Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-30/Traffic report
Latest comment: 10 years ago by The wub in topic Discuss this story
Discuss this story
- Is there a good reason why The Signpost can't publish the Top 25 instead of the Top 10? With so many articles like Deaths in 2013, Facebook, Google, WWII, Bollywood Films, etc. always in the Top 10, it's actually more interesting to me to see #11-25 because that's where the more unusually popular articles reside. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I second that. 25 is not too long a list and having the little blurbs to the right makes it very fun and readable. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 21:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- The "perennials" don't even need their own blurb, just a spot on the list. I recognize that The Signpost staff has only so much time, but a longer list with 10 interesting blurbs would be a lot more entertaining. Why so many people look at the article about Facebook is beyond me; I would just as soon not hear about it ever again. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Some have theorized, I believe, that a lot of the hits come from people trying to go facebook.com, and typing the name into the wrong bar (or forgetting that they have their search engine set to Wikipedia instead of Google). I'm sure there's also a lot of bot-generated traffic... There are spiders out there scanning anything related to Facebook for any SEO advantages they can uncover. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- We could eliminate many of the perennials, I'm sure, if we could factor in bounce rate, but Wikipedia analytics doesn't want to release the data for privacy reasons. Serendipodous 07:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't want any perennials omitted but then I like even the bewilderingly popular articles to be included as well (like XXX). The perennials don't appear every week so even if an article appears 20 out of 52 weeks, it's still interesting to see when it is high on the chart, to see if it ties into any event. I was just proposing that since a Top 25 is already being compiled by Serendipodous, we could substitute it for the Top 10. No extra work necessary! Liz Read! Talk! 12:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- They wouldn't be omitted; if the bounce rate were factored in we could remove those views that lasted for a second or so and so were obviously mistakes, which might take several of the perennials out of the running. As for extra work, that would still be necessary, because I have to be careful with my comments on the Signpost, or people start criticising my journalistic integrity. Serendipodous 13:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't want any perennials omitted but then I like even the bewilderingly popular articles to be included as well (like XXX). The perennials don't appear every week so even if an article appears 20 out of 52 weeks, it's still interesting to see when it is high on the chart, to see if it ties into any event. I was just proposing that since a Top 25 is already being compiled by Serendipodous, we could substitute it for the Top 10. No extra work necessary! Liz Read! Talk! 12:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- We could eliminate many of the perennials, I'm sure, if we could factor in bounce rate, but Wikipedia analytics doesn't want to release the data for privacy reasons. Serendipodous 07:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Some have theorized, I believe, that a lot of the hits come from people trying to go facebook.com, and typing the name into the wrong bar (or forgetting that they have their search engine set to Wikipedia instead of Google). I'm sure there's also a lot of bot-generated traffic... There are spiders out there scanning anything related to Facebook for any SEO advantages they can uncover. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The "perennials" don't even need their own blurb, just a spot on the list. I recognize that The Signpost staff has only so much time, but a longer list with 10 interesting blurbs would be a lot more entertaining. Why so many people look at the article about Facebook is beyond me; I would just as soon not hear about it ever again. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I second that. 25 is not too long a list and having the little blurbs to the right makes it very fun and readable. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 21:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Google are rolling out more prominent banner ads when someone seems to be searching for an official website. [1] I wonder if this will result in some of the perennial company articles dropping off. the wub "?!" 13:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)