On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/06, Stephen Bain
<stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think that table is actually about the top
search terms that
Wikipedia receives traffic from. So "Wikipedia" is used in just over
3% of searches which end up in a hit to Wikipedia, and "sex" is used
in 0.1% of searches which end up in a hit to Wikipedia.
It's bizarre. I did a search for "sex" (with trepidation - I'm at
work) and didn't see any links to Wikipedia. It's also strange that so
many companies go to such a lot of work to get in the top few results
for "sex", while we apparently get in quite easily, with no effort?
Steve
Apparently there is a large market for quality and non-titillating
sexual information in article format... Entry into this engorging
market need not be stiff.
Digital Universe, you listening? This would be an attractive and
excellent niche, especially for people who make a fetish of reliablity
they've paid for. Although they would have to beat us off first, so
perhaps the first mover advantage makes such a proposition unalluring.
~maru