[Foundation-l] Interesting non-profit ranking

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 10/3/07, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not really: If they are counting inline images you should expect
> > wikimedia.org to get almost the same score as Wikipedia.  If they are
> > not counting inline images then wikimedia's traffic level shouldn't be
> > enough to get it on a top-sites list.
>
> At the list wikipedia.org is rated 40, wikimedia.org is 3.xx and the
> third site is something like 3.xx - 0.03.
>
> So, it is reasonable to suppose that wikimedia.org is really at the
> second place (and without upload).

No it's not. See the list I posted. Without upload the sum of all
other wikimedia.org traffic (including commons) is less than 1/50th of
en.wikipedia.org alone and about 1/100th of the traffic from all of
the *.wikipedia.org sites.

They are measuring 'monthly distinct visitors' rather than hits. So
perhaps it's somehow possible that their numbers are right but given
the traffic levels it is unlikely.

It should be easy enough for us to actually measure that number. As
soon as I have the page counter stuff up I'll set up something to
measure distinct viewers since thats the standard sizing metric used
in the commercial web world.