Hi guys,Interesting feed here, looks like IVAO is finally pulling away from vatsim membership :)http://www.google.com/trends?q=ivao%2C+vatsim&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=1

Website traffic doesn't offer any proof of that.I periodically check activity of actual members connected and they never vary in numeric comparisons by any statistical significance.

Interesting, but it doesn't really say anything. You might as well google your name and your neigbour's, it won't say who's the most popular. Just who's used Google more, or been googled more. That's it. The best real "health indicator" for the two networks would be to check out online traffic via Servinfo or something similar. My experience is that IVAO is bigger in most of Europe, and VATSIM is bigger in the US. So even that wouldn't be fair, it all depends on what time you compare. Another thing that'd spoil your numbers is any big events on either network. Or server problems. Or client releases. Or anything really. Best to track activity over a month or a year.And then you'd have to decide what kind of traffic. Number of logons? A single member could log on four or five times if he has connection problems. Are you looking for ATC or traffic? GA or heavy metal? Night or day flight? Bush flying, regional or international airports? I wish someone could come up with real info on this. That'd help the "natural selection" process. Eventually, one network should "eat" the other for the benefit of us all (apart from the management of the losing network). I hope nobody will flame me for bringing this up, I couldn't care less which network wins. I fly on both and choose on various reasons on a flight-to-flight basis. I think we can all agree that it would be better to collect everyone on one network without getting into the minefield of "which one's better", so I don't appreciate the "Finally IVAO is pulling away" which indicates that 1: IVAO was smaller in the past, 2: IVAO is better than VATSIM and 3: IVAO is now more popular than VATSIM. All of those three statements are biased and without real evidence I think.