is more popular than...

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What is Alexa Ranking?[edit]

  1. "What is Alexa Ranking?" Link is bogus. HamSalad 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Now, seriously, how reliable is that thing ? Somehow I doubt these results are any meaningful. Taw 13:40 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's all just for fun. --Maveric149

Facebook isn't on the community website thing... Is it ahead or behind wikipedia? Mamurphy88

Comparisons in 2003[edit]

In some respects we may be doing even better. Encarta is rated at number 2 because it is a part of the "msn empire". However, 78% of msn's views are for hotmail, with Encarta accounting for less than 1% of the site's usage. Today's average page reach for Encarta would therefore be less than 1% of 244,500 or less than 2,445 per million. Ours today was a solid 845 per million, and rising. A more valid statistic for Encarta would be very interesting. Are they really doing better than we? Eclecticology 19:34 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm flattered that my site,, is considered significant enough to appear near the top of the list above, but I think the implication is that it's somehow a competitor, which couldn't be further from the truth. OneLook is a search engine for dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other reference sites, and Wikipedia is one of the sources it indexes. I like to think that OneLook contributed to Wikipedia's growth in its own small way -- it has been referring a couple thousand new users to Wikipedia every day since last fall. I'm a big enthusiast of both projects. --dougb

Doug -- you're absolutely right, is not really a competitor. Nor is ;-) These comparisons are really just supposed to give us an idea where we stand. I discovered OneLook a few weeks ago because of the referrals to Wikipedia. It's a great site, well designed and very fast, and fortunately it does not tax our servers with searches -- well done. Please keep up the good work.—Eloquence 23:01 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Seriously, though, mathworld and scienceworld only covers math and science while Wikipedia supposedly covers *EVERYTHING*... They're still ahead, really. --Anon

See above. We aren't in competition with the White House either. --Maveric149

We might send out a press release titled "Wikipedia - Better Than Sex?" as soon as we overtake in terms of "Alexa-traffic" ;-). --Zenogantner 22:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

LOL. I can see the headline now; "Wikipedia is more popular than sex!" --mav
So can I, but that still would get a kick out of anyone who happens across that would-be article. ;) Impinball (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a general encyclopedia, having more hits than mathworld is not necessarily surprising. If we really want to outcompete it for mathematical sciences content we should provide the information listed here. -- Miguel

I think we would be in the top 500 whithin some monthes. The 500 most popular sites are listed on Alexa... so we would change the title of this page to ... is less populart than ;-) --Youssefsan 16:40, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

Growth rate[edit]

Did you see the huge spike on alexa these past two weeks or so? What happened?--Anon

We were on CNN's Tech Watch tv news program and for a day we were on's front page (then another day after that we were still on the CNN technology page). --Maveric149

Wikipedia is passing both and recently:should these be moved into the top list yet? —Kalki

It may be a fluke. Let's wait until it is clear that our lead is a long term thing. --mav

Oh my god, look at the current Alexa ratings! --Anon

Yeah we are in the top 1000 again for the day rank. What I find odd is that the graphs aren't diplaying the data correctly. This shows a graph that states we are not in the top 100,000 but the below text gives a three month rating of 2,140 and a daily rating of 911. Other websites are also hit like this so I think it is an Alexa software glitch. --Maveric149

Maveric149: On Monday, I moved to the list of websites that we are beating, and you moved it back (again) on Tuesday. Our today number is 911, our one week number is 716, and our three month number is 2140. The numbers for are 2081, 1660, and 2967 respectively. I went by the three month number when moving it, because it is the main number Alexa shows for searches. If you would clarify what measure we/you are using for this list and/or move back, I would appreciate it. --Ryan Cable 02:43, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This isn't a horse race. Entries shouldn't be in the first list until it is very clear that we will be confortably ahead of those websites on any given day. I moved back because it beat us on a daily ranking. The last thing we need is for somebody from the press to mention that we are more popular than a particular website and then by the time a reader checks that we are no longer more popular (even for a day). --mav

I find it suspicious the Alexa rating hasn't changed at all for days, not even from 911 to 912, or something!

I've got 1026, 1092, and 2140 now. Ryan Cable 22:43, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think we would be in the top 500 whithin some monthes. The 500 most popular sites are listed on Alexa... so we would change the title of this page to ... is less populart than ;-) --Youssefsan 16:40, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

Nope, Wikipedia is taking a drastic drop, to where it was months ago. Maybe people are getting disillusioned?
We have dropped even faster before just to rise right back up again. You cannot escape the fact that Wikipedia went from 10,000th place to 1,300th place in less than 10 months. Our dips have corresponded to major downtimes (since we are just so dam popular our servers simply can't handle the load). --Maveric149
Where's the recovery you were predicting, eh? Further and further down it goes! A huge setback!
3 mos. Change = up 1,504 and our 3 month numbers just fell again (a good thing). As soon as we can go a few days without a multi-hour outage (meaning our numbers get real bad), then the numbers will be consistently stronger (although, even with these outages our numbers continue to improve). A dual Opteron server is on order - when it gets installed then things will be more stable. Kinda hard to have good numbers all the time when the servers are so overloaded that one or the other is down for many hours every week! Oh, and the servers are overloaded because Wikipedia is very popular and getting more and more popular all the time - it has been very difficult to keep up with the demand. --mav

There is concern on some parts about a recent drop in rankings in later October 2003. A few notes about this:

  • The ranking is relative; a falling ranking may indicate an increase in popularity of other sites rather than a fall in ours.
  • Many other sites are also experiencing falling rankings over this period, see the linked comparison graphs.
  • There is a fairly regular weekly cycle with higher traffic during the week and lower traffic on the weekends; at the moment the rankings are shown as of the trough of that cycle, so the graph looks particularly bad.
  • It's not clear how alexa's ranking system interacts with system changes such as the consolidation of several alternate domain names via redirects into
  • Traffic currently is limited more by technical issues (hardware, software) than popularity. Improvements will continue to be made with software fixes and hardware upgrades, as they have been over our whole history.
  • It's just for fun. It's not like we're selling advertising with rates based on alexa's rankings. We're getting more than enough human traffic as it is, looking at the numbers on alexa or elsewhere is merely an entertaining game. --games online

--Brion VIBBER 07:46, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mav recently added the following to the page: In order to be listed in this first section, must have a higher three month average rating and be consistently ahead on a weekly basis for at least two solid weeks. I have moved plenty of sites to the upper section lately, and usually on base of just the second criterium, although applied more stringently. So there might be some who do not have the first, and I might also add them in the future - Wikipedia has in the past grown so fast that 3-month average was lagging behind the truth; I hope this will remain true in the future. Andre Engels 13:18, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Can Someone please figure out if Wikipedia is more popular than NeoPets?!?! 22:56, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

We are not, and even if we keep up our impressive growth it would take way more than a year to do it. They're hugging the #100 position, we the #1000 one. See

I thought of comparing with but shit!!! ;^) -- Paddu 06:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's unfair! People with Alexa toolbars are far more likely to visit than the population at large.

Confession time: How many of you are addicted to checking out Wikipedia's Alexa rating and what psychological reasons compel you to do so? It's just a number...

I can't avoid coming again and again... Sniff... Just check not even worth the comparison! ;o) Yann 23:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

dmoz, Alexa db updates[edit]

I submitted suggestions to add and to the "reference:dictionaries" and "reference:encyclopedias" sections of dmoz. Right now, WP is only listed under "open source", not under reference at all.

I found out by contacting Alexa to see why we weren't on their Reference Top 50 list (derived from monthly Reach stats), and they said we weren't flagged in their dmoz-generated db as a 'reference' site... we'll see if dmoz allows the double-listing for WP. In any case, Alexa updated their backend, and we should show up on the top-50 list "within days". Sj 18:58, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Update: hasn't worked out as claimed, and the Alexa rankings have been recalc'ed at least once since then. Follow-up sent April 1, no word from Alexa since then. No word from ODP since Mar 23. If *you* are an ODP editor and you read this, you might see what you can do to get WP categorized as a Reference site... (that will automatically update Alexa's db net time they grab ODP data) Sj 19:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Update. WP now listed as 'reference/encyclopidia' by dmoz since July 2. JøhP 08:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Update. WP now listed as 'reference' and 'reference/encyclopidia' by Alexa. JøhP 07:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have to ponder, looking at Google results, how much of our traffic is diverted to commercial mirrors? These aren't even included in our Alexa rating. (I'm just thankful they all have links to the "live" page.)

Dcoetzee 02:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the known mirrors on Alexia, and checking their reach (number of users per million reached on a day, 3-month average). Sites that use only a restricted number of Wikipedia articles in a larger site have not been added, because there Wikipedia is probably only a minority of hits. (*) denotes sites with considerable non-Wikipedia content; it cannot be discerned what part of their hits are Wikipedia material

  • 1545
  • 31 (*)
  • 34
  • 1 (*)
  • 1 (*)
  • 42
  • 328 (but growing - around 750 now)
  • 9 (site currently down)
  • 86
  • 1
  • 15 (seems to be falling)
  • 0
  • 46
  • pharmahelp.cmo: 7 (*)
  • 194 (*) (growing)
  • 108 (*)
  • 1
  • 37 (*)
  • 44 (*)
  • 33
  • 5 (*, but mostly Wikipedia) (falling)
  • 1
  • 12
  • <1
  • 34
  • 10
  • <1
  • 0
  • 8 (*)
  • <1
  • 8 (falling)
  • 121 (*)
  • 5 (*)
  • 0
  • 1 (*)
  • 1 (*)
  • <1
  • 2 (*)
  • 0
  • 1
  • <<1
  • <1 (*)
  • 0
  • 2 (*)
  • 21 (growing)
  • <<1
  • <1
  •, 0
  • <1 (*)
  • 54 (*)
  • 2
  • 63 (*)
  • 13 (growing, now around 30)
  • 2
  • 2 (*)

So it seems that is taking a considerable amount of Wikipedia-related hits, probably more than all others together, and perhaps as much as 40% of the amount Wikipedia itself is getting. See also - Andre Engels 11:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My empirical evidence strongly ties in with your more sophisticated analysis, when a hit a google search, hoping to expand/fact check an article, I often hit freedictionary as number 1/2 hit, but where Wikipedia is nowhere to be seen. I expect this 40% to get worse as Alexa updates over the coming months. They are clearly doing something to manipulate the Google ranking :(. Pcb21 22:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia #3 on Alexa's Reference sites[edit]

Wikipedia #10 on Alexa's Reference sites....

No longer on reference sites top 50 list at all....? Catherine 15:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, if Alexa wold like to consider us a refrance site, then we would come in about 9th. But hay, acording to them, we no londer count as a refrance site... Still we can live with that. now then, if we can get to be in the top 100 listing, it wouldent realy mater, hay, it will happen one day 21:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
WP is now #4. JøhP 14:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Up to #3 now, behind My Yahoo and Mapquest... Catherine 21:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alexa's purported English-language bias[edit]

This page twice claims that Alexa is biased for English-language sites, yet if you look at their "Global Top 500", 5 of the top ten are in Chinese! This makes the claim hard to credit.

I don't see how this should influence the claim's credibility. The bias is there because Alexa's toolbar is available only in English. --Glimz 11:38, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecy[edit]

It just occurred to me that the Alexa rankings are even less meaningful than I thought. Everyone knows that the Alexa rankings are skewed by the people who have an Alexa toolbar. What I just realised is that this page (and the "Wikipedia Awareness Statistics" page) are encouraging Wikipedia users to get the Alexa toolbar! This would cause Wikipedia to steadily rise in the Alexa rankings even in the absence of increased traffic.

In a way, I think it's a good thing. It means Wikipedia has a lot more potential for growth than those of us avidly following the Alexa rankings might have thought.

Here's my argument: the more people who view Wikipedia, the more people will edit it, and the more people who edit it, the more amazing it will get. I was thinking that Wikipedia would top out at maybe #10 in the Alexa rankings, representing maybe tenfold growth over its current traffic. So in future Wikipedia will be at least 10 times more amazing than it is now.

But taking into account this skewing affect, Wikipedia is unlikely to be beaten long term by any site that doesn't link to Alexa. Therefore Wikipedia could reach #1, representing hundredfold growth. This would make Wikipedia possibly the most amazing thing on the entire planet. Cool!

-- 06:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. I may have made more edits to this page than anyone else, but I haven't installed the Alexa toolbar. 13:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do WP and craigslist move in parallel?[edit]

If you look at the profile of wikipedia and craigslist over the past 3 months, they oscillate up and down - but what's even stranger is that they go up and down very much in parallel: [1]. Any ideas why that is? Also, WP tends to peak a couple of days earlier than craigslist. - 11:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They both have a weekly cycle. Wikipedia tales off on Friday and Saturday usually, when less people are studying (but interestingly often does well on Sunday, perhaps because people are doing assignments to hand in early the next week, or just because more people stay at home and turn on their home PC on Sunday.) I'm not so sure about craigslist. If the peak is later in the week, maybe people are looking up things they might do or buy over the weekend. 01:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


It would be easier to list what we are NOT more-popular-than, rather than what we are, by this point! According to the rankings we're closing in on the top 50, Internet-wide. Awesome. en:user:Radagast 20:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This was suggested when our rank was 10x what it is now... 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It does. It lists the top 10 and all the English language sites in the top 30. 18:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we are in the top 30 (3mo) and top 20 on a weekly basis and are therefore according to Alexa more popular than most sites. I think it's now time to move the long lists out to a subarticle and just leave comparisons to the top 30. Otherwise this article is almost purely historical. If that's what people want, fine, but I think it would be more fun to focus on the final push to the top. We could also just reorder the page to do that. If no major objections, I'll do that at least. - Taxman 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. With only 29 sites ahead of Wikipedia, it makes sense to place more focus on who we may pass in the future, rather than the hundreds of sites we've already passed. Carbonite 13:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went and rearanged to bring what we haven't passed yet to the top, but on second thought it is probably better to keep the sites we are ahead of since that is the name of the page after all. - Taxman 20:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, don't move things out. It was a lot of work to put this together (I've been the main editor for months) and it doesn't stop being relevant that we're ahead of the New York Times etc. 04:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Wikipedia is in the top ten now. Today at #7. Best ever: #5. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get overexcited[edit]

I recently added the observation that we might reach the top 10 soon, which I had reservations about. Now I come back and find predictions of reaching Number 1 (albeit with a disclaimer - which quite a few readers won't understand). I took it out, then added it back again, but now I'm going to take it out again. Let's celebrate what we have achieved already. Getting carried away about what might (but in reality almost certainly won't) be achieved in the future actually diminished that current achievements. Just look at the comparison graphs if you want to see how vast the gap between 20th and 1st is.
If you really feel you must restore the analysis, please put it in a footnote with a fairly strongly worded disclaimer. Thank you. 04:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been consistently said from the beginning that Wikipedia would never make any of the rankings we already have. We had no right to be top 10,000, 1,000, 100 or anything else. I don't know if you've been around that long to remember. In some senses Wikipedia represents most things people come to the web for in the first place and it is not hard to believe a number one ranking is possible. This page is just for fun and being the grinch about #1 doesn't help I don't think. If you look at our traffic growth, it is pretty outrageous too. See The outlier makes it harder to see, but essentially traffic growth is not slowing down yet, it's accelerating. So in some ways saying #1 is possible is overdone optimism. Yes I reallize MSN gets 30 billion pageviews a day and we might be at not quite 400 million now. But the point is demand is growing fast enough we could hit it if we could throw enough hardware at it. - Taxman 00:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to take into account is that we aren't comparing like with like. Wikipedia has one ranking, but the national sites of the big U.S. originated web brands are all ranked separately. Yahoo!, MSN, Google, Ebay and Amazon claim 23 of the top 100 places between them. Even if Wikipedia gets to number 1 in the Alexa rankings it will be misleading to claim that it is the most popular site on the web, when hardly anyone will realise this. I'm going to upgrade the disclaimers. I find it somewhat embarrassing that we are selling what we might achieve rather than simply explaining what we have achieved, but then I'm British and it looks like you're an American. 18:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Is that an American/Brit cultural thing? Anyway the way it is now is neaarly fine, it's clearly labeled as speculation and projecting current trends. I see no need to do it as a small print footnote given the caveats and clear labelling though. The caveats are good ones especially myspace which has been on a very similar growth path. - Taxman 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia hit #5, but has never hit #1. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling projected at 8th place[edit]

Based on the proportion of actual page hits, not just aggregate rank, I don't think it is possible for Wikipedia to ever get past 8th place. The reason is that the big search engines and default pages in positions 1-7 have an order of magnitude more visits than #8, and there is no reason for that to change. -- 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Splarka 07:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Update - Wikipedia broke through the #8 glass ceiling and got to #5, held steady at #6, and is currently at #7. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to remove the No. 1 projection[edit]

The projection about getting to number 1 was produced at around about the time of the spike caused by the Chinese New Year season. As Wikipedia fell back from that level and has since stayed flat for a month it is no longer current and it looks even more unrealistic than it did originally. Therefore I think it should go altogether. 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it had nothing to do with the Chinese New Year. It was before that. Based on the disclaimers given, the projection is valid based on the data used. Obviously you don't like it there, but there are plenty of disclaimers. And though you do a lot of the maintaining of this page, you don't own it, and I would encourage compromising on this issue. I believe most people when presented with a growth trend would wonder when that trend would end at the top. This projection answers that based on the available data. - Taxman 05:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't own the page either, but you are determined to keep your precious piece of data on it even when it is patently out of date. The projection is embarrassing and largely meaningless. It is a typical piece of American bragging. 18:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one acting like I own it. Please explain how a projection over the next few months and years is out of date. - Taxman 14:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the top ten prediction because that, at least, is a reasonable forecast. GeorgeStepanek 08:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't now. Top ten this year looks unlikely, never mind top ten by July. 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But we did get to top ten in the end... GeorgeStepanek 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Wikipedia is now holding steady at #7. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

other wikimedia projects[edit]

Are there any people interested in following the popularity of other wikimedia-projects?

comparison of Alexa rating of,,,, and

--Donarreiskoffer 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa rankings, daily reach, and average page views[edit]

Aside from Alexa rankings, several other factors should also be taken into account. For example, Wikipedia has had a higher daily reach than MySpace for several months now. However, the thing that's keeping Wikipedia at a lower ranking is the average number of page views per user (MySpace has about eight times more page views per user as of now). It's probably because that many people who know about Wikipedia only use it when they do research. Yet, there are probably others who come across Wikipedia without knowing its greatness, lol. What a bunch of leeches. :P -- 00:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an anachronism[edit]

I used to be the main editor of the page under a previous ISP address, but I think it is time to put it to sleep. Wikipedia is more popular than all the sites except the few ranked above it, which anyone can easily check for themselves. I suggest that this page should be marked as of only historical interest, and links to it should be demoted to the archive section of the general statistics pages. 22:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page restricted[edit]

Can't correct a website reference to Beakmans World, it's not Brumbii 10:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename + repurpous[edit]

Could this page be renamed to something like "Wikipedia is less popular than..."! remove the lone section of when we passed various types of sights, basically copy the top ten list from Alexa, and reformat the historical data of when we reached which rank...

what does anyone think (I might try some of it anyway, especially the ranking dates list) --Tooto 23:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the alexa toolbar is also available for Firefox[edit]

I cant edit it, but its also available for other than IE, also for Firefox 2.0 — The preceding unsigned comment was added by an unspecified user

Yes check.svg Done Also, available in Google Chrome now. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


What do the asterisks on some sites mean? I can't find any explanation of this anywhere on the page. My initial guess was that they were non-English (or had both English and non-English sites), but that is apparently not true (Slashdot is English-only, eBay France is in French). Or else some corrections need to be made. 03:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is a slight error in the list of milestones, the date for milestone 200 should be in january 2005, not 2004. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by an unspecified user

Yes check.svg Done By somebody else. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long lists...[edit]

Why have such long lists around of sites that are "less popular" than Wikipedia? The page would be much easier to read and maintain if such long lists were removed.-- 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done List has been pruned to five. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The word "reference" is misspelled. 05:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Fixed by somebody else. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Don't you think this is overboard? It's like saying, "Hi we r wikimediaz and loook at all teh sitez we pwn0r". It's just not cool guys. 09:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6th place[edit]

Hey, Wikipedia hit the 6th place on the Alexa's ranking for the first time on 2nd June. You need to updated the article "Wikipedia is more popular than..." Exlibris 15:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg DoneAs of today, WP is #7. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in chart?[edit]

Wikipedia's Alexa ranking milestones (3 month average)

the 200 milestone appears to have been reached before 300 or 500 as it lists the year as 2004.

I'll leave the edit to someone else.

Alexa Sparky - Alexa toolbar is also available for Mozilla Firefox users[edit]

The introduction mentions that alexa toolbar is available only in english and to internet explorer users only. however, alexa has introduced its toolbar, Alexa Sparky, for firefox users too as an add-on. firefox has around 20% of the browser share hence the data collected by alexa from firefox users is quite significant. Please edit. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by an unspecified user

Yes check.svg Done Updated page to reflect that the Alexa toolbar now supports FireFox, Google Chrome, and Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Asterisks again[edit]

This was asked about in 2007, but doesn't seem to have been addressed: what do the asterisks mean after some site names? They're not all non-English (or even non-US) sites, which was my first guess, and I can't work out what else they could signify. Somebody who knows, please add an explanation to the article! 02:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was just about to ask the same thing. What the heck are those for? Does anyone even know? 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of Focus[edit]

Has anyone noticed that this page no longer contains lists that pertain to the intent of the page--namely websites that Wikipedia is more popular than? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by an unspecified user

This page doesn't make much sense any more since Wikipedia is more popular that almost every other website. We're around the 5th most popular site on the web (depending on how you measure it), so we would be better of with a nice short list of sites we are less popular than. This page is of historical interest, but it is of no current interest. --Tango 14:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some updates on its numbers...[edit]

I checked two external links on this article [1] [2]], and they both have Wikipedia as 6th overall in hits as of 7 April 2013. I didn't go deeper into the website to figure out 6th in what area, but this alone told me that things needed updated. If we are to have a page like this, it should be kept constantly up-to-date (a little common sense here). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by an unspecified user

Yes check.svg Done I updated some of the numbers. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It is at 12 and no longer in top 10. It must be moved.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 23:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current position section[edit]

Whatever this section shows it doesn't seem to be the current position. The "latest 1-month rank" is 2 years old according to the article, the "latest 3-month rank" is 5 months old and the "latest weekly rank" is over 4 years old. If this page is meant to show the current position it needs to be updated regularly. If it is being updated regularly the dates need to be changed. If these are actually supposed to be the highest ranks Wikipedia has achieved the article should say so. --Prh47bridge (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]