![]() So today I wanted to check if the information had stayed in their article. Petersburg Times, had taken over the fake information, of course without mentioning their source at all. Some of these edits had been reverted, but no one had checked the IP's other edits. ![]() Adams Madrid, Adam Madrid, Adam Gama-Madrid.Adams Hambüger-Hatt, Adam Hambüger-Hatt.Al "Oatmeal" Edwards, Al Edwards Oatmeal.In the end, I found the following names to have been added to several articles: However, I only became aware of the hoaxes' spread some months later. Anyone possessing a little knowledge about international basketball immediately realizes this cannot be true. I first came across those fake entries in 2009, when reading about a German player of the (defunct) American Basketball Association. In the process, he has used several IPs and different fake names. To sum it up: Someone has edited dozens of articles in the past years to include false information about persons who, as I assume, don't exist. Hello, I hope this is the right spot for my request, basically. As I look at it more, I think what happened was probably that I was unwittingly thrown off by navigating in from the link, and then was inadvertently comparing stats 30-days-back-from-April-27 with those from April as a whole. I thought I had run into something unintuitive to me but well known to (some?) others, so I was a bit expeditious in my query. PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Reply Fair enough re "i.e.". By the way, the reason for the many views in late March was the premiere of The Hunger Games (film), a filmatization of a book where Catching Fire (2009 novel) is the sequel. I suspect all your different counts were made on different days. I don't see any signs of a difference between space and underscore. It's much lower for the last 30 days now on 30 April. The quoted 1.3 million views was for the last 30 days on 21 April. shows far more views in late March than late April. Some people confuse "e.g." and "i.e." See wiktionary:e.g. "e.g." means "for the sake of example" and should have been an actual example when you used that term after the general description. ENeville ( talk) 23:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Reply "multi-word article titles" was the general description. But now I'm getting different numbers (700k for both), and often "internal server error", perhaps because of the cusp fo the new month. I thought this was a normal I didn't know about. So I removed the underscores and got ~600k. The discussion quoted 1.3 million views, but I only got (as I recall) ~800k when I looked. The case I ran across was "Catching_Fire_(2009_novel)" (linked from discussion here). PrimeHunter ( talk) 22:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Reply Sry, I meant "Article title" as a concept ( should have used italics?). Do you see different counts? Or did you make up a false example without testing it? I also got the same counts when I tested a few existing pages. 5 times in the last 30 days: 1 on April 9, 1 on April 15, 1 on April 20, and 2 on April 23. ![]() Main concern: how do I get an accurate count of page views? ENeville ( talk) 22:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Reply I get the same when I enter "Article title" and "Article_title" at. Can anyone elucidate? ENeville ( talk) 01:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Reply Still listening, if anyone can help. Seems to make counting page views a little more complicated than they would seem. I've noticed that page views listed at seem to report separately for multi-word article titles with spaces versus underscores, e.g. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |