Comments on: Macs

Macs

troy — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:21:51 -0800

The side-discussion about Macs here has made me curious about the % of mac users here as indicated by the mefi.com server logs. Can I get some user agent statistics?

By: mathowie

mathowie — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:38:02 -0800

This is skewed towards non-users (70-75% of all visits to MeFi are from random search engine drive-bys) but it's about 20% mac among everyone (varies between 15-25%). I suspect among just members of the site, it's easily above 25% and probably approaching 1/3 now. I should change the google analytics code to members/non-member tracking to really get that data.

I just screen-grabbed it from Google Analytics for all visits in the last 30 days.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:40:42 -0800

Also, these are visits and not by pageview. By pageview (which would include counting more members that read many pages of the site) the mac % goes up to 22%.

By: cortex

cortex — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:43:41 -0800

I don't know if I should be happy or sad that PalmOS is in contention with a videogame console.

By: dan g.

dan g. — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:56:09 -0800

70-75% of all visits to MeFi are from random search engine drive-bys

Wow, that's pretty surprising, though I guess it shouldn't be. A good percentage of my google searches turn up an AskMe page in the top 10.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:57:10 -0800

WHY DO YOU MOCK US?!?!?

* FREE THE IMG TAG *

By: mkultra

mkultra — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:57:25 -0800

PS3, huh? I guess those flameouts must really crackle in HD.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:00:02 -0800

Wow, that's pretty surprising, though I guess it shouldn't be. A good percentage of my google searches turn up an AskMe page in the top 10.

Last year I polled all my old school blogger friends, and not a single one of us had traffic that was less than 50% new visitors that look at a page once and never return. It's really weird, but that's how google works -- by sending billions of people everyday to random sites in response to searches.

A majority of blog traffic is random, and not readers interested in your daily musings as much as trying to find info you once posted that was useful to them at that moment.

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:19:27 -0800

Mildly interested dilettantes pick MeFi's brains.

By: troy

troy — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:30:58 -0800

Thanks for the speedy service!

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:33:06 -0800

I would have thought it was higher, actually.

By: desjardins

desjardins — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:55:34 -0800

Mefi: random search engine drive-bys

I just like this phrase. I picture someone holding their Macbook out the open window of their BMW while NPR thumps away on the subwoofer.

By: hellojed

hellojed — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:03:59 -0800

I'm pretty sure half of the visits using a PSP are mine. Great little machine, I just wish I could listen to music and surf the web at the same time.

By: zabuni

zabuni — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:14:40 -0800

I've also seen that google updates metafilter's search index with absurd speed. Often times when researching the background of a post, the actual post itself will be high in the search results. Combine that with a high pagerank, and no wonder mefi gets so many people from search engines.

By: marble

marble — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:03:42 -0800

Any data on what browsers people read the site with?

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:10:52 -0800

fourcheesemac: "I would have thought it was higher, actually."

Mac folks just make more noise than Windows/Linux users.

By: clearly

clearly — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:35:13 -0800

Mac folks just make more noise than Windows/Linux users.

WE DO NOT! MACS ARE WAY BETTER NE WAYZ. I <3 STEVE JOBS.

By: carsonb

carsonb — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:57:41 -0800

marble: Any data on what browsers people read the site with?

This is from December 2007:
FYI: it took a while but last month, firefox finally surpassed IE as the most popular browser here (that's data for the month of November).
posted by mathowie to MetaFilter-related...

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:35:25 -0800

Meanwhile over half the machines in use by students at my law school are Macbooks... I seriously wonder how much the market share will change over the next 10-20 years.

By: johnofjack

johnofjack — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:21:48 -0800

The iPhone visits are all Matt coming to put out fires.

You get 6.3 million page views a month? Wow.

By: nicwolff

nicwolff — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:05:34 -0800

Page views != visits. And did you learn to add from watching the angry math lady?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:10:50 -0800

I'd just like to give shout-outs from my posse while we have the Wii turned on.

By: treepour

treepour — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:21:52 -0800

It would be interesting to see the OS breakdown by Mefi members in a given time period -- I'd bet the Mac % goes up even more.

By: marble

marble — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:18:40 -0800

Woo, 1.64%! Go, Opera!

That's more than double the usage rate I found as a general stat (.74%).

We're just a hotbed of Opera users I guess...

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:44:59 -0800

I suppose I should stop blocking google-analytics.com and raise the Linux percentage by some microscopic amount. If people are using it to make decisions about browser support I'm probably doing myself and other Linux users a slight disservice.

By: johnofjack

johnofjack — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:10:59 -0800

Yeah, I'm crap at math; sosumi.

By: nicwolff

nicwolff — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:14:02 -0800

"sosumi" - that was a cute Mac in-joke! You are forgiven.

By: i_am_joe's_spleen

i_am_joe's_spleen — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:42:39 -0800

Treo represent!

Actually, I find the Linux figure very interesting. That's getting up to being a respectable chunk. I recall when Macs would be less than 5% of typical website traffic (eg back in the days when Google still published OS stats in the Zeitgeist), and Linux+Unix together less than 1%.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:15:53 -0800

Opera is pretty much essential when reading 4000 comment Sarah Palin threads. Doesn't even make the browser breathe heavy.

By: rodgerd

rodgerd — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:07:12 -0800

Personally I'd like to know why Mactards are allowed to shit up every discussion about anything non-Apple product related.

By: carsonb

carsonb — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:17:54 -0800

We keep 'em around 'cause they give good hugs. [[[rodgerd]]]

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:59:28 -0800

Last year I polled all my old school blogger friends, and not a single one of us had traffic that was less than 50% new visitors that look at a page once and never return. It's really weird, but that's how google works -- by sending billions of people everyday to random sites in response to searches.

Yup. This is why, based on Matt's advice from a year or two back, I show ads on my main webloggy site thing to people who arrive via search engines, but not to anyone else. Seems like a reasonable compromise.

By: Malor

Malor — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:31:38 -0800

That's very interesting. Linux at almost 5%? That's... well, enough to actually notice. And Mac at 18% is enough marketshare to even pay attention to.

Heh, I personally skew the numbers a little, though, as I use all three systems at different times.

I wonder how much of this is from the Vista debacle?

By: Malor

Malor — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:39:54 -0800

Personally I'd like to know why Mactards are allowed to shit up every discussion about anything non-Apple product related.

Look. This is a huge site, with tons of users. If 1 in 5 of them, roughly, are using Macs, and a program gets posted that doesn't support that OS, the chances are pretty goddamn high that one of them will be interested, and annoyed enough to say something. It's not just a tiny niche anymore, at least not here.

'mactards' is needlessly insulting. And 'allowed to'? WTF is with you? It's not like MeFites are kept on chains and allowed to express only opinions you happen to like, about products you happen to use yourself.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:56:40 -0800

Personally I'd like to know why Mactards are allowed to shit up every discussion about anything non-Apple product related.

Personally, I'd like to know why Metafilter has now twice been used to promote Microsoft's new ad campaign. WTF?

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:19:23 -0800

I wonder how much of this is from the Vista debacle?

The last two Ubuntu releases (Gutsy and Hardy) have both been far easier to install and configure than Vista or XP, and far less annoying to use than Vista.

In the small town where I live, I have been personally responsible for about twenty local families picking Ubuntu as their main computing environment. Three of those have cut over from Vista because they hated it, and two from XP because they got sick of the expensive messes their teenage sysadmins kept making of it. Five are first-time Ubuntu installs on new hardware, and the rest are on donated ex-school computers (2000 to 2003 vintage).

I don't imagine I'm alone.

By: The Monkey

The Monkey — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:21:48 -0800

Personally, I'd like to know why Metafilter has now twice been used to promote Microsoft's new ad campaign. WTF?

Because it's really good? Because with approaching 80% of our userbase running their products, maybe there's some relevance for people? Because the constant torrent of trivial Apple news that infests the front page will continue whether there's a bit of token MS or not?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:29:15 -0800

Because the constant torrent of trivial Apple news that infests the front page will continue whether there's a bit of token MS or not?

You're joking, right? We're bombarded with Microsoft-focused and Windows-only posts, and any post that mentions an Apple product gets the usual I-hate-Steve-Jobs-and-Mactards tirades.

By: The Monkey

The Monkey — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:46:17 -0800

Hilarious. Given that I'm not joking, and that when I read your comment I thought "no you're the one that's got to be joking", either you're talking complete shit, or we're both enjoying confirmation bias.

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:02:48 -0800

Previous mac user thread shitting.

It really is very tedious. And no, as far as I can tell not reciprocated.

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:04:26 -0800

Personally, I'd like to know why Metafilter has now twice been used to promote Microsoft's new ad campaign. WTF?

I'm not usre I'd call either of them "promoting" it.

Also: WTF? Double!

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:09:06 -0800

Previous mac user thread shitting.

Microsoft promotion really gets tiresome. Apologies that I'm not lame enough to dig up the hundreds of Windows-only posts.

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:12:13 -0800

I do not beleive that (a) is actually the case and (b) justifies being shitty. And the point remains that no such pile on occurs in apple related posts.

By: cortex

cortex — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:46:57 -0800

'mactards'

Don't do that.

Microsoft promotion really gets tiresome.

Skip the threads.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:47:19 -0800

I think the correct term is "OStards." 'cause as far as I can tell, all y'all OS geeks are a behaving like a buncha twats.

By: Meatbomb

Meatbomb — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:50:23 -0800

Seven MILLION visits? Holy mama.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:57:55 -0800

Skip the threads.

Apparently the front page is now an okay place for advertisements. Good to know.

By: cortex

cortex — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:14:41 -0800

BP, you're impossible to talk to on this subject. If you want to march around for the rest of your life with a stick up your ass about our disinclination to inexplicably ban Windows-related posts from the site, go crazy, but endless unchecked bitching about Microsoft has gotten awfully tiresome and doesn't (correct me if I'm wrong here) seem to bring you much joy either.

So, yes, skip the goddam threads if you cannot abide posts that in one way or another concern The Incorrect Operating System without dropping a deuce. If I'm standing here telling people not to say shit like "mactards" and your response is a passive-aggressive administrative jab, where is that supposed to leave me?

By: saguaro

saguaro — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:57:38 -0800

where is that supposed to leave me?

In the hug-needed zone.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:24:52 -0800

And no, as far as I can tell not reciprocated.

No? I thought that was precisely what was happening here in this Mac-related thread?

And the Mac-shitting wouldn't be half so irritating if thousands of Windows-users weren't so defensive about their choice of operating system. Every Go-Macs! comment is met by a fucking barrage of 'Mac users blah, blah, blah..' in response.

Personally, I uses both. It's a fucking operating system, not a lifestyle choice or religious affiliation. Get over yourselves, the lot of you.

By: rtha

rtha — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:59:31 -0800

Apparently the front page is now an okay place for advertisements. Good to know.

Where have you been?

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:13:56 -0800

It's not like MeFites are kept on chains

Fine, just don't bring them into the house.

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:43:34 -0800

And no, as far as I can tell not reciprocated.

No? I thought that was precisely what was happening here in this Mac-related thread?

Um, It's a meta-thread to a thread suffering a lot of the pissy-mac-users sidetalk, and the OP even references that?

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:41:07 -0800

Obviously, the correct term is "Macotologists."

Interesting as the stats are, I don't know that they necessarily reflect user preferences -- I'm sure a lot of us look at MeFi from work, and in a large number of offices, etc., standard issue (for good or ill) is the PC.

By: fairytale of los angeles

fairytale of los angeles — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:05:27 -0800

Mr. F just looked at the iPhone hit count, gave me a kiss, and said "Aw, honey, I bet about *half* of those are yours."

By: Malor

Malor — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:19:10 -0800

The difference I see is typically this:

Some new, cool program gets posted to the front page. The poster doesn't say what operating system it's for, so someone chimes in soon and says 'no Mac version'. Then one or two other people complain that they can't run it, and that part of the thread dies. Unless, of course, someone running who likes Windows machines starts in with 'Mactards' and 'stop using computers that don't have software' and crap like that. It could have been just a discussion about software, but it became a discussion about people, and of course the people being slammed get uptight.

I don't, offhand, remember any threads with Mac-only software products that don't run on Windows. Typically, Mac posts are about hardware, not software; an iPhone, an iPod, AppleTV, like that. The OS doesn't matter, so nobody complains. It's the same price and works the same way no matter what computer you have. No disappointment means no pileon. This doesn't mean that Windows users are better, it means that Apple is smarter about packaging its products to be OS-agnostic.

Oh, and Artw: your example of thread shitting is really, really bad, because in that case, Microsoft claimed "Runs on Macs! Requires Leopard". But, in the fine print, you discover that it requires Leopard because Leopard has Boot Camp; you have to buy, install, and run Windows to use that Microsoft product. Saying it supports Macs in that case is true, but for an entirely useless definition of true, because every Intel Mac user knows they can run Windows already. The user outrage was warranted and appropriate.

By: MythMaker

MythMaker — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:32:29 -0800

Considering 1/5th of the users are Mac (and arguably more), knowing whether or not something linked to will operate on our machines is not irrelevant. In case you haven't noticed, the 20% marketshare of Macintosh systems is the Apple marketshare in the U.S., not just on Metafilter. And it's growing. So, for lots and lots of us, it is very relevant whether or not a program will work on our system, and that is information that should be shared.

Mac-haters, get over yourselves.

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:01:36 -0800

So, for lots and lots of us, it is very relevant whether or not a program will work on our system, and that is information that should be shared.

Unless MS lets you know under what circumstances it will run on bootcamp, in which case you should freak the fuck out, apparently.

By: Malor

Malor — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:36:33 -0800

"Supports Leopard", Artw, means it runs on Leopard, not that it runs on Windows.

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:52:58 -0800

Um, does it claim to run on Leopard without mentioning bootcamp some place I am not aware of?

By: fogster

fogster — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:02:54 -0800

0.06% of us Treo users, represent!

When I bought my Treo, I would have laughed had you told me that it would be in between "iPod" and "Playstation 3" for popularity.

By: Malor

Malor — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:48:51 -0800

Art, they used to have a separate section in the requirements for the "Mac Version". In other words, they had the PC Version, which had certain requirements, and then the Mac Version, and one of the Mac Version requirements is that you have Windows.

That IS the PC version. There was only one version of the program, ever. Claiming to have a 'Mac version' was pure marketing bullshit, and people got upset about it. They thought Microsoft was showing support for a platform they liked, which initially delighted them, and then they found out that, in fact, the only way they could run the software was by shutting down their preferred operating system, and losing access to all of their preferred programs. And Microsoft had the gall to call this a Mac version.

So of course people got pissed.

If you'll note, the original site for that software (the first of the two links you posted) no longer lists a Mac version, just a PC version. Nothing has actually changed about the software, because that's all there ever was.

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:46:25 -0800

Really? IIRC this page had an additional section under "WorldWide Telescope minimum system requirements " that was something like "for MAC", which listed the minimum system requirements for running it under a mac with bootcamp, and which would have been something like this.

hell, some people may even have found that interesting and useful information. You know, people who are actually interested in running it - I can certainly see a lot of educational interest and they'd certainly want to know if their machines could run the thing (Bootcamp specs come in heftier than the natiove PC ones)

Why it's gone is anybodies guess. Maybe it was felt to be confusing, maybe someone got cold feet to at seeming to promote a solution that involved a non-MS OS, but taking it as evidence of an evil conspiracy to convince people of the existance of a Mac versions is a bit of a leap.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:00:19 -0800

Bootcamp specs come in heftier than the natiove PC ones

And anyone who believes those specifications that is an idiot who doesn't know a damn thing about computers and deserves to get ripped off by Microsoft.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:02:50 -0800

ArtW, you should quit digging your hole now.

By: dg

dg — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:57:47 -0800

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Not everyone agrees with you. Get over it, already.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:01:06 -0800

George_Spiggott writes "I suppose I should stop blocking google-analytics.com"

Does anyone know if No Script can be set on a page URL basis. I'd prefer not to turn GA on for all sites.

Malor writes "'mactards' is needlessly insulting. And 'allowed to'? WTF is with you? It's not like MeFites are kept on chains and allowed to express only opinions you happen to like, about products you happen to use yourself."

However some repetitively banal comments are actively discouraged or deleted on sight. The first three comments being "Whaaa, no Mac support" is a Metafilter equivalent of crap like "Frist Post!!". It adds little to the discussion and, not surprisingly, often leads to a derail. If people could just wait a for a few supportive comments before starting in, at least for the pile on, it would be a lot less irritating.

MythMaker writes "So, for lots and lots of us, it is very relevant whether or not a program will work on our system, and that is information that should be shared."

If that was the only thing going on why harp on it? The second and third comments acknowledge that non-Macness of the software had already been brought up. It comes across as stereotypical Mac persecuted special snowflakeness.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:30:34 -0800

It adds little to the discussion

That's fine. As a Mac user, it's good to know that your system is supported before you click on the link.

By: Kadin2048

Kadin2048 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:11:14 -0800

The first three comments being "Whaaa, no Mac support" is a Metafilter equivalent of crap like "Frist Post!!"

Maybe to you, but as someone who uses a Mac (at least at home), it's nice to know right away if some product won't run on my machine, so I can ignore it. At least the first "doesn't support Mac" comment is absolutely relevant. It's generally my invitation to just stop the page from loading, back up, and go read something else.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:19:19 -0800

Sweet new Mac Mini upgrade!

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:30:42 -0800

I have unlimited data. I think I can single-handedly push PalmOS into the top 5. (not set), you're going down.

By: signal

signal — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:13:25 -0800

The first three comments being "Whaaa, no Mac support" is a Metafilter equivalent of crap like "Frist Post!!"

Maybe to you, but as someone who uses a Mac (at least at home), it's nice to know right away if some product won't run on my machine, so I can ignore it.

Well, in the second one of atw's examples, which I happen to have posted, the above-the-fold text says "PC only. "
Despite this, the first 2 comments are:

PC only.
Well, it is Micro$oft.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:39 PM on August 23 [+] [Flagged]

PC only.
Well, fuck that.
posted by interrobang at 1:45 PM on August 23 [1 favorite +] [Flagged]

Then there's a lot of single-OS-moronity, some of which was removed by cortex.
Seriously, if it doesn't work on your OS, shut the fuck up about it. We don't care.

By: misha

misha — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:03:18 -0800

I live on my Mac laptop but have a Windows desktop as well, and I would normally NOT expect a product to work on my Mac unless specified, because we are in the minority, and it would be ridiculous to expect to be catered to, that being the case. If it's something I want, though, I'll look hard for a Mac version, because Windows is just too much of a hassle to deal with when I know I can do most things faster and easier on my Mac.

I do think the latest Microsoft commercial with Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld, both of whom I like, is an example of Epic Fail, though. They completely miss the mark, and have none of the endearing appeal of the Mac ads.

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:57:02 -0800

Ah, such a reliable and pleasant discussion! It really takes me back, you know, to NINETEEN FRICKING NINETY THREE, people. Any one in the bitchfest here now bitching then too? If so, I salute your sticktuitiveness.

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:13:14 -0800

See?

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:21:09 -0800

FOOTNOTE: You can reach Alan Deutschman electronically via America Online at DEUTSCHMAN.

more like deutschbag amirite