http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2006/07/the_mystery_of_the_golden_spr...
I love talking about mysterious tables. But from what I can see, wikipedia has surpassed our former most famous internet topic by far.
I am not sure how people were counted who were looking for sex related articles in wikipedia :)
Mathias
On 7/26/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2006/07/the_mystery_of_the_golden_spr...
I love talking about mysterious tables. But from what I can see, wikipedia has surpassed our former most famous internet topic by far.
I am not sure how people were counted who were looking for sex related articles in wikipedia :)
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.
For a measure of how many people are searching for sex as opposed to Wikipedia, try: http://www.google.com/trends?q=wikipedia%2C+sex We're catching up! And while we're huge in Poland, sex is still huger.
What's still interesting though is that "sex" is still the third most popular search term resulting in traffic to WP, after "Wikipedia" and "wiki".
On 7/26/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@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
On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Search on google.com for "sex" - http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL...
1. www.sxetc.org/ - 15k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this 2. www.salon.com/sex/index.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this 3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex - 41k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse - 52k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this 4. www.playboy.com/ - 50k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/26/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@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
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/26/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@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
As I understand it this includes any search that has the word sex in it. Including such things as "same-sex marriage", "sexual development", "how to tell the sex of your hamster" whatever.
Dalf