[Foundation-l] Business Week: Alexa numbers are rubbish, and the others are worse

[Walter van Kalken]

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Walter van Kalken wrote:
>  
>
>>Tim Starling wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>David Gerard wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_43/b4006095.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>It's probably no big surprise for those who are aware of Alexa's data 
>>>collection method. Just be glad we only use these statistics for curiosity 
>>>and bragging. For web companies who need to convince investors or 
>>>advertisers of their value, I can easily imagine the situation becoming 
>>>hellish.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>We do not use them only for that. On the nl.wikipedia there is a huge 
>>group of people who consider Alexa to be the holy grail and use it to 
>>dictating what an article can be written about or not. I wished you were 
>>right Tim.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>There's a rumour going around that on nl.wikipedia that there's a group
>of people who think that the rest of us "have no clue whatsoever when it
>comes to the meaning and regulations on copyright". Please tell me it's
>not true.
>  
>
As someone who knows close to nothing about copyright I usually stay 
away from those discussions. I wouldn't be surprised though. I was 
recently involved in a debate about Alexa toolbar though. And then I 
read this article which writes exactly what I thought. And then I saw 
Tim's hope that nobody takes Alexa seriously. Unfortunately big groups 
of people do and they do not see the flaws.

Waerth

Waerth