I took our inhumanly long server log for www.wikipedia.org, which extends back to the end of August, and ran it through Webalizer. The results you can see at http://www.wikipedia.org/stats/
(I haven't bothered to tweak the settings yet, so it's kind of rough. Among other things, hostnames are not resolved, referers and user agents aren't noted -- our referers are currently in a separate log that webalizer doesn't read and we're not recording user agents. Perhaps the log format will be changed to be friendlier to this kind of analysis in the future. And, this is just on the English wikipedia's log.)
Still, lots of big numbers that should make one extra grateful Jimbo is donating the server and bandwidth. Thanks, Jimbo!
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:00:36AM -0800, Brion VIBBER wrote:
I took our inhumanly long server log for www.wikipedia.org, which extends back to the end of August, and ran it through Webalizer. The results you can see at http://www.wikipedia.org/stats/
13 9118 0.09% 436328 0.34% /wiki/Famous_French_People
Seems a bizarre article to be the most popular "real" article :-)
Jason Williams wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:00:36AM -0800, Brion VIBBER wrote:
13 9118 0.09% 436328 0.34% /wiki/Famous_French_People
Seems a bizarre article to be the most popular "real" article :-)
Type in "famous french people" to Google and check the results. :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
13 9118 0.09% 436328 0.34% /wiki/Famous_French_People
Seems a bizarre article to be the most popular "real" article :-)
Prince_Albert_piercing also gets a good rating
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org