Museums Web 2.

0 Ranking (June 2009)

Javier Espadas Bardón

Information Systems Dept
Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
Madrid, Spain
jespadas@museothyssen.org

ABSTRACT

Today the internet is the principal source of business, educational and leisure information as well as a
key arena for corporate and cultural competition. Having quality contents is crucial but insufficient,
because to ensure their visibility in the principal search engines, blogs and Web 2.0 sites, these contents
must be accompanied by positioning and dissemination strategies. This will enable them to be accessed
by new audiences around the world.
Such a competitive environment raises the specific question of whether museums have efficiently
joined the Web 2.0 community, as well as a host of other questions: Do they use blogs? Are they visible
in social networks? Do they publish videos? Are they featured in Wikipedia? Which museums have the
best visibility on this new web?
The IT department of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation has attempted to answer these
questions by conducting the following analysis. It concludes with a global ranking which identifies the
museum websites that have the best visibility on the internet and can be used as a benchmark by other
institutions.
1 INTRODUCTION
Since it was created by Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau in 1990, the world wide web has rapidly
evolved from a tool used mainly by professionals in the technological sector to an integral part of the
daily lives of millions of people around the world, who use the web not only as a source of information
but also as a medium for publishing contents and services for both business and personal purposes.
The web is a space in which contents and services published by companies, institutions and individuals
compete for consumers. It is a space of stiff business, cultural and social competition, as the following
figures show.
Millions of interconnected computers
In Spain alone, there are over 1.7 million servers connected to the internet. The figure for the
entire world is well over 625 million servers1, of which more than 235 million are classified as
HTTP servers whose primary objective is to publish information.2
Millions of users
The number of internet users is approaching 1.6 billion, while the world penetration rate is
higher than 23% of the population.3 Europe has more than 390 million internet users with a
48.9% penetration rate. The rate for North America is over 74%. Spain also has a high
penetration rate of nearly 70%, with over 23 million internet users.
Millions of documents
In order to illustrate the vast volume of pages existing on the internet in June 2009, we counted
the number of documents with the words “museum”, “art museum” or “art gallery” indexed by

1
 three major search engines: Google, Yahoo and MSN. The average estimate of pages with the
word "museum" is over 1 billion.
These figures reveal the magnitude of the internet in all aspects. But the internet is a dynamic
environment that changes with the emergence of new technologies and new user habits. It is this
evolution that led to "Web 2.0", a term coined in 2004 by Dale Dougherty of O’Reilly Media during a
brainstorming conference about the rebirth and evolution of the web. The term attempts to describe pre-
existing technologies and habits that turn the internet into a social network in which users play a key
role as the consumers and producers of contents.
The appearance and widespread acceptance of the term Web 2.0 implied the existence of an earlier, less
developed web, known as Web 1.0. Web 1.0 can be described as a traditional web based on a
communications platform that permitted the interconnection of computer equipment which published
documents in HTML format. This task was performed by a webmaster, who created or identified
documents, designed their layout and then published them.
While Web 1.0 was published by webmasters and offered a network of documents connected by
hyperlinks, Web 2.0 offers a network of interconnected users who both publish and consume contents.
This new model of the internet permits exponential growth because it turns millions of internet users
into potential publishers. It also provides an opportunity to tap into the collective intelligence of these
users who, in addition to posting contents, share their opinions in the form of surveys, scores,
bookmarks, notes, etc.
In both of the internet’s evolutionary phases, hyperlinks are the key to interconnection, permitting the
interrelation of both documents and users. These relations were not normally tagged on Web 1.0, but
the new Web 2.0 employs tagging formats such as XFN - XHTML Friends Network 4, thereby lending
greater semantic weight to such links. We might say that Web 2.0 grows organically as the result of the
collective activity of all web users.
The new Web 2.0 is both larger and more complex, as the following figures show.
Millions of blogs and bloggers
In January 2006 Technorati indexed the contents of 26 million blogs. Now, in June 2009, the
figure has risen to over 100 million blogs, whose contents include more than 84,000 entries
containing the word “museum” and nearly 28,000 with the term “art museum”.
With regard to the number of blog publishers or bloggers, 12% of internet users in the United
States say they publish one or more blogs5 , while 11% say they use micro-blogging services
such as Twitter.6

2
In terms of the geographical origin of blogs, North Blogs geographical distribution
Australia
America continues to dominate the field with over 3%
49% of all blogs. This is an important fact because Africa
1%
North American blogs contain many more links to
websites in this region of the world, with the result
that they have much higher visibility on Web 2.0. It Europe North
is estimated that 27% of all blogs are published in 27% America
Europe, while Africa and South America are lagging 49%
behind in the race to join the blogosphere.
Millions of Web 2.0 users
Asia
In its analysis “Top US web properties for March 13%
2009”, comScore MediaTrix ranks the vitality of sites such as Twitter and Technorati in relation
South
to blogs and micro-blogging, respectively. Twitter grew in March 2009 by 131% to 9.3 million
America
visitors, while Technorati grew by 37% to 16 million visitors. As one 7% would expect, Google,
Yahoo and MSN occupy the first three positions in the ranking with over 100 million unique
visitors. In March 2009, 84% of internet users in the US accessed Google. However, this
hegemony would appear to be threatened as the estimated traffic for Facebook, YouTube and
Technorati now exceeds the traffic received by Google7, with these three sites reporting a
combined 154 million hits in March 2009.
Facebook, the quintessential social-networking site, occupies the 9th position on the comScore
ranking8 with over 60 million visitors. It is estimated that more than 30% of US internet users
accessed this website in March 2009. The site currently has over 200 million registered users.9
With regard to websites linked to professional networks, Linkedin is in the lead with over 41
million subscribers10, followed by Xing with more than 7 million subscribers.11 Wikipedia, with
over 61 million hits, ranks 8th on the list.
Delicious, the website that allows users to manage bookmarks traditionally stored in their
browsers, reported over 5.3 million visitors in November 2008 and currently manages over 150
million bookmarks with associated tags and notes.
YouTube, the website that allows users to publish and view videos, had over 82 million visitors
in March 2009 and a penetration rate of 43% among US internet users.
The Alexa.com12 and Compete.com13 rankings of the most popular sites in terms of hits show
that some of the Web 2.0 sites have entered the top ten alongside traditional search engines such
as Google, Yahoo and MSN.
Ran
Compete.com Alexa.com
k
1 google.com google.com
2 yahoo.com yahoo.com
3 facebook.com youtube.com
4 live.com facebook.com
5 msn.com live.com
6 ebay.com msn.com
7 youtube.com wikipedia.org
8 wikipedia.org blogger.com
9 amazon.com baidu.com
10 myspace.com yahoo.co.jp

3
Although the figures indicate that the search engines are the principal receivers and routers, several
Web 2.0 sites are gaining ground and proving their worth as excellent web traffic concentrators and
routers.
2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The data for conducting this analysis was obtained from the most popular search engines, such as
Google, and various Web 2.0 sites such as Flickr and Facebook.
Countless experiences14 and analyses15 of the visibility of websites on the internet are based on
information obtained from websites, such as search engines that trawl the internet every day for new
contents. The method used is an adaptation of the method proposed by the author in February 2008 and
published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. This method
was successfully used in the Know Your Visibility project16 to generate a ranking of museums based on
three indicators.
The creation of a visibility ranking based on information obtained from search engines is the
cornerstone of the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities17, which since 2004 has been regarded
as one of the most important cybermetric projects in the world. The ranking is produced by the
Cybermetrics Laboratory of Spain's Higher Council of Scientific Research (CSIC) and it currently
analyses the internet visibility of over 16,000 higher education institutions.
The analysis method used is characterised by the following:
- It focuses on producing quantitative indicators. It does not contemplate qualitative aspects.
- The values are taken from search engines and other websites consulted directly or via their
APIs.
- It facilitates the comparison of the value obtained for one indicator on a site with the value
obtained by its competitors.
- The method is user-friendly and its application does not require complex internet data-collection
projects.
- The data for the analysis is obtained from the internet automatically by means of a computer
program.
- The method facilitates the creation of a ranking for each indicator plus a general ranking that
combines several indicators.
- The values are standardised to produce the rankings.
As a quantitative analysis, the results obtained may be used to select a smaller group of websites on
which to conduct a qualitative contents analysis.
2.1 INDICATORS
All the indicators used in this analysis are described below. The purpose of each indicator is to answer a
question associated with the visibility of a website on the internet. The indicators are divided into two
broad categories:
- Web 1.0 indicators: These are indicators more closely associated with the traditional web, such
as document networks connected by hyperlinks which mainly measure the volume of contents
and links on a particular site.
- Web 2.0 indicators: These are indicators more closely associated with the social web and their
purpose is to evaluate the activity of internet users in connection with the contents and services
offered by a particular site.

4
 2.1.1 WEB 1.0 INDICATORS
PAGES
Which website has the most contents?
It is important to know the number of pages that leading search engines index for your site. Knowing
the number of listed pages is crucial, because pages not indexed by the search engines will never appear
in the search results.
Analysing the indexed pages of a site alongside those of its competitors provides the web administrator
with a clear quantitative picture of the relative importance of the contents and services of that site
compared with its competitors.
RICH FILES IN PDF FORMAT
Which site has the most pdf files?
Websites publish a variety of files which can be identified by the file format. The proposed method
contemplates the analysis of “rich files” (pdf format) and images.
Files are considered to be rich when they contain a complete content for users to download and read or
print offline. Ways of filtering pdf files by their size are currently being researched to permit the
omission of small pdf files, which in all probability contain forms.
RICH FILES IN SWF FORMAT
Which site has the most interactive flash files?
The development of websites with flash technology initially created indexing problems for search
engines because these sites were like black boxes for robots, and consequently their contents never
appeared in the search results. However, it seems in recent years that this type of technology is being
used to develop contents that are shown as HTML pages. Such contents are usually interactive and/or
multimedia and therefore enhance websites, making them more attractive to users.
IMAGES
Which website has the most graphic content?
The other files to be found on a website are image files. Some images are associated with the website
design and others with content. The graphic merits of a site are always important, but in the museum
sector and similar areas, they are crucial. A museum that wishes to makes its collections attractive on
the internet needs to accompany its textual information with images and, where possible, multimedia
contents.
This indicator estimates the volume of images on a website so that, by comparing its score with those
obtained by competitors, we can determine which site has the most to offer in terms of graphics.
WEBSITE BACKLINKS
Which website has the best-known and most referenced contents on the internet?
The links to domain indicator calculates the number of recommendations that a site receives through
links. This value measures the degree of recognition of a site and its contents and services on the
internet.
The calculation of the number of links to the home page excludes links established from pages of the
site being analysed (self links).

5
WEBSITE HOME BACKLINKS
Which domain or internet brand is the best-known and most referenced?
Links to the home page are regarded, within the scope of this analysis, as links to the institution or
brand, rather than to its contents and services. An analysis of the volume of links that each site receives
to its home page gives an idea of the degree of awareness about the institution on the internet.
The calculation of the number of links to the home page excludes links established from pages of the
site being analysed (self links).
PAGE RANK
Which is the most important website according to Google?
Search engines have mechanisms to assess the importance of a site and these are used to order results.
Google has a public page rank (PR) based on the number of links it receives, among other variables.
The proposed method takes the page rank value for each site analysed in order to determine the relative
importance that Google attaches to each site.
2.1.2 WEB 2.0 INDICATORS
REFERENCES IN VIDEOS
Which website has the most references in videos published by internet users?
When a user uploads a video to a video publishing site such as Youtube, he or she adds textual
information describing the contents of the video that includes subtitles, tags and even the audio
transcription. This textual information may also include references to a domain associated with the
contents of the video. One example of this would be a recommendation to visit the museothyssen.org
website in the description of a video about the latest Matisse 1917 – 1941 exhibition.
These links or references are crucial for ensuring that the multimedia material is associated or related to
the web domain.
BLOG REFERENCES
Which site is the most mentioned in blogs?
The volume of users who publish new entries in blogs every day is growing exponentially. These
entries include news, recommendations, critical reviews and all kinds of experiences. Many also
include references to websites with contents or activities related to the blog entry.
It is crucial for any website to have its contents and activities discussed in blogs, as these blog entries
represent potential traffic for the site.
MICRO-BLOGGING REFERENCES
Which site is the most mentioned in micro-blogs?
Micro-blogging is a type of service such as Twitter or Jaiku (Google) which enables users to record a
few lines or thoughts on the web, or simply write an account of their activities throughout the day.
Micro-blogging facilitates what has come to be known as “lifestreaming”, a kind of live narrative.
FORUM REFERENCES
Which site is the most discussed in forums?
Forums are the modern version of the old BBS (Bulletin Board System) and Usenet news systems.
They enable users to discuss and share information about a particular theme. They are often the seed
from which a user community grows.

6
SOCIAL BOOKMARKS
Which website has been most bookmarked by users?
Sites such as Delicious enable users to save their bookmarks online, which are traditionally stored on
the browser, and thus access them from any computer on which they browse. These bookmarks are also
shared, tagged and annotated. The sites which have been saved as bookmarks the most often are
obviously the most interesting to users, and this data can therefore be used to assess the quality of a
site's contents.
SOCIAL NOTES
Which website has the most notes added by users?
Notes are a complement for bookmarks. Users take the time to annotate relevant pages, so the number
of notes can be used to assess the quality of a site's contents and services.
SHARED IMAGE REFERENCES
Which website appears most often in association with images published by users?
There are several websites devoted to publishing and sharing photographs, though Flickr is currently
the best-known. The photos uploaded by users are described and tagged. Although digital photography
greatly facilitates the capture and publication of images, users tend to publish quality photos on subjects
of interest to them. Reference to a website in the description of the images reflects the user’s interest in
that site.
SOCIAL NETWORK REFERENCES
Which website is the most mentioned in social networks?

Social networks facilitate the creation of user communities who share similar interests. Websites such
as Facebook offer numerous features that enable users to search for people, share experiences, and
communicate and interact with each other. Users reflect their experiences in their web spaces and may
make references to websites. These references can be taken as an indicator of social network activity
related to a website’s contents and activities.

PROFESSIONAL NETWORK REFERENCES

Which website has the most references in professional networks?
Social networks of a professional nature focus on building professional communities. Users create a list
of the contacts they know and trust for business purposes, facilitating the creation of groups with shared
interests in which business ideas are discussed and proposed. The presence of the professionals of a
particular company in this type of network indicates the degree of internet use in general, and of Web
2.0 sites in particular, by that company’s employees.
SHARED PRESENTATION REFERENCES
Which website is the most mentioned in presentations published by users?
Presentations, typically in PowerPoint format, have become the most popular way of disseminating
ideas, projects and research results. There are several sites on the web devoted to publishing and
sharing these types of documents. SlideShare is the most popular one and offers its users the chance to
reach a large audience with their ideas.
References to a website in published presentations can be considered an indicator of the activity of
professionals who work for a particular company or institution. Professionals who habitually use Web

7
2.0 and give papers at conferences often publish their presentations. Thanks to their inclusion in
presentations by users who do not necessarily belong to the institution in question, these references can
also be considered an indicator of the quality of a site's contents.
WIKI REFERENCES
Which website is the most written about in Wikis?
Wikis are collections of web pages that can be visited and edited by anyone at any time, facilitating
collaborative growth in which any user is a potential publisher. The most emblematic wiki is
Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia.
3 WEB 2.0 RANKING OF MUSEUMS
A statistical analysis incorporating the above-mentioned indicators was carried out to evaluate the
visibility of museums on the internet (Web 1.0 and Web 2.0) and identify which might be used as
benchmarks. Separate rankings were generated based on the responses to the questions associated with
each indicator.
As a summary of the analysis, another ranking was produced based on three indicators. This classified
the 100 websites analysed according to best overall visibility (Web 1.0 and Web 2.0) on the internet.
Every indicator was accompanied by one or several series of data, each of which corresponded to a data
source such as Google or Youtube. Every series included values obtained for each site from a specific
source.
Having obtained the data, the next step was the creation of a ranking. To this end, the values obtained
for each series were logarithmically standardised by dividing each value obtained by the highest value
in the series. The high value was assigned the number 1. After standardising the values obtained for
each series, they were then added up to obtain the ranking for the indicator in question.
The characteristics of the analysis are as follows:
- 100 sites analysed: albertina.at, albrightknox.org, americanart.si.edu, artic.edu, artium.org,
artsmia.org, beyeler.com, boijmans.rotterdam.nl, britishmuseum.org, brooklynmuseum.org,
bruecke-museum.de, caac.es, caam.net, cccb.org, centrepompidou.fr, cgac.org,
cincinnatiartmuseum.com, columbusmuseum.org, corcoran.org, dia.org, educathyssen.org,
english.imjnet.org.il, famsf.org, fundaciomiro-bcn.org, fundaciotapies.org, gallery.ca,
gemeentemuseum.nl, getty.edu, guggenheim-bilbao.es, guggenheim.org, hauskonstruktiv.ch,
hermitagemuseum.org, imma.ie, ivam.es, kimbellart.org, kirchnermuseum.ch, kunsthallezurich.ch,
kunsthaus.ch, kunstmuseum-stuttgart.de, kunstmuseumbasel.ch, kunstmuseumbern.ch,
kunstsammlung.de, lacma.org, lenbachhaus.de, leopoldmuseum.org, louvre.fr, mac.uchile.cl,
macba.es, macvirtual.usp.br, mam-st-etienne.fr, mamco.ch, march.es, marcovigo.com,
mart.trento.it, metmuseum.org, mfa.org, mnac.es, moca-lyon.org, modernamuseet.se, moma.org,
musac.es, musee-orsay.fr, musee-picasso.fr, museiciviciveneziani.it, museiincomuneroma.it,
museobilbao.com, museodelprado.es, museoestebanvicente.es, museopatioherreriano.org,
museopicassomalaga.org, museoreinasofia.es, museothyssen.org, museu.gulbenkian.pt,
museupicasso.bcn.es, mv.vatican.va, nationalgalleries.org, nationalgallery.org.uk, nga.gov,
nga.gov.au, nolde-stiftung.de, ordrupgaard.dk, philamuseum.org, pinacoteca-agnelli.it,
pinakothek.de, rijksmuseum.nl, rusmuseum.ru, saatchi-gallery.co.uk, slam.org, smb.spk-berlin.de,
sprengel-museum.de, staatsgalerie.de, staedelmuseum.de, stedelijk.nl, stlouis.art.museum,
tate.org.uk, uffizi.firenze.it, vam.ac.uk, vangoghmuseum.nl, von-der-heydt-museum.de,
whitney.org.

8
- Data collected from 22 sites: Google, Yahoo, MSN, Exhalead, Youtube, Blinks, Slideshare,
Technorati, Icerocket, Bloglines, Twitter, Omgili, Boardreader, Delicious, Fotolog, Flickr, Xing,
Linkedin, Ning, Hi5, Facebook, Wikipedia.
- Data collection period: May – June 2009

Data source
The data obtained is presented in tables with the following format:

Ranking Position Site Name or

EXALEAD
6/2009 URL
Comp. AVG Top
Value
10

Position of site in Value obtained (not

indicator ranking standardised)

Comparison with average value of best

Name of website
10 sites. Indicates if value obtained is
above or below average value and % of
deviation.
3.1 WEB 1.0 INDICATORS
3.1.1 PAGES
The outstanding website in this indicator is that of the Musée d’Orsay, which has a large volume of
pages that are indexed by two search engines, Exalead and Google. The second position in the ranking
is occupied by the Metropolitan Museum which, as expected, is one of the websites with the most
contents published, along with the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, the Tate and the Getty
Foundation.
Surprisingly, third place in the ranking goes to the Saatchi Gallery, whose website features a large
volume of contents and an intensive use of hyperlinks.
The most outstanding website in Spain is that of the Fundación Juan March, which ranks 20th thanks to
a large volume of indexed pages, mainly concerning bibliographical entries. The websites of the
Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, museothyssen.org and educathyssen.org, occupy commendable
positions at numbers 22 and 26 respectively, while two of the main Spanish museums – the Prado (37)
and the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía (60) – occupy lower positions which do not
correspond with the importance of these two institutions or with the volume of their collections.
Rank
Site Name or URL EXALEAD GOOGLE YAHOO MSN
6/2009
Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp.
Value AVG Top Value AVG Top Value AVG Value AVG
10 10 Top 10 Top 10

↓ 33,70
1 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 424.241 ↑ 579,31% 239.000 ↑ 111,21% 53.338 ↓ 18,53% 22.200
%
158.00 ↑ 239,8
2 METMUSEUM.ORG 63.604 ↓ 86,85% 169.000 ↓ 78,64% 164.130 ↓ 57,03%
0 7%
↑ 266,49 ↓ 39,62
3 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 2.000 ↓ 2,73% 177.000 ↓ 82,36% 766.966 26.100
% %
↑ 130,5
4 TATE.ORG.UK 8.467 ↓ 11,56% 251.000 ↑ 116,80% 73.042 ↓ 25,38% 86.000
6%
↓ 38,41
5 FAMSF.ORG 493 ↓ 0,67% 273.000 ↑ 127,04% 261.084 ↓ 90,71% 25.300
%
6 GETTY.EDU 135.349 ↑ 184,82% 144.000 ↓ 67,01% 242.662 ↓ 84,31% 51.000 ↓ 77,43

9
 %
↑ 111,50 ↓ 58,75
7 GALLERY.CA 6.762 ↓ 9,23% 184.000 ↓ 85,62% 320.898 38.700
% %
↓ 53,74
8 MOMA.ORG 32.293 ↓ 44,10% 244.000 ↑ 113,54% 86.833 ↓ 30,17% 35.400
%
↓ 41,75
9 NGA.GOV.AU 3.915 ↓ 5,35% 244.000 ↑ 113,54% 79.542 ↓ 27,64% 27.500
%
↓ 51,01
10 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 4.973 ↓ 6,79% 222.000 ↑ 103,30% 36.493 ↓ 12,68% 33.600
%
↑ 160,38 ↓ 38,71
11 MFA.ORG 1.344 ↓ 1,84% 62.600 ↓ 29,13% 461.586 25.500
% %
↓ 86,69
12 ARTIC.EDU 16.035 ↓ 21,90% 61.000 ↓ 28,39% 138.794 ↓ 48,22% 57.100
%
↓ 36,28
13 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 3.095 ↓ 4,23% 121.000 ↓ 56,31% 140.710 ↓ 48,89% 23.900
%
↓ 93,82
14 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 181 ↓ 0,25% 92.500 ↓ 43,04% 23.789 ↓ 8,27% 61.800
%
↓ 27,93
15 CCCB.ORG 240 ↓ 0,33% 146.000 ↓ 67,94% 68.087 ↓ 23,66% 18.400
%
↓ 52,83
16 LOUVRE.FR 3.350 ↓ 4,57% 98.500 ↓ 45,84% 50.800 ↓ 17,65% 34.800
%
↓ 82,44
17 AMERICANART.SI.EDU 12.631 ↓ 17,25% 41.400 ↓ 19,26% 47.882 ↓ 16,64% 54.300
%
↓ 93,52
18 NGA.GOV 12.444 ↓ 16,99% 26.500 ↓ 12,33% 26.491 ↓ 9,20% 61.600
%
↓ 74,84
19 ARTSMIA.ORG 13.119 ↓ 17,91% 32.100 ↓ 14,94% 51.886 ↓ 18,03% 49.300
%
↑ 102,29 ↓ 16,24
20 MARCH.ES 2.000 ↓ 2,73% 15.600 ↓ 7,26% 294.405 10.700
% %
↓ 62,09
21 VAM.AC.UK 6.797 ↓ 9,28% 50.200 ↓ 23,36% 36.854 ↓ 12,81% 40.900
%
↓ 26,26
22 MUSEOTHYSSEN.ORG 2.000 ↓ 2,73% 81.500 ↓ 37,92% 24.625 ↓ 8,56% 17.300
%
↓ 56,78
23 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 2.898 ↓ 3,96% 40.100 ↓ 18,66% 29.512 ↓ 10,25% 37.400
%
↓ 48,13
24 HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG 6.644 ↓ 9,07% 34.400 ↓ 16,01% 40.221 ↓ 13,97% 31.700
%
NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.U ↓ 53,59
25 2.000 ↓ 2,73% 18.900 ↓ 8,79% 18.303 ↓ 6,36% 35.300
K %
Data table 1: Pages

3.1.2 RICH FILES IN PDF FORMAT

The analysis of rich files reveals that American museums frequently use this type of downloadable
format. Files of this type vary in their contents, from forms and guides to catalogues and educational
resources. It would be useful to carry out a qualitative analysis of these types of files on websites that
occupy the top positions in the ranking, as this would enable us to classify their contents.
Again, the most outstanding Spanish website is that of the Fundación Juan March (7th position),
followed by the Prado Museum (17th position), the Instituto Valenciano de Arte Moderno (21st
position) and the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (26th position). The websites of the Thyssen-
Bornemisza Museum, museothyssen.org and educathyssen.org, rank 36th and 58th, respectively.

Rank
Site Name or URL EXALEAD GOOGLE
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10 Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 GETTY.EDU 1.129 ↑ 215,05% 946 ↑ 108,24%

2 ARTIC.EDU 512 ↓ 97,52% 1.860 ↑ 212,81%
3 MOMA.ORG 773 ↑ 147,24% 900 ↑ 102,97%
4 NGA.GOV 654 ↑ 124,57% 674 ↓ 77,12%
5 METMUSEUM.ORG 721 ↑ 137,33% 427 ↓ 48,86%
6 AMERICANART.SI.EDU 517 ↓ 98,48% 410 ↓ 46,91%
7 MARCH.ES 274 ↓ 52,19% 748 ↓ 85,58%
8 DIA.ORG 270 ↓ 51,43% 598 ↓ 68,42%
9 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 99 ↓ 18,86% 833 ↓ 95,31%
10 LOUVRE.FR 148 ↓ 28,19% 727 ↓ 83,18%
11 TATE.ORG.UK 198 ↓ 37,71% 601 ↓ 68,76%
12 CCCB.ORG 3 ↓ 0,57% 835 ↓ 95,54%
13 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 86 ↓ 16,38% 618 ↓ 70,71%

10
14 GALLERY.CA 192 ↓ 36,57% 402 ↓ 46,00%
15 VAM.AC.UK 85 ↓ 16,19% 557 ↓ 63,73%
16 GUGGENHEIM-BILBAO.ES 34 ↓ 6,48% 546 ↓ 62,47%
17 MUSEODELPRADO.ES 0 ↓ 0,00% 565 ↓ 64,65%
18 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 204 ↓ 38,86% 220 ↓ 25,17%
19 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 93 ↓ 17,71% 287 ↓ 32,84%
20 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 3 ↓ 0,57% 433 ↓ 49,54%
21 IVAM.ES 32 ↓ 6,10% 376 ↓ 43,02%
22 KUNSTMUSEUMBERN.CH 0 ↓ 0,00% 418 ↓ 47,83%
23 MFA.ORG 40 ↓ 7,62% 304 ↓ 34,78%
24 LACMA.ORG 98 ↓ 18,67% 183 ↓ 20,94%
25 NGA.GOV.AU 11 ↓ 2,10% 299 ↓ 34,21%
Data table 2: Rich files in pdf

3.1.3 RICH FILES IN SWF FORMAT

The analysis of flash files suggests that this is not a very widespread file format, although the website
artic.edu makes considerable use of it, with nearly 800 files according to Google.
A preliminary analysis of SWF files under the artic.edu domain reveals two types of use: the
production of mini sites, a typical use for SWF files; and artistic creation. Many of the files displayed
pertain to the second group.
Rank
Site Name or URL EXALEAD GOOGLE
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10 Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 ARTIC.EDU 221 ↑ 171,32% 793 ↑ 660,83%

2 NGA.GOV 331 ↑ 256,59% 2 ↓ 1,67%
3 MOMA.ORG 311 ↑ 241,09% 0 ↓ 0,00%
4 WHITNEY.ORG 125 ↓ 96,90% 0 ↓ 0,00%
5 GALLERY.CA 22 ↓ 17,05% 239 ↑ 199,17%
6 GETTY.EDU 90 ↓ 69,77% 0 ↓ 0,00%
7 AMERICANART.SI.EDU 61 ↓ 47,29% 0 ↓ 0,00%
8 METMUSEUM.ORG 60 ↓ 46,51% 0 ↓ 0,00%
9 NGA.GOV.AU 39 ↓ 30,23% 2 ↓ 1,67%
10 DIA.ORG 15 ↓ 11,63% 58 ↓ 48,33%
11 TATE.ORG.UK 5 ↓ 3,88% 68 ↓ 56,67%
12 LOUVRE.FR 27 ↓ 20,93% 2 ↓ 1,67%
13 MARCH.ES 7 ↓ 5,43% 26 ↓ 21,67%
14 CCCB.ORG 17 ↓ 13,18% 0 ↓ 0,00%
15 LACMA.ORG 16 ↓ 12,40% 1 ↓ 0,83%
16 ALBRIGHTKNOX.ORG 15 ↓ 11,63% 0 ↓ 0,00%
17 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 14 ↓ 10,85% 0 ↓ 0,00%
18 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 7 ↓ 5,43% 1 ↓ 0,83%
19 VAM.AC.UK 4 ↓ 3,10% 7 ↓ 5,83%
20 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 6 ↓ 4,65% 0 ↓ 0,00%
21 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 4 ↓ 3,10% 1 ↓ 0,83%
22 GUGGENHEIM-BILBAO.ES 4 ↓ 3,10% 0 ↓ 0,00%
23 MUSEOESTEBANVICENTE.ES 4 ↓ 3,10% 0 ↓ 0,00%
24 ARTSMIA.ORG 3 ↓ 2,33% 0 ↓ 0,00%
25 BEYELER.COM 3 ↓ 2,33% 0 ↓ 0,00%
Data table 3: Graphic rich files in swf

3.1.4 IMAGES
The volume of graphic files not associated with page layout is an indicator of the graphic merits of a
website. In an analysis of this type, which focuses on museum websites, this data is very important.
In general terms, all the websites analysed contain a large volume of graphic files in relation to the total
volume of pages. The top positions in the ranking go to the domains brooklynmuseum.org and saatchi-
gallery.co.uk, each of which has more than 200,000 images. The websites of the Thyssen-Bornemisza
Museum, museothyssen.org and educathyssen.org, also boast a large volume of images and occupy
positions 22 and59.
Obviously, many of these images are part of the website’s design layout while many other images
correspond to artworks, so in future analyses this indicator will classify images by size.
Rank
Site Name or URL GOOGLE
6/2009

11
 Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 257.000 ↑ 249,18%

2 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 223.000 ↑ 216,21%
3 METMUSEUM.ORG 113.000 ↑ 109,56%
4 TATE.ORG.UK 103.000 ↓ 99,86%
5 MOMA.ORG 101.000 ↓ 97,93%
6 FAMSF.ORG 73.800 ↓ 71,55%
7 VAM.AC.UK 53.800 ↓ 52,16%
8 NATIONALGALLERIES.ORG 35.900 ↓ 34,81%
9 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 35.500 ↓ 34,42%
10 LOUVRE.FR 35.400 ↓ 34,32%
11 HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG 30.900 ↓ 29,96%
12 ARTIC.EDU 30.000 ↓ 29,09%
13 NGA.GOV.AU 25.700 ↓ 24,92%
14 AMERICANART.SI.EDU 21.100 ↓ 20,46%
15 GETTY.EDU 19.700 ↓ 19,10%
16 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 16.500 ↓ 16,00%
17 GALLERY.CA 16.300 ↓ 15,80%
18 NGA.GOV 15.500 ↓ 15,03%
19 NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 15.400 ↓ 14,93%
20 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 15.000 ↓ 14,54%
21 CCCB.ORG 13.300 ↓ 12,90%
22 MUSEOTHYSSEN.ORG 11.800 ↓ 11,44%
23 ARTSMIA.ORG 11.100 ↓ 10,76%
24 LACMA.ORG 10.700 ↓ 10,37%
25 GUGGENHEIM-BILBAO.ES 6.740 ↓ 6,53%
Data table 4: Images

3.1.5 HOME BACKLINKS

The analysis of links to home pages, regarded as institutional or brand links, reveals that the Museum of
Modern Art and the Metropolitan Museum, both in New York, are the two museum domains with the
most references on the net. Top positions in the ranking go to US and British websites, followed by the
French websites of the Musée du Louvre, the Centre Pompidou and the Musée d’Orsay.
The website of the Hermitage Museum in Russia also ranks fairly high. With regard to Spanish
museums, The Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, the Prado and Museo Reina Sofía occupy positions
26,31,33.
Rank Total
Site Name or URL EXALEAD GOOGLE Total
6/2009 Normalizado
Comp. AVG Comp. AVG
Value Value
Top 10 Top 10

1 MOMA.ORG 77.406 0,82 6.670 1,00 84.076 1,82

2 METMUSEUM.ORG 94.391 1,00 5.040 0,76 99.431 1,76
3 LOUVRE.FR 70.542 0,75 4.420 0,66 74.962 1,41
4 TATE.ORG.UK 50.562 0,54 3.680 0,55 54.242 1,09
5 NGA.GOV 60.909 0,65 1.870 0,28 62.779 0,93
6 GETTY.EDU 57.362 0,61 2.030 0,30 59.392 0,91
7 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 37.050 0,39 3.270 0,49 40.320 0,88
8 VAM.AC.UK 30.244 0,32 3.420 0,51 33.664 0,83
9 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 44.043 0,47 2.380 0,36 46.423 0,82
10 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 30.086 0,32 2.950 0,44 33.036 0,76
11 MFA.ORG 38.211 0,40 1.940 0,29 40.151 0,70
12 NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 18.932 0,20 2.440 0,37 21.372 0,57
13 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 8.973 0,10 2.830 0,42 11.803 0,52
14 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 21.886 0,23 1.660 0,25 23.546 0,48
15 HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG 21.373 0,23 1.670 0,25 23.043 0,48
16 ARTIC.EDU 33.268 0,35 823 0,12 34.091 0,48
17 WHITNEY.ORG 16.957 0,18 1.810 0,27 18.767 0,45
18 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 14.894 0,16 1.630 0,24 16.524 0,40
19 LACMA.ORG 15.338 0,16 1.550 0,23 16.888 0,39
20 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 15.093 0,16 1.550 0,23 16.643 0,39
21 ARTSMIA.ORG 14.306 0,15 1.380 0,21 15.686 0,36
22 PHILAMUSEUM.ORG 10.829 0,11 1.540 0,23 12.369 0,35
23 AMERICANART.SI.EDU 15.280 0,16 1.220 0,18 16.500 0,34
24 VANGOGHMUSEUM.NL 11.551 0,12 1.280 0,19 12.831 0,31
25 GALLERY.CA 17.430 0,18 649 0,10 18.079 0,28
Data table 5: Home backlinks

12
 3.1.6 WEBSITE BACKLINKS
In the analysis of inbound links to websites, the Musée d’Orsay heads the ranking. This institution also
ranks 14th in home page backlinks, suggesting that its website is one of the most referenced.
As in previous indicators, the top positions on the list are occupied by the websites belonging to US,
British and French museums. The leading Spanish website is that of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao,
while the Prado ranks 33rd, the Museo Reina Sofía 27th, and the websites of the Thyssen-Bornemisza
Museum, museothyssen.org and educathyssen.org, 29th and 89th respectively.
In general – and as expected, given the appealing, high-quality contents of the sites analysed – all of
them receive a large number of links to both their home and secondary pages.
Rank
Site Name or URL EXALEAD YAHOO
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10 Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 279.059 ↑ 683,40% 82.323 ↓ 32,47%

2 MOMA.ORG 31.208 ↓ 76,43% 400.576 ↑ 158,02%
3 METMUSEUM.ORG 10.126 ↓ 24,80% 388.904 ↑ 153,42%
4 TATE.ORG.UK 10.421 ↓ 25,52% 369.806 ↑ 145,88%
5 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 4.608 ↓ 11,28% 281.306 ↑ 110,97%
6 LOUVRE.FR 5.396 ↓ 13,21% 237.050 ↓ 93,51%
7 GETTY.EDU 13.435 ↓ 32,90% 210.514 ↓ 83,04%
8 NGA.GOV 11.886 ↓ 29,11% 211.270 ↓ 83,34%
9 VAM.AC.UK 7.319 ↓ 17,92% 188.754 ↓ 74,46%
10 ARTIC.EDU 12.799 ↓ 31,34% 119.215 ↓ 47,03%
11 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 2.375 ↓ 5,82% 127.574 ↓ 50,33%
12 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 5.776 ↓ 14,15% 105.930 ↓ 41,79%
13 NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 1.759 ↓ 4,31% 106.584 ↓ 42,05%
14 MFA.ORG 3.977 ↓ 9,74% 102.491 ↓ 40,43%
15 CCCB.ORG 1.156 ↓ 2,83% 96.368 ↓ 38,02%
16 NGA.GOV.AU 4.173 ↓ 10,22% 86.512 ↓ 34,13%
17 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 1.901 ↓ 4,66% 89.161 ↓ 35,17%
18 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 3.174 ↓ 7,77% 83.118 ↓ 32,79%
19 HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG 2.238 ↓ 5,48% 76.971 ↓ 30,36%
20 WHITNEY.ORG 3.592 ↓ 8,80% 68.765 ↓ 27,13%
21 MV.VATICAN.VA 1.968 ↓ 4,82% 66.410 ↓ 26,20%
22 ARTSMIA.ORG 14.635 ↓ 35,84% 45.556 ↓ 17,97%
23 LACMA.ORG 1.950 ↓ 4,78% 63.248 ↓ 24,95%
24 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 3.155 ↓ 7,73% 53.864 ↓ 21,25%
25 GUGGENHEIM-BILBAO.ES 1.589 ↓ 3,89% 54.000 ↓ 21,30%
Data table 6: Website backlinks

13
 3.1.7 PAGE RANK
The page rank18 that Google assigns to the domains analysed ranges between 5 and 8. These values
indicate that the sites analysed are highly regarded and have a large volume of contents, and
particularly that they are referenced through links. The leading Spanish website in this respect is that of
the Museo Reina Sofía, which has a page rank of 8, just above the 7 scored by the websites of the Prado
and the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum.

AMERICANART.SI.EDU
WHITNEY.ORG 10 GETTY.EDU
VANGOGHMUSEUM.NL LOUVRE.FR
VAM.AC.UK 9 METMUSEUM.ORG
TATE.ORG.UK 8 MUSEOREINASOFIA.ES
STAATSGALERIE.DE 7 NGA.GOV
6
SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK RIJKSMUSEUM.NL
5
RUSMUSEUM.RU 4 MV.VATICAN.VA
3
PINAKOTHEK.DE 2 NGA.GOV.AU
1
PHILAMUSEUM.ORG ALBERTINA.AT
0
NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK ARTSMIA.ORG

MUSEU.GULBENKIAN.PT BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG

MUSEOTHYSSEN.ORG BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG
MUSEOPICASSOMALAGA.O… CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR
MUSEODELPRADO.ES CORCORAN.ORG
MUSEE-ORSAY.FR DIA.ORG
MOMA.ORG GUGGENHEIM.ORG
MODERNAMUSEET.SE
MFA.ORG HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG
LACMA.ORG

Figure 1: Page Rank

3.2 WEB 2.0 INDICATORS

3.2.1 REFERENCES IN VIDEOS
The websites with the most references in videos are the Metropolitan Museum and the Museum of
Modern Art. We have verified that both museums have institutional channels on YouTube. The
Metropolitan Museum has more than 207 videos and 600 subscribers, while the Museum of Modern Art
has 170 videos and over 6,400 subscribers.
The values obtained in the analysis of this indicator and the potential subscribers to a video channel
demonstrate the opportunity that creating a channel of this type represents for any museum. And in the
case of YouTube, there is no cost involved.

Rank
Site Name or URL BLINKX GOOGLE YOUTUBE
6/2009
Comp. AVG Comp. AVG Comp. AVG
Value Value Value
Top 10 Top 10 Top 10

1 METMUSEUM.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 205 ↑ 301,47% 216 ↑ 366,10%

2 MOMA.ORG 9.000 ↓ 95,74% 199 ↑ 292,65% 146 ↑ 247,46%
3 TATE.ORG.UK 51.000 ↑ 542,55% 36 ↓ 52,94% 35 ↓ 59,32%
4 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 0 ↓ 0,00% 47 ↓ 69,12% 46 ↓ 77,97%
5 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 41 ↓ 60,29% 42 ↓ 71,19%
6 ARTSMIA.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 40 ↓ 58,82% 31 ↓ 52,54%
7 VAM.AC.UK 10.000 ↑ 106,38% 13 ↓ 19,12% 13 ↓ 22,03%
8 STLOUIS.ART.MUSEUM 16.000 ↑ 170,21% 1 ↓ 1,47% 0 ↓ 0,00%
9 GETTY.EDU 0 ↓ 0,00% 22 ↓ 32,35% 28 ↓ 47,46%

14
10 DIA.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 35 ↓ 51,47% 11 ↓ 18,64%
11 NGA.GOV 0 ↓ 0,00% 23 ↓ 33,82% 21 ↓ 35,59%
12 MFA.ORG 8.000 ↓ 85,11% 3 ↓ 4,41% 3 ↓ 5,08%
13 AMERICANART.SI.EDU 0 ↓ 0,00% 30 ↓ 44,12% 1 ↓ 1,69%
14 CCCB.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 14 ↓ 20,59% 10 ↓ 16,95%
15 GEMEENTEMUSEUM.NL 0 ↓ 0,00% 9 ↓ 13,24% 9 ↓ 15,25%
16 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 0 ↓ 0,00% 9 ↓ 13,24% 9 ↓ 15,25%
17 STEDELIJK.NL 0 ↓ 0,00% 9 ↓ 13,24% 9 ↓ 15,25%
18 LOUVRE.FR 0 ↓ 0,00% 11 ↓ 16,18% 4 ↓ 6,78%
19 WHITNEY.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 7 ↓ 10,29% 8 ↓ 13,56%
20 NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 0 ↓ 0,00% 6 ↓ 8,82% 7 ↓ 11,86%
21 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 8 ↓ 11,76% 4 ↓ 6,78%
22 ARTIC.EDU 0 ↓ 0,00% 5 ↓ 7,35% 6 ↓ 10,17%
23 LACMA.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 5 ↓ 7,35% 6 ↓ 10,17%
24 COLUMBUSMUSEUM.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 0 ↓ 0,00% 10 ↓ 16,95%
25 MARCH.ES 0 ↓ 0,00% 8 ↓ 11,76% 1 ↓ 1,69%
Data table 7: Video References

3.2.2 BLOG REFERENCES

The blogosphere is particularly active with regard to the websites of US and British museums, most
notably the Museum of Modern Art, Tate Online and the Metropolitan Museum.
In Spain, the most outstanding websites are those of the Prado (17th position), the Museo Reina Sofía
(35th position), the Fundación Juan March (36th position) and the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum
(37th).

Rank
Site Name or URL BLOGLINES GOOGLE TECHNORATI ICEROCKET
6/2009
Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp.
Value AVG Top Value AVG Top Value AVG Top Value AVG Top
10 10 10 10

1 MOMA.ORG 4.520 ↑ 164,66% 2.819 ↓ 78,94% 7.077 ↑ 281,62% 2.838 ↑ 211,16%

2 TATE.ORG.UK 4.470 ↑ 162,84% 2.193 ↓ 61,41% 0 ↓ 0,00% 2.185 ↑ 162,57%
3 METMUSEUM.ORG 4.150 ↑ 151,18% 2.408 ↓ 67,43% 0 ↓ 0,00% 2.257 ↑ 167,93%
4 VAM.AC.UK 2.260 ↓ 82,33% 174 ↓ 4,87% 2.779 ↑ 110,58% 1.058 ↓ 78,72%
5 NGA.GOV 2.190 ↓ 79,78% 190 ↓ 5,32% 2.505 ↓ 99,68% 1.097 ↓ 81,62%
6 DIA.ORG 393 ↓ 14,32% 19.343 ↑ 541,67% 385 ↓ 15,32% 193 ↓ 14,36%
7 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 2.320 ↓ 84,52% 167 ↓ 4,68% 2.027 ↓ 80,66% 709 ↓ 52,75%
8 GETTY.EDU 1.600 ↓ 58,29% 168 ↓ 4,70% 2.208 ↓ 87,86% 812 ↓ 60,42%
9 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 2.160 ↓ 78,69% 2.498 ↓ 69,95% 0 ↓ 0,00% 999 ↓ 74,33%
10 ARTIC.EDU 1.630 ↓ 59,38% 131 ↓ 3,67% 1.585 ↓ 63,07% 704 ↓ 52,38%
11 LOUVRE.FR 1.040 ↓ 37,89% 1.505 ↓ 42,15% 1.865 ↓ 74,21% 689 ↓ 51,26%
12 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 1.310 ↓ 47,72% 111 ↓ 3,11% 1.837 ↓ 73,10% 717 ↓ 53,35%
13 MFA.ORG 2.150 ↓ 78,32% 3.115 ↓ 87,23% 0 ↓ 0,00% 450 ↓ 33,48%
14 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 1.290 ↓ 46,99% 149 ↓ 4,17% 1.605 ↓ 63,87% 700 ↓ 52,08%
15 LACMA.ORG 957 ↓ 34,86% 110 ↓ 3,08% 1.207 ↓ 48,03% 530 ↓ 39,43%
16 WHITNEY.ORG 760 ↓ 27,69% 124 ↓ 3,47% 1.463 ↓ 58,22% 532 ↓ 39,58%
17 MUSEODELPRADO.ES 236 ↓ 8,60% 141 ↓ 3,95% 1.639 ↓ 65,22% 771 ↓ 57,37%
18 NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 755 ↓ 27,50% 108 ↓ 3,02% 1.345 ↓ 53,52% 430 ↓ 31,99%
19 FAMSF.ORG 925 ↓ 33,70% 90 ↓ 2,52% 1.010 ↓ 40,19% 402 ↓ 29,91%
20 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 296 ↓ 10,78% 174 ↓ 4,87% 1.257 ↓ 50,02% 403 ↓ 29,99%
21 CCCB.ORG 149 ↓ 5,43% 121 ↓ 3,39% 1.376 ↓ 54,76% 387 ↓ 28,79%
22 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 347 ↓ 12,64% 183 ↓ 5,12% 976 ↓ 38,84% 353 ↓ 26,26%
23 AMERICANART.SI.EDU 251 ↓ 9,14% 42 ↓ 1,18% 969 ↓ 38,56% 350 ↓ 26,04%
24 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 365 ↓ 13,30% 167 ↓ 4,68% 782 ↓ 31,12% 314 ↓ 23,36%
25 PHILAMUSEUM.ORG 592 ↓ 21,57% 115 ↓ 3,22% 0 ↓ 0,00% 311 ↓ 23,14%
Data table 8: Blog references

3.2.3 MICRO-BLOGGING REFERENCES

The analysis of references in Twitter entries to the domains surveyed confirms the scarcity of such
references. The sites with the most references were those of the Museum of Modern Art, the Tate and
the Art Institute of Chicago. The data obtained makes no reference to the audiences for these sites, that
is, the number of users subscribed to the official Twitter channel of the museums analysed.

15
A comparison between this ranking and the Twitter subscriptions ranking produced by Jim
Richardson19 reveals that the MoMA is the Twitter channel with the most subscribers. The Tate ranks
3rd and the Art Institute of Chicago 50th. The use of Twitter as a tool for publicising the MoMA is
clearly an example to follow.
Rank
Site Name or URL TWITTER
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 MOMA.ORG 320 ↑ 359,55%

2 TATE.ORG.UK 169 ↑ 189,89%
3 ARTIC.EDU 86 ↓ 96,63%
4 VAM.AC.UK 59 ↓ 66,29%
5 GETTY.EDU 48 ↓ 53,93%
6 LACMA.ORG 48 ↓ 53,93%
7 METMUSEUM.ORG 45 ↓ 50,56%
8 NGA.GOV 43 ↓ 48,31%
9 PHILAMUSEUM.ORG 40 ↓ 44,94%
10 MFA.ORG 31 ↓ 34,83%
11 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 22 ↓ 24,72%
12 CCCB.ORG 20 ↓ 22,47%
13 DIA.ORG 19 ↓ 21,35%
14 GALLERY.CA 18 ↓ 20,22%
15 CORCORAN.ORG 16 ↓ 17,98%
16 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 14 ↓ 15,73%
17 KIMBELLART.ORG 13 ↓ 14,61%
18 WHITNEY.ORG 13 ↓ 14,61%
19 NGA.GOV.AU 11 ↓ 12,36%
20 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 9 ↓ 10,11%
21 FAMSF.ORG 8 ↓ 8,99%
22 MUSEODELPRADO.ES 8 ↓ 8,99%
23 ALBERTINA.AT 4 ↓ 4,49%
24 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 4 ↓ 4,49%
25 LOUVRE.FR 4 ↓ 4,49%
Data table 9: Micro-blogging references

3.2.4 FORUM REFERENCES

The sites most referenced in forums are the Metropolitan Museum and Tate Online. Curiously, the
Museum of Modern Art is at the top of the blog references ranking but occupies 5th position in the
forum references ranking.
A comparison of the volume of references in forums and blogs reveals that the latter are much more
widely used by internet users than the former. We also found that blogs often use the comment tool and
therefore end up resembling a forum. The data obtained suggests that forums are not widely used in the
museum sector and that blogs tend to be used in their stead.

Rank
Site Name or URL BOARDREADER OMGILI
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10 Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 METMUSEUM.ORG 406 ↑ 241,67% 195 ↑ 207,45%

2 TATE.ORG.UK 209 ↑ 124,40% 120 ↑ 127,66%
3 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 238 ↑ 141,67% 60 ↓ 63,83%
4 VAM.AC.UK 152 ↓ 90,48% 98 ↑ 104,26%
5 MOMA.ORG 155 ↓ 92,26% 90 ↓ 95,74%
6 NGA.GOV 89 ↓ 52,98% 91 ↓ 96,81%
7 GETTY.EDU 79 ↓ 47,02% 87 ↓ 92,55%
8 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 0 ↓ 0,00% 107 ↑ 113,83%
9 LOUVRE.FR 127 ↓ 75,60% 33 ↓ 35,11%
10 ARTIC.EDU 150 ↓ 89,29% 19 ↓ 20,21%
11 MFA.ORG 71 ↓ 42,26% 43 ↓ 45,74%
12 HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG 43 ↓ 25,60% 51 ↓ 54,26%
13 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 36 ↓ 21,43% 36 ↓ 38,30%
14 NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 44 ↓ 26,19% 32 ↓ 34,04%
15 PHILAMUSEUM.ORG 37 ↓ 22,02% 35 ↓ 37,23%
16 MV.VATICAN.VA 32 ↓ 19,05% 26 ↓ 27,66%
17 LACMA.ORG 39 ↓ 23,21% 13 ↓ 13,83%

16
18 NATIONALGALLERIES.ORG 19 ↓ 11,31% 21 ↓ 22,34%
19 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 22 ↓ 13,10% 14 ↓ 14,89%
20 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 28 ↓ 16,67% 11 ↓ 11,70%
21 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 21 ↓ 12,50% 10 ↓ 10,64%
22 DIA.ORG 18 ↓ 10,71% 10 ↓ 10,64%
23 NGA.GOV.AU 27 ↓ 16,07% 4 ↓ 4,26%
24 MUSEODELPRADO.ES 23 ↓ 13,69% 5 ↓ 5,32%
25 ARTSMIA.ORG 14 ↓ 8,33% 9 ↓ 9,57%
Data table 10: Forum post references

3.2.5 SOCIAL BOOKMARKS

The website most frequently bookmarked on Delicious is the Museum of Modern Art, which has twice
as many bookmarks as its closest competitor, Tate Online. Since users only bookmark sites they find
interesting, we can conclude that the site with the most attractive contents is the Museum of Modern
Art. As with other indicators, this ranking is dominated by US and British museums.
The values obtained for Spanish museums are very low, with the Prado ranking 40th. These values may
also reflect a more widespread use of online bookmark management in the US and United Kingdom.

Rank
Site Name or URL DELICIOUS
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 MOMA.ORG 3.665 ↑ 276,40%

2 TATE.ORG.UK 1.838 ↑ 138,61%
3 METMUSEUM.ORG 1.794 ↑ 135,29%
4 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 1.451 ↑ 109,43%
5 VAM.AC.UK 1.051 ↓ 79,26%
6 NGA.GOV 782 ↓ 58,97%
7 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 760 ↓ 57,32%
8 WHITNEY.ORG 688 ↓ 51,89%
9 GETTY.EDU 638 ↓ 48,11%
10 NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 593 ↓ 44,72%
11 MFA.ORG 505 ↓ 38,08%
12 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 494 ↓ 37,25%
13 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 378 ↓ 28,51%
14 LACMA.ORG 373 ↓ 28,13%
15 PHILAMUSEUM.ORG 369 ↓ 27,83%
16 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 353 ↓ 26,62%
17 ARTIC.EDU 242 ↓ 18,25%
18 ARTSMIA.ORG 227 ↓ 17,12%
19 STEDELIJK.NL 210 ↓ 15,84%
20 LOUVRE.FR 209 ↓ 15,76%
21 AMERICANART.SI.EDU 189 ↓ 14,25%
22 FAMSF.ORG 176 ↓ 13,27%
23 CORCORAN.ORG 160 ↓ 12,07%
24 HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG 149 ↓ 11,24%
25 DIA.ORG 117 ↓ 8,82%
Data table 11: Social bookmarks

3.2.6 SOCIAL NOTES

The Delicious notes ranking is very similar to the bookmark ranking. The Museum of Modern Art is
the site with the highest number of notes, while the websites of the Metropolitan Museum and the
Saatchi Gallery have switched positions. As with the bookmark indicator, the top scorers on this
ranking are primarily US and British museums.

Rank
Site Name or URL DELICIOUS
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 MOMA.ORG 470 ↑ 262,57%

2 TATE.ORG.UK 249 ↑ 139,11%
3 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 235 ↑ 131,28%
4 METMUSEUM.ORG 232 ↑ 129,61%
5 VAM.AC.UK 148 ↓ 82,68%

17
6 NGA.GOV 140 ↓ 78,21%
7 GETTY.EDU 108 ↓ 60,34%
8 NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 76 ↓ 42,46%
9 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 70 ↓ 39,11%
10 WHITNEY.ORG 66 ↓ 36,87%
11 MFA.ORG 65 ↓ 36,31%
12 PHILAMUSEUM.ORG 55 ↓ 30,73%
13 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 53 ↓ 29,61%
14 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 48 ↓ 26,82%
15 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 45 ↓ 25,14%
16 FAMSF.ORG 42 ↓ 23,46%
17 STEDELIJK.NL 35 ↓ 19,55%
18 LACMA.ORG 34 ↓ 18,99%
19 AMERICANART.SI.EDU 33 ↓ 18,44%
20 ARTIC.EDU 33 ↓ 18,44%
21 LOUVRE.FR 29 ↓ 16,20%
22 HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG 25 ↓ 13,97%
23 ARTSMIA.ORG 24 ↓ 13,41%
24 CORCORAN.ORG 16 ↓ 8,94%
25 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 15 ↓ 8,38%
Data table 12: Social notes

3.2.7 SHARED IMAGE REFERENCES

Publishing and sharing images is one of the most popular options offered by Web 2.0 and Flickr is
unquestionably the main site for this activity. Our analysis of references to domains from images shared
by internet users assigns first place to the Metropolitan Museum, with over 3,400 images referenced to
this domain on Flickr.
Once again, US and British museums dominate the ranking, while the Museo de Arte Contemporáneo
of Castile-Leon leads the Spanish museums in 10th position, followed by the Prado in 11th place.

Rank
Site Name or URL FLICKR FOTOLOG
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10 Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 METMUSEUM.ORG 3.476 ↑ 190,88% 413 ↑ 458,89%

2 MOMA.ORG 2.971 ↑ 163,15% 44 ↓ 48,89%
3 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 2.710 ↑ 148,82% 1 ↓ 1,11%
4 TATE.ORG.UK 2.205 ↑ 121,09% 52 ↓ 57,78%
5 GETTY.EDU 2.118 ↑ 116,31% 50 ↓ 55,56%
6 VAM.AC.UK 1.043 ↓ 57,28% 13 ↓ 14,44%
7 LACMA.ORG 1.060 ↓ 58,21% 3 ↓ 3,33%
8 LOUVRE.FR 861 ↓ 47,28% 18 ↓ 20,00%
9 AMERICANART.SI.EDU 981 ↓ 53,87% 0 ↓ 0,00%
10 MUSAC.ES 23 ↓ 1,26% 109 ↑ 121,11%
11 MUSEODELPRADO.ES 21 ↓ 1,15% 99 ↑ 110,00%
12 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 742 ↓ 40,75% 13 ↓ 14,44%
13 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 787 ↓ 43,22% 7 ↓ 7,78%
14 NGA.GOV 769 ↓ 42,23% 3 ↓ 3,33%
15 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 611 ↓ 33,55% 10 ↓ 11,11%
16 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 483 ↓ 26,52% 21 ↓ 23,33%
17 GUGGENHEIM-BILBAO.ES 259 ↓ 14,22% 32 ↓ 35,56%
18 CCCB.ORG 62 ↓ 3,40% 53 ↓ 58,89%
19 ARTIC.EDU 432 ↓ 23,72% 1 ↓ 1,11%
20 MFA.ORG 422 ↓ 23,17% 2 ↓ 2,22%
21 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 331 ↓ 18,18% 8 ↓ 8,89%
22 ARTSMIA.ORG 339 ↓ 18,62% 2 ↓ 2,22%
23 FAMSF.ORG 344 ↓ 18,89% 1 ↓ 1,11%
24 GALLERY.CA 350 ↓ 19,22% 0 ↓ 0,00%
25 PHILAMUSEUM.ORG 289 ↓ 15,87% 3 ↓ 3,33%
Data table 13: Shared image references

3.2.8 PROFESSIONAL NETWORK REFERENCES

Our analysis also estimated the number of pages on Linkedin and Xing with museum domains in the
text viewed by the user, but excluded the pages with the domains in the hypertext reference of a link

18
and therefore not viewed by the user. In the interpretation of this ranking, the references obtained
should not be regarded as absolute values but as a comparison with other domains. We may therefore
conclude that professionals associated with the Saatchi Gallery are more accustomed to using
professional networks.
There are very few references to Spanish museum websites, which confirms the hypothesis that the use
of this type of Web 2.0 service is still in its infancy among professionals working at cultural institutions
in our country.
Another conclusion to be drawn from the values obtained is that, in relation to museums, Xing has a
higher penetration rate than Linkedin, which means that there are almost certainly more museum
professionals on Xing than on Linkedin.

Rank
Site Name or URL XING LINKEDIN
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10 Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 39 ↑ 229,41% 25 ↑ 312,50%

2 SMB.SPK-BERLIN.DE 29 ↑ 170,59% 1 ↓ 12,50%
3 GETTY.EDU 11 ↓ 64,71% 9 ↑ 112,50%
4 MOMA.ORG 10 ↓ 58,82% 7 ↓ 87,50%
5 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 1 ↓ 5,88% 12 ↑ 150,00%
6 KUNSTSAMMLUNG.DE 19 ↑ 111,76% 0 ↓ 0,00%
7 PINAKOTHEK.DE 18 ↑ 105,88% 0 ↓ 0,00%
8 STAEDELMUSEUM.DE 16 ↓ 94,12% 0 ↓ 0,00%
9 WHITNEY.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 10 ↑ 125,00%
10 VAM.AC.UK 10 ↓ 58,82% 3 ↓ 37,50%
11 METMUSEUM.ORG 9 ↓ 52,94% 3 ↓ 37,50%
12 ALBERTINA.AT 13 ↓ 76,47% 0 ↓ 0,00%
13 LOUVRE.FR 6 ↓ 35,29% 4 ↓ 50,00%
14 TATE.ORG.UK 7 ↓ 41,18% 3 ↓ 37,50%
15 KUNSTHAUS.CH 8 ↓ 47,06% 0 ↓ 0,00%
16 MFA.ORG 3 ↓ 17,65% 3 ↓ 37,50%
17 CORCORAN.ORG 0 ↓ 0,00% 4 ↓ 50,00%
18 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 3 ↓ 17,65% 2 ↓ 25,00%
19 HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG 3 ↓ 17,65% 2 ↓ 25,00%
20 STAATSGALERIE.DE 6 ↓ 35,29% 0 ↓ 0,00%
21 CCCB.ORG 4 ↓ 23,53% 1 ↓ 12,50%
22 NGA.GOV 0 ↓ 0,00% 3 ↓ 37,50%
23 GUGGENHEIM-BILBAO.ES 3 ↓ 17,65% 1 ↓ 12,50%
24 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 1 ↓ 5,88% 2 ↓ 25,00%
25 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 1 ↓ 5,88% 2 ↓ 25,00%
Data table 14: Professional network references

3.2.9 SOCIAL NETWORK REFERENCES

The values obtained for this indicator confirm, as expected, that the social network with the most
references is Facebook. This is the most widely used website for managing social relations on the
internet. These values suggest that any social marketing strategy should be targeted at Facebook.
Once again, as we saw with the professional networks indicator, the Saatchi Gallery leads the ranking
with over twice as many references on Facebook as its closest competitor, the Museum of Modern Art.
As we have also seen with other indicators, US and British museums have the most references in social
networks. Other outstanding museums in the ranking for this indicator are the Van Gogh Museum in
Amsterdam, the Moderna Museet in Stockholm and two Italian museum websites: the Fondazione
Musei Civici in Venice and the Musei in Comune in Rome.
In Spain, the most outstanding websites belong to the following museums: Prado (27th position),
Museo Reina Sofía (31st position), Museo de Arte Contemporáneo of Castile-Leon (32nd position),
Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum (36th position) and the website educathyssen.org (56th position).

19
Rank
Site Name or URL FACEBOOK HI5 NING
6/2009

20
 Comp. AVG Top Comp. AVG Top Comp. AVG Top
Value Value Value
10 10 10

1 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 435 ↑ 271,88% 1 100,00% 117 ↑ 508,70%

2 MOMA.ORG 199 ↑ 124,38% 2 ↑ 200,00% 13 ↓ 56,52%
3 METMUSEUM.ORG 170 ↑ 106,25% 1 100,00% 9 ↓ 39,13%
4 TATE.ORG.UK 279 ↑ 174,38% 0 ↓ 0,00% 15 ↓ 65,22%
5 GETTY.EDU 78 ↓ 48,75% 1 100,00% 9 ↓ 39,13%
6 VANGOGHMUSEUM.NL 67 ↓ 41,88% 1 100,00% 0 ↓ 0,00%
7 MODERNAMUSEET.SE 23 ↓ 14,38% 1 100,00% 1 ↓ 4,35%
8 MUSEICIVICIVENEZIANI.IT 0 ↓ 0,00% 1 100,00% 0 ↓ 0,00%
9 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 103 ↓ 64,38% 0 ↓ 0,00% 28 ↑ 121,74%
10 NGA.GOV 67 ↓ 41,88% 0 ↓ 0,00% 17 ↓ 73,91%
11 VAM.AC.UK 80 ↓ 50,00% 0 ↓ 0,00% 8 ↓ 34,78%
12 ARTIC.EDU 101 ↓ 63,13% 0 ↓ 0,00% 1 ↓ 4,35%
13 MUSEIINCOMUNEROMA.IT 88 ↓ 55,00% 0 ↓ 0,00% 2 ↓ 8,70%
14 LACMA.ORG 64 ↓ 40,00% 0 ↓ 0,00% 2 ↓ 8,70%
15 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 54 ↓ 33,75% 0 ↓ 0,00% 2 ↓ 8,70%
16 PHILAMUSEUM.ORG 49 ↓ 30,63% 0 ↓ 0,00% 3 ↓ 13,04%
17 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 50 ↓ 31,25% 0 ↓ 0,00% 2 ↓ 8,70%
18 ALBRIGHTKNOX.ORG 56 ↓ 35,00% 0 ↓ 0,00% 0 ↓ 0,00%
19 NGA.GOV.AU 20 ↓ 12,50% 0 ↓ 0,00% 9 ↓ 39,13%
20 WHITNEY.ORG 47 ↓ 29,38% 0 ↓ 0,00% 1 ↓ 4,35%
21 KIMBELLART.ORG 48 ↓ 30,00% 0 ↓ 0,00% 0 ↓ 0,00%
22 LOUVRE.FR 42 ↓ 26,25% 0 ↓ 0,00% 1 ↓ 4,35%
23 MFA.ORG 33 ↓ 20,63% 0 ↓ 0,00% 3 ↓ 13,04%
24 MART.TRENTO.IT 44 ↓ 27,50% 0 ↓ 0,00% 0 ↓ 0,00%
25 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 29 ↓ 18,13% 0 ↓ 0,00% 3 ↓ 13,04%
Data table 15: Social network references

3.2.10 SHARED PRESENTATION REFERENCES

The values obtained from the analysis of presentations published and shared on SlideShare.com with
references to the domains surveyed are relatively low. This suggests that, although museum
professionals habitually give papers at conferences, they do not usually publish and share their
presentations on the internet.
The domains most referenced in presentations are again owned by US and British museums. The
Louvre also has a high ranking (4th position), while the leading Spanish museums are the Guggenheim
Museum Bilbao (8th position), the Prado (10th position) and the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum (13th
position).

Rank
Site Name or URL SLIDESHARE
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 METMUSEUM.ORG 52 ↑ 216,67%
2 TATE.ORG.UK 34 ↑ 141,67%
3 GETTY.EDU 32 ↑ 133,33%
4 LOUVRE.FR 31 ↑ 129,17%
5 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 25 ↑ 104,17%
6 MOMA.ORG 17 ↓ 70,83%
7 NGA.GOV 15 ↓ 62,50%
8 GUGGENHEIM-BILBAO.ES 11 ↓ 45,83%
9 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 10 ↓ 41,67%
10 MUSEODELPRADO.ES 10 ↓ 41,67%
11 NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 10 ↓ 41,67%
12 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 8 ↓ 33,33%
13 MUSEOTHYSSEN.ORG 8 ↓ 33,33%
14 ARTIC.EDU 6 ↓ 25,00%
15 GUGGENHEIM.ORG 6 ↓ 25,00%
16 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 6 ↓ 25,00%
17 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 6 ↓ 25,00%
18 MACVIRTUAL.USP.BR 5 ↓ 20,83%
19 MFA.ORG 5 ↓ 20,83%
20 MUSEOREINASOFIA.ES 5 ↓ 20,83%
21 MV.VATICAN.VA 4 ↓ 16,67%
22 ARTIUM.ORG 4 ↓ 16,67%
23 IVAM.ES 4 ↓ 16,67%

21
24 MACBA.ES 4 ↓ 16,67%
25 MNAC.ES 4 ↓ 16,67%
Data table 16: Shared presentation references

3.2.11 WIKI REFERENCES

Our analysis of wiki references focused on the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. As indicated in the
introduction to this report, this site receives more than 61 million hits per month and currently
comprises over 14 million pages (June 2009).
The most referenced site on Wikipedia is the Victoria and Albert Museum, followed by the
Metropolitan Museum, Tate Online, the National Gallery and the Getty Foundation.
The internet hegemony of US and British museums is also clear in this indicator. With regard to
Spanish museum websites, the Prado ranks 16th and the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum 30th.

Rank
Site Name or URL WIKIPEDIA
6/2009
Value Comp. AVG Top 10

1 VAM.AC.UK 340 ↑ 229,73%

2 METMUSEUM.ORG 292 ↑ 197,30%
3 TATE.ORG.UK 197 ↑ 133,11%
4 NGA.GOV 127 ↓ 85,81%
5 GETTY.EDU 122 ↓ 82,43%
6 BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 90 ↓ 60,81%
7 MOMA.ORG 89 ↓ 60,14%
8 LOUVRE.FR 81 ↓ 54,73%
9 RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 77 ↓ 52,03%
10 NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 65 ↓ 43,92%
11 SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 63 ↓ 42,57%
12 NGA.GOV.AU 40 ↓ 27,03%
13 MV.VATICAN.VA 38 ↓ 25,68%
14 ARTIC.EDU 38 ↓ 25,68%
15 HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG 38 ↓ 25,68%
16 MUSEODELPRADO.ES 36 ↓ 24,32%
17 MFA.ORG 30 ↓ 20,27%
18 MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 30 ↓ 20,27%
19 ARTSMIA.ORG 28 ↓ 18,92%
20 NATIONALGALLERIES.ORG 26 ↓ 17,57%
21 SMB.SPK-BERLIN.DE 26 ↓ 17,57%
22 PHILAMUSEUM.ORG 25 ↓ 16,89%
23 PINAKOTHEK.DE 25 ↓ 16,89%
24 BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 24 ↓ 16,22%
25 CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 23 ↓ 15,54%
Data table 17: Wiki references

3.3 GLOBAL RANKING

The purpose of rankings is to provide an overview of each site’s position in relation to its competitors.
Any of the indicators obtained could be used to produce a global ranking. As the purpose of this study
is to analyse museum websites in the Web 2.0 environment, the following indicators were chosen:
- Pages: The more contents published and the more accessible they are from search engines, the
greater a website’s potential for attracting the interest of new audiences who will thus become
active Web 2.0 users.
- Blog references: References to the domain from blog entries are recommendations by users who
can be regarded as active on Web 2.0.
- Social network references Like references from blogs, references to the domain from social
networks can also be regarded as recommendations by users who are active on Web 2.0.

22
- Image References: This indicator was chosen because of the importance of images on museum
websites. The references from shared images on sites such as Flickr and Fotolog are
recommendations by users active on Web 2.0.
To produce the global ranking, a calculation formula was defined in which the indicators most closely
associated with Web 2.0 are regarded as more relevant than the volume of the site represented by the
page indicator. This greater relevance is applied in the formula by multiplying each indicator by 2. The
formula applied was as follows:
Page + 2*Blog References + 2* Social Network References + 2* Image References
After standardising the data obtained for each indicator and applying the calculation formula, the
following ranking was generated:

Social
Networ
Page Blog k Image Global
Site Name or URL Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking
MOMA.ORG 8 1 2 2 1
METMUSEUM.ORG 2 3 3 1 2
SAATCHI-GALLERY.CO.UK 3 8 1 15 3
TATE.ORG.UK 4 2 4 4 4
GETTY.EDU 6 8 5 5 5
BROOKLYNMUSEUM.ORG 13 7 9 3 6
VAM.AC.UK 20 4 11 6 7
NGA.GOV 18 5 10 14 8
MUSEE-ORSAY.FR 1 22 40 16 9
ARTIC.EDU 12 10 12 19 10
FAMSF.ORG 5 19 25 22 11
MFA.ORG 11 13 23 19 12
BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG 14 11 25 12 13
LOUVRE.FR 16 11 21 8 14
DIA.ORG 31 6 28 27 15
GALLERY.CA 7 27 29 22 16
GUGGENHEIM.ORG 27 14 17 12 17
RIJKSMUSEUM.NL 10 24 29 31 18
NGA.GOV.AU 9 31 19 42 19
LACMA.ORG 33 15 14 7 20
CCCB.ORG 15 21 36 17 21
MUSEODELPRADO.ES 34 17 27 11 22
VANGOGHMUSEUM.NL 38 57 6 42 23
AMERICANART.SI.EDU 17 23 57 9 24
CENTREPOMPIDOU.FR 23 20 15 21 25
MODERNAMUSEET.SE 44 34 7 55 26
WHITNEY.ORG 32 15 19 36 27
NATIONALGALLERY.ORG.UK 25 18 36 31 28
MUSEICIVICIVENEZIANI.IT 40 48 8 71 29
ARTSMIA.ORG 19 30 33 22 30
PHILAMUSEUM.ORG 26 25 15 25 31
MARCH.ES 20 36 36 42 32
MUSEOTHYSSEN.ORG 22 37 33 27 33
GUGGENHEIM-BILBAO.ES 34 26 43 17 34
HERMITAGEMUSEUM.ORG 24 32 48 31 35
NATIONALGALLERIES.ORG 27 28 57 29 36

23
MUSAC.ES 50 42 29 10 37
MUSEIINCOMUNEROMA.IT 62 67 13 71 38
ALBRIGHTKNOX.ORG 40 42 17 71 39
CORCORAN.ORG 46 28 40 42 40
MUSEOREINASOFIA.ES 57 35 29 25 41
MART.TRENTO.IT 39 51 23 42 42
PINAKOTHEK.DE 27 39 57 31 43
KIMBELLART.ORG 57 39 21 42 44
MV.VATICAN.VA 50 32 43 42 45
ALBERTINA.AT 34 45 43 55 46
MACBA.ES 44 38 57 29 47
KUNSTHAUS.CH 30 51 57 55 48
SMB.SPK-BERLIN.DE 34 51 57 36 49
BEYELER.COM 42 48 48 55 50
MNAC.ES 50 45 57 31 51
FUNDACIOMIRO-BCN.ORG 62 39 48 42 52
COLUMBUSMUSEUM.ORG 67 45 36 71 53
GEMEENTEMUSEUM.NL 50 48 48 40 54
CGAC.ORG 62 57 33 55 55
ARTIUM.ORG 50 57 43 42 56
MAC.UCHILE.CL 57 57 48 36 57
STAEDELMUSEUM.DE 46 57 48 55 58
RUSMUSEUM.RU 42 57 57 71 59
STEDELIJK.NL 62 51 57 40 60
LENBACHHAUS.DE 48 51 57 71 61
CAAC.ES 70 67 40 42 62
IMMA.IE 48 57 57 71 63
SLAM.ORG 75 42 57 71 64
IVAM.ES 57 57 57 55 65
FUNDACIOTAPIES.ORG 50 67 57 55 66
STLOUIS.ART.MUSEUM 67 79 57 36 67
SPRENGEL-MUSEUM.DE 50 79 57 71 68
EDUCATHYSSEN.ORG 62 79 48 71 69
BOIJMANS.ROTTERDAM.NL 70 67 57 42 70
LEOPOLDMUSEUM.ORG 62 67 57 71 71
KUNSTMUSEUMBERN.CH 57 79 57 71 72
MUSEOPICASSOMALAGA.ORG 85 57 43 71 73
ENGLISH.IMJNET.ORG.IL 70 67 57 55 74
KUNSTMUSEUMBASEL.CH 67 67 57 71 75
KUNSTSAMMLUNG.DE 70 79 57 42 76
MUSEE-PICASSO.FR 85 51 57 55 77
MACVIRTUAL.USP.BR 75 79 48 55 78
STAATSGALERIE.DE 70 67 57 71 79
MUSEOBILBAO.COM 85 67 57 42 80
MUSEU.GULBENKIAN.PT 81 67 57 55 81
UFFIZI.FIRENZE.IT 85 67 48 71 82
MUSEUPICASSO.BCN.ES 93 57 57 55 83
CAAM.NET 75 79 57 71 84
MAM-ST-ETIENNE.FR 75 79 57 71 84
MUSEOPATIOHERRERIANO.ORG 75 79 57 71 84
ORDRUPGAARD.DK 85 79 48 71 87
MARCOVIGO.COM 93 67 57 55 88
KUNSTMUSEUM-STUTTGART.DE 85 79 57 55 89
MAMCO.CH 85 79 57 55 89
KUNSTHALLEZURICH.CH 81 79 57 71 91
MUSEOESTEBANVICENTE.ES 81 79 57 71 91

24
VON-DER-HEYDT-MUSEUM.DE 75 94 57 71 93
NOLDE-STIFTUNG.DE 81 94 57 71 94
BRUECKE-MUSEUM.DE 93 79 57 71 95
MOCA-LYON.ORG 93 79 57 71 95
CINCINNATIARTMUSEUM.COM 85 94 57 71 97
HAUSKONSTRUKTIV.CH 93 94 57 71 98
KIRCHNERMUSEUM.CH 93 94 57 71 98
PINACOTECA-AGNELLI.IT 93 94 57 71 98
Data table 18: Global ranking
The ranking obtained indicates that the Museum of Modern Art in New York, followed by the
Metropolitan Museum, also in New York, have the highest visibility on Web 2.0 sites.
The first ten positions of each ranking were shaded to highlight the fact that the sites in the top
positions in the global ranking also occupy high positions in the indicator rankings.
The global ranking is dominated by US and British museums, while the top French site is that of the
Musée d’Orsay, ahead of the Louvre. As for Spanish museums, the Prado occupies a higher position
than the Thyssen-Bornemisza.
The prominent visibility of English-speaking American and British museums has a logical explanation:
in both of these countries, internet development and its rate of penetration in the daily lives of their
citizens are much higher than in other countries.
As well as attracting audiences with greater technological proficiency, the museums at the top of the
ranking are renowned for their social outreach projects designed to spread their contents beyond the
boundaries of the official museum site and create social networks. For these museums, this higher
visibility in the Web 2.0 environment represents a greater ability to capture new virtual audiences
whose communication, leisure and socialisation habits involve the internet.

25
4 REFERENCES
1
1 Internet Systems Consortium. Domain Survey. ISC. January 2009.
https://www.isc.org/solutions/survey
2
Netcraft.Web Server Survey, May 2009. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html.
3
Internet Usage and World Population Statistics 2009. Internet World
Stats.http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
4
http://www.gmpg.org/xfn/
5
Aaron Smith. New numbers for blogging and blog readership. Pew Internet & American Life Project,
22 July 2008, www.pewinternet.org/Commentary/2008/July/New-numbers-for-blogging-and-blog-
readership.aspx.
6
Amanda Lenhart, Susannah Fox. Twitter and status updating. Pew Internet & American Life Project,
12 February 2009, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Twitter-and-status-updating.aspx
7
comScore Media Metrix Ranks Top 50 US Web Properties for January 2009.
http://ir.comscore.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=366591
8
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/4/Twitter_Traffic_More_than_Doubles
9
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
10
http://press.linkedin.com/about
11
http://corporate.xing.com/english/company/
12
http://www.alexa.com/topsites
13
http://lists.compete.com/
14
14 Propuesta metodológica común para el análisis de proyectos en red para la Administración Pública
de ámbitos educativos, culturales y científicos. Cueto Álvarez de Sotomayor, L.; Soler Herreros, X.;
Martínez, E.; Entremonzaga Ayuso, R.; Carrasco, A.; Aguillo, I.; Fernández, E.; Rodríguez, M.;
Barrantes, D. Espadas, J. Ferreras, J. Albert, J. & Sanz de las Heras, J. TECNIMAP'2004. 28-30
September - 1 October 2004. Murcia, Spain.
15
15 Ricardo Baeza-Yates and Bárbara Poblete. Evolution of the Chilean web structure composition. In
Proceedings of Latin American Web Conference, pages 11-13, Santiago, Chile, 2003. IEEE CS Press.
Aguillo, I. F., Prieto, J. A., Ortega, J. L.; Granadino, B (2005). Ranking of World Universities in the
Web (Poster). 10th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and
Informetrics. ISSI 2005, Stockholm (July 2005).
Smith, Alistair G. (1999). "ANZAC webometrics: exploring Australasian Web structures" [Conference
proceedings]. Australasian Information Online & On Disc, January 1999.
16
16 Know Your Visibility. http://kyv.webportalquality.com
17
17 Aguillo, I. Ranking Mundial de Universidades en la Web. Cybermetrics Laboratory of the Centro
de Investigaciones Científicas. http://www.webometrics.info/
18
18 Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, Terry Winograd. The Page Rank Citation Ranking:
Bringing Order to the Web. Standford University, 1999.
19
Jim Richardson, Top museums on Twitter. http://www.museummarketing.co.uk/

When quoting from this text, please cite the source as follows:
ESPADAS BARDÓN, Javier (2009). Museums Web 2.0 Ranking (Jun. 2009). Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection
Foundation. http://www.museothyssen.org/blogs/museums_web_20_ranking_jun_2009.pdf This work is
licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported Licence. To view
a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Javier Espadas Bardón

Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
jespadas@museothyssen.org, javier.espadas@jesba.com
Javier Espadas currently works as IT Manager for the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection
Foundation (Madrid, Spain). His previous experience includes eight years in consulting and project
management at Indra Sistemas. He received an MBA from the Instituto de Empresa (Business
Institute) and a BSc in Computer Science from the Pontifical University of Salamanca. His research
interests include new technologies, their applications for cultural intitutions and, most particularly, the
visibility of museums on the internet.