Talk:Web traffic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the class scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
Peer review Web traffic has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] list?

www.minirank.com has it.

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

[edit] 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)