Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Uncommon Descent ranked well within the top 1% of web sites


A few days ago, frequent commenter Dionisio noted:

>>http://www.ranking.com/ Web Rank

Biblegateway.com 168
MIT.edu 7,280
HARVARD.edu 7,246
Nature.com 7,449
Desiringgod.org 10,105
Answersingenesis.org 11,865
Gty.org 15,018
Icr.org 19,037
Religionnews.com 22,188
Rzim.org 35,858
Samaritanspurse.org 40,274
Truthforlife.org 49,862
Royalsociety.org 53,686
Evolutionnews.org 58,755
Jamesmacdonald.com 60,164
Reasons.org 65,259
Uncommondescent.com 80,763
Pandasthumb.org 106,377
Kodugamelab.com 668,032>>

I took a look, especially at the question of how many web sites are out there. That is a hard question, but the reasonable and somewhat conservative number looks like about the billion, with 75% inactive in one way or another, i.e. the active web overall is 250 million sites or so, maybe up to several times more depending on how you count and when.

I then responded:

“[T]here are over 10^9 web sites, perhaps 1/4 of these active. So the top 1 percent would run out to the 2.5 millionth or thereabouts. All of the above are in the top 1% of global web sites that are active.”

In another thread I happened to mention the result and someone asked a question. I pulled some further information:

>>[T]here was just a comment exchange on this. With credibly 250 mn + active web sites [the real number may be several times that], the top ranking 1% would stretch out to 2.5 million sites. As a comparison, Dionisio listed: Uncommondescent.com 80,763, Pandasthumb.org 106,377. Where also, Evolutionnews.org 58,755 with Samaritanspurse.org 40,274. I add: BBC.co.uk 180,874 [and later: “dailymail.co.uk is 90. Contrast with BBC!”]. Top ten,

1 google.com

2 youtube.com

3 facebook.com

4 yahoo.com

5 wikipedia.org

6 live.com

7 amazon.com

8 msn.com

9 bing.com

10 blogspot.com

In the past day or so, I have been on seven of these sites, some several times. So, the rankings have some plausibility to me.>>

Obviously, the top ten sites or the top thousand probably have much bigger reach than something in the 80,000’s, but being in the top 1% is not to be sneezed at.

[U/D Jan 16: While the above data in my considered view bear no credible signs of being “bogus” — fraudulent, on objections seen below I examined the methods and a small sample of the 2000+ scans of the home page for the rating agency in Web Archive. This showed that c 2012 the data were frozen but left up, unfortunately without a clear notice of archived state. I also note below, as I hinted above, that web ranking is a difficult task and signals of the real world face noise starting with difficulties of method and simply scaling the active web. So, no rating should be taken simplistically at face value. That said, that such five year old data would still have significant signal rather than mere empty noise is reflective of a common pattern that is also mentioned below. Namely, that as a segment or sector emerges we commonly find a dominant cluster or set of “brands.” As an example, the world’s dominant cluster of economies is still much as it was, likewise leading operating systems, leading browsers and leading search providers. Nothing existential has happened to drastically reshape the web’s general landscape and so what was dominant c 2012 will likely remain in the top 1% still. Subsequent data confirms the general picture regarding the robustness of the top 1% status of UD. This leads to the continuing force of the intended main point of the post, just below. KF]

The take-away lesson is, we have some sober responsibilities precisely because of this, whether we are pro or con on any given issue. END