Opinion: Top 5 Most Important Websites

[TetRefine]

In your opinion, what are the top five most important websites in existence today? Not just for yourself, but to the digital age society in general.

 

For me:

 

1.) Google

2.) Facebook

3.) YouTube

4.) Wikipedia

5.) Netflix

Edited February 20, 2013 by TetRefine

[Daddydavek]

I am unable to speak for the digital visiting public in general but for me the top 5 websites are:

 

1.  My Yahoo pages

2.  NBCNEWS.COM

3.  gayauthors.org

4.  amazon.com

5.  bing.com

[Stellar]

I'd agree fairly much with the first four of what Tetrefine listed. Netflix less so IMO because it is restricted to the Americas and parts of Europe, unless I'm mistaken, and doesn't have the same sort of global influence.

Though I really hate the service and refuse to use it, I grudgingly submit that 5 would be Twitter

[TetRefine]

I'd agree fairly much with the first four of what Tetrefine listed. Netflix less so IMO because it is restricted to the Americas and parts of Europe, unless I'm mistaken, and doesn't have the same sort of global influence.

 

Though I really hate the service and refuse to use it, I grudgingly submit that 5 would be Twitter

 

Damn, I totally forgot about Twitter. Yeah, I think Twitter would definitely be more important then Netflix. 

[Ieshwar]

For the society in general, I would say:

 

1. Google (for the search)

2. Wikipedia (for the information)

3. Yahoo (for the Yahoo!Answers and the mail)

4. YouTube (for the fun)

5. Facebook (for the procrastination. )

 

Cheers

Ieshwar

[Finn]

Mein:

1. Google (searches, indirectly)

2. Wikipedia (on there several times a day)

3. Certain forum (spend a disproportionate amount of net time here)

4. Facebook (I visit it on occasions, mostly to dabble with a certain human)

5. Everything else (pretty even; my apathy is nearly infinite xD)

[FrenchCanadian]

The most influential, in my opinion, would be :

 

1- Google; 2-Wikipedia; 3- YouTube 4- Facebook 5- Twitter

 

Social media is now just (too) present in our lives.

[MikeL]

I have to agree with Foopy on Facebook and Twitter.  What invasive time wasters they are!

 

I would go with Matt's list, substituting Wiktionary.org for Facebook:

 

 

1.) Google

2.) Wikipedia

3.) Wiktionary

4.) YouTube

5.) Netflix

 

Seriously, many authors on this site should make extensive use of Wiktionary.org.  It is the best dictionary found anywhere.  It's always at your fingertips.  It's free.  It will improve your writing.

[MikeL]

[Yettie One]

I am not certain that I'd say there are specific websites that are life changers, but let's be honest, in some ways, Google is so much more than just a search engine today that it almost has to be one of the driving forced behind web development.

 

In terms of how I see the web's influence in commerce, I'd pretty much list the following websites as being trendy and important for development.

 

1. Google (Which would include the likes of GMail, Google Maps, Google Drive, Google Docs, YouTube, etc)

2. Ebay/Amazon/PayPal (they have pretty much changed the way we shop)

3. iTunes (changed and leads the way we get, listen to and distribute music, film and more)

4. Wikipedia (knows a little bit of something about everything)

5. Wordpress (.com gave ordinary people a way to blog about anything, and .org is changing the way we build the web)

 

In terms of personal and social content for the web, I am pretty sure that these choices are kinda obvious for most of us, but important on a different level maybe?

 

1. Twitter (I list it first because of the speed with which it can be used to share information. Twitter has been proved efficient and effective in huge events like the Arab spring and the London Riots to name but a few instances of its power)

2. Facebook (Simply because of its sheer size. For most people it is the No 1 distraction)

3. Skype (Service or website? Erm, I don't really know, but I know so many people use skype to communicate I figured it should feature in the list)

4. BBC (Ok I think in terms of news it vastly depends on where you are as to what choice you will make for your main channel of news and information)

5. Craigslist (Personal adds for just about everything. Gave ebay a massive run for its money)

[option]

Important in terms of what?

what is the metric & context being used?

 

 

As for google/bing/etc, as they are only search engines & dont produce content, they only exist because other sites actually produce content for them to index. Therefore the sites they index must be more 'important' than them.

Also, i am perfectly capable of finding the BBC, NYT etc without the use of a search engine. (i would actually use wikipedia/google/bing after using those sort of sites if i wanted more information on the topic)

[TetRefine]

Important in terms of what?

what is the metric & context being used?

 

 

As for google/bing/etc, as they are only search engines & dont produce content, they only exist because other sites actually produce content for them to index. Therefore the sites they index must be more 'important' than them.

Also, i am perfectly capable of finding the BBC, NYT etc without the use of a search engine. (i would actually use wikipedia/google/bing after using those sort of sites if i wanted more information on the topic)

 

Use your own terms and way of measuring. That is why I only set a very broad criteria for what people thought of as "important". 

 

To say Google is not a profoundly important website is just ludicrous. They do not produce content obviously, but they make it much easier to find. Instead of endlessly searching through various websites and links, I can simply type a few words into a search engine and I instantly get millions of hits. It cuts down on the time required to find something tremendously. 

[Yettie One]

To say Google is not a profoundly important website is just ludicrous. They do not produce content obviously, but they make it much easier to find. Instead of endlessly searching through various websites and links, I can simply type a few words into a search engine and I instantly get millions of hits. It cuts down on the time required to find something tremendously.

 

I have to agree with this. In terms of time saving alone it is a key driver in assisting us to manouver around the web, and in terms of its ability to find stuff you didn't know existed, surely that is an indicator of its power.

 

Yes you may not need to use google to find BBC, but if you were looking website that gave you information about the Matebele preferred meal options, would you not go to a search engine to find it? And lets be frank, it is not just a search engine, it is doing so much more than just search!

 

Another dynamic advantage of Google is its ability to ask it a question. I can't tell you the number of times I have not really known quite what it is I am looking for, or what it is called, but a simple question in the Google search bar has brought me results.

 

Sorry but simply can't deny the power of Google.

[Former Member]

1) tagesschau.de - news site of a public tv broadcaster here in Germany; keeps me up to date with the world

2) br-online.de - news site of the bavarin public tv broadcaster; keeps me up to date with traffic jame allerts and news in my area

3) google - to look up stuff

4) gmx - for mail

5) wikipedia - replaced my encyclopedia

 

last on my list: facebook, twitter &  co. - I use none of these

[option]

Use your own terms and way of measuring. That is why I only set a very broad criteria for what people thought of as "important". 

 

To say Google is not a profoundly important website is just ludicrous. They do not produce content obviously, but they make it much easier to find. Instead of endlessly searching through various websites and links, I can simply type a few words into a search engine and I instantly get millions of hits. It cuts down on the time required to find something tremendously. 

 

 

I didnt say that Google isnt important, i said that they, like all search engines, are less important than the major sites they index.

(also, your first & third sentences are contradictory)

 

 

some interesting data from 2011 that puts that into context;

 

Google is currently the most popular website online, but people are spending more time on Facebook, according to The Nielsen Company.

Nielsen reports that Google was visited more than 152 million times in March.

Facebook was second, with 135 million visits, followed by Yahoo!, MSN Windows Live, Bing and YouTube.

While people spent an average of an hour and 21 minutes on Google, they spent more than 6.5 hours on Facebook.

Edited February 21, 2013 by option

[Yettie One]

Google is currently the most popular website online, but people are spending more time on Facebook, according to The Nielsen Company.

Nielsen reports that Google was visited more than 152 million times in March.

Facebook was second, with 135 million visits, followed by Yahoo!, MSN Windows Live, Bing and YouTube.

While people spent an average of an hour and 21 minutes on Google, they spent more than 6.5 hours on Facebook.

That is an interesting point actually, however when you consider that Facebook has the platforms for app games to be played within the structure of the site itself, it isn't difficult to understand Facebook has the whole "sticky" concept fine tuned to an art form.

 

I think you could weigh the debate on either side of the scale. Content without an indexing system is valueless as it becomes difficult to find, and an index without content is pretty pointless.

 

With that in mind it kind of makes them mutually dependent on each other, but maybe the indexing being slightly more important as a referencing point to start from to find the content?

[Maximoff]

My boss still uses altavista. Those were the days. 

[option]

That is an interesting point actually, however when you consider that Facebook has the platforms for app games to be played within the structure of the site itself, it isn't difficult to understand Facebook has the whole "sticky" concept fine tuned to an art form.

 

I think you could weigh the debate on either side of the scale. Content without an indexing system is valueless as it becomes difficult to find, and an index without content is pretty pointless.

 

With that in mind it kind of makes them mutually dependent on each other, but maybe the indexing being slightly more important as a referencing point to start from to find the content?

 

 

some more data!

 

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/top10s/internet.html

 

web parent companies = all of their sites, so google includes all google sites/services, google+, gmail, youtube etc

 

shows just how 'sticky' facebook is, especially when it dosnt do search/email/documents/etc

 

 

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/september-2012-top-us-web-brands/

 

people spent almost as long on youtube as they did on all google branded sites (search, plus, docs)

 

google's concern will be that even combining all the google sites, facebook still had peoples attention for an extra 3 hours,

& that as facebook runs their own advertising platform google makes zero revenue from facebook

 

 

 

 

 

as for content v indexing

i would say that depends on the content itself, how visible the provider of that content makes it, & whether the original site has a decent index/search function

 

as examples;

 

if i want a weather forecast, i dont go to google/bing/etc, i go direct to bbc.co.uk/weather

its an easily remembered address, its also linked from all the bbc pages. the same is the case with news & their other services

the bbc make content very visible on their front page, its logically organised into site categories, & they have their own search function.

 

in that case, content provider is more important than search engine

 

 

if i want to look up a word definition, or more detail on a subject, i go straight to wikipedia

they also have their own search function, & of course the linking between the pages

 

> content more important than search engine

[PrivateTim]

As for google/bing/etc, as they are only search engines & dont produce content, they only exist because other sites actually produce content for them to index. Therefore the sites they index must be more 'important' than them.

 

Apparently you've never heard Google Maps, Google Translate, Google Drive, Google Blogger, Google Play, Google Gmail, Google Books or the dozens of other things they do besides being a search engine.

 

1) Google

2) Wikipedia

3) Baidu

4) Twitter

5) Facebook

 

But has Facebok hit its zenith? Can it grow and stay relevant? Will Tumblr emerge as a real competitor? yfrog? kik? Does Skype qualify? Will DailyMotion & Vimeo merge to challenge YouTube?

 

What electronic devices will emerge that will have significant impact on what sites emerge?

 

I suspect the top 3 will stay the top three and that Twitter & Facebook continue to drop. When was the last time anyone signed into their MySpace page or Friendster?

[Yettie One]

google's concern will be that even combining all the google sites, facebook still had peoples attention for an extra 3 hours,

& that as facebook runs their own advertising platform google makes zero revenue from facebook

I doubt that Google worry about the profitability of advertising revenue that Facebook gathers. They are very successful in terms of Google Adwords, used on a multitude of sites as a way of generating income, and revenue the earn through advertising on YouTube.

 

But yes, I will agree that in terms of the stickiness of Facebook in opposition to say Google search, Facebook wins hands down there. However, Google knows its place as a search engine. They understand people hit the page in search of another, and for this reason will not stay on the google site for long. For this reason their page is clean, slick and functional, unlike some others out there.

 

They are good at what they do, and while you do have points, I personally don't agree that the content of the BBC as in your example outweighs the usefulness or the power of Google.

as for content v indexing

i would say that depends on the content itself, how visible the provider of that content makes it, & whether the original site has a decent index/search function

 

as examples;

 

if i want a weather forecast, i dont go to google/bing/etc, i go direct to bbc.co.uk/weather

its an easily remembered address, its also linked from all the bbc pages. the same is the case with news & their other services

the bbc make content very visible on their front page, its logically organised into site categories, & they have their own search function.

 

in that case, content provider is more important than search engine

In this example you give you know the web address, are familiar with it, and can find what you want easily enough yes. I even listed the BBC in my own five choices, and it is a personal favourite of mine too.

 

However, ask the BBC or Wikipedia something their website does not have content about, and I'm sorry but Google trumps both here, as only the search engin will return results related to the question/query you ask.

 

It is all well and good to know the content url, but say you want to know something from the South African Government. Are you going to go to Google to search for their website or guess weather it is a .com or a .co.za or a .org or even a .gov

I have often ended up at the wrong place because I've used the wrong url, and now with domain parking, and url forwarding, you can end up landing at almost any kind of site if you just happen to use the wrong spelling or extension.

 

I'd rather just go to google and find it first time every time thank you.

 

I do agree though, good content is great. A well thought out website, and ease of use makes the experience nice, and keeps you coming back. So yeah, content is important you are right.

[option]

Apparently you've never heard Google Maps, Google Translate, Google Drive, Google Blogger, Google Play, Google Gmail, Google Books or the dozens of other things they do besides being a search engine.

 

1) Google

2) Wikipedia

3) Baidu

4) Twitter

5) Facebook

 

But has Facebok hit its zenith? Can it grow and stay relevant? Will Tumblr emerge as a real competitor? yfrog? kik? Does Skype qualify? Will DailyMotion & Vimeo merge to challenge YouTube?

 

What electronic devices will emerge that will have significant impact on what sites emerge?

 

I suspect the top 3 will stay the top three and that Twitter & Facebook continue to drop. When was the last time anyone signed into their MySpace page or Friendster?

 

 

 

'Google' as a website is the search site

whether you go to .com, .co.uk, or any other domain ending, you get their search site/interface

 

all their other sites are as Google the company

 

if we look at it in a different way, ie. what are the most important companies on the internet based on all their domains/properties, then that changes it;

 

for Windows users: Microsoft

MacOS/iOS: Apple

Android: Google

Linux: distro providers website

those are where your computer & phone go to to get updates, much more important than any other sites

[Myr]

A reminder:  It violates sites rules to promote or link to sites doing illegal activities.  Like sharing copyrighted movies, software, and music, for example. For those continuing the thread, don't repeat the mistakes of those before you.

[Former Member]

1) Revzilla.com

2) Cyclegear.com

3) r6-forum.com

4) google.com

5) youtube.com

[C J]

Well since there are millions of websites that's a pretty hard judgement to make, so I can only do it based on my own experience and thoughts.

 

1.   Google has to be near the top in most peoples minds since they have more than half of the search traffic, and when you don't know exactly what website you are looking for then you need a search engine.  You also need some skills in the use of search terms, something lots of people seem to know little about.

 

2.   eBay would be pretty important, since so many people use this site not only to shop but to dispose of their garage sale stuff.   It's also a good site to have in your research arsenal if you need to gather info on trends.

 

3.   Pandora is my favorite music site, so I'm listing it.   There are lots of other music sites so I could be off track on that, but it's so easy to collect your favorite music there.   It's also free, which is a huge plus.

 

4.   Wonderopolis is important since it's a educational kind of place, and it's also one I've loved since I was a little guy.  There are other sites based on education, but this one is special to me.

 

5.   Yahoo news is important because it allows for readers to comment on issues.  I personally don't like it that much since it tends to attract lots of clowns and idiots, but still I think it has it's place.

 

 

I suppose I could have come up with some better choices, but I'm not that familiar with the millions of sites out there.   I'm also pretty sure that it's all going to keep changing, so there's really no way to say which are most important at any given time.   Let's just hope the feds don't get by with implementing their internet tax, we have enough to worry about already!

[Zombie]

1/ Google - beats all others for me and being able to use it to search for keywords on individual sites is a powerful tool [but I hate what they did with Youtube privacy - below]
2/ Wiki - first "goto" site for an overview
3/ BBC - catchup TV, plus incredible archive of radio and TV programmes freely available
4/ Youtube - but I had to cancel my account because Google kept bullying me to reveal my identity with threatening popups with no option to tell them to get lost. Why should I? I lost any trust in Google to treat my details as private so now I just log on anonymously.
5/ Considering the time I spend here it has to be GA

Facebook is evil. If people want to spend 6 hours a day on it that's their problem. What I take issue with is their reckless and irresponsible attitude to data security. Kids post the most intimate personal details and overlook security. I've tried working through the security screens and subscreens and it's a Byzantine mess so I gave up. I suspect they've made it difficult for a reason or they can't be bothered. Either is unforgiveable. All the initial defaults should be "no access to anyone" with clear instructions to open up each individual parameter and red warning popup screens of the consequences of opening up access through the various levels. I also hate the clunky user interface. It's time for another more responsible social networking site with a better user interface to crush them

As for Twitter it can be fun having it on watching X-Factor with a tub of ice cream, a fizzy drink and a big bowl of cheesy puffs ...