EDIT (2025-12-19T09:08Z): Whoops! I totally didn’t see that this had already been posted to this community [2]. I didn’t mean to repost it. My bad!
References
- Type: Image. Title: “Traffic by Operating System”. Publisher: [“Pornhub”>“2025 YEAR IN REVIEW”]. Published: 2025-12-03. Accessed: 2025-12-16T23:00Z. URI: https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2025-year-in-review.
- Location: §“Traffic by Operating System”.
- Type: Post. Title: “Linux traffic has grown 22.4% in PH this year”. Author: “maam” (“@maam@feddit.uk”). Publisher: [“sh.itjust.works”>“Linux” (“!linux@programming.dev”)]. Published: 2025-12-09T1;31:57Z. Accessed: 2025-12-19T09:10Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/51299445.
22.4% of 5% base, so in actuality a 1% increase. While the title is technically accurate, it’s very misleading.
Nah mate, it’s very much exactly what it says. A ambiguous statement would be “Share of Linux devices on pornhub grew by 22.5%” which could be either in relative or absolute terms. Traffic increase is pretty much number of requests made from a Linux machine grew by 22.5%.
It’s not at all misleading. That’s how percantages work. It plainly says ‘+22.4%’, which is fully factual and accurate. Your ‘actual 1% increase’ is a false statement. It’s a 1 percentage point increase, which is completely separate from the regular percantage.
A percentage increase is a relative increase. The thing you’re thinking of would be described as “percentage points”.
It’s somewhat misleading to talk about a large percentage increase on a small base, though.
Yes, as I pointed out it is technically correct. Just a misleading first impression.
I’m struggling to understand why you think the title is misleading. Could you elaborate on your rationale to help me understand? 🙂
Do you perhaps have an alternative title that you would suggest? Would you be satisfied by something like, for example, “Pornhub saw a 22.4% increase in Linux traffic (from [e.g.] 5% to ~6%) over 2025”?
Sure! As is currently written, it gives the first impression (to me, at least) that the traffic share of Linux has jumped from x% to (x+22)%. Now I understand that this is subjective, but I believe that’s how many people would read it at first glance as well.
Again, there’s nothing technically inaccurate about it, but the 22% number there is imo distracting and tends to lead to misunderstandings. I would personally write it as “Pornhub sees Linux traffic share increase from 5% to 6% (22.4% increase) over 2025”
Well it is an increase of 22,4 percent but at the same time an increase of 1 percentage point. So both are correct. But as we know bigger number more better so thats what we got