Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-23/Traffic report


 * Slight error, Game of Thrones appears in positions 1 and 4 of the traffic report. Novusuna talk 03:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have had at least one person in my acquaintance go offline for a week while they upgraded their computer due to the end-of-support for Microsoft XP. If more people were doing that it could account for a slight drop in page hits all over. Jane (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly for this week, but this trend has been going on since the start of the year.  Serendi pod ous  07:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I hate to sound melodramatic, but if this is your policy for writing these things, you've lost a reader. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the unmarked GoT spoilers I guess... --Closedmouth (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are they still spoilers if they're after the fact?  Serendi pod ous  08:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPOILER--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good grief, really? Of course I'm aware that main namespace Wikipedia articles don't have spoiler warnings. I wasn't reading an article, I was reading the opening paragraph to a blog in the Signpost which, until I read a major plot turn in the opening paragraph, I wasn't aware had anything to do with the show. It's like opening the August 7, 1999 financial column with, "The markets did poorly yesterday, probably because everyone found out Bruce Willis was a ghost the whole time." I mean, we all watch everything the day it comes out, right?
 * Closedmouth, it may be worth noting that the writer isn't pointing you to the spoiler policy. Anyway, I don't think that Serendipodous should avoid all possible spoilers. Sometimes those spoilers play major roles in Wikipedia view count swings. Furthermore, the Purple Wedding aired a full ten days ago, and the books have been out there for years. On the grand ranking of spoilers, this isn't very high... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you should take a list like this as an indication of interest. There are charts that show trends on Twitter and those also aren't exactly a sign of interest, they are a sign of topics that people are talking about at that particular moment in time. Something dramatic happens on The Bachelor? It'll trend. Do people have any interest in this event after the show is over, well, only a few die-hard viewers. Likewise, the majority of readers (non-editors) come to Wikipedia to seek information. They are looking for answers and details on a subject. The Purple Wedding didn't trend as high as the Red Wedding? It could be after that devastating storyline twist, more viewers are reading the books or looking ahead for spoilers. But there are a LOT of topics that have high interest but don't lead to people coming to Wikipedia to read up on them. Think of how often people who are featured in Google Doodles trend...that's because, for the most part, they often are individuals who the average person doesn't know and so readers come to WP to find out why they are famous enough to have their own Doodle. But that doesn't necessary mean that there is a lasting interest, just a curiosity and the reader ends out being better informed. So, maybe the Top 25 isn't a chart of popularity or interest but just a gauge of what subjects people were curious about this week. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Good Friday isn't dark (that's a superficial reading), hence the name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC).