互聯網的使用
A tangled web
錯綜復雜的網絡
Who goes online, and where
誰在網上,在哪里?
THE internet looks like an adman's dream. Counting how many times an advert on a bus shelter has been viewed is impossible; counting clicks on a blinking banner ad is a doddle. But knowing where each click came from, and how many people are clicking, is harder than it appears.
互聯網對于廣告人而言太神奇了。沒法計算公交站亭上的廣告被觀看的次數,但卻可以輕而易舉地計數一條屏幕閃動的廣告欄的點擊量。可是,要弄清楚每個點擊從何而來,有多少人點擊過,就比看起來難多了。

Firms dedicated to click-counting put code on websites that reports the times, origins and frequencies of visits, or get consumers to install it buried in browser plug-ins or mobile apps. These record web-users' digital calling-cards: the internet-protocol (IP) addresses of the devices they are using. But to assume that each IP address represents a single user in its country of registration is a wild oversimplification.
許多熱衷點擊量的公司,在網站上附加代碼,用來跟蹤訪問的時間、來源以及頻率,或者讓用戶安裝隱藏在瀏覽器插件中或者是移動應用程序中的這些代碼。這些代碼記錄網絡用戶的數字名片——這就是用戶使用設備的互聯網協議地址(IP地址)。但如果想當然假設每個IP地址就代表了在地址注冊國的單個用戶,那你就弱爆了。
A new report published on November 4th takes a different approach. Global Web Index (GWI), a market-research firm with local partners in 32 countries, surveys 170,000 consumers a year and recently began to ask detailed questions about internet use. It puts China and India in the top three for Facebook users. Similar Web, which does IP-based analysis, does not even put China in the top ten (see maps).
11月4日發表的一份新的報告則采用了不同的方法,全球網絡指數機構(GWI)是一家市場調研公司,在32個國家擁有當地合作伙伴,他們一年調查了17萬名消費者,并且最近開始探究互聯網使用的細節問題。該機構將中國和印度放在3大facebook用戶國的地位。而基于IP地址分析的Similar Web,則甚至把中國排到10名開外。
One reason for the difference is that in many developing markets devices are widely shared (for tablets that is true pretty much everywhere). Conversely, more than three-quarters of respondents in the GWI report said they used more than one device. Another factor is the spread of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers, which make it possible to surf the web through a foreign server.
造成如此差異的原因之一是在很多發展中市場中,設備被廣泛共享(對于平板電腦則哪里都差不多)。相反,GWI的報告中,超過3/4的受訪者稱他們使用不止一臺設備。另一個因素是虛擬專用網 (VPNs)和虛擬服務器的廣泛使用,使得人們能夠通過海外服務器瀏覽網頁。
Once restricted to the tech-literate, these are now common and easy to use. Chinese citizens who want to vault the Great Firewall to use Facebook (banned in China) can do so with a couple of clicks. Foreign fans of the BBC can use the same trick to watch its programmes via iPlayer, supposedly barred outside Britain. Since VPNs and proxy servers are clustered in countries with favourable rules, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, any count of visits to such sites will be skewed.
技術控一旦遇到限制,這類(通過海外服務器)的方式就會普遍而輕易地使用。需要翻墻使用Facebook的中國公民(Facebook在中國是禁止的),能輕點鼠標得償所愿。需要通過IPlayer觀看節目的國外BBC粉絲可以如法炮制,而據說這是在英國以外不允許的。因為VPNs和代理服務器的分布會根據趨利避害的原則,集中在例如瑞典和荷蘭這樣的國家,因此任何對上述類型網站訪問的計數都會產生偏差。
GWI's picture, it should be said, is far from complete. It misses out Africa entirely, except for South Africa. Self-reported data also have their pitfalls: LIRNEasia, an Asia-Pacific IT think-tank, recently found that many Indonesians who reported using Facebook said they were not internet users—perhaps because they were not sure that one implies the other. And much of the world is going mobile-only, particularly in developing markets; preliminary GWI data suggest that a quarter of web visitors in Indonesia and Vietnam use only a mobile (from which VPN access is, these days, just as easy). Yet both surveys and click-counting software were conceived and optimised for desktop users. Uptake of mobiles is faster than the effort to capture demographic data from them.
應該說GWI的圖片還遠遠沒有完成。因為它遺漏了除南非以外的整個非洲。自說自畫的報告也存在其缺陷: 亞洲LIRNE是一個亞太區域的網絡智囊庫,最近發現許多被報告稱正在使用FACEBOOK的印尼人稱自己并非互聯網用戶—這也許是因為他們不能確定FACEBOOK就意味著互聯網。此外,世界上許多地區僅僅能用手機通訊,由其是在發展中市場;GWI初步數據顯示,在印尼和越南,1/4的人僅僅使用一部手機上網。(如今通過手機,虛擬專用網接入非常容易)。不過,人們已經為手機桌面用戶量身定做了調查軟件和點擊率軟件。統計手機信息比搞數據一個個去搞數據采集可快多了。
More broadly, knowing who is online, and where, would benefit government policymakers as well as advertisers. Other figures on technology use are available from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN agency. But there are gaps here, too. It collates surveys from national census bureaus around the world, but cannot insist that they all pose the same questions.
從廣義上說,搞清楚誰,在哪里在線,可不僅僅有利于廣告商,更有助于政府的決策者。其他技術使用指數可以從國際電信聯盟(ITU)獲得,ITU一個聯合國機構。但問題也來了,該機構整理從世界各個國家統計機構傳送的數據,但不能確認他們提出了相同的問題。
Better figures would be useful, says Susan Teltscher of the ITU. They would help the agency fulfil its mission to ensure web content is available in the languages of its users. In nations where internet use is low, says Kojo Boakye of the World Wide Web Foundation, radio is regarded as the medium with the widest reach. Revised figures for web use would shift how public-service messages are distributed. And as internet use spreads, regulators will have to oversee competition between service providers, fight e-crime and plan investment in web infrastructure. But such efforts rely on the numbers that now seem so muddy, points out Geoff Huston, a researcher at APNIC, the internet registry for the Asia-Pacific region.
ITU的Susan Teltscher認為需要更有效的數據,這將有助于該機構完成使命,以確保網絡內容在用戶的語言中可見。萬維網基金會的Kojo Boakye則認為,在互聯網使用率低的國家,廣播被看作最廣泛的媒介。關于網絡使用修正后的數據將改變公共服務機構的信息如何發布。并且,因為互聯網使用的分布,監管者將不得不監管服務商之間的競爭,打擊網絡犯罪和進行網絡基礎設施投資計劃。但是,亞太地區的互聯網注冊機構APNIC 的研究員Geoff Huston指出,這種依賴數字的努力看起來還在探索之中。
The ITU estimates that 4.3 billion people around the world are yet to get online, 90% of whom are in developing countries. But until data from surveys and clicks can be combined into a single picture, the map of internet usage will be little clearer than the viewership of bus-shelter ads.
國際電信聯盟估計,全球43億人無法上網,其中90%的人處于發展中國家。但只要調研數據和點擊能被合并到整張圖表中,互聯網使用率地圖會計算比候車亭廣告的收視率更清楚一點。翻譯:沈竹, 校對:穆毅