Re: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15

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

Re: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15

Alex Druk
Mark J. Nelson writes:
>Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia
>articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics,
>contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for
>enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). So
>if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that
>specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many
>people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts,
>etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of
>Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute
>anything to moving the needle if that's the metric.

One should also consider the fact that significant number of users use Wikipedia as entertainment. As an example of such use is random searches. On all Wikipedia sites number of random searches in 2014 exceeded 1 billion.  Here is a simple graph illustrated this:
Inline image 1

~~Alex


On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: unique visitors (Mark J. Nelson)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:57:45 +0100
From: Mark J. Nelson <[hidden email]>
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] unique visitors
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain

phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> writes:

> I wonder if there's a qualitative project somewhere in here about
> *types* of use -- e.g. if I'm using WP on my phone & my work pc is
> that really equivalent use? Perhaps I am using them for different
> kinds of information seeking, e.g. looking up terms related to work vs
> looking up info on movie stars -- does this different kind of use
> matter for how we construct and present information, or count "use"?

Beyond the issue of devices, I think this is important in part because
the raw traffic counts (and reach numbers and similar) paint a very
specific story of what Wikimedia is doing and is successful at. (And
what you measure influences what you tend to optimize for.)

Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia
articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics,
contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for
enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). So
if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that
specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many
people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts,
etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of
Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute
anything to moving the needle if that's the metric.

-Mark



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


------------------------------

End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15
************************************************



--
Thank you.

Alex Druk
[hidden email]
(775) 237-8550 Google voice

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15

Andrew Gray-3
Hi Alex,

Stupid question - is that "3.36% of all random-article searches were on Latvian WP", or "3.36% of all searches (pageviews?) on the Latvian WP were through random-article"?

Andrew.

On 19 March 2016 at 21:34, Alex Druk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mark J. Nelson writes:
>Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia
>articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics,
>contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for
>enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). So
>if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that
>specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many
>people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts,
>etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of
>Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute
>anything to moving the needle if that's the metric.

One should also consider the fact that significant number of users use Wikipedia as entertainment. As an example of such use is random searches. On all Wikipedia sites number of random searches in 2014 exceeded 1 billion.  Here is a simple graph illustrated this:
Inline image 1

~~Alex


On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: unique visitors (Mark J. Nelson)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:57:45 +0100
From: Mark J. Nelson <[hidden email]>
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] unique visitors
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain

phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> writes:

> I wonder if there's a qualitative project somewhere in here about
> *types* of use -- e.g. if I'm using WP on my phone & my work pc is
> that really equivalent use? Perhaps I am using them for different
> kinds of information seeking, e.g. looking up terms related to work vs
> looking up info on movie stars -- does this different kind of use
> matter for how we construct and present information, or count "use"?

Beyond the issue of devices, I think this is important in part because
the raw traffic counts (and reach numbers and similar) paint a very
specific story of what Wikimedia is doing and is successful at. (And
what you measure influences what you tend to optimize for.)

Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia
articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics,
contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for
enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). So
if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that
specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many
people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts,
etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of
Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute
anything to moving the needle if that's the metric.

-Mark



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


------------------------------

End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15
************************************************



--
Thank you.

Alex Druk
[hidden email]
<a href="tel:%28775%29%20237-8550" value="+17752378550" target="_blank">(775) 237-8550 Google voice

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15

Felix J. Scholz

Most likely, it is the absolute number of random searches in billions

On Mar 19, 2016 6:01 PM, "Andrew Gray" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Alex,

Stupid question - is that "3.36% of all random-article searches were on Latvian WP", or "3.36% of all searches (pageviews?) on the Latvian WP were through random-article"?

Andrew.

On 19 March 2016 at 21:34, Alex Druk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mark J. Nelson writes:
>Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia
>articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics,
>contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for
>enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). So
>if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that
>specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many
>people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts,
>etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of
>Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute
>anything to moving the needle if that's the metric.

One should also consider the fact that significant number of users use Wikipedia as entertainment. As an example of such use is random searches. On all Wikipedia sites number of random searches in 2014 exceeded 1 billion.  Here is a simple graph illustrated this:
Inline image 1

~~Alex


On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: unique visitors (Mark J. Nelson)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:57:45 +0100
From: Mark J. Nelson <[hidden email]>
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] unique visitors
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain

phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> writes:

> I wonder if there's a qualitative project somewhere in here about
> *types* of use -- e.g. if I'm using WP on my phone & my work pc is
> that really equivalent use? Perhaps I am using them for different
> kinds of information seeking, e.g. looking up terms related to work vs
> looking up info on movie stars -- does this different kind of use
> matter for how we construct and present information, or count "use"?

Beyond the issue of devices, I think this is important in part because
the raw traffic counts (and reach numbers and similar) paint a very
specific story of what Wikimedia is doing and is successful at. (And
what you measure influences what you tend to optimize for.)

Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia
articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics,
contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for
enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). So
if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that
specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many
people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts,
etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of
Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute
anything to moving the needle if that's the metric.

-Mark



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


------------------------------

End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15
************************************************



--
Thank you.

Alex Druk
[hidden email]
<a href="tel:%28775%29%20237-8550" value="+17752378550" target="_blank">(775) 237-8550 Google voice

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l