On 3/14/2013 11:36 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013, Michael Snow <wikipe...@frontier.com> wrote:
I'm not sure why you would use traffic ranking for financial analysis,
even the envelope-and-napkin kind of analysis we're engaging in here. I'm
pretty confident that just because Google has been sitting at #1 for some
time, it doesn't mean that their core operational costs have remained flat
over that period.
I'm actually not using the traffic for financial analysis. I'm only using
the trend in traffic to compare the hosting costs - I think it would be
fair to assume that both are intrinsically linked. :)
The analysis of 6M/ year wasn't based on traffic at all, it was from the
annual budget and expenditure I saw in the reports, though that was an
envelope-and-napkin kind of analysis, it wasn't entirely based on
conjectures either.
I didn't say you used traffic ranking to support your own estimate, you
used it to try and rebut the estimates provided by Erik and others.
That's still a kind of analysis.
I also think its unfair to compare Wikipedia with
google, but if you were to take a top 10 traffic website and separate
their infrastructure and cap-ex, and look at annual operational costs
especially with things like bandwidth cost, it would have to be comparable.
(Maybe not for google but let's say for twitter or linked.in - comparable
bandwidth usage *is* the reason they are in the same league.)
The point about Google was strictly to illustrate how useless traffic
ranking is for extrapolating about trends in operational costs. It's not
a suggestion that Wikimedia can or should compare its cost structure to
Google's.
--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
