If you have any opinions or comments on this article please do write them down here. I am looking forward to doing a follow up piece on this in the next issue and will incorporate reader comments into it. Thank you. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like articles about adminship grab a lot of eyeballs. As a fan of the Traffic Report, I'm surprised it isn't higher in ranks of type of article most viewed. LizRead!Talk! 17:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: - bear in mind that many go directly to Wikipedia:Top 25 Report for the weekly, lengthier report. It has scored 160,000+ hits throughout the past year, and this may account for the discrepancy in views, with each individual weekly report grabbing 3,000 or so views. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was also surprised, but Stormy clouds quick insight of ~160,000+ views makes sense. This is an interesting case, how most people prefer to go to the original source of the traffic report, something they are more comfortable and familiar with, knowing also that it is regularly updated. Compare this with say this issues op-ed, which may have got many many more views when covered by other media sources, whereas in Signpost, the article still has generally the same number of views which a high-view Signpost article gets. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This makes a case for the importance of The Signpost at the center of Wikimedia community attention and also at how low the ratio of content contributors to readers is. Wow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: That's an interesting point to note, the contributors to readers ratio. I wonder what the average ratio is in general for writer to reader ratio in media houses etc, I'm sure that may also be very low, much lower than Signpost maybe? Same case for Wikipedia articles... contributor to reader ratio for some are huge. I was also thinking about how low the ratio is for active Wikipedia users to contributors to Signpost. But I am sure this can also be explained by various factors including decrease in meta wiki stuff. Anyway, thank you for the insights. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you include Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and all subpages (including talk pages), the total views comes out to ~1.3 million [1]. There are some discrepancies between Massviews (disclaimer: authored by yours truly) and User:DiplomatTesterMan/Signpost Statistics, but much of that I assume is because of when the data was gathered. — MusikAnimaltalk 00:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal: The time period for the data gathered is: 16 Jan 2018 to 7 Dec 2018. If this parameter is put into the massviews analysis tool, a total of 354,862 [3] is displayed. This is very close to the figure mentioned in the article, which is 353,134 views. This is a discrepancy of 1728 views. This is explained in two ways. 1. The massviews tool lists 158 pages, which includes Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2018, which accounts for 1449 views. I have not included this. 2. I have also made a difference of 1 day in Issue 1, which has been counted till 6 Dec 2018, which I have forgotten to mention anywhere. This accounts for 65 views. This leave a total discrepancy of 314 views, which I again know is my human error after quickly comparing my table with the massviews table. I think these points should sort out the discrepancies. (And I would just like to point out that the massviews tool is awesome and such a useful wiki tool!, I should actually attribute you in the final compilation of this report too, thanks!) Thanks for mentioning the total Signpost views also. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So in the Signpost Statistics 2018 page I have officially mentioned and thanked the three of you for the tool which helped make these statistics possible, the names as mentioned at the bottom of the pageviews and massviews site, MusikAnimal, Kaldari and Marcel Ruiz Forns. I also just want to add that I use the pageviews tool so much and helps in analysis A LOT LOT!!! Thank you! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
