One Economist article, two dodgy statistics, one striking omission

What could have been a rather interesting piece about the internet and politics in The Economist is rather undermined by two of the statistics at the core of its analysis and one major oversight.

First, the relative website traffic levels are taken from Alexa. Now, I’ve used Alexa in the past myself and their statistics have their uses – but only when taken with several pinches of salt because, as pointed out in one of the comments made on the piece, they are also one of the most controversial sources of statistics too.

Second, the comparison made between website traffic levels for the BNP’s national website and the national websites for the main political parties in the UK is deeply flawed. Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats all have a large number of active websites run by their local parties – far more than the BNP. They also all have a range of sister national websites, often concentrating on specific topics or services – again, a pattern very different from the BNP. So only comparing the traffic to each party’s main national website is rather like comparing PC World with Dell and concluding that PC World must be the bigger company because it’s got more shops. Err, no. Different setups, different approaches.

And the major oversight? Well, a more insightful piece would also have picked up on the very high level of government services that have gone online in the UK. Compared with the US, the leader in many things internet, for example, the UK is far ahead in the ability of individuals to hit the internet and make use of a public services. There are certainly an awful lot of improvements that could and should be made, but a more useful analysis would have taken into account what has actually been done so far.