1,263
edits
Changes
no edit summary
*'''Reply''' Comparing our page view stats to wikipedia's is not like comparing apples to oranges. We are the same type of site as wikipedia. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:34, 10 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' Comparing our page view stats to wikipedia's is not like comparing apples to oranges. We are the same type of site as wikipedia. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:34, 10 January 2007 (EST)
** Tim, last time I checked Conservapedia had a little less than a hundred users. Wikipedia has 3,216,930... I think that's apples to oranges, at least in terms of size and users. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:40, 10 January 2007 (EST)
** Tim, last time I checked Conservapedia had a little less than a hundred users. Wikipedia has 3,216,930... I think that's apples to oranges, at least in terms of size and users. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:40, 10 January 2007 (EST)
***'''Reply''' It is not like comparing apples to oranges, it is like comparing a tiny little green apple on a tree to a fully developed apple ready to eat. Eventually we want to be as big as Wikipedia, until then why brag about being small? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:14, 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.
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.
* REPLY: "it just shows that we have been working to build the site"..... exactly. We want people to know that we have been working on this. It's not just a good idea with no one really doing anything. "Most of the entries are terribly short and totally unusable".... that's completely wrong. I would rephrase as "most of our articles are short but all are usable." How many articles can you give that are "totally unusable?" [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:48, 10 January 2007 (EST)
* REPLY: "it just shows that we have been working to build the site"..... exactly. We want people to know that we have been working on this. It's not just a good idea with no one really doing anything. "Most of the entries are terribly short and totally unusable".... that's completely wrong. I would rephrase as "most of our articles are short but all are usable." How many articles can you give that are "totally unusable?" [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:48, 10 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' You are taking it out of context. I said "totaly unusable '''''as a source'''''." If anyone wants to learn about something, or write a paper about something, then entries like "Augustus Caesar: The first Emperor of Rome, reigned 27 BC-AD 14. He restored order after centuries of civil war." do not help. Anyone looking for Augustus Caesar already knows that. also they can already tell that people are working on it because we have an entry count right there on the main page. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:14, 10 January 2007 (EST)
:'''Comment:''' Page views are like attendance. It's often the first question anyone asks a resource: how often was it used? So it is important to display the page views number, regardless of whether you think it is big or small.
:'''Comment:''' Page views are like attendance. It's often the first question anyone asks a resource: how often was it used? So it is important to display the page views number, regardless of whether you think it is big or small.
* '''Reply''' Page views are not an accurate count of how often it is used. I can go on here and post on this argument, look at a couple entries mess with my user page, and it will count as about 25 page views. someone else could want to research something look at it and learn what they need and it might count for 3 page views. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:14, 10 January 2007 (EST)
: Also, we have this fundamental difference with Wikipedia: Conservapedia is an educational resource, while Wikipedia is not. We don't want 3 million users because quality inevitably declines, as it has on Wikipedia. Bias would also inevitably increase. We don't believe in direct democracy. We want a small number of users who contribute quality material. And evidently it has been used over 61,000 times, far more than one would expect merely from posting 2500 entries.
: Also, we have this fundamental difference with Wikipedia: Conservapedia is an educational resource, while Wikipedia is not. We don't want 3 million users because quality inevitably declines, as it has on Wikipedia. Bias would also inevitably increase. We don't believe in direct democracy. We want a small number of users who contribute quality material. And evidently it has been used over 61,000 times, far more than one would expect merely from posting 2500 entries.
* '''Reply''' Actually Wikipedia ''is'' an educational resource. just because they are biased and have alot of wasted space does not mean that they are not educational. Right now, they have way more educational material than Conservapedia. Actually, we ''do'' want 3 million users because that means that 3 million people are hearing things from the right perspective, our goal is to have people use the website. And, 61,000 is not far more than would be expected from 2500 entries. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:14, 10 January 2007 (EST)
: Finally, we do have 24 entries discussing World War II. Be sure to click "Search" not "Go" to find all the material. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 10 January 2007 (EST)
: Finally, we do have 24 entries discussing World War II. Be sure to click "Search" not "Go" to find all the material. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 10 January 2007 (EST)
* '''Reply''' We have 24 entries that ''mention'' WWII, but we don't have an entry ''about'' WWII. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:14, 10 January 2007 (EST)