Talk:Link analysis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice ad. I'm guessing you've sold nothing as a result, though. Lame attempt.

2601:7:0:7ED:C995:C111:5FE3:89EB (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I came here to see why there's not one of those big Wikipedia "There may be an issue with this article" signs on this article. The above comment says it all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:0:7ED:C995:C111:5FE3:89EB (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Link analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of useless[edit]

I landed on this page because I was seeking information about ViCLAS, which is the Canadian version of the FBI's ViCAP program. Not only was there zero actual information, but the whole link analysis discussion doesn't make much sense for a general reader because it seems to assume that anyone seeking information on link analysis already has a good deal of knowledge about the subject. In short, the apparent audience for this article is – other folks who do link analysis. It needs to be re-written with a general user in mind, rather than a specialist user. Theonemacduff (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]