Hudong.com is now bigger than us:
http://www.jlmpacificepoch.com/newsstories?id=139049_0_5_0_M
In fact they may have broken 3 million but I can't read
全球最大中文百科由全球1,016,360位网民共同编写而成。共计3,050,203词条，32.7亿文字
and I'm not totally certain their definition of article is the same as ours. Still I think we need to get a clearer idea of what is going on at Hudong.
Yeah:
"total of 3,050,203 entries, 3,270,000,000 words."
If the translation service I just used is giving me an accurate feel, it seems a bit more facile than the wikipedia right now, and even less well referenced and less accurate. But it's got more articles, and it's still pretty new.
The Alexa traffic rank is a 'healthy' 281,588 though ;-) but I don't know how accurate Alexa would be for a chinese site though, it's possible Alexa isn't used much in China which would skew the statistics.
On 20/04/2009, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Hudong.com is now bigger than us:
http://www.jlmpacificepoch.com/newsstories?id=139049_0_5_0_M
In fact they may have broken 3 million but I can't read
全球最大中文百科由全球1,016,360位网民共同编写而成。共计3,050,203词条，32.7亿文字
and I'm not totally certain their definition of article is the same as ours. Still I think we need to get a clearer idea of what is going on at Hudong.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From my limited checking, most of the text and images on Hudong seems
to be copied from other websites: news sites, government sites, the official site of the subject, etc.
They have managed to make an interesting user interface though, a working WYSIWYG wiki.
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
Yeah:
"total of 3,050,203 entries, 3,270,000,000 words."
If the translation service I just used is giving me an accurate feel, it seems a bit more facile than the wikipedia right now, and even less well referenced and less accurate. But it's got more articles, and it's still pretty new.
The Alexa traffic rank is a 'healthy' 281,588 though ;-) but I don't know how accurate Alexa would be for a chinese site though, it's possible Alexa isn't used much in China which would skew the statistics.
On 20/04/2009, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Hudong.com is now bigger than us:
http://www.jlmpacificepoch.com/newsstories?id=139049_0_5_0_M
In fact they may have broken 3 million but I can't read
全球最大中文百科由全球1,016,360位网民共同编写而成。共计3,050,203词条，32.7亿文字
and I'm not totally certain their definition of article is the same as ours. Still I think we need to get a clearer idea of what is going on at Hudong.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It seems the moderator ate the text of my message.
From my limited checking, most of the text and images on Hudong seems
to be copied from other websites: news sites, government sites, the official site of the subject, etc.
They have managed to make an interesting user interface though, a working WYSIWYG wiki.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Apoc 2400 apoc2400@gmail.com wrote:
It seems the moderator ate the text of my message.
It got through to me first time.
Carcharoth
2009/4/21 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Apoc 2400 apoc2400@gmail.com wrote:
It seems the moderator ate the text of my message.
It got through to me first time.
Ditto.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:51:59 +0200, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Hudong.com is now bigger than us:
http://www.jlmpacificepoch.com/newsstories?id=139049_0_5_0_M
In fact they may have broken 3 million but I can't read
全球最大中文百科由全球1,016,360位网民共同编写而成。共计3,050,203词条，32.7亿文字
and I'm not totally certain their definition of article is the same as ours. Still I think we need to get a clearer idea of what is going on at Hudong.
Well my first impression afer clicking around for a while (via Google translate) is that it's mostly like Wikipedia with all the rules thrown out (wich I'm sure a lot of people might find appealing)... There seems to be very little emphasis on things like reliable sources (or even any sources in many cases), a lot of celebretry bios seems to play up various "sex scandals" reported only by fridge sensation rags and such, and have lenghty sections about likes and dislikes, pets and all sorts of cruft like that.
The copyright policy (or lack thereof) also seems to basicaly be that the site itself claim copyrihgt over all user contributions (although top contributors are publicly "credited" right on sidebar of the article, wich I guess is an easier way to make people feel appreciated than trying to explain to them how a free license works) and the image pages simply contain a disclaimer saying the image was submited by a user and may be copyrighted (wich to be fair is better than most sites manage). They are clearly not clamouring to be part of the free content movement that's for sure.
Some of the organization of contnet is interesting, articles appear to be organized under various "task groups" that seem to be their version of a "Wikiproject" but it's much more integrated in the software, giving stats about number of articles under the task, how complete it is, number of users who particupate and stuff like that. Some users also seems to be officialy designated as "experts" on various topics (wich may or may not be a good idea depending on how the acrediting works).
Hardly an in depth look and I'm sure there are tonnes of more insightfull stuff written about the site out there, just some personal observations after clicking around for 20 minutes trying to make sense of the machine translated text.
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very loose, and they have few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality, reliable sourcing, brilliant prose, etc. The software is also much more focused on social networking. Furthermore, Hudong is not free.
I also wonder what fluff they have marked as "articles," because their category on wildlife is quite threadbare: http://www.hudong.com/categoryalldocs/%E8%87%AA%E7%84%B6%E7%94%9F%E7%89%A9/
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: From: geni geniice@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] We've been overtaken. To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 2:51 PM
Hudong.com is now bigger than us:
http://www.jlmpacificepoch.com/newsstories?id=139049_0_5_0_M
In fact they may have broken 3 million but I can't read
全球最大中文百科由全球1,016,360位网民共同编写而成。共计3,050,203词条，32.7亿文字
and I'm not totally certain their definition of article is the same as ours. Still I think we need to get a clearer idea of what is going on at Hudong.
On 21/04/2009, Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac_15@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very loose, and they have few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality, reliable sourcing, brilliant prose, etc.
That's exactly the kind of thing that the Encyclopedia Britannica said about the Wikipedia!
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
On 21/04/2009, Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac_15@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very loose,
and
they have few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality,
reliable
sourcing, brilliant prose, etc.
That's exactly the kind of thing that the Encyclopedia Britannica said about the Wikipedia!
-- -Ian Woollard
Exactly what I thought. Better integration and support for wikiprojects (have to say, I sort of prefer "task groups" as a name...), better recognition on the wiki of top contributors to various articles -- those are things we could really learn from. And if we could approach the proprietor, and encourage a more compatible licensing scheme, our Chinese language projects could really benefit (and their project could benefit from Wikimedia content).
Did this thing just appear out of nowhere? Suddenly a collaborative online reference site larger than the English Wikipedia?
Nathan
2009/4/21 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Exactly what I thought. Better integration and support for wikiprojects (have to say, I sort of prefer "task groups" as a name...), better recognition on the wiki of top contributors to various articles -- those are things we could really learn from. And if we could approach the proprietor, and encourage a more compatible licensing scheme, our Chinese language projects could really benefit (and their project could benefit from Wikimedia content).
Did this thing just appear out of nowhere? Suddenly a collaborative online reference site larger than the English Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudong
It was founded in 2005, apparently. The "Censorship and controversy" section of that article makes me question whether we want to get too involved with it. Their values seem to be significantly different to ours.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:13:46 +0200, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
On 21/04/2009, Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac_15@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very
loose, and
they have few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality,
reliable
sourcing, brilliant prose, etc.
That's exactly the kind of thing that the Encyclopedia Britannica said about the Wikipedia!
-- -Ian Woollard
Exactly what I thought. Better integration and support for wikiprojects (have to say, I sort of prefer "task groups" as a name...), better recognition on the wiki of top contributors to various articles -- those are things we could really learn from. And if we could approach the proprietor, and encourage a more compatible licensing scheme, our Chinese language projects could really benefit (and their project could benefit from Wikimedia content).
Did this thing just appear out of nowhere? Suddenly a collaborative online reference site larger than the English Wikipedia?
Well they have been around for 2-3 years. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details I have to admit. I'm under the impression that it came about as a "replacement" for the Chinese Wikipedia since the Chinese government kept blocking access to it because it didn't conform to the party line when it came to scertain aspects of history and political borders (Taiwan etc.).
Although looking at our articles I might be thinking of [[Baidu Baike]], wich "only" have about 1,5 million articles aparently despite operating for about a year longer than [[Hudong]].
2009/4/21 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Exactly what I thought. Better integration and support for wikiprojects (have to say, I sort of prefer "task groups" as a name...), better recognition on the wiki of top contributors to various articles -- those are things we could really learn from.
Historically wikiprojects getting hold of too much power or thinking they have has tended to cause problems.
And if we could approach the proprietor, and encourage a more compatible licensing scheme, our Chinese language projects could really benefit (and their project could benefit from Wikimedia content).
I suspect they already take it.
Did this thing just appear out of nowhere? Suddenly a collaborative online reference site larger than the English Wikipedia?
Been around for a while. I was expecting it to overtake en this year but not this soon. Would be interesting to know how they beat out Baidu Baike.
geni wrote:
2009/4/21 Nathan:
Exactly what I thought. Better integration and support for wikiprojects (have to say, I sort of prefer "task groups" as a name...), better recognition on the wiki of top contributors to various articles -- those are things we could really learn from.
Historically wikiprojects getting hold of too much power or thinking they have has tended to cause problems.
Not really. It is just as valid to say that centralized policies and "guidelines" hinder the development of wikiprojects, and that there is too much power at the centre. This is a traditional problem in countries that must share powers between federal and state authority. Nathan's point about better integration and support is well taken, even if I don't feel as strongly about the recognition.
The renaming of "wikiprojects" to clarify the distinction between these and "sister projects" has crossed my mind before, though my suggested name would be "study groups".
And if we could approach the proprietor, and encourage a more compatible licensing scheme, our Chinese language projects could really benefit (and their project could benefit from Wikimedia content).
I suspect they already take it.
Of course! Licensing schemes that stress the letter of the licences rather than a series of underlying principles don't make this any easier.
Did this thing just appear out of nowhere? Suddenly a collaborative online reference site larger than the English Wikipedia?
Been around for a while. I was expecting it to overtake en this year but not this soon. Would be interesting to know how they beat out Baidu Baike.
It's not surprising that a gang of unilingual Anglos wouldn't notice a Chinese language development.
Ec
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Been around for a while. I was expecting it to overtake en this year but not this soon. Would be interesting to know how they beat out Baidu Baike.
It's not surprising that a gang of unilingual Anglos wouldn't notice a Chinese language development.
Something that is currently causing me a great deal of amusement: our article at [[Hudong]] was created in April 2008 (when it had 2.4m articles).
There was an earlier article at [[Hoodong]], created in November 2007 (when it had a mere 1.5 million articles) ... and deleted the same day as everyone's favourite, CSD A7. ("...about a web site that does not assert significance") It seems after that, no-one got around to recreating it for six months.
Ooops.
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 21/04/2009, Scientia Potentia est wrote:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very loose, and they have few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality, reliable sourcing, brilliant prose, etc.
That's exactly the kind of thing that the Encyclopedia Britannica said about the Wikipedia!
I wouldn't be too concerned about it either. This is a volunteer project so, unlike with the folks at EB, nobody's livelihood depends on it. Competition is a healthy development, and to everyone's benefit. Free culture principles should be the one unifying criterion for all these sites. In a free culture environment all such projects should be free to borrow from each other. The others would certainly not be bound by NPOV or the other listed features, but the right and ability of readers to compare different sites allows them the opportunity to determine for themselves exactly what is neutral.
Ec
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
I wouldn't be too concerned about it either. This is a volunteer project so, unlike with the folks at EB, nobody's livelihood depends on it.
That's not entirely true. Very few people's livelihoods depends on it, but we do have some paid staff.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge:
I wouldn't be too concerned about it either. This is a volunteer project so, unlike with the folks at EB, nobody's livelihood depends on it.
That's not entirely true. Very few people's livelihoods depends on it, but we do have some paid staff.
I'm glad to see you took the bait. :-)
Does the paid staff exist to support the volunteer project, or is it the other way around? When essentially volunteer organizations feel obliged to protect the jobs of their paid staff by promoting monopolistic practices they become anti-competitive. It's difficult to know when the line is crossed.
Ec
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge:
I wouldn't be too concerned about it either. This is a volunteer project so, unlike with the folks at EB, nobody's livelihood depends on it.
That's not entirely true. Very few people's livelihoods depends on it, but we do have some paid staff.
I'm glad to see you took the bait. :-)
Does the paid staff exist to support the volunteer project, or is it the other way around? When essentially volunteer organizations feel obliged to protect the jobs of their paid staff by promoting monopolistic practices they become anti-competitive. It's difficult to know when the line is crossed.
Of course it is that way around, no one would question that. If the paid staff are no longer required to achieve our goals then they will be made redundant, but that doesn't mean those staff aren't dependent on their jobs for their livelihoods (hopefully they wouldn't have too much difficultly finding new jobs, though).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge:
That's not entirely true. Very few people's livelihoods depends on it, but we do have some paid staff.
I'm glad to see you took the bait. :-)
Does the paid staff exist to support the volunteer project, or is it the other way around? When essentially volunteer organizations feel obliged to protect the jobs of their paid staff by promoting monopolistic practices they become anti-competitive. It's difficult to know when the line is crossed.
Of course it is that way around, no one would question that. If the paid staff are no longer required to achieve our goals then they will be made redundant, but that doesn't mean those staff aren't dependent on their jobs for their livelihoods (hopefully they wouldn't have too much difficultly finding new jobs, though).
I am sure that if Larry Sanger is reading this mailing list, you just made him wince.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2009/4/21 Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac_15@yahoo.com:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very loose, and they have >few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality, reliable sourcing, brilliant prose, >etc. The software is also much more focused on social networking. Furthermore, Hudong >is not free.
Apart from the neutrality our readers and most of our writers tend not to care about that. The integration with a degree of social networking tools is also interesting They have a forum linked off their main page among other things.
So far as I can tell from percentage breakdowns by country in Alexa, the Chinese go to hudong and zh.wikipedia.org equally often- virtually the same number of page hits. However, hudong ranks 112 and wikipedia.org ranks 66 in China, which tells you that a lot of people are reading the other languages more than Chinese.
On 21/04/2009, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/21 Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac_15@yahoo.com:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very loose, and they have >few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality, reliable sourcing, brilliant prose, >etc. The software is also much more focused on social networking. Furthermore, Hudong >is not free.
Apart from the neutrality our readers and most of our writers tend not to care about that. The integration with a degree of social networking tools is also interesting They have a forum linked off their main page among other things.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
So far as I can tell from percentage breakdowns by country in Alexa, the Chinese go to hudong and zh.wikipedia.org equally often- virtually the same number of page hits. However, hudong ranks 112 and wikipedia.org ranks 66 in China, which tells you that a lot of people are reading the other languages more than Chinese.
I seriously doubt that Alexa rankings at all meaningful for Chinese page views. I'm not sure if it is still the case, but I seem to recall that at some point the Alexa toolbar was only available in English, that would explain why wikipedia.org does better - people that don't speak good English are more likely to use the Chinese sites and less likely to use the Alexa toolbar.
2009/4/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
So far as I can tell from percentage breakdowns by country in Alexa, the Chinese go to hudong and zh.wikipedia.org equally often- virtually the same number of page hits. However, hudong ranks 112 and wikipedia.org ranks 66 in China, which tells you that a lot of people are reading the other languages more than Chinese.
I seriously doubt that Alexa rankings at all meaningful for Chinese page views. I'm not sure if it is still the case, but I seem to recall that at some point the Alexa toolbar was only available in English, that would explain why wikipedia.org does better - people that don't speak good English are more likely to use the Chinese sites and less likely to use the Alexa toolbar.
Alexa is a rough guide only - their userbase (I heard it was ~70,000 somewhere, but don't recall where - I see no number in the Wikipedia article) is large enough to provide a statistical sample, but has all sorts of obvious systemic biases in the sampling (IE-only, English-only, etc).
So we're #7 on Alexa, which indicates we're popular, but not a whole lot more!
(We're #4 on comScore because comScore aggregates different sites from the same company, but Alexa does it strictly by domain name, e.g. listing Google and YouTube separately.)
- d.
Presumably the wikipedia can find out what proportion of its traffic actually comes from China, and compare that with the Alexa statistics. If they're close then it gives some evidence that Alexa have enough toolbars out in the wild in China to give reasonable accuracy.
On 21/04/2009, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
So far as I can tell from percentage breakdowns by country in Alexa, the Chinese go to hudong and zh.wikipedia.org equally often- virtually the same number of page hits. However, hudong ranks 112 and wikipedia.org ranks 66 in China, which tells you that a lot of people are reading the other languages more than Chinese.
I seriously doubt that Alexa rankings at all meaningful for Chinese page views. I'm not sure if it is still the case, but I seem to recall that at some point the Alexa toolbar was only available in English, that would explain why wikipedia.org does better - people that don't speak good English are more likely to use the Chinese sites and less likely to use the Alexa toolbar.
Alexa is a rough guide only - their userbase (I heard it was ~70,000 somewhere, but don't recall where - I see no number in the Wikipedia article) is large enough to provide a statistical sample, but has all sorts of obvious systemic biases in the sampling (IE-only, English-only, etc).
So we're #7 on Alexa, which indicates we're popular, but not a whole lot more!
(We're #4 on comScore because comScore aggregates different sites from the same company, but Alexa does it strictly by domain name, e.g. listing Google and YouTube separately.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
Presumably the wikipedia can find out what proportion of its traffic actually comes from China, and compare that with the Alexa statistics. If they're close then it gives some evidence that Alexa have enough toolbars out in the wild in China to give reasonable accuracy.
Yes, that would work. Or, perhaps more easily, we could compare the page views per subdomain with the percentages given by Alexa. Are those numbers available anywhere?
2009/4/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/21 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
Presumably the wikipedia can find out what proportion of its traffic actually comes from China, and compare that with the Alexa statistics. If they're close then it gives some evidence that Alexa have enough toolbars out in the wild in China to give reasonable accuracy.
Yes, that would work. Or, perhaps more easily, we could compare the page views per subdomain with the percentages given by Alexa. Are those numbers available anywhere?
I don't think there's a handy figure available, but you could probably get a quick-and-dirty first-order comparison using the viewing figures for a single high-profile target like the frontpage. Using this metric, hmm:
en.wp [[Main Page]] - 192870187 in March en.wp [[Special:Search]] - 474835986 in March
zh.wp [[Wikipedia:首页]] - 925156 in March zh.wp [[Special:Search]] - 1254441 in March
ratio of pageviews for the main page, ~ 210:1 in favour of enwp; for search, 380:1 in favour of enwp.
So this would suggest that zhwp, at a very rough estimate, gets about 0.5% to 0.25% of the traffic that enwp does.
2009/4/22 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
So this would suggest that zhwp, at a very rough estimate, gets about 0.5% to 0.25% of the traffic that enwp does.
And Alexa says it gets 1.1% of Wikipedia traffic and enwiki gets 54.0%. That means zhwiki gets 0.02% the traffic of enwiki. So the two measures get similar results.
2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
So this would suggest that zhwp, at a very rough estimate, gets about 0.5% to 0.25% of the traffic that enwp does.
And Alexa says it gets 1.1% of Wikipedia traffic and enwiki gets 54.0%. That means zhwiki gets 0.02% the traffic of enwiki. So the two measures get similar results.
2%, surely?
Anyway, I decided to see what this looks like for all wikis. I've done this for the top ten, which accounting to Alexa get 92.1% of our traffic - en, ja, de, es, ru, fr, it, pl, pt, zh, in that order.
It's quite interesting - Chinese is a drastic outlier, but we have broad disagreements for some languages and not others. After a bit of normalising, the Alexa traffic share versus the "main page" traffic share comes out as roughly the same for English, German and Russian.
For Japanese and Spanish, the Alexa traffic share is about a third higher than the main-page traffic would suggest; for Chinese, it's four times higher.
For French, the Alexa traffic share is about 20% under what my metric suggests; Portuguese, 30% under; Polish, 50% under; and Italian, 60% under.
There's two interpretations here:
a) Main page traffic is not a consistent pattern across all Wikipedias; some drive a far higher fraction of their visitors through the front page than others.
b) Alexa has some statistical mis-scaling going on for some languages.
I'll see if I can scare up some better figures - but whichever answer we use, there's certainly something odd about zhwp!
2009/4/22 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
So this would suggest that zhwp, at a very rough estimate, gets about 0.5% to 0.25% of the traffic that enwp does.
And Alexa says it gets 1.1% of Wikipedia traffic and enwiki gets 54.0%. That means zhwiki gets 0.02% the traffic of enwiki. So the two measures get similar results.
2%, surely?
Yes. And neither 2% or 0.02% are particularly similar to 0.25-0.5%, so let's just pretend I never sent that email...
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(We're #4 on comScore because comScore aggregates different sites from the same company, but Alexa does it strictly by domain name, e.g. listing Google and YouTube separately.)
For those interested in our comScore standings, check out this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/comScore