User talk:Dohn joe
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Redirects[edit]
Why are you creating those redirects? —CodeCat 17:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Was gonna ask the same thing, presumably as a joke (cannot think of another reason). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not as a joke - it's for article traffic analysis purposes. I'm interested in tracking usage of links to Wiktionary from Wikipedia, and this is the only way I know how. Without the redirects, we can't tell how many people visited a Wiktionary page via a Wikipedia link vs. other sources. With the redirects in place, we can look at the traffic stats for the redirect, and know it came from Wikipedia. The redirects are essentially invisible to the reader. Let me know if that makes sense, or if you'd like further explanation. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I agree with using redirects for that purpose. Wiktionary generally avoids redirects, and they're not considered fair game like on Wikipedia. For the most part, every redirect must have some kind of purpose within the dictionary itself, and these don't seem to. —CodeCat 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I understand. I know that WP and WT have different rules about redirects. If you know of a different way to do this kind of tracking, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, these redirects are designed to be few in number, temporary in nature (a month or so), and again, nearly invisible to the reader. If you still disagree, where would be a better broad venue to discuss this? Dohn joe (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to track outgoing links from Wikipedia, that might be the better place to ask. —CodeCat 17:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have. The issue is that most links from WP to here are actually via template, and no one seems to know how to track interwiki template usage. Dohn joe (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think a few redirects may be ok as long as it's clear that there is a consensus for it, and if we know how many there are and how long they are to remain in place. I don't think we can decide that here, WT:GP would be a better and more exposed place. —CodeCat 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have. The issue is that most links from WP to here are actually via template, and no one seems to know how to track interwiki template usage. Dohn joe (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to track outgoing links from Wikipedia, that might be the better place to ask. —CodeCat 17:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I understand. I know that WP and WT have different rules about redirects. If you know of a different way to do this kind of tracking, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, these redirects are designed to be few in number, temporary in nature (a month or so), and again, nearly invisible to the reader. If you still disagree, where would be a better broad venue to discuss this? Dohn joe (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I agree with using redirects for that purpose. Wiktionary generally avoids redirects, and they're not considered fair game like on Wikipedia. For the most part, every redirect must have some kind of purpose within the dictionary itself, and these don't seem to. —CodeCat 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not as a joke - it's for article traffic analysis purposes. I'm interested in tracking usage of links to Wiktionary from Wikipedia, and this is the only way I know how. Without the redirects, we can't tell how many people visited a Wiktionary page via a Wikipedia link vs. other sources. With the redirects in place, we can look at the traffic stats for the redirect, and know it came from Wikipedia. The redirects are essentially invisible to the reader. Let me know if that makes sense, or if you'd like further explanation. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I've re-created the special redirect to big, per the discussion here. Dohn joe (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)