Jimbo wrote:
Bandwidth costs are minor, as far as I'm concerned. I've never even bothered to break it out from my overall bandwidth bill. People think Wikipedia is popular, and it is in a sense, but on a bandwidth basis, it's a small part of what we do overall.
You may be interested in this graph;
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=lar...
-- mav (runs and hides)
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Daniel Mayer wrote:
You may be interested in this graph;
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=lar...
"Service is unavailable."
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Daniel-
Jimbo wrote:
Bandwidth costs are minor, as far as I'm concerned. I've never even bothered to break it out from my overall bandwidth bill. People think Wikipedia is popular, and it is in a sense, but on a bandwidth basis, it's a small part of what we do overall.
You may be interested in this graph;
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=lar... re_sites=bomis.com&url=wikipedia.org#graph
Bomis does other stuff which you are not aware of, Mav :-)
Regards,
Erik
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:22:51PM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Bandwidth costs are minor, as far as I'm concerned. I've never even bothered to break it out from my overall bandwidth bill. People think Wikipedia is popular, and it is in a sense, but on a bandwidth basis, it's a small part of what we do overall.
You may be interested in this graph;
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=lar...
These graphs look highly suspicious to me. According to alexa, wikipedia is having more traffic than
* heise.de (very popular German IT news ticker) * rtl.de (Germanys most popular commercial TV station) * fokus.de, stern.de (two popular weekly news magazines) * bild.de (most popular Yellow Press daily newspaper) * microsoft.de * Britannica.com * sex.com is only a few places before us
This all seems very unlikely to me. I think Mav and perhaps some other "power user" are using the alexa toolbar and their many hits adulterate the statistics.
Regards,
JeLuF
Look at this graph:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=med... are_sites=&url=wikipedia.org#top
(for 1 year) during which we came from nothing (internet speaking), broke into the top 10,100 and have rapidly risen to the 1,493th most used site. Projecting the rate of change we will soon be in the top 1000.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
Look at this graph: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=med... are_sites=&url=wikipedia.org#top
(for 1 year) during which we came from nothing (internet speaking), broke into the top 10,100 and have rapidly risen to the 1,493th most used site. Projecting the rate of change we will soon be in the top 1000.
Wikipedia did not come from nothing, but there is something wrong with their data before 2003. Other sites have data before 2003, including susning.nu.
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Look at this graph: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=med... are_sites=&url=wikipedia.org#top
(for 1 year) during which we came from nothing (internet speaking), broke into the top 10,100 and have rapidly risen to the 1,493th most used site. Projecting the rate of change we will soon be in the top 1000.
Wikipedia did not come from nothing, but there is something wrong with their data before 2003. Other sites have data before 2003, including susning.nu.
My guess is that before December 2002, wikipedia's data were given as being from wikipedia.com, and those data are now unreachable because wikipedia.com is considered a part of wikipedia.org.
Andre Engels
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Look at this graph: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=med... are_sites=&url=wikipedia.org#top
(for 1 year) during which we came from nothing (internet speaking), broke into the top 10,100 and have rapidly risen to the 1,493th most used site. Projecting the rate of change we will soon be in the top 1000.
Wikipedia did not come from nothing, but there is something wrong with their data before 2003. Other sites have data before 2003, including susning.nu.
Could this be because of the change from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org?
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Look at this graph:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=med... are_sites=&url=wikipedia.org#top
(for 1 year) during which we came from nothing (internet speaking), broke into the top 10,100 and have rapidly risen to the 1,493th most used site. Projecting the rate of change we will soon be in the top 1000.
Today's spike has at at #1,057!
Ec
on 8/6/03 2:00 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
(for 1 year) during which we came from nothing (internet speaking), broke into the top 10,100 and have rapidly risen to the 1,493th most used site. Projecting the rate of change we will soon be in the top 1000.
Today's spike has at at #1,057!
Ec
Yes today we passed ibiblio.org.
Fred
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Jens Frank wrote:
This all seems very unlikely to me. I think Mav and perhaps some other "power user" are using the alexa toolbar and their many hits adulterate the statistics.
No, check on the bottom of the page. 'Power users' can influence the number of page views, but they hardly if at all influence the reach. Still, Wikipedia's position in the reach listing is actually even better than its position in the page view listing.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
No, check on the bottom of the page. 'Power users' can influence the number of page views, but they hardly if at all influence the reach. Still, Wikipedia's position in the reach listing is actually even better than its position in the page view listing.
How can we view the reach listing?
--Jimbo
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
No, check on the bottom of the page. 'Power users' can influence the number of page views, but they hardly if at all influence the reach. Still, Wikipedia's position in the reach listing is actually even better than its position in the page view listing.
How can we view the reach listing?
Just go down the page. First you see the graphic, then some books (sponsored by amazon), then a list of subsites (wikipedia.org 76%, ja.wikipedia.org 4%, de.wikipedia.org 3%, etcetera), and then two lists "Reach for wikipedia.org" and "Page Views for wikipedia.org".
Currently the reach data for wikipedia.org are thus: Today: 0.0845%, rank 1152 weekly average: 0.0575%, rank 1779 3 months average: 0.0412%, rank 2341
Page views: Today: rank 1169 weekly average: rank 1907 3 months average: rank 2960
Andre Engels
Jens Frank wrote:
You may be interested in this graph;
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=lar...
These graphs look highly suspicious to me. According to alexa, wikipedia is having more traffic than
- heise.de (very popular German IT news ticker)
- rtl.de (Germanys most popular commercial TV station)
- fokus.de, stern.de (two popular weekly news magazines)
- bild.de (most popular Yellow Press daily newspaper)
- microsoft.de
- Britannica.com
- sex.com is only a few places before us
This all seems very unlikely to me. I think Mav and perhaps some other "power user" are using the alexa toolbar and their many hits adulterate the statistics.
I'm surprised by sex.com but not the others. See my comments on meta at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_more_popular_than... where I've questioned the popularity level of Encarta as well.
Ec
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org