If you let them, they can directly measure the traffic of your website. If you sign up for their service, Quantcast's numbers will be very close to your own Google Analytics.
But, if you don't sign up, they'll still "measure" your traffic and come up with results that are no better than the other web traffic rankers. I don't know why anybody takes sites like these seriously anymore. Everybody I've met who had a website with decent traffic has said that these sites are always way off. I'd imagine that Alexa's main reason for reporting a ridiculous statistic like % of global/country traffic is that it makes it harder for website owners to realize how wrong they are.
With Django, I've learned to avoid anything that tries to do too much. Small apps or collections of code that aim to solve very specific problems seem to work with the least hassle. With a carefully defined and limited scope, these apps have a much easier time integrating into existing projects. You want something that handles OAuth. You want something that handles Facebook Connect. You do not want something that handles "integration with social networks" or anything so grandiose.
There's definitely a tendency among library/framework writers (not just Django) to include the kitchen sink. Ultimately it becomes problematic for the end-user and maintainer because more time is spent trying to understand everything that is going on (and often times removing unwanted functionality).
It's really hard to find functionality in the "hammer,screwdriver" size - more often than not I get a whole tool set with all sorts of things I'll never need, and end up having to devote more time figuring out how it all "hangs together" with the rest of the system.
It becomes a matter of whether you end up piecing your system together block by block or chiseling away to your end product.
That's because Python is actually used extensively in the West outside the context of web development. Ruby really isn't. Rails became popular, and people decided to learn Ruby so they could use Rails. Most people who choose Python web frameworks do so because they are already familiar with Python.
But I agree, I learned Python because it seemed like a great language, and learned Django because I was moving into web dev after years of other work with Python. I don't believe I'll ever pick up Ruby for anything other than learning Rails (and I doubt I'll even do that, since Python is so similar).
Just take a look; the django bar is not even a bar, more like a square. Rails seems to have a 40:1 edge over Django in popularity.
The other thing you will notice is that India is where Rails is most popular; but try to pull back the timeline slider and play with it a bit. See how different countries discover rails at different times but soon after lose interest? Except for India, it stays popular there.
I'm not sure what your link is trying to show, actually.
But note that most people searching for Django will use only the name Django, whereas Rails is often called "Ruby on Rails", meaning searches for "ruby and rails" will naturally tend higher than "python and django". Again, I'm not sure I understand your point, so I don't know if this means anything.
This is an answer to a question that grasshoper is not asking: he claims that Python is used extensively "in the West" in contexts other than web development.
Comparing search traffic for django/python to ruby/rails has nothing to do with this.
