On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:54, MZMcBride wrote: > Liam Wyatt wrote: >> Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including >> advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's >> opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be >> incorporated ONLY on the Search page: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search in the whitespace on the right. >> >> This is by far the most popular individual page >> http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikipedia/en/ and ads there would be able >> to be served in a way that is both relevant to the end-user (based on the >> term being searched for) and yet without having to "sell out" our article >> pages. On the other hand it would mean we could no longer say "we have zero >> ads" and it would create a lot of angry Wikimedians (possibly me included) >> making the "slippery slope" argument. > > Careful there. > > A lot of people (and scripts) go through "Special:Search" because it follows > links much better. For example: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=mw:MediaWiki works > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mw:MediaWiki doesn't work > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=wikia:un:UN:N works > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikia:un:UN:N doesn't work > > As far as I'm aware, this is the only reliable way currently (and for the > past few years) to resolve interwiki prefixes in an automated and accurate > way. I can't say for sure, but I have a strong feeling that this is the > reason that "Special:Search" gets so many hits.
Erm... how many people actually know what an interwiki is? I doubt it's a significant number. Combine that with how many people would think about of that particular usage of Special:Search, and I suspect that you're talking very small numbers. Certainly, I've never thought of that in ~ 5 years of using Wikipedia. > "Special:Search" also likely > gets a hit when the "go" button (or just the return key now) is used. This strikes me as much more relevant and more likely to generate a significant number of hits. > All of > these people wouldn't be seeing the page either. So your primary audience > would be people searching on Wikipedia for a topic that doesn't currently > have an article or a redirect. Given that a another sizable percentage of > views comes from search engine results, the pool of actual views you're > talking about becomes even smaller. I don't understand why this is a problem - if Wikipedia doesn't have a page on what they're searching for, then wouldn't they be more likely to click a sponsored link to somewhere else that does? > The evidence is bolstered by another redirect page ("Special:Random") having > so many hits according to the data you linked to. It's not even possible to > view that page in any meaningful sense. Put some ads there and I doubt you'd > hear many complaints, but you'd be getting millions of "views" each month. > ;-) Special:Random is just plain fun, though, especially when you're getting started with reading Wikipedia. It has a huge amount of popular appeal. As a result, I'm not sure that it's quite comparable to the search function, which is obviously much more orientated at finding a specific page/description... > Calling "Special:Search" the most popular page (or basing fundraising > theories on it) is dangerous and often misleading work. I'm not convinced of this assertion yet. Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l