Talk:Link transit: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(a third display: paths) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::::[[Trolls]] doubt that very much. | :::::[[Trolls]] doubt that very much. | ||
::::but wouldn't that be better served by popularity data than link transit data? | ::::but wouldn't that be better served by popularity data than link transit data? | ||
:::::Restoring the information about page popularity is also quite useful. But more useful is information about paths between, i.e. that the single most popular path was for instance [[Wikipedia]] -> [[GFDL corpus]] -> [[sysop vandalism]] -> [[Wikimedia]] -> [[libel suit]] -> [[tabloid journalism]] would demonstrate that people actually had understood the subjects correctly and went to the next most logical page to learn the next most important thing, while a path from [[Zionism]] -> [[Robert Kaiser]] -> [[Nazipedia]] -> [[Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti-Zionism]] would perhaps indicate a quite confused person who was pretty much being subjected to a pile of [[propaganda]] and would come away with a quite different impression of the subject than what a serious editor would want. | |||
::::What would you do with link transit information? How do you "elaborate" a link? The best use of it I can think of is to pick a small set of related articles, and draw pretty graph pictures. A noble goal, to be sure, but it would require a change to the program below to generate such data efficiently. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 06:30, 6 Sep 2004 (EEST) | ::::What would you do with link transit information? How do you "elaborate" a link? The best use of it I can think of is to pick a small set of related articles, and draw pretty graph pictures. A noble goal, to be sure, but it would require a change to the program below to generate such data efficiently. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 06:30, 6 Sep 2004 (EEST) | ||