Wikipedia talk:Search engine test: Difference between revisions
agree with BL |
comment on 1000 hits per fact |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Alexa is a useful utility for determining the popularity of a website, but I don't think that popularity is a criterion that we should use in deciding whether or not to have an article on something. Articles are built up from verifiable information. Therefore, the decision on whether or not to have an article on a subject should be based on the amount of verifiable information there is about that subject. If a website is popular but nobody writes about it, we probably shouldn't have an article on it, because there are no independent sources to draw on for information. Conversely, if a site is unpopular but a lot is written about it, of course we should have an article on it. I expect there must be a high correlation between the popularity of a website and the amount of verifiable information on it, but that's just a statistical generality. An Alexa ranking does not in itself tell us a thing about the amount of writing about a website in individual cases. So I don't think we should use it. The Google test will give a much better indication of the amount of verifiable information, because it is itself a search for information. So I don't think we should use the Alexa test as a substitute. (Or, in summary: I agree with BL.) -- [[User:Oliver Pereira|Oliver P.]] 03:58, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC) |
Alexa is a useful utility for determining the popularity of a website, but I don't think that popularity is a criterion that we should use in deciding whether or not to have an article on something. Articles are built up from verifiable information. Therefore, the decision on whether or not to have an article on a subject should be based on the amount of verifiable information there is about that subject. If a website is popular but nobody writes about it, we probably shouldn't have an article on it, because there are no independent sources to draw on for information. Conversely, if a site is unpopular but a lot is written about it, of course we should have an article on it. I expect there must be a high correlation between the popularity of a website and the amount of verifiable information on it, but that's just a statistical generality. An Alexa ranking does not in itself tell us a thing about the amount of writing about a website in individual cases. So I don't think we should use it. The Google test will give a much better indication of the amount of verifiable information, because it is itself a search for information. So I don't think we should use the Alexa test as a substitute. (Or, in summary: I agree with BL.) -- [[User:Oliver Pereira|Oliver P.]] 03:58, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
BuddhaInside keeps adding "a quick check that an individual fact, within an accepted subject, passes the criteria of requiring 1000 google hits to avoid deletion." |
|||
:This is not true and should not be added to the page or people will start deleting every fact that does get 1000 hits. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 05:44, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:44, 23 September 2003
68.154.104.124 wrote:
First off I would like to know the purpose of this web page. It seems a little foolish that anyone can type anything that they want to see here! You know what that can lead to...don't you???
Indeed we do. But useful contributions outweigh vandalism by 50:1, so it's worth it. -- Karada 22:54, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- discussion of this, like any other page should be open. Waveguy
Alexa
I added Alexa - thinking in terms of a general "external utilities" page. Martin 11:33, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- After retrieving the results from Alexa, how does one analyse how that subject has performed on Alexa? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:42, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I like the Alexa part, but not in the "fails the Alexa test" way. The Google test is enoug imo. BL 18:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Alexa is a useful utility for determining the popularity of a website, but I don't think that popularity is a criterion that we should use in deciding whether or not to have an article on something. Articles are built up from verifiable information. Therefore, the decision on whether or not to have an article on a subject should be based on the amount of verifiable information there is about that subject. If a website is popular but nobody writes about it, we probably shouldn't have an article on it, because there are no independent sources to draw on for information. Conversely, if a site is unpopular but a lot is written about it, of course we should have an article on it. I expect there must be a high correlation between the popularity of a website and the amount of verifiable information on it, but that's just a statistical generality. An Alexa ranking does not in itself tell us a thing about the amount of writing about a website in individual cases. So I don't think we should use it. The Google test will give a much better indication of the amount of verifiable information, because it is itself a search for information. So I don't think we should use the Alexa test as a substitute. (Or, in summary: I agree with BL.) -- Oliver P. 03:58, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
BuddhaInside keeps adding "a quick check that an individual fact, within an accepted subject, passes the criteria of requiring 1000 google hits to avoid deletion."
- This is not true and should not be added to the page or people will start deleting every fact that does get 1000 hits. Angela 05:44, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)