Talk:Web traffic

old comments

Any good reason why this shouldn't be merged with World Wide Web? - Centrx 20:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• ABSOLUTELY NOT. This should not be merged with anything. If developed correctly, Web Traffic could be a HUGE article by itself. If you add whatever is in the World Wide Web article, you have an even bigger article. Web traffic is a big enough category of what the WWW is.--AAAAA 23:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you add whatever is in the World Wide Web article

What does this mean? If you mean to duplicate certain information in World Wide Web, putting it here also, that is indicative of good reason to merge the two articles, because it would mean that this article would be substantially dependent on information that is already in, and belongs in, World Wide Web. If you mean that World Wide Web contains information that belongs not in that article, but in this article instead, what information do you mean and why would it not be necessary for a complete article on the World Wide Web? Also, please note that the Wikipedia is a place where discussion takes place to decide what is best for the encyclopedia; it is not a place where you have the rightful power to make capital edicts.- Centrx 19:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • • If there is duplicate information, I would suggest to condense it in the World Wide Web article and expanding it here. I believe that Web Traffic is ample enough to deserve an article, if expanded appropriately. I believe that Web Traffic is an issue that will deserve special courses in universities. I think that a good analogy is that Web Traffic is to the World Wide Web as Transportation is to the World. The world includes transportation, but transportation itself is a big enough issue to deserve a separate article.
      • The fact that I wrote "absolutely not" in capital letters doesn't mean that I have any "rightful power". I just meanst that I have a strong opinion on the subject.--AAAAA 03:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do any of these actually have an effect?

A number of sites are credited with having an impact comparable to the "Slashdot effect" phenomenon. With probably half of them, I seriously question whether this actually happens (in terms of literal traffic, not in terms of overwhelming the moderation capabilities of a site, as Something Awful might do). If Kuro5hin hardly ever has such an effect, as is apparently conceded, does this ever really happen with the likes of Memepool, Metafilter, Something Awful, Penny Arcade, and Sensible Erection? --Michael Snow 22:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You can definitely see this effect after the Wood article was referenced in an xkcd comic. This is just one example. - - M0rphzone 23:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

list?

Is there a list anywhere of something like "top web site rankings for 2004" - I added a list of the last ranking from Alexa [1] , but something more permanent would be better than just what it happened to be today. Astrokey44 03:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

list?

www.ganaane.nethas it.

I've read that Wikipedia is consistently in the top 25.--80.6.163.58 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pop-up ads.jpg

Image:Pop-up ads.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia's own Web Traffic Statistics?

I think there should be some discussion in the article about Wikipedia's OWN web traffic data since it is also a website. I've been Googling, trying to see if any kind of traffic statistics about Wikipedia are published (for example, how many hits are received from different countries or regions, and at what times of day?) but the only thing that comes up is this article. If no Wikipedia traffic stats are public available then that should be mentioned.

It would be ideal to have such information about each individual Wikipedia article or category, but I doubt that the owners of Wikipedia have been so generous with their traffic statistics.

What about traffic by hour?

Does anybody know a site that shows web traffic by hour? I just wanted to know when are websites the busiest, in the evening? At night? In the afternoon? I wanted to know so that I can get on a site when it has the least traffic so that it won't slow down my computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.126.102 (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

the page comtian citation needed i want to edit this page and remove error Mohsiali (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:EDITREQUEST and follow those instructions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)