Business Week: Alexa numbers are rubbish, and the others are worse

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Business Week: Alexa numbers are rubbish, and the others are worse

David Gerard-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Business Week: Alexa numbers are rubbish, and the others are worse

Tim Starling-2
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.

-- Tim Starling

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Business Week: Alexa numbers are rubbish, and the others are worse

Walter van Kalken
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.

Waerth
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Business Week: Alexa numbers are rubbish, and the others are worse

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
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.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l