Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia's Viewing Statistics Could Provide Better Web-Trends Data Than Google

Posted by samzenpus on from the cause-it's-hot dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Researchers in Japan have established an almost 75% correlation between Google Trends data on keyword surges and equivalent Wikipedia page views. Since Google provides aggregate web-trends data with little granularity, the 'early ripples' of web interest are far harder to detect via its APIs than by a system that gathers information from Wikipedia's publicy accessible page views data.

19 comments

  1. Why is this surprising? by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could the data be correlated be because people mostly search for Wikipedia entries using Google? I know that if I'm looking for info on an unfamiliar topic, I search for it on Google, and will usually check the Wikipedia entry if there is one.

    I'm not sure why anybody finds the statistic even slightly remarkable. The only thing that's surprising to me is that it's not higher than 75%.

    1. Re:Why is this surprising? by wnfJv8eC · · Score: 1

      I was going to write this same comment. I often read something via a google search, then look it up for more info on Wikipedia.

    2. Re:Why is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      True, but that's not the point. It doesn't matter how people get to Wikipedia, what matters is that we can get the trend data faster and in more detail than Google releases.

    3. Re:Why is this surprising? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Also because wikipedia is articles with titles that are named for their topic, so a particular piece of information may or may not have its own article or may be buried inside another. If I know the article/topic, I will go to wiki first sometimes, but its easier to hit google where, even if it doesn't hit wikipedia, it may hit something that gives me a better idea what to search for, which will then lead me there.

      So, lets say I am talking with someone about the war on terror. Now, I know the US has had involvement with terrorists, and I know one lives in Florida, but maybe I can't quite remember the name Luis Posada Carriles. In fact, 30 seconds before I pasted that.... knew the general topic, I knew a bit about the event I had in mind, I knew there was a wikipedia article!

      So a few google searches later, I have run into the name Orlando Bosch...another wikipedia article, wrong one...but relevant. A few more searches...and here I am: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Why is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

      s/he gets it

    5. Re:Why is this surprising? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      It's not surprising when someone else comes up with the idea and does the math.

      I did not know about the public stats, so I never would have thought of a 75% effective way to predict what google trends would show.

      Obvious in retrospect does not mean anyone is surprised. Especially since "surprising correlation" usually really means "something I didn't previously know."

      Few people use words correctly, so don't take them literally.

    6. Re:Why is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect because of a lot of historical disparaging comments about the accuracy of Wikipedia there are still some ignorant fools who believe Wikipedia is not accurate. I personally believe that Wikipedia content is the most accurate source of information any where.

    7. Re:Why is this surprising? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I apologise for my recent civility. I assumed that the word "surprising" was used by someone other than you. It's not in the article and it's not in the PDF, so it's something you made up right out of your ass. I should have checked that before I replied. So I'll correct that here, again my apologies for not posting this first.

      To start off, this isn't "Surprises for nerds dot com", it's News. And News is things that are new. And I don't remember seeing it here before, so I'm kinda sure it qualifies as new.

      Could the data be correlated be because people mostly search for Wikipedia entries using Google?

      NO SHIT, SHERLOCK HOMOS AND TWATSON. Google frequently puts Wikipedia at the top, especially for mobile users in my experience. So a lot of searches never see even the full results page, they just click on the first link (and a lot of users do that because that's how they think search works)*

      I know that if I'm looking for info on an unfamiliar topic, I search for it on Google, and will usually check the Wikipedia entry if there is one.

      No one cares what you do, this is science. More people just click on the first link, which is frequently Wikipedia to be redundant.

      I'm not sure why anybody finds the statistic even slightly remarkable.

      And yet you are about to remark on it. But before that, we have more. Did you think up this idea? No? If you had, do you think you would have made some remark to someone? Do you routinely read the studies of University of Prague economist Ladislav KriÅtoufek and try, as good scientists would, to replicate his results?

      Or to put it another way, did you know of a way prior to reading this that you could guess what the Google Trends hot topics would be? Because if so, you should have remarked on it sooner, you selfish asshole. Otherwise you shut up and let people do science you selfish asshole.

      Or even better, The article literally says "We found remarkably high correlations between them for frequently searched keywords." Why not ask those researchers at three Japanese universities why they bothered to remark, instead of wasting our time here?

      The only thing that's surprising to me is that it's not higher than 75%.

      There, you remarked. Why did you find that remarkable? Or remarkably low? I'd like to see your study, I really would. Let me paraphrase , "Anything that seems obvious in retrospect, I feel that I should have come up with first, so I'm going to shit on it."

      *ReadWriteWeb had a day when an article on Facebook hit the top result, and the comments for that article were along the lines of "I hate the new facebook look. Where's all my pictures? Change it back." Because that's how stupid people use the internet.

      http://readwrite.com/2010/02/10/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login

      In 2010, the site didn't require JavaScript, so you could see the article. Then you have to enable discus which I'm not going to, but look at the disclaimer. I'll copy it here because you seem to be lacking in very basic thinking skills.

      Dear visitors from Google. This site is not Facebook. This is a website called ReadWriteWeb that reports on news about Facebook and other Internet services. You can however click here and become a Fan of ReadWriteWeb on Facebook, to receive our updates and learn more about the Internet. To access Facebook right now, click here. For future reference, type "facebook.com" into your browser address bar or enter "facebook" into Google and click on the first result. We recommend that you then save Facebook as a bookmark in your browser.

      Yes, people are that stupid. Which is why we need science to study what they do and how they do it, because people like you and me, well at least

  2. Two private companies have lots of data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...only release some of it: news at 11.

    "Better" in what sense? that if they were willing to provide more than Google, they'd provide more than Google, or in the sense that their data somehow is more accurate in showing what people are interested in?

    Because if some shit interests me and I have no idea where to look, the first thing I do is check DuckDuckGo, and the first thing I avoid is Wikipedia. It used to be that the first thing I did was check Google, with the same rule about Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia will provide more precise data, but I would fear a world where it's more accurate.

  3. Wikipedia stats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your curious about Wikipedia page stats, then this sites quite cool:

        http://stats.grok.se/

    1. Re:Wikipedia stats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F#%@&*... To save any amateur copy-editors the time:
      your => you're
      sites => site is

    2. Re: Wikipedia stats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://bash.org/?14207

  4. Google already has it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because a vast majority of wikipedia pages are accessed through google searches...

  5. Except that by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    Except that probably something like 95% of Wikipedia views come from Google search results. So Google already *has* that click-through data.