Talk:Mulanje Massif

Untitled
Google shows me 2,900 refs to "mulanje massif" vs 900 for "mount mulanje". That strongly suggests moving, unless the 2,900 refs are ignorant or mistaken in some way. Stan 15:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a fair plan, I've moved it as suggested. User:Worldtraveller - 7.44pm BST 21/8/04

...just a point to consider - when I searched the relevant terms on google earlier today they both came out on about 3,000 pages each, and now this evening, Mount Mulanje seems to be winning 2700-700. Seems that google numbers may not be a good way to resolve issues like this. Whatever the case though, massif is definitely better than mount, for purely geographical reasons.


 * Be sure to enclose the search strings in double quotes, otherwise you get random spurious stuff where the two words just happen to be on the same page, but maybe referring to different things - 'mount mulanje' gets 2,900, while '"mount mulanje"' is just 898. 'mulanje massif' gets only a couple hundred more than '"mulanje massif"', probably because 'massif' is more of a specific term - 'mount' by itself might be referring to horses, disk drives, etc. :-) There's a bit of art to getting and interpreting Google results, I always want to get some kind of independent corroboration. One of the good news/bad news developments is that WP content itself is being mirrored to more and more places, and is beginning to noticeably skew Google results. Lays an extra responsibility on us to be as accurately researched as possible... Stan 23:05, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)