diff --git a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
index 01af41c..d72a14c 100644
--- a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
+++ b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Below are the average time it takes for each extension to handle a net request i
 ##### µBlock
 ![uBlock](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/ublock-obr.png)
 
-Note that the results above are the tail end of running the complete benchmark (60 high-traffic web pages, repeated 3 times). 
+Note that the results above are the tail end of running the complete benchmark (60 front pages of high traffic web sites, repeated 3 times). 
 
 Also noteworthy, ABP uses a cache mechanism to possibly avoid having to test a URL by trying to reuse a prior
 result for that same URL, which would cause ABP timing to be quite low (at the expense of memory footprint). It's unclear to me how much this mechanism kicked in with the current benchmark. µBlock doesn't use such mechanism, so whether a web page is visited repeatedly or not doesn't influence timing.