Talk:Click path

Peer Review Click Path
The reason this article flows so well is because of its organization. It can be read very easily and follows an organized path with each section leading into the next one very well. Each section is written very well and full of information, while also being very concise and to the point. I think that the strongest part of this article is the beginning sections. This article does a great job of giving a great deal of background information on a term many people are unfamiliar with. From reading this one time, I was able to pick up important information because of the article takes something that is complex and simplify it greatly. One of the problems with this article, is that towards the end of the end of the article it starts to get a little bit hard to understand with so many technical terms that the many people may not understand. Daghion (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on Click Path
The Information stage section was a very clear introduction to how we access the links, but I think it may stray too far away from the main focus of Click Path. Also I think the privacy section was excellent because it addressed the many fears users have while also promoting how click path helps the consumer. Presenting both sides of the argument is Wikipedia’s goal and I think you exemplify that goal. I think the application section was a must add because some people may have a skewed understanding of what click path is and how companies are using the data. In your opinions section I would have liked to see the opinions of the consumers also, I know opinions on the profitability and effectiveness are important but privacy could also be melded into this section. Great piece I think you organized it very well by putting what click path is and how it is used then listing challenges and opinions. Although I thought it was an excellent article, further development may include data of use and profit by companies and research on the opinions of the mass public. Quirkejamie (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

HSLightPlayer's Review on Article
One of the strengths of your article is how everything is clearly organized. The headers of each section are clear and concise. The introduction of the article also fits Wikipedia's "best practices," as it's short and quickly defines the content of the article as a whole. One detail I noticed, however, is that many of your sections tend to have only one source. This isn't that your sources or information are "bad," but you may want to consider adding more information to each section or combining a section or two together. For instance, you may be able to easily combine "Privacy" and "Implications" into one larger section. While this is a minor critique, you'll also want to choose your quotes carefully. You may want to consider re-wording the information of some quotes for clarity and readability. All in all, you've made some great improvements to this article. HSLightPlayer (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)HSLightPlayer

Peer Reviews of Click Path
After reading your article, I noticed how organized your page was. You start with a brief summary of what Click Path is and then present your table of content in a clear, concise way that makes it easy for the user to understand your article. The short introduction is perfect for this article because it allows the user to quickly read through without getting bored or sidetracked. The two sections that stood out to me were Privacy and Opinions. The privacy section is much needed because it discusses how users fear Click Path, while also showing how ClickPath can help the public. In addition, the Opinions section was a good addition to the article because it gave the reader insight from researchers, who ultimately deducted that Click Path analysis is, as you say, "a waste of time, money, and resources". I think a couple of changes could have been made. Most importantly, it seems that only one source was used for every section. While this isn't the end of the world, I would suggest adding one more source to at least a couple of sections, that way you can have more information to discuss in your article. In addition, I think the Challenges section could have a little more meat to it. I think that is one of the most important sections you added, adding more could strongly close your article. Overall, I really like the changes you made to this article. justinbs (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)justinbs

I like how the article is broken up into smaller sections - this makes it easier to read in snippets. I also like how the article has many hyperlinks - making it very Wiki-like. Unfortunately, the paragraphs do not flow as well as they could - the introduction paragraph uses terms like "call data", which is not defined, while the second paragraph defines the term "server" with the phrase "master computer". There is a little redundancy with phrases like "separate[,] 3rd party website" and a few confusing statements like "a client computer ... selects a link" (does the computer select the link?). There is great citing throughout, especially for charged statements like "As the world of online shopping grows, it is becoming easier for the privacy of individuals to become exploited." A few weasel words appear ("There are consumers who *actually* benefit from this..."). After reading the article, I understand how each heading is appropriate, but, perhaps, some sentences that could be added that introduce the headings - I mean, "Information Storage" is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of "Click path", though it is certainly important. How this page is different from clickstream/whether the two pages should be combined, may also be something to consider. Overall, I think this article is very readable and has many Wikipedia elements - it is on a great start to a top page. Ben0mega (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is extremely successful in providing an overview of the subject and problems of "Click path", especially to readers who may not have much knowledge in Web technologies. It breaks down important subjects well and makes it easy to understand each section as a stand-alone paragraph. Unfortunately however, its easy to understand qualities seem to be traded for depth. It seems there is not much information to deepen somebodies understanding of what a Click path is unless they are very new to the World Wide Web. One point of depth I did learn from, was the comments about non-linear browsing behavior and how analyzing click paths often does not account for this. This page definitely encourages further research through the links they have provided to search deeper into the challenges of click path. Mneubie (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge from clickstream
I propose that the article clickstream be merged here. The articles mostly overlap, although this is somewhat more accurate (a clickstream is not a "recording of the parts of the screen a computer user clicks on while web browsing or using another software application", at least, not as it applies to web browsing; used outside of web browsers it does have a more-general use as things such as keylogging and for screen scrapers but that can be relegated to the section on Spyware, a "See Also" for remote desktop, etc). Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)