Requests with "Special:Random" / total number of requests for each project.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 11:08 PM, <
wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wiki-research-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15 (Felix J. Scholz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 18:08:11 -0400
From: "Felix J. Scholz" <felixjacobscholz(a)gmail.com>
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue
15
Message-ID:
<
CADBcukYu1kDZLLvTOKJRQAo6SO017mXMnceWYxPDUJmnm--sLA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Most likely, it is the absolute number of random searches in billions
On Mar 19, 2016 6:01 PM, "Andrew Gray" <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
wrote:
Hi Alex,
Stupid question - is that "3.36% of all random-article searches were on
Latvian WP", or "3.36% of all searches (pageviews?) on the Latvian WP
were
through random-article"?
Andrew.
On 19 March 2016 at 21:34, Alex Druk <alex.druk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark J. Nelson writes:
> >Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia
> >articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics,
> >contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for
> >enwiki is at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ).
So
> >if you're measuring aggregate
numbers, you're measuring mainly that
> >specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many
> >people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts,
> >etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of
> >Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute
> >anything to moving the needle if that's the metric.
>
> One should also consider the fact that significant number of users use
> Wikipedia as entertainment. As an example of such use is random
searches. On
> all Wikipedia sites number of random searches
in 2014 exceeded 1
billion.
> Here is a simple graph illustrated this:
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> ~~Alex
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, <
> wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
>> wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> wiki-research-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: unique visitors (Mark J. Nelson)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:57:45 +0100
>> From: Mark J. Nelson <mjn(a)anadrome.org>
>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] unique visitors
>> Message-ID: <87zitvzhhi.fsf(a)mjn.anadrome.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>> phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > I wonder if there's a qualitative project somewhere in here about
>> > *types* of use -- e.g. if I'm using WP on my phone & my work pc is
>> > that really equivalent use? Perhaps I am using them for different
>> > kinds of information seeking, e.g. looking up terms related to work
vs
>> > looking up info on movie stars --
does this different kind of use
>> > matter for how we construct and present information, or count
"use"?
>>
>> Beyond the issue of devices, I think this is important in part because
>> the raw traffic counts (and reach numbers and similar) paint a very
>> specific story of what Wikimedia is doing and is successful at. (And
>> what you measure influences what you tend to optimize for.)
>>
>> Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia
>> articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics,
>> contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for
>> enwiki is at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ).
So
if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're
measuring mainly that
specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many
people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts,
etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of
Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute
anything to moving the needle if that's the metric.
-Mark
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
------------------------------
End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15
************************************************
--
Thank you.
Alex Druk
alex.druk(a)gmail.com
(775) 237-8550 Google voice
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l