1,263
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + +
no edit summary
Ben, what is your standard for having "enough to brag about?" Is it the amount Wikipedia has... if so that's like comparing apples to oranges. 60,000 views is a LOT. Some cooperate websites never get anywhere near this many views yet they pay thousands for website development. Having 60,000 views with only a handful of active users '''''is''''' something to brag about in my opinion. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:24, 10 January 2007 (EST)
Ben, what is your standard for having "enough to brag about?" Is it the amount Wikipedia has... if so that's like comparing apples to oranges. 60,000 views is a LOT. Some cooperate websites never get anywhere near this many views yet they pay thousands for website development. Having 60,000 views with only a handful of active users '''''is''''' something to brag about in my opinion. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:24, 10 January 2007 (EST)
The page view count does not reflect how much people use it as a source. it just shows that we have been working to build the site. Conservapedia at this point has very rarely if at all been used as a source. In fact, Conservapedia is not even ready to be used as a source. Most of the entries are terribly short and totaly unusable as source material. We '''''do not even have an entry on World War II''''' Probably more than 55,000 of the views are by people from our world history class. If we had 1,000,000 page views it might be something to brag about, but i am not even sure if that is a good idea.