Sherry,
Questions such as this one will get a better answer if posted to analytics@ public list. From the discussion is not clear what users wish to measure but I am providing some links below that might help.
Alexa ranks sites according to other sites, which we obviously do not do. If a ranking fluctuates a lot that tells you Alexa's methodology doesn't work for your site (likely you get too little traffic).
We have pageviews and unique devices measures for all projects of a certain size. Referral information ("where does traffic come from?") is also available but a bit harder to get. Looking at sources of publicly available data you can see wikivoyage is pretty static when it comes to growth.
English wikivoyage pageviews are mostly constant, around 60.000 daily, mobile makes about 20.000 of those. If you zoom you can see that number is slightly higher in August but really within the same order of magnitude.
https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=enwikivoyag...
English wikivoyage daily unique devices, they have about 15.000 devices per day.
https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=enwikivoyag...
About 300.000 devices per month:
https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=enwikivoyag...
Thanks,
Nuria
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Whatamidoing (WMF)/Sherry Snyder < ssnyder@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Community members at the English Wikivoyage are interested in their Alexa rankings. There are two current discussions about it (start here, plus the one immediately after it: https://en.wikivoyage.org/ wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#2016_in_review )
Do you have any information that would help them?
-- Sherry Snyder (WhatamIdoing) Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
This is great! I've posted a summary and the links to their discussion and encouraged them to join the mailing list. Thank you!
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 1:42 PM Nuria Ruiz nuria@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sherry,
Questions such as this one will get a better answer if posted to analytics@ public list. From the discussion is not clear what users wish to measure but I am providing some links below that might help.
Alexa ranks sites according to other sites, which we obviously do not do. If a ranking fluctuates a lot that tells you Alexa's methodology doesn't work for your site (likely you get too little traffic).
We have pageviews and unique devices measures for all projects of a certain size. Referral information ("where does traffic come from?") is also available but a bit harder to get. Looking at sources of publicly available data you can see wikivoyage is pretty static when it comes to growth.
English wikivoyage pageviews are mostly constant, around 60.000 daily, mobile makes about 20.000 of those. If you zoom you can see that number is slightly higher in August but really within the same order of magnitude.
https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=enwikivoyag...
English wikivoyage daily unique devices, they have about 15.000 devices per day.
https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=enwikivoyag...
About 300.000 devices per month:
https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=enwikivoyag...
Thanks,
Nuria
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Whatamidoing (WMF)/Sherry Snyder < ssnyder@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Community members at the English Wikivoyage are interested in their Alexa rankings. There are two current discussions about it (start here, plus the one immediately after it: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#2016_in_review )
Do you have any information that would help them?
-- Sherry Snyder (WhatamIdoing) Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
--
Sherry Snyder (WhatamIdoing) Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
The scarce traffic on Wikivoyage is not especially surprising: there is a lot of competition in this niche and Wikivoyage is not particularly different in content etc. from some of its competitors.
The evidence accumulated in the last few years suggests that we should accept that Wikivoyage is one of those Wikimedia projects in the lower end of traffic and with little hope for growth (like Wikiversity and Wikinews in most languages). They are still useful for very specific qualitative goals (such as collaboration with institutions which could not have happened on other wikis) and should be assessed against those.
Nemo