Wikipedia talk:Awareness statistics

message: I have added a data table, and the Google search used to generate the data in it.
However, I do not know if this was the same query used by the original author of the graph above. The Anome
I have added a graph of the Alexa statistics. Mike Storm
Would Technorati information be appropriate here? It tracks links from weblogs. Dreamyshade
===Frequency of updates===
I am not too happy with having one update of the Alexa stats every day. Imagine what the
page would look like now if we had one entry for each of the one thousand days since this started!
I suggest one of following approaches: either update the stats only once or twice per week, or update them more often but remove some of the entries later so that no more than one entry per week remains. --Mihai 22:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexa stats

message: I am not too happy with having one update of the Alexa stats every day. Imagine what the
page would look like now if we had one entry for each of the one thousand days since this started!
I suggest one of following approaches: either update the stats only once or twice per week, or update them more often but remove some of the entries later so that no more than one entry per week remains. --Mihai 22:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequency of updates

message: What do you think?  Should we use a logarithmic scale with bezier smoothing?  Or stick with the way it's been, which currently shows only a biweekly-ish sampling of the data on a linear scale? --Kbh3rd 17:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to go logarithmic with Alexa Reach?

message: Obviously both of you have misunderstood the other.  Mike, Dreamyshade was only trying to help, and obviously you updated your graph in a different way than he intended.  Being rude does not help anyone.  Dreamyshade, could you please provide some more information as to how the graph could be improved, possibly generate your own graph?  We need to get this resolved quickly.  I agree with Karada, it should probably be moved to a different page. supadawg 02:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstandings 

message: If you could please try to keep the month names consistently unabreviated or abreviated, but not mixed in the same table, it would make it a lot easier for me to generate graphs with gnuplot.  "July" should be followed by "August", not "Aug", though "Jul" should be.  Yes, I could easily preprocess them, but that adds another unecessary step.  Consistency is a good thing, anyway.  Kbh3rd 04:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone and made a script to normalize the month names for processing the graphs.  But it is still good form to be consistent within the same table. Kbh3rd 14:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: What happened in June with Google's usenet stats?  Did Wikipedia really see a 10-fold increase in mentions in one month??  I've held off on generating a new graph for this table because it seems suspect. Kbh3rd 14:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I went ahead and generated a new chart anyway, using a logarithmic Y-axis.  The old one is here. -  Kbh3rd 16:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usenet posts about Wikipedia 

message: Is it coincidence that other sites like bbc.co.uk or reference.com laso have a large leap in alexa rank? See 
Donar Reiskoffer 07:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Google have changed their algorithm or weightings in a way that favours  factual/reference sites in some way? -- The Anome 10:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I believe the dramatic rank improvement for Wikipedia, reference.com, britannica.com etc. has to do with a change in the Alexa interpretation of visits/users statistics. I see that for all these sites the number of users ("reach") has increased, the number of visits per users has decreased, and the product, i.e. total visits, has not changed much. The undisclosed Alexa recipe for the total rank seems to results in a better rank when the reach is increased at the expense of "visits per user". My two cents. --Mihai 18:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am pretty sure its because its back to school time. Page views go up because of all students, new article creation should go up becasue of lots of smart college students with free time. -Ravedave 06:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent leap in alexa rank 

message: Hi all.
I ran across PubSub Link Ranks doing my evening's reading; it seems to be sampling a limited set of the web (it looks like weblogs only) and constructing a chart of the most commonly linked pages, although it doesn't provide any "historical" data - or, indeed, anything bar a numerical position. Still interesting to see, though. Shimgray 22:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PubSub figures 

message: Since Wikipedia has disappeared from the English Language top 100, there is a way to estimate its popularity by using the international top 100.
*18 July 2005   Apple Computer is #32 on English list.
*18 July 2005   Apple Computer is #62 on International list.
*18 July 2005   The Weather Channel is #31 on English list.
*18 July 2005   The Weather Channel is #54 on International list.
*18 July 2005   Wikipedia is #60 on International list - between Apple and Weather Channel.
* Therefore we can assume that Wikipedia is not #31 because Weather Channel is more popular on International list.
* We can also assume that Apple Computer website is worse than #32 because Wikipedia is more popular on International list.
* Therefore Wikipedia is assumed to be #32 on English language list.
--One Salient Oversight 01:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 18 July 2005 Estimate - Alexa English top 100

message: To make the page more manageable, I've moved all the Google stuff to Wikipedia:Search engine statistics. --Michael Snow 06:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page split 

message: I'll be producing an update of all these graphs at the end of this month.  I'm not sure what would be the best interval for updating them, but it seems that since we're so close to the end of the year that it would be good to wait until then.  If they sit for a while before being updated again, they'll look copacetic ending on a year boundary. -- Kbh3rd 17:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph updates 

message: Measuring the values on the 3-month graph is not accurate. Points in the graph are subject to smoothing and time shifts. 10 or 20 days graph display correct results :
Search used. - Marc Macé 20:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa page views per million measurement 

message: As of today (January 27th), the Alexa ranking page for Wikipedia claims 0 page views per million, zero reach per million and no ranking. Makes quite a mess of the graph. It also says it was last updated on January 22nd. I'm certain this is just a problem with Alexa; anyway, it looks as though the statistics may not be updated for a week or so -- Gurch 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it seems to be fixed. (And we reached #16, woohoo!) -- 217.35.96.167 09:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That last comment was me, curse this computer for logging me out all the time! -- Gurch 09:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa is broken??? 

message: It's February now and the graphs made up to 31 December 2005 are yet to appear. If they don't arrive soon I think the old ones should be removed anyway. 62.31.55.223 09:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated them now.  Woohoo!  I'll probably get around to adding some new graphs for the uncharted data sets, but it might take me a week or three before I have enough time.  But maybe I'll surprise you (and me). --Kbh3rdtalk 05:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the main data without a graph here is Alexa page views per million, which is actually derived from Alexa's graph, and it hardly seems necessary or even reasonable to rechart data derived from a chart. --Kbh3rdtalk 05:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems they're out of date, again.  Time flies like an arrow.  But fruit flies like a banana. --Kbh3rdtalk 07:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of date graphs

message: Reach increased more on 30 Jan than it did in Wikipedia's first two years and nine months. I'm surprised we are not hitting server capacity problems at the moment. 62.31.55.223 06:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing boom

message: Here's a page showing how the number of searches for "Wikipedia" on google.com has risen .  Maybe this will be an interesting graph to use. (RCX 19:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, but :Image:Google trends wikipedia.gif has a  (fair use) copyright tag, which allows us to use it only in the main (article) namespace to identify the website in question. I've added an external link to the graph, I think that's the most we can do. --Zoz (t) 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Trends 

message: How much longer until Wikipedia becomes self-aware?  (I thought this page was a joke in that vein when I first saw the title). -Ich (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Self-Awareness statistics 

message: Statistics up to 2007... not really what I was expecting,! Suggest a rename to 'historical ....' or maybe some tag about being out of date Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it me or is this page dormant and now historical