The award for longest Pornhub sessions on average for an American city goes to Mountain View, CA where they somehow manage to last a marathoning 21 minutes per session
I still wonder why Cupertino’s cousins shows only a disappointing 8:58 stamina… maybe a side effect of “one Apple a day”?
Lets’ warm up this freezing traditional Xmas time with a brand new article from my XXX World section.
Who last the longest? And yes, there’s plenty of date for countries and cities all over the world!
Don’t be scared about the topic, it’s absolutely SFW.
Ever wonder how your lasting time compares to others around the world? The Pornhub statisticians have got you covered. As a part of a special collaboration with Gizmodo, we’ve got the dirt on the longest and shortest comings and goings on the world’s biggest porn site. The following infographic allows you to click through and see how long on average Porhub users around the world spend on the site by country and US state, as well as by city again on both the international and individual state levels. The data used was compiled over the Fall of 2014.
Who lasts the longest of them all? That honor goes to The Western Sahara up in North Africa, where visits last an impressive 16 minutes and 16 seconds on average. China and the Philippines also have some admirable lasting power, clocking in with 14:34 and 14:22 minute long sessions on average. Session lengths drop by around 60% comparatively when we head over the the Middle East, home to some of the shortest Pornhub visits in the world. Bottom 3 worldwide are Palestine, Iraq and Antarctica each only last around 5 minutes.
If you’ve ever been curious about how long some of the world’s major metropolises masturbation sessions tend to last, look no further than to this relevantly themed section of the interactive infograph. Sessions span a leisurely 13:58 minutes over in Kingston, Jamaica, and over in the US, Los Angeles lasts around 10 minutes and 44 seconds per session. The good times continue to last in Johannesburg, South Africa with visits lasting around 10:35, outlasting Canada’s capital of fap, Edmonton, clocking in at 10:27. Efficiency rules in Baghdad where sessions are the shortest on average in the world, generally lasting only 5:32. Tokyo only goes for around 6 and a half minutes while Istanbul lasts a mere 7:21 on average.
Over in the land of the free, visits to Pornhub never really dip under 9 minutes on average. In Arizona, where sessions are the shortest in the country on average at 9:21, they still have a noteworthy near 4 minute gain over Baghdad. Pornhub visits span the longest in Hawaii, where they go for around 11 and a half minutes on the regular as is the case in the Southeastern states of the country such as Georgia, Arkansas and Mississippi, where they tend to last around 11 minutes on the site. The award for longest Pornhub sessions on average for an American city goes to Mountain View, CA where they somehow manage to last a marathoning 21 minutes per session, which blows New York City’s average of 10:05 right out of the Hudson. NYC’s average time still more than doubles Plainview, Nebraska’s mere 4:37 average session duration.
That’s a wrap! Let us know what you think of these findings in the comments section below.
Although it is still relatively new as far as media entities go, BuzzFeed has become one of the leading new-media players, thanks in large part to its command of the social web, an ability to craft viral content and a large fan base among millennials. True to form, the company has created a visually-rich index of factsabout its size and reach — numbers which help explain how it was able to raise $50 million in a recent financing round.
As a caveat, it’s worth noting that the presentation is clearly designed to be a sales pitch for the company’s native advertising efforts, and so there are no links to or discussion of any of the data used to compile the charts. Most of the figures come courtesy of the site’s Google Analytics data, or from firms like Nielsen and comScore.
One of the core principles behind BuzzFeed is that social sharing is more important than search, so it’s no surprise that the main driver of traffic (which is estimated to be about 150 million unique visitors per month) is social — in fact, the company says that its social traffic is five times larger than its search traffic.
Although social has grown to become one of the leading sources of traffic to most web content, the advertising industry still hasn’t quite caught up to this development, as shown by a BuzzFeed graph courtesy of eMarketer and Shareaholic — which says that social accounts for 30 percent of referral traffic but only 14 percent of advertising budgets.
The other major shift in content consumption is mobile, and according to BuzzFeed the two are interconnected, in the sense that a majority of the site’s social traffic comes from mobile, and its share rates on mobile are twice as high as they are from its desktop users.
BuzzFeed said mobile also accounts for a rapidly growing amount of video consumption, including 50 percent of all the video that the site produces, and this is particularly the case among millennial users. As a result of its focus on that market, BuzzFeed says that its reach is larger than several leading TV networks, including Fox, CNN and MTV — and among millennials it is larger still, putting the site ahead of most of the major networks, including NBC.
Obviously, BuzzFeed’s statistics are designed to promote its advertising appeal. And as with any form of web measurement, the sources it has chosen have their flaws — Google Analytics has a tendency to over-estimate certain kinds of traffic, while Nielsen and comScore have a tendency to under-estimate other kinds, including traffic from corporate networks (and BuzzFeed founder Jonah Peretti has said one of his secret weapons is the “bored at work” network).
Some of the conclusions suggested by the BuzzFeed numbers are also debatable: for example, some media analysts argue that social is not as good as search — even if the raw traffic number is larger — because search is a better indicator of purchasing intent. As for video views, TV insiders would no doubt argue that their viewership is more loyal than someone watching a viral video on their mobile device.
Those caveats aside, however, the numbers BuzzFeed is generating are still quite impressive for what is still a relatively young company.
2014 has seen the most concerted efforts so far by some of the world’s biggest social networks to integrate e-commerce into their platforms. And, as a recent GWI Commerce report shows, it’s a move which is likely to resonate with significant sections of the social audience.
Globally, 7 in 10 active Facebook users say they have bought a product online in the past month, with the equivalent figure among Twitter’s active user base climbing to approach the three-quarter mark.
What’s more, a quarter of internet users say that social network-based retail stores make them more likely to purchase online – with a notable peak among Twitter users. In this context, it’s not hard to see why both Twitter and Facebook are trialing ‘Buy’ buttons in the hopes of opening up new and lucrative revenue streams.
Let’s also take a look at the impact of webrooming (where products are researched online but bought in-store) and showrooming (when items are tested in-store and then purchased online).
With the chart looking at the ratio of online researchers to buyers across nearly 30 different product categories, it’s clear that there are some big differences in evidence.
Where the ratio is above 1 – meaning there are more researchers than purchasers – the products in question are susceptible to webrooming. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is most likely to be taking place for big-ticket items such as cars, laptops, mobile phones, tablets and games consoles. Internet users might be discovering and researching them online, but the purchase journey is being completed inside a physical retail environment – whether to take advantage of customer service, to “test” the product or to gain a sense of reassurance about their financial outlay.
In contrast, many other categories have more purchasers than researchers and hence have a ratio below 1. Some of these products are simply too low in value, or else are purchased so habitually or on the basis of deals, that no research is necessary. But there are others where a degree of showrooming is likely to be taking place – as with clothes and shoes. Evidently, some consumers are using retail stores to find correct styles and sizes, but then purchasing the products online to get the best prices. And this is a trend that’s likely to have special importance as we approach the Christmas period when people invest greater amounts of time and energy in locating the best presents.
The trends we saw in Q2′s social login data continued in Q3, with Facebook continuing to make incremental gains as the web’s most used third-party identity provider. Also in step with recent trends, Yahoo continued its precipitous decline, dipping below 10% of all social logins in the quarter.
Facebook’s majority position seems to have been solidified by the company’s recent changes to Facebook Login, which now includes line-by-line controls for users when they choose to log into sites and apps with their Facebook credentials.
Google/Google+ saw a slight decrease overall, but made critical gains in mobile, while Twitter broached double-digits in login percentage for the first time in more than a year. Also of note, Login with Amazon gained its highest percentage of logins since launching in May 2013.
One big thing I have in common with the original author of this article, and why I’m sharing this:
Answering questions from my friends and colleagues about what the crazy futurists in San Francisco are doing — if they all wear Google Glass (no), if self-driving cars really roam the streets (yes), and whether Silicon Valley fixations like Bitcoin are going to be adopted more broadly (not until the infrastructure gets better, and maybe not even then).
I’ve been asked to explain these things so many times that, in the interest of saving time, I’ve decided to make a list of all the things that are staples of (a certain kind of yuppie, overprivileged, tech-centric) San Francisco life, but haven’t caught on to the same degree back east. New Yorkers, here’s a guide to what your West Coast counterparts are up to.
What it is: An app that lets you choose one of two or three meals per day and have it delivered to your house in 15 minutes or less.
Why it’s popular: The meals cost $8 apiece, and are usually fairly decent. Also, no digging for ones — you pay and tip the driver through your smartphone. In my neighborhood, SpoonRocket cars are everywhere around lunchtime, their little red window flags flapping in the breeze.
Will this be a Thing in New York? Maybe. New York has more (and better) lunch options than San Francisco, and more places that deliver. But if SpoonRocket extends to New York — it’s currently only in the Bay Area — it could steal business from Seamless.
What it is: An app that tells you fun things to do.
Why it’s popular: It’s the digital-age Time Out, and helps you find quirky activities like flashmobs and cooking classes. San Franciscans use it to find date ideas, fill an empty Friday night, or get clued in about concerts and parties.
Will this be a Thing in New York? It already works in New York, but I mostly hear about Sosh in San Francisco. Maybe because New Yorkers don’t have to look as hard for adventure.
What they are: Remote-controlled or auto-piloted helicopters, costing anywhere from $100 to $10,000 and up.
Why they’re popular: You can strap a GoPro to a drone to take a “dronie” of yourself from above. But early adopters are also experimenting with more practical applications, like surveying crops or as part of home-security systems. It’s not rare to see multiple tiny helicopters flying overhead on any given weekend afternoon in Dolores Park, shooting photos and scaring tourists.
Will they be a Thing in New York? Yes, if Martha Stewart is any indication.
What they are: Online money-management services. Both take your money and invest it (mostly in low-cost index funds) for very small fees, using software instead of human financial advisers. Just put your money in, answer a few questions about your financial goals, and the software does the rest.
Why they’re popular: Both companies have marketed themselves to Silicon Valley techies who have money but no time or expertise to manage it. Wealthfront gives seminars on investing at Facebook and Google, and Betterment — which is based in New York — has tried to capitalize on the tech boom as well. I often see people checking their portfolios with both companies’ mobile apps on the train.
Will this be a Thing in New York? Probably. It’s not as cool to say “my money’s in Wealthfront” as “my money’s with Goldman Sachs,” but it’s a lot cheaper.
Will this be a Thing in New York? It already is, to an extent. The difference is that Venmo is everywhere in San Francisco. Landlords collect rent through it, friends use it to split Uber rides, and charities use it to collect donations. Expect it to get universal in New York as well.
What it is: A car-sharing service. It’s like Uber, but weirder.
Why it’s popular: Uber is now ubiquitous in major American cities, but Lyft — which uses silly pink mustaches and has fist-bumping drivers — is still strongest in the Bay Area, maybe because it’s often as cheap or cheaper than other car services. People in San Francisco tend to use Lyft if Uber is doing surge pricing, or if they’re in the mood to converse with their drivers.
Will this be a Thing in New York? Probably. Lyft just started operating in the city, but it’s still having trouble keeping up with demand. If it can iron out the kinks (and ditch the mustaches), it should be fine.
Why it’s popular: It’s been a gamer favorite ever since it launched, but Silicon Valley got obsessed after Facebook bought the company for $2 billion. There’s even a monthly virtual-reality meet-up for hard-core Oculus fans.
Will this be a Thing in New York? Not for a while. Oculus is still not widely available, and living in Brooklyn is kind of its own virtual reality.
What it is: A dating app that connects users to friends of their friends, and sends each person a short biography of the other when they match. (“George went to Princeton. He works at Google, and lives in Mountain View. You both like foreign films and cooking.”)
Why it’s popular: Easier than OKCupid, not as creepy as Tinder. Hinge started in Washington, D.C., but it seems to have become biggest in San Francisco, where it launched just this year. Anecdotally, Facebook employees seem particularly fond of it, perhaps since it uses Facebook as its match-making data source.
Will this be a Thing in New York? Hinge is already in New York, but doesn’t seem to be throwing much competition Tinder’s way. Maybe New Yorkers like a little more randomness in their love lives.
What they are: Computers on your wrist. Samsung and LG are making them, and Google and other companies are hoping they’re the wave of the future.
Why they’re popular: Because it’s more polite to glance at your wrist for new e-mails than pull out your phone. Smartwatches are still mostly big with developers and tech workers, because early models don’t do much except make you look like Dick Tracy.
Will this be a Thing in New York? Only when Apple releases one. [10/08/2014 Update: definitely a ‘Yes’ now! ]