Wikipedia article stats

[Ca$hBag]

http://stats.grok.se/

The above links will give you traffic stats to any article you search. If this has already been shared then ignore this post.

I'm off again.

Bye

[eagle]

If this has already been shared

Any red-blooded contributor to Did You Know... is invited to monitor how much the DYK causes the page views of the subject page to rise. So, the nominator/DYK author gets an automated notice template of the existence of this tool when the DYK item runs on the main page. Perhaps this is a tacit admission that DYK is more about SEO and the passing of Google Juice to obscure subjects than it is a service to general Main Page readers. E.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... art.C3.ADn

[thekohser]

http://stats.grok.se/

The above links will give you traffic stats to any article you search. If this has already been shared then ignore this post.

I'm off again.

Bye

On a similar note, I'd like to mention that the "View history" tab will enable you to see, in chronological order, which editors have modified the article in question.

So long for now!

[eagle]

http://stats.grok.se/

The above links will give you traffic stats to any article you search. If this has already been shared then ignore this post.

I'm off again.

Bye

On a similar note, I'd like to mention that the "View history" tab will enable you to see, in chronological order, which editors have modified the article in question.

So long for now!

There are major differences between the two. The history tab was an integral part of the website/Mediawiki design, and serves a legitimate role in building an encyclopedia. The page view count tool is outside the website design, and is rarely relevant to building a good encyclopedia. It is used by editors seeking bragging rights or perhaps by SEO guys wishing to quantify their paid achievement to their clients.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

http://stats.grok.se/

The above links will give you traffic stats to any article you search. If this has already been shared then ignore this post.

I'm off again.

Bye

On a similar note, I'd like to mention that the "View history" tab will enable you to see, in chronological order, which editors have modified the article in question.

So long for now!

There are major differences between the two. The history tab was an integral part of the website/Mediawiki design, and serves a legitimate role in building an encyclopedia. The page view count tool is outside the website design, and is rarely relevant to building a good encyclopedia. It is used by editors seeking bragging rights or perhaps by SEO guys wishing to quantify their paid achievement to their clients.

Knowledge of page-view statistics has informed my choice of DYK hooks and attempts to have an image in the hook, because I have wanted to attract readers. The DYK hook occurs after the article is created. To simplify the task of a DYK reviewer, I sometimes moved the DYK hook to the lede; otherwise, the DYK has had no direct relation to my articles.

[Johnny Au]

Whenever a comedian, most often Clownbert, mentions something, its Wikipedia article view skyrockets.

[Zoloft]

Whenever a comedian, most often Clownbert, mentions something, its Wikipedia article view skyrockets.

Are you referring to Stephen Colbert?

[Johnny Au]

Whenever a comedian, most often Clownbert, mentions something, its Wikipedia article view skyrockets.

Are you referring to Stephen Colbert?

What do you expect?

[86Mookie]

Whenever a comedian, most often Clownbert, mentions something, its Wikipedia article view skyrockets.

Are you referring to Stephen Colbert?

What do you expect?

I couldn't tell if you meant Colbert or some Dilbert character I wasn't familiar with.

[Johnny Au]

I meant Steve Clownbert of course, the one with all that truthlessness.

Yes, I do have so much fun with those satirical misspellings.

[Zoloft]

I meant Steve Clownbert of course, the one with all that truthlessness.

Yes, I do have so much fun with those satirical misspellings.

They are not funny, no matter which side of the aisle they target, and especially when they are obscure.

[Ca$hBag]

On a similar note, I'd like to mention that the "View history" tab will enable you to see, in chronological order, which editors have modified the article in question.

So long for now!

I'm still going through some emotional and other health problems that need mending. But miracles always take their positive tolls, even if they are simply blind chance. It happens like that to everyone.

I'll drop by whenever there's a need to share something important.

Best of wishes!

[thekohser]

We seem to have a Mystery of September 3rd brewing, regarding Wikipedia traffic. For just about every article (that I've checked) on the English Wikipedia, there was a spike in traffic on September 3, 2014. Why? The Wikimedia Foundation would likely not explain, nor would even know how to explain.

http://stats.grok.se/en/201409/Harvard_Law_School

http://stats.grok.se/en/201409/A_Few_Good_Men

http://stats.grok.se/en/201409/EE_(tele ... s_company)

[Kelly Martin]

I don't trust the grok.se stats site that much; there have been too many anomalies in the data it reports over the years for me to be confident in their data collection mechanism.

[Ming]

We seem to have a Mystery of September 3rd brewing, regarding Wikipedia traffic.

There's some sort of fluke in the data where August 28th is being added into Sept. 3. It shows up on every article Ming has checked so far.

[Notvelty]

We seem to have a Mystery of September 3rd brewing, regarding Wikipedia traffic.

There's some sort of fluke standard Wikipedian programming competence in the data where August 28th is being added into Sept. 3. It shows up on every article Ming has checked so far.

FTFY

[Kelly Martin]

There's some sort of fluke in the data where August 28th is being added into Sept. 3. It shows up on every article Ming has checked so far.

I love it when software malfunctions in this manner. Because when I see something like this, I have to think "what the fuck stupid thing did they do when writing this that a misoperation of this nature is even possible?" I can come up with approaches that might lead to such results, but they rely on software designs that border on Rube-Goldbergian in complexity, and I can't imagine why anyone would actually write code like that, except perhaps as a prank.

[Scott5114]

I am not sure of the specifics, but there was some sort of outage affecting whatever server handles the page view statistics. I would imagine that you're seeing a by-product of that outage.

[Poetlister]

I am not sure of the specifics, but there was some sort of outage affecting whatever server handles the page view statistics. I would imagine that you're seeing a by-product of that outage.

They just didn't make the software robust against that sort of thing. It could happen to anyone, couldn't it?

[Zoloft]

I am not sure of the specifics, but there was some sort of outage affecting whatever server handles the page view statistics. I would imagine that you're seeing a by-product of that outage.

They just didn't make the software robust against that sort of thing. It could happen to anyone, couldn't it?

"If your input falls outside expected parameters, the result should be an error message, not an output report!"
My FORTRAN instructor, flinging a stack of 132-column fanfold paper at me.
(Spring 1974)