As of March 2025, Google represented 79.1 percent of the global online search engine market on desktop devices. Despite being much ahead of its competitors, this represents the lowest share ever recorded by the search engine in these devices for over two decades. Meanwhile, its long-time competitor Bing accounted for 12.21 percent, as tools like Yahoo and Yandex held shares of over 2.9 percent each. Google and the global search market Ever since the introduction of Google Search in 1997, the company has dominated the search engine market, while the shares of all other tools has been rather lopsided. The majority of Google revenues are generated through advertising. Its parent corporation, Alphabet, was one of the biggest internet companies worldwide as of 2024, with a market capitalization of 2.02 trillion U.S. dollars. The company has also expanded its services to mail, productivity tools, enterprise products, mobile devices, and other ventures. As a result, Google earned one of the highest tech company revenues in 2024 with roughly 348.16 billion U.S. dollars. Search engine usage in different countries Google is the most frequently used search engine worldwide. But in some countries, its alternatives are leading or competing with it to some extent. As of the last quarter of 2023, more than 63 percent of internet users in Russia used Yandex, whereas Google users represented little over 33 percent. Meanwhile, Baidu was the most used search engine in China, despite a strong decrease in the percentage of internet users in the country accessing it. In other countries, like Japan and Mexico, people tend to use Yahoo along with Google. By the end of 2024, nearly half of the respondents in Japan said that they had used Yahoo in the past four weeks. In the same year, over 21 percent of users in Mexico said they used Yahoo.

In January 2025, Google remained by far the most popular search engine in the UK, holding a market share of ***** percent across all devices. That month, Bing had a market share of approximately **** percent in second place, followed by Yahoo! with approximately **** percent. The EU vs Google Despite Google’s dominance of the search engine market, maintaining its position at the top has not been a smooth ride. Google’s market share saw a decline in the summer of 2018, plummeting to an all-time-low in July. The search engine experienced a similar dip in June and July 2017. These two low points coincided with the European Commission’s antitrust charges against the company, both of which were unprecedented in the now decade-long duel between both parties. As skepticism towards search engine platforms grows in line with public concern regarding censorship and data privacy, alternative services like Duckduckgo offer users both information protection and unfiltered results. Despite this, it still held less than *** percent of the industry’s market share as of June 2021. Perception of fake news in the UK According to a questionnaire conducted in the United Kingdom in 2018, **** percent of respondents had come across inaccurate news on social media at least once before. Rising concerns over fake news, or information which has been manipulated to influence the public has been a hot topic in recent years. The younger generation however, remains skeptical with nearly **** of Generation Z claiming to be either unconcerned about fake news, or believed that it did not exist altogether.

This survey shows the share of customers in the U.S. and worldwide by if they ever used a search engine to try and find a response to a customer service question as of 2017. During the survey, ** percent of respondents from the United States stated that they have used a search engine to try and find a response to a customer service question.

This statistic shows the market share of search engines in the United States in December 2008 to 2020. In December 2020, Verizon Media's search market share was **** percent, down *** percent from the previous year. The subsidiary was formed in 2017 by Verizon Communications as a merge between newly acquired Yahoo! and AOL.

In January 2025, Google's mobile search market share in the United Kingdom was 97.55 percent. Despite the search engine remaining with a similar referral share for mobile devices throughout the years, Google's quota on desktop devices in the UK has significantly reduced during the latest analyzed month.

Analysis of ‘Access statistics by moers.de for 2017 ’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/032f7582-eb26-47b5-bf3c-aed43c3085bf on 16 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

The dataset contains the access statistics for the year 2017. It is supplemented on a monthly basis.

The zip file contains the following CSV files:

• Visitors per year_1.csv
• Visitors per month — individual period _1.csv
• Visitors per month 1.csv
• Visitors per Stunde_1.csv
• Visitors per Stunde_1_1.csv
• Visitors per day 1.csv
• Visitors _1.csv
• Main browser versions by operating system_1.csv
• Main version browser _1
• browsers by operating system subversionen_1.csv
• Operating system_1 browsers
• Browser Unterversionen_1.csv
• Browser_1
• boarding sides_1.csv
• Event Tracker_1.csv
• Event Tracker_1_1.csv
• Event Tracker_1_2.csv
• Event Tracker_1_3.csv
• Origin overview _1.csv
• Klick-Tracker_1.csv
• Use per domain 1.csv
• Page Impressions per Page_1.csv
• Search word statistics Phrases by search engine 1.csv
• Search word statistics Phrasen_1.csv
• Search word statistics Wörter_1.csv

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

The Repository Analytics and Metrics Portal (RAMP) is a web service that aggregates use and performance use data of institutional repositories. The data are a subset of data from RAMP, the Repository Analytics and Metrics Portal (http://rampanalytics.org), consisting of data from all participating repositories for the calendar year 2017. For a description of the data collection, processing, and output methods, please see the "methods" section below.

Methods RAMP Data Documentation – January 1, 2017 through August 18, 2018

Data Collection

RAMP data are downloaded for participating IR from Google Search Console (GSC) via the Search Console API. The data consist of aggregated information about IR pages which appeared in search result pages (SERP) within Google properties (including web search and Google Scholar).

Data from January 1, 2017 through August 18, 2018 were downloaded in one dataset per participating IR. The following fields were downloaded for each URL, with one row per URL:

url: This is returned as a 'page' by the GSC API, and is the URL of the page which was included in an SERP for a Google property.
impressions: The number of times the URL appears within the SERP.
clicks: The number of clicks on a URL which took users to a page outside of the SERP.
clickThrough: Calculated as the number of clicks divided by the number of impressions.
position: The position of the URL within the SERP.
country: The country from which the corresponding search originated.
device: The device used for the search.
date: The date of the search.

Following data processing describe below, on ingest into RAMP an additional field, citableContent, is added to the page level data.

Note that no personally identifiable information is downloaded by RAMP. Google does not make such information available.

More information about click-through rates, impressions, and position is available from Google's Search Console API documentation: https://developers.google.com/webmaster-tools/search-console-api-original/v3/searchanalytics/query and https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/7042828?hl=en

Data Processing

Upon download from GSC, data are processed to identify URLs that point to citable content. Citable content is defined within RAMP as any URL which points to any type of non-HTML content file (PDF, CSV, etc.). As part of the daily download of statistics from Google Search Console (GSC), URLs are analyzed to determine whether they point to HTML pages or actual content files. URLs that point to content files are flagged as "citable content." In addition to the fields downloaded from GSC described above, following this brief analysis one more field, citableContent, is added to the data which records whether each URL in the GSC data points to citable content. Possible values for the citableContent field are "Yes" and "No."

Processed data are then saved in a series of Elasticsearch indices. From January 1, 2017, through August 18, 2018, RAMP stored data in one index per participating IR.

About Citable Content Downloads

Data visualizations and aggregations in RAMP dashboards present information about citable content downloads, or CCD. As a measure of use of institutional repository content, CCD represent click activity on IR content that may correspond to research use.

CCD information is summary data calculated on the fly within the RAMP web application. As noted above, data provided by GSC include whether and how many times a URL was clicked by users. Within RAMP, a "click" is counted as a potential download, so a CCD is calculated as the sum of clicks on pages/URLs that are determined to point to citable content (as defined above).

For any specified date range, the steps to calculate CCD are:

Filter data to only include rows where "citableContent" is set to "Yes."
Sum the value of the "clicks" field on these rows.

Output to CSV

Published RAMP data are exported from the production Elasticsearch instance and converted to CSV format. The CSV data consist of one "row" for each page or URL from a specific IR which appeared in search result pages (SERP) within Google properties as described above.

The data in these CSV files include the following fields:

url: This is returned as a 'page' by the GSC API, and is the URL of the page which was included in an SERP for a Google property.
impressions: The number of times the URL appears within the SERP.
clicks: The number of clicks on a URL which took users to a page outside of the SERP.
clickThrough: Calculated as the number of clicks divided by the number of impressions.
position: The position of the URL within the SERP.
country: The country from which the corresponding search originated.
device: The device used for the search.
date: The date of the search.
citableContent: Whether or not the URL points to a content file (ending with pdf, csv, etc.) rather than HTML wrapper pages. Possible values are Yes or No.
index: The Elasticsearch index corresponding to page click data for a single IR.
repository_id: This is a human readable alias for the index and identifies the participating repository corresponding to each row. As RAMP has undergone platform and version migrations over time, index names as defined for the index field have not remained consistent. That is, a single participating repository may have multiple corresponding Elasticsearch index names over time. The repository_id is a canonical identifier that has been added to the data to provide an identifier that can be used to reference a single participating repository across all datasets. Filtering and aggregation for individual repositories or groups of repositories should be done using this field.

Filenames for files containing these data follow the format 2017-01_RAMP_all.csv. Using this example, the file 2017-01_RAMP_all.csv contains all data for all RAMP participating IR for the month of January, 2017.

References

Google, Inc. (2021). Search Console APIs. Retrieved from https://developers.google.com/webmaster-tools/search-console-api-original.

In the first quarter of 2020, the search engine operators in China generated a total revenue of ***** billion yuan, representing a year-on-year loss rate of **** percent due to the coronavirus pandemic impact on advertising revenue. Baidu has made a significant success in China's online search market.

United States agricultural researchers have many options for making their data available online. This dataset aggregates the primary sources of ag-related data and determines where researchers are likely to deposit their agricultural data. These data serve as both a current landscape analysis and also as a baseline for future studies of ag research data. Purpose As sources of agricultural data become more numerous and disparate, and collaboration and open data become more expected if not required, this research provides a landscape inventory of online sources of open agricultural data. An inventory of current agricultural data sharing options will help assess how the Ag Data Commons, a platform for USDA-funded data cataloging and publication, can best support data-intensive and multi-disciplinary research. It will also help agricultural librarians assist their researchers in data management and publication. The goals of this study were to establish where agricultural researchers in the United States-- land grant and USDA researchers, primarily ARS, NRCS, USFS and other agencies -- currently publish their data, including general research data repositories, _domain-specific databases, and the top journals compare how much data is in institutional vs. _domain-specific vs. federal platforms determine which repositories are recommended by top journals that require or recommend the publication of supporting data ascertain where researchers not affiliated with funding or initiatives possessing a designated open data repository can publish data Approach The National Agricultural Library team focused on Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and United States Forest Service (USFS) style research data, rather than ag economics, statistics, and social sciences data. To find _domain-specific, general, institutional, and federal agency repositories and databases that are open to US research submissions and have some amount of ag data, resources including re3data, libguides, and ARS lists were analysed. Primarily environmental or public health databases were not included, but places where ag grantees would publish data were considered. Search methods We first compiled a list of known _domain specific USDA / ARS datasets / databases that are represented in the Ag Data Commons, including ARS Image Gallery, ARS Nutrition Databases (sub-components), SoyBase, PeanutBase, National Fungus Collection, i5K Workspace @ NAL, and GRIN. We then searched using search engines such as Bing and Google for non-USDA / federal ag databases, using Boolean variations of “agricultural data” /“ag data” / “scientific data” + NOT + USDA (to filter out the federal / USDA results). Most of these results were _domain specific, though some contained a mix of data subjects. We then used search engines such as Bing and Google to find top agricultural university repositories using variations of “agriculture”, “ag data” and “university” to find schools with agriculture programs. Using that list of universities, we searched each university web site to see if their institution had a repository for their unique, independent research data if not apparent in the initial web browser search. We found both ag specific university repositories and general university repositories that housed a portion of agricultural data. Ag specific university repositories are included in the list of _domain-specific repositories. Results included Columbia University – International Research Institute for Climate and Society, UC Davis – Cover Crops Database, etc. If a general university repository existed, we determined whether that repository could filter to include only data results after our chosen ag search terms were applied. General university databases that contain ag data included Colorado State University Digital Collections, University of Michigan ICPSR (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research), and University of Minnesota DRUM (Digital Repository of the University of Minnesota). We then split out NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) repositories. Next we searched the internet for open general data repositories using a variety of search engines, and repositories containing a mix of data, journals, books, and other types of records were tested to determine whether that repository could filter for data results after search terms were applied. General subject data repositories include Figshare, Open Science Framework, PANGEA, Protein Data Bank, and Zenodo. Finally, we compared scholarly journal suggestions for data repositories against our list to fill in any missing repositories that might contain agricultural data. Extensive lists of journals were compiled, in which USDA published in 2012 and 2016, combining search results in ARIS, Scopus, and the Forest Service's TreeSearch, plus the USDA web sites Economic Research Service (ERS), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Rural Development (RD), and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The top 50 journals' author instructions were consulted to see if they (a) ask or require submitters to provide supplemental data, or (b) require submitters to submit data to open repositories. Data are provided for Journals based on a 2012 and 2016 study of where USDA employees publish their research studies, ranked by number of articles, including 2015/2016 Impact Factor, Author guidelines, Supplemental Data?, Supplemental Data reviewed?, Open Data (Supplemental or in Repository) Required? and Recommended data repositories, as provided in the online author guidelines for each the top 50 journals. Evaluation We ran a series of searches on all resulting general subject databases with the designated search terms. From the results, we noted the total number of datasets in the repository, type of resource searched (datasets, data, images, components, etc.), percentage of the total database that each term comprised, any dataset with a search term that comprised at least 1% and 5% of the total collection, and any search term that returned greater than 100 and greater than 500 results. We compared _domain-specific databases and repositories based on parent organization, type of institution, and whether data submissions were dependent on conditions such as funding or affiliation of some kind. Results A summary of the major findings from our data review: Over half of the top 50 ag-related journals from our profile require or encourage open data for their published authors. There are few general repositories that are both large AND contain a significant portion of ag data in their collection. GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), ICPSR, and ORNL DAAC were among those that had over 500 datasets returned with at least one ag search term and had that result comprise at least 5% of the total collection. Not even one quarter of the _domain-specific repositories and datasets reviewed allow open submission by any researcher regardless of funding or affiliation. See included README file for descriptions of each individual data file in this dataset. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Journals. File Name: Journals.csvResource Title: Journals - Recommended repositories. File Name: Repos_from_journals.csvResource Title: TDWG presentation. File Name: TDWG_Presentation.pptxResource Title: Domain Specific ag data sources. File Name: domain_specific_ag_databases.csvResource Title: Data Dictionary for Ag Data Repository Inventory. File Name: Ag_Data_Repo_DD.csvResource Title: General repositories containing ag data. File Name: general_repos_1.csvResource Title: README and file inventory. File Name: README_InventoryPublicDBandREepAgData.txt

This dataset contains raw, unprocessed data files pertaining to the management tool 'Customer Segmentation', including the closely related concept of Market Segmentation. The data originates from five distinct sources, each reflecting different facets of the tool's prominence and usage over time. Files preserve the original metrics and temporal granularity before any comparative normalization or harmonization. Data Sources & File Details: Google Trends File (Prefix: GT_): Metric: Relative Search Interest (RSI) Index (0-100 scale). Keywords Used: "customer segmentation" + "market segmentation" + "customer segmentation marketing" Time Period: January 2004 - January 2025 (Native Monthly Resolution). Scope: Global Web Search, broad categorization. Extraction Date: Data extracted January 2025. Notes: Index relative to peak interest within the period for these terms. Reflects public/professional search interest trends. Based on probabilistic sampling. Source URL: Google Trends Query Google Books Ngram Viewer File (Prefix: GB_): Metric: Annual Relative Frequency (% of total n-grams in the corpus). Keywords Used: Customer Segmentation + Market Segmentation Time Period: 1950 - 2022 (Annual Resolution). Corpus: English. Parameters: Case Insensitive OFF, Smoothing 0. Extraction Date: Data extracted January 2025. Notes: Reflects term usage frequency in Google's digitized book corpus. Subject to corpus limitations (English bias, coverage). Source URL: Ngram Viewer Query Crossref.org File (Prefix: CR_): Metric: Absolute count of publications per month matching keywords. Keywords Used: ("customer segmentation" OR "market segmentation") AND ("marketing" OR "strategy" OR "management" OR "targeting" OR "analysis" OR "approach" OR "practice") Time Period: 1950 - 2025 (Queried for monthly counts based on publication date metadata). Search Fields: Title, Abstract. Extraction Date: Data extracted January 2025. Notes: Reflects volume of relevant academic publications indexed by Crossref. Deduplicated using DOIs; records without DOIs omitted. Source URL: Crossref Search Query Bain & Co. Survey - Usability File (Prefix: BU_): Metric: Original Percentage (%) of executives reporting tool usage. Tool Names/Years Included: Customer Segmentation (1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2017). Respondent Profile: CEOs, CFOs, COOs, other senior leaders; global, multi-sector. Source: Bain & Company Management Tools & Trends publications (Rigby D., Bilodeau B., et al., various years: 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017). Note: Tool not included in the 2022 survey data. Data Compilation Period: July 2024 - January 2025. Notes: Data points correspond to specific survey years. Sample sizes: 1999/475; 2000/214; 2002/708; 2004/960; 2006/1221; 2008/1430; 2010/1230; 2012/1208; 2014/1067; 2017/1268. Bain & Co. Survey - Satisfaction File (Prefix: BS_): Metric: Original Average Satisfaction Score (Scale 0-5). Tool Names/Years Included: Customer Segmentation (1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2017). Respondent Profile: CEOs, CFOs, COOs, other senior leaders; global, multi-sector. Source: Bain & Company Management Tools & Trends publications (Rigby D., Bilodeau B., et al., various years: 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017). Note: Tool not included in the 2022 survey data. Data Compilation Period: July 2024 - January 2025. Notes: Data points correspond to specific survey years. Sample sizes: 1999/475; 2000/214; 2002/708; 2004/960; 2006/1221; 2008/1430; 2010/1230; 2012/1208; 2014/1067; 2017/1268. Reflects subjective executive perception of utility. File Naming Convention: Files generally follow the pattern: PREFIX_Tool.csv, where the PREFIX indicates the data source: GT_: Google Trends GB_: Google Books Ngram CR_: Crossref.org (Count Data for this Raw Dataset) BU_: Bain & Company Survey (Usability) BS_: Bain & Company Survey (Satisfaction) The essential identification comes from the PREFIX and the Tool Name segment. This dataset resides within the 'Management Tool Source Data (Raw Extracts)' Dataverse.

The demand for naval vessel engines is anticipated to be driven by high levels of expenditure by emerging economies in the Asia Pacific region, such as India and China. The North American region is expected to maintain its significance, exhibiting a steady pace of growth over the forecast period Read More

Google is not only popular in its home country, but is also the dominant internet search provider in many major online markets, frequently generating between ** and ** percent of desktop search traffic. The search engine giant has a market share of over ** percent in India and accounted for the majority of the global search engine market, way ahead of other competitors such as Yahoo, Bing, Yandex, and Baidu. Google’s online dominance All roads lead to Rome, or if you are browsing the internet, all roads lead to Google. It is hard to imagine an online experience without the online behemoth, as the company offers a wide range of online products and services that all seamlessly integrate with each other. Google search and advertising are the core products of the company, accounting for the vast majority of the company revenues. When adding this up with the Chrome browser, Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube, Google’s ownership of the Android mobile operating system, and various other consumer and enterprise services, Google is basically a one-stop shop for online needs. Google anti-trust rulings However, Google’s dominance of the search market is not always welcome and is keenly watched by authorities and industry watchdogs – since 2017, the EU commission has fined Google over ***** billion euros in antitrust fines for abusing its monopoly in online advertising. In March 2019, European Commission found that Google violated antitrust regulations by imposing contractual restrictions on third-party websites in order to make them less competitive and fined the company *** billion euros.

This deposit contains data used for the experiments reported in the paper "What Makes a Top-Performing Precision Medicine Search Engine? Tracing Main System Features in a Systematic Way", most notably the ElasticSearch 5.4 indices used for the reported experiments.

To load the indices into an ElasticSearch cluster of your own, use the restore function described in the ElasticSearch documentation.

The names of the index snapshots contained here are

• ct1718 for the indexed ClinicalTrials data used in the TREC-PM challenges in 2017 and 2018.
• ct19 for the indexed ClinicalTrials data used in the TREC-PM challenge in 2019.
• ba1718 for the indexed PubMed data used in the TREC-PM challenges in 2017 and 2018.
• ba19 for the indexed PubMed data used in the TREC-PM challenge in 2019.

The other file contains the original output that SMAC wrote to disc during the parameter optimization process. There are directories for the biomedical abstracts (BA) and clinical trials (ct) and for each respective 10 fold cross validation split. Those file contain the exact parameter configurations and their evalation score (the infNDCG metric was used) in live-runXX.json files.

The code to these files is located in this Zenodo deposit.

In 2020, search engines in China generated about ** billion yuan of revenue from news feed ads. News feed advertising is one of the main revenue streams in online search ad market, accounting for ** percent of the search engine company revenue in 2020.

The share of DuckDuckGo in the mobile search market across India was about **** percent in December 2021. This was a drastic fall in the market share from about **** percent in September 2018. DuckDuckGo is a search engine company founded in 2008 that focuses on protecting users' privacy and avoids personalization in search results.

In 2022, Google generated ***** billion U.S. dollars in advertising revenue. This figure is expected to further grow to reach nearly *** billion U.S. dollars by 2027. The search engine is responsible for roughly ** percent of the global ad revenue.

The website that people could least do without in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2019 was Google. The BBC website was second most popular. Amazon saw an increase in popularity compared to 2017, whereas Facebook experienced a considerable drop in popularity.

Search engines in the UK

The most popular website, Google, has by far the highest share of the desktop search engine market in the UK, with Bing being its closest competitor. Google is also the leading mobile search engine, with a market share of ** percent as of October 2020. These days, the majority of online search in the UK is mobile.

Internet demographics and use in Great Britain

The number of Brits using the internet daily increased continuously between 2006 and 2020, reaching over ** million individuals in 2020. As of November 2020, the majority said they used the internet for sending and receiving emails. Finding information about goods or services was the second most common activity carried out online. Less than a fifth of internet users said that they went online to make a medical appointment or to use online health services.

This graph shows the typical daily online activities of internet users in the United States as of February 2017, sorted by age group. During the survey period, 50 percent of respondents aged 18 to 29 years checked the weather online on a daily basis.

Search queries in the travel industry on the Russian search engine Yandex have become more common to be conducted on mobile devices in recent years. As of the first quarter of 2020, around 54 percent of searches related to travel were performed on mobile devices. To compare, in the first three months of 2017, queries from mobiles occupied slightly over one quarter of all travel-related queries.

This statistic depicts the share of online sources used by Italian tourists to find information for their travel in 2017. According to data, search engines were used by ** percent of the respondents, whereas ** percent of the interviewees used to check review websites or apps in order to find information for their travel.