Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (61)

WatamIdoing, you've got a "math problem" (your words). You're assuming that if "half of the high-traffic articles are about celebrities" = "half of the traffic from the high-traffic pages is about celebrities ". That only works if the "traffic" for "high-traffic articles" is a "simple distribution" (your words). This simply isn't true and you admit you have "no idea" about its validity.

Quit relying on your imagination as your sole source for assumption. Go get the real data from the server and have a look, okay? You can then calculate the page views for celebrity pages (celebrities being a set which you claim you can quantify) versus page views per non-celebrity pages.

Bottom line: your previous post just makes assumptions to make the faulty syllogism that
 * if "10% of Wikipedia articles are about celebrities" + other faulty assumptions
 * then "articles about celebrities account for more than 10% of page views"

Which is of course trivial. Worse is you use that conclusion to jump to a different vague conclusion "probably less than (probably much less than) 20% of the total traffic" using an improperly incorporated "dwarfed" claim. The tip off is your repeated use of weasel words in "basically no chance" which you "have no idea how well...conforms to reality. Keep in mind that  if you've "seen no stats tools" regarding the 90% claim, then those "stats tools" don't exist for your <20% fabrication.  Using the irrrationality of the feedback rating tool, why not make a survey GUI to ask people's feedback on what is the celebrity-to-non-celebrity page view ratio -- after all, Wikipedia claims that feedback is an effective way of quantifying information, right?