From WikiIndex
Jump to: navigation, search

Initial thoughts[edit]

It's certainly worth considereng. Proxima Centauri 08:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I like your "wikiFactor" :-) - for MediaWikis, number_of(edits)/number_of(good_pages) is interesting too. --Wolf | talk 10:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure I understand this[edit]

hmm TedErnst | talk 14:52, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Lets have a look on our wiki:
Popular pages (of WikiIndex):
Position (p)
most visited first
Page name (views) Relation
views [<=>] 1000*p
1. Welcome ?(572,833 views) 572,833 >  1,000
2. Bulbapedia ?(42,344 views) 42,344 >  2,000
3. Community Portal ?(28,489 views) 28,489 >  3,000
11. Wiki.ThePPN ?(14,724 views) 14,724 > 11,000
12. Books ?(12,807 views) 12,807 > 12,000
13. TourBusStop ?(12,371 views) 12,371 < 13,000
If you count the entries with views > 1000*p (marked with green) you get the wikiFactor (12 for WikiIndex). I hope this helps. Greetings from Berlin --Wolf | talk 03:07, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Thanks for the illustration Wolf. That is precisely how the wikiFactor is calculated. The wikiFactor is not an indication of the size of a wiki, but rather the interest that a wiki has attracted. It is entirely feasible to populate a wiki with many 'uninteresting' pages, that attract very few visits other than the Main Page. The wikiFactor is based on the highly popular (at least amongst the scientific community) h-index (Wikipedia entry). --Carl McBride (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Ah, okay. And would this be added through code of some kind, or by hand? 22:06, 6 March 2009 (EST)
I imagine that initially the value of the wikiFactor would be inserted by hand, as is the case at the moment with the wiki_pages parameter in the Size template. --Carl McBride (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Very cool![edit]

Carl, I do worry about how this will scale to non-MediaWiki wiki. Any ideas on that? Best, MarkDilley

I think most implementations of the wiki model have a facility for listing the most popular/visited pages. Instructions on exactly how to do this for each wiki type could be outlined on the category page, in a similar fashion to the list on the Template:Size page for the size of a wiki. --Carl McBride (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

New template[edit]

Given the generally positive response to the Proposal:wikiFactor I have started work on an 'experimental' template along the same lines as the Size template: Template:Size experimental. --Carl McBride (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Please, have a look on Proposal:integrate new data into template:wiki! Greetings --Wolf | talk 04:04, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
I included two new parameters |wikiFactor= and |wikiFactor URL= into template:size. Have fun! --Wolf | talk 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

wikiFactor and caching[edit]

I collect stats for Rosetta Code blog posts and the admin there noted to me not long ago that the views count in the wiki statistics was skewed because of caching. If someone views a cached page in the wiki, it is not counted in the wikiviews because it doesn't trigger the script that keeps track of those views. I realize there's nothing much that can be done here about that except maybe put up a disclaimer or somehow create/promote a caching plugin that does count cache views on the stats page. I thought it should be noted somewhere though. -- 10:08, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

One could just as easily argue that if a page was not cached then the statistics would be skewed. If someone has already seen a page (and thus forms part of their cache) then viewing it again is not a fresh view with a fresh pair of eyes. All said and done, if everybody has the same working conditions (i.e. their wiki does perform caching) then, with regard to the wikiFactor, everybody is working on a level playing field. --Carl McBride (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
There are several forms of caching that can be occur. Internally, MediaWiki (and perhaps some other engines) cache various items of data used to reconstruct a page. Busy sites often use a "front-end" cache such as Squid (in reverse-proxy mode) or Varnish to accelerate the delivery of pages and files, shielding the web server from duplicate requests from different clients where permitted by response headers. Finally, there are the intermediary server and user caches, also advised by caching and age headers. The latter caches are the ones you refer to, but on busy sites it is probably the server-side cache for anonymous users that has the most effect on perceived popularity. Indeed, it will greatly affect the hit-count for most-accessed pages (since they are very likely to be served from cache), and so disproportionately affect wikiFactor. GreenReaper 14:37, 11 November 2009 (EST)
There is something that can be done - use a tool like Google Analytics (extension) to track website usage. This is triggered on each access, regardless of whether a page has been served from a cache. To me, this is the right way to do it - after all, a citation is still counted even if someone copied it from another paper's list of citations. Those wikis using caching are the very ones that you would expect to have a high wikiFactor - some get hundreds or even thousands of HTTP requests a minute. GreenReaper 14:25, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Interesting. I opened an account on Google Analytics, but I stalled not knowing what to do with a wiki site. Thanks for the info on the extension! --Carl McBride (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2009 (EST)


All the wikifactors currently have "info/verify" next to them. Why has this been added? The "info" part can be obtained by clicking on "wikifactor" just to the left of this statement, making it redundant... Verify seems vague - it reads like you should be able to verify it and then get rid of it, but you cant!--thedugganaut (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2012 (PDT)

Click on them to see!!!
  • "Info" takes you here: wikiFactor – merely a page here on WikiIndex that gives further info on wikiFactor (if you click on the wikiFactor word on the left of the template, that takes you to the actual category for the wikiFactor – NOT this article).
  • "Verify" takes you to the external link which contains the page of stats on said wiki so that you can 'verify' the actual wikiFactor figure displayed in our WikiIndex article. There is no need nor point to 'getting rid' of this - page views will hopefully rise, so need to be constantly verifiable.
This latter one has always been included in the template, the first was recently added as an extra 'help' to those new to wikiFactor. HTH, --Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 07:37, 14 September 2012 (PDT)

Thanks for trying to treat me like an idiot. I don't need to click on them to see!!! I have explained why I feel there is redundancy here, but you have read into it something completely different. Yes, "Info" takes you to wikiFactor, but you can go there by clicking on wikiFactor, which is immediately to the left of the "Info". It is redundant. You miss my point on "Verify" also. I just dont get why it should say "Verify". If it says "Verify" here for the reasons you give, it should also say "Verify" instead of "See Stats" next to the Wiki Size. Number of pages will generally move faster than the H score, so using your logic needs to be "constantly verified" far more commonly. To me "verify" suggests that someone needs to verify it, then accept it, but this isn't the intention. I therefore think the use of "Verify" is either vague at best, or makes no sense at all. I would think "See Stats" here makes more sense. --thedugganaut (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2012 (PDT)

I'm certainly NOT trying to treat anyone like an idiot :-( But I will again - PLEASE ask you to click on both links. You will then see the targets are different (one a category, the other a namespace article).
Re your comments on "verify" - I feel you may be getting pedantic on this. My reasons for changing this are that 'stats' (as used for the page count) is simply a common abbreviation of 'Statistics' (and that is a specific MW 'Special' page) - so that remains clear and unambiguous. But for the wikiFactor, "verify" seemed the most obvious word to describe a link to what reaches either 'Mostvistedpages' or 'PopularPages' - if we had "see stats" as per your suggestion, that might confuse others into thinking it was the same page count stats page. I struggled to work out a suitable abbreviation for those MW target pages. I personally don't think 'see MVP' or 'see PP' is gonna help anyone who isn't totally au-fait with wikis, and in particular, wikiFactor.
I also don't understand, or agree with your reasoning that by clicking on "verify" - you should be able to make the link then disappear - would you want the same logic for the "see stats" too?
Finally, I don't agree with your thoughts that size will increase faster than the H score. Not all wikis comply with the Wikipedia model - many wikis have relatively static page counts, but have increasing page views; whereas other wikis may have relatively static page views whilst having a rapidly increasing page count. That is what makes wikis so interesting. :-/
I appreciate your thoughts and comments though - best regards Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 05:09, 20 September 2012 (PDT)
Okay, I see your point on wikiFactor and info going to pages that are putatively different, but the information given on each page regarding how to calculate the score is identical. If you are happy with that, that's fine, but I feel it just takes up extra unneeded space: clicking on wikiFactor will give you the same information. I can also see your interpretation of verify: I think to both of us "verify" means "confirm", but when I see verify I usually see it in a more active tense (please provide confirmation), whereas I think you read it passively (have a look an see if it is correct). Looking at dictionary definitions, verify is probably fine - it may just be that when I am given things at work to verify it means I need to sign off on them... which probably makes me read it that way! --thedugganaut (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2012 (PDT)


How easy is it for a wiki to manipulate this figure by falsifying or inflating its statistics? My concern was mainly for its inclusion as a filtering criterion per Extension:InterwikiMap/Data; we could add it if there were a way to verify the figure's validity. Leucosticte (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2012 (PST)

If they control the database, it is trivial to modify. Most larger sites will use a third-party tool like Google Analytics, and might give you access to view the account, which has greater validity - they'd have to manufacture actual visitors, which is more trouble than it is worth. GreenReaper (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2013 (PST)
Interesting discussion. I am aware that the Special/PopularPages in MediaWiki can be manipulated (as can Special/Statistics). However, it is important to note that many MediaWiki sites disable PopularPages - the most notable are also arugably the most important, those being all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. It also important to note that hardly any of the other wiki engines provide page ranking reporting facilities - we have identified only four other engines. Finally, we need to remember that WikiIndex is not an encyclopaedic wiki - we don't function on the same ethos as Wikipedia, we don't require any independent verification of said stats. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmintalk2HH 01:22, 3 January 2013 (PST)


According to Google Analytics (Special:Popularpages is not relevant as the wiki is behing a caching proxy), the 40th most visited since September 2008 (when Google Analytics was integrated) page of my wiki has 40468 hits. Does this make WikiFactor 40?
Alex Mashin (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that a public stat? Which wiki? Best, MarkDilley

New MediaWiki versions no longer have PopularPages[edit]

MediaWiki have removed the 'Popular Pages' tool from all releases since around October 2014. Unfortunately this is going to make this metric largely obsolete. --thedugganaut (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2015 (PDT)

For reference, this is Gerrit Change 150699 deployed on Oct 21, 2014, and released in MediaWiki 1.25 on 25 May 2015. Might need a new way of getting wF for new MediaWiki installations --YiFei | talk 07:18, 16 June 2015 (PDT)

the RFc was set up by a person with a similar name as our Carl McBride. If that is his MW-account, maybe we should ask him ;-) Manorainjan 11:10, 16 June 2015 (PDT)

The changelog for MediaWiki 1.25 says May 25, 2015 in section Hit counters removed
"MediaWiki no longer includes hit counters in core, following a request for comment, which means that Special:PopularPages and the "Most Viewed Pages" section of Special:Statistics are now removed. The hit numbers, which occurred until the 1.25 upgrade was installed, will still be kept in the database, but they will no longer be updated. If you want to continue using this functionality: It has been re-implemented into Extension:HitCounters." Manorainjan 01:18, 21 April 2016 (PDT)

How to treat entries with wikis which lost popular pages extension?[edit]

We all know that the extension which is needed to calculate the wF is no longer included in the standard installation of MediaWiki. Therefore most wikis do not have this capability any more. While updating the stats one can still update the pages count. But what is to be done with the wF section in such a case?

  • Delete the old data?
  • Keep the old data completely untouched?
  • Keep the number but delete the link to the nonexistant PP-page?
  • rewrite the template?
  • Something else?

--Manorainjan 15:35, 14 December 2017 (PST)

Has nobody any opinion on this? --Manorainjan 16:46, 17 January 2018 (PST)

Do not delete anything. Keep the existing wikiFactor number, and it's URL. If possible, search for the PP URL in either and / or The {{Size boilerplate}} (duplicated on {{Wiki boilerplate}} have been modified to provide separate dates for page count and wikiFactor. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 19:17, 17 January 2018 (PST)