User talk:OsamaK/April 2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:OsamaK. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Alexa Bot
Hi Osama! Long time, no chat!
I'm curious as to what you might think about generally replacing alexa statistics throughout English Wikipedia with quantcast numbers. In the industry, Quantcast numbers are considered to be much more accurate, and Alexa numbers to be highly questionable. At the very least, I wonder what the possibility might be of updating these numbers in infoboxes to include both, rather than Alexa alone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Jimmy! I think it will be easy to adapt the code to any ranking services but it seems that Quantcast only provides US-based rankings. If this is actually true, I wonder if we should adopt it and be US-centric. What do you think?--OsamaK (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a good point. I don't know. Maybe if we report both with a notation? Like, give the Alexa one first, and then the Quantcast one (with "US only" in parentheses). We should probably seek advice from others!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jimbo - what's a good source for industry analysis of Alexa vs Quantcast vs others? I'm a little surprised that Alexa is questionable, since it's affiliated with Internet Archive and the Wayback Machine (or was, anyways). --Lexein (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it was ever affiliated with Internet Archive and the Wayback Machine. It is an Amazon company and has been for many years. I should clarify that I don't think it is that Alexa is in any way morally questionable. It's just that their methodology and accuracy has been questioned by many. Here is a typical example. Quantcast, on the other hand, directly measures traffic for lots of sites who are signed up to be "Quantified". See This list to see many examples of quantified sites. For those sites, the data is as accurate as you are going to find anywhere, because they directly measure the traffic with an invisible 1x1 pixel. They extrapolate in various ways (I don't know exactly) to get traffic figures for sites that are not Quantified. Quantcast simply has a lot more data to work with and will therefore be a lot more accurate overall.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah - hm, dunno where I got the idea about an Alexa/IA connection. Fair enough. -Lexein (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I added the suggestion here.--OsamaK (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah - hm, dunno where I got the idea about an Alexa/IA connection. Fair enough. -Lexein (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it was ever affiliated with Internet Archive and the Wayback Machine. It is an Amazon company and has been for many years. I should clarify that I don't think it is that Alexa is in any way morally questionable. It's just that their methodology and accuracy has been questioned by many. Here is a typical example. Quantcast, on the other hand, directly measures traffic for lots of sites who are signed up to be "Quantified". See This list to see many examples of quantified sites. For those sites, the data is as accurate as you are going to find anywhere, because they directly measure the traffic with an invisible 1x1 pixel. They extrapolate in various ways (I don't know exactly) to get traffic figures for sites that are not Quantified. Quantcast simply has a lot more data to work with and will therefore be a lot more accurate overall.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jimbo - what's a good source for industry analysis of Alexa vs Quantcast vs others? I'm a little surprised that Alexa is questionable, since it's affiliated with Internet Archive and the Wayback Machine (or was, anyways). --Lexein (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a good point. I don't know. Maybe if we report both with a notation? Like, give the Alexa one first, and then the Quantcast one (with "US only" in parentheses). We should probably seek advice from others!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Zainab 'al-Khawaja page move
Hi OsamaK, I've never been good with Arabic diacritics, so I thought I'd double-check--is the apostrophe you inserted before Zainab 'al-Khawaja's surname intentional? You said that you wanted to make it consistent with her father's name, but we don't appear to list him as 'al-Khawaja. Thanks for looking at this, Khazar2 (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oops! You are right. The new title I asked for was the current misspelled one! I just corrected it. Thank you.---OsamaK (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Done Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
