benefit to being a passer-by for either service, so that doesn't deliver much traffic at all.

Outside of the social networking and lifestreaming spaces, you can look up virtually any Web site and see how much they rely on addicts, provided Quantcast has the data. Quantcast says only 9% of eBay users are addicted, giving 61% of visits. 16% of DrudgeReport visitors are addicted, providing 78% of visits. 2% of LinkedIn users are addicted, giving 36% of visits.

There's practically a catch-22 in business when it comes to appeasing your addicts. Lose your most ardent users, and you could find them to be your most vocal detractors, as they feel looked over and spurned. But if you appeal too much to your most addicted users, you could overlook some major gaps in your product that prevent it crossing over to the mainstream. How can you convert those casual passers-by into regular users or even addicts? Therein lies the struggle of growth. Quantcast gives us a glimpse into how many sites are faring in this battle. The question is, can the data change behavior?

Alexa Web Statistics Show Old Media Influence Nosedive

As flawed as Alexa's Web statistics can be, a quick array of searches displays a very clear message - that traditional media portals, including CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and even more trendy media monoliths, like ESPN.com, are dramatically slipping in overall rankings, losing visitors to new media by the droves - no matter how you dice the data.

Sites that used to be among the top visited sites in all the Web have plummeted, as fickle Web visitors have turned their attention away from the brands they once relied on to new brands that have taken their place, including, unsurprisingly, Facebook, YouTube, and major blogs, like TechCrunch and Engadget.

This change, according to Alexa's statistics, has accelerated, first starting in 2005, and at an increasing pace over the last two years.

For example: CNN, a top 20 site as recently as the second half of 2005, has plummeted below 100, nearing 120th overall.



The New York Times, a top 50 site in early 2006, has roller coastered down to nearly 300 overall.



The Washington Post, a rising star in 2005, peaked below 150 in early 2006, and has collapsed to nearly 1,000 today.



It's not just an East Coast phenomenon. The LA Times, one of the top 500 sites on the Web just 18 months ago, has recently seen its ranking dip below the 2,000 level, with no sign of a rebound.



Moving north, SFGate.com, home to the San Francisco Chronicle, has paralleled the LA Times fall, from above 500 at the beginning of last year, to nearly 2,000 overall today.



And the drop isn't limited to only newspaper sites. ESPN.com, part of the Go.com corporate family, representing 60+% of the network's traffic, according to Alexa, has dropped from the top 20 levels to around 50 today.



This isn't to say all is bad. In the place of old media, Web visitors are taking their traffic elsewhere. One major stop: YouTube - a top 5 site that was virtually nowhere just two years ago.



TechCrunch, invisible before the end of 2005, has catapulted into the top 1,000, passing up both the LA Times and SFGate.com site, set to pass the Washington Post next.



Engadget, from the 6,000 range in 2005 to between 500 and 1,000 overall today.



Facebook, a rising star, from 100,000 in 2005 to a top 8 site today. (Ignore the blip)



What does this overly long set of Alexa graphs mean? It means that what we've all suspected is true. Old media brands have not capitalized on the early success and traffic brought their way in the fledgling days of the Web. As their traffic has stagnated, and in many cases dropped significantly, more agile, interactive, forms of media have risen up to take their place. While there's still a need for investigative journalism and on the spot reporting, still the realm of the mainstream media, Web aficionados are all too happy to look elsewhere, for news, for entertainment, and for engagement.