Forum:June 2011 statistics

Forums: Index > Village Dump > June 2011 statistics

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4894 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Disclaimer: I'm new at this (Wikistats, Perl, numbers) and the scripts I've been working with are very uncooperative to say the least. I appreciate feedback but at the moment I am unable to adjust how the statistics are collected or how they are displayed. But this is the first time Uncyclopedia has seen wikistats in any form, even a very broken one, in years, so stuff it.

These are the statistics for Uncyclopedia as of July 16, 2011 as generated by a modified version of Wikistats. Don't even try to click any links. It's broken. Most of the important stuff is there though and that's what counts, right?

For those of you who don't like numbers, I've prepared a few charts to represent the more interesting statistics.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

A few interesting things to note:

• Our edit count is the lowest it's been since September 2005.
• Our most popular time was 2007-2008, around which time we had about 13,000 to 18,000 articles in mainspace.
• Our article count has never gone down, at least, not substantially (the numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand). Puzzling, considering the FFW in 2006 that deleted almost 4,000 articles.
• Most of our edits today come from established users (over 100 edits).
• The rate at which new users are joining Uncyclopedia is comparable to May 2005.
• Average article size seems to be plateauing.

Other non-wiki stats you may be interested in:

• Uncyclopedia on Google trends bears an uncanny resemblance to the charts of new users and edits over time.

Anyway, discuss. Is this worth doing every month? Do you want me to make more charts so you can visualize the data better? Also, ten thousand points to the first person who can figure out what the heck that "Zeitgeist" section means. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:54 Jul 28, 2011

Also, as of tomorrow, Famine has been gone for 1337 days. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:06, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

And how better to observe his 1337th day of absence than the beginning of Huffmas Part II? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 01:23 Jul 28, 2011

• What these stats are not showing is the average amount of "views" a day. That's a better way to measure traffic I think. That's how you get revenues for your ads (assuming there would be ads in the future) It's a good thing to have a lot of writers but what if nobody reads what they write? Mattsnow 05:08, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Save Uncyclopedia: Brainstorming

As everyone can see, our situation is pretty dire. Make any and all suggestions below. After all it's not like you can make this any worse...

• It's not a long-term solution or anything, but I thought maybe we should have a share-a-thon of some sort, where everyone (readers included, hopefully) is encouraged to share their favorite article(s) across as many social networks as possible. Might get us some attention or a few extra readers. Doesn't address whatever the major problem is here, though. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:18 Jul 28, 2011
• We should have ads advertising ourselves all around the world, on giant billboards. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:30, 28 July 2011
  • "Uncyclopedia.wikia.com, a great place for your huddles masses of retards." --→A (Ruins) 23:12, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
• I got a tattoo of a potato on my forehead. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:00, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • That shit had better have a URL on it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 04:09 Jul 28, 2011
    • "Uncyclopedia.org". I've had it for a while. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:18, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
• Vandalise Wikipedia! It lets us experience what all the fun is about, and the big GO TO UNCYCLOPEDIA.ORG YOU BASTARDS messages we plaster all over the place will surely attract a mob of unruly Wikipedians. That or UncycLeaks. --EpicAwesomeness (talk) 06:36, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't let Sannse hear you say that. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at01:32, Sunday 31 July 2011 -
• Put ads up on the site (Project Wonderful has some nice ones) and then use the revenue they generate to start paying our contributors. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 06:42, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait. You want to pay contributors for this crap? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:53, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
• Write funnier articles. Nameable • mumble? 12:00, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Better: Make unfunny articles funny. Making new, good articles won't help against new users reading mediocre articles and therefore not being interested in this site. Schamschi, 20:50, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
• Hire celebrity contributors, or at least pretend to. --Black Flamingo 16:37, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps if people would stop being so downright unpleasant to each other it might help. It's not the joking about it, it's the what may have been intended as jokes but you just can't tell anymore mixed with various forms of downright harassment - perhaps the former having gone even further too far, but regardless of why it's happening, it should stop. The atmosphere here is bloody sickening, throwing insults, ganging up on each other, sticking policies at users that should have earned our trust by now without hearing their side of the matter, having votes on bloody everything but then ignoring those votes when it suits people, revert warring each other instead of discussing matters, constantly insulting and harassing users on IRC, that kind of thing. I know I've been staying off IRC save for when I have specific questions because of that, and yes, it is harassment by the definition of the word, and not fun at all if you are on the receiving end and less so when it simply will not stop. I've been staying off IRC so far, but I have been seriously considering leaving entirely as well. It seems the only thing keeping me here currently is some deluded hope for the place, but perhaps that shall end as well if and when I have the time to start coming by on a more regular basis again. Changing around the unpleasantness might not attract new users, but it could at least help prevent so many of the older ones from getting fed up and leaving, and others from leaving because many of the folks they liked having around already left.

1234 ~ 15:30, 29 July 2011

• • O.K.!!!!! Lets all be reeely nice to eachother for one day, as an experiment, starting tomorrow. I'll be the moderator, so I can still be rude and piss off everyone like I usually do. →A (Ruins) 23:14, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
    • Just to piss you off: It's "as I usually do", not "like I usually do". "Like" is a preposition, not a conjunction. Schamschi, 23:23, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
      • I, for one, don't agree with Lyrithya, since I can't say there's a user here I don't like. Not a single one, really. But I appreciate all your work Lyrithya, it's kinda sad if people were mean to you. Maybe it was a joke? Sarcasm is hard to detect on the net :) Mattsnow 04:59, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
        • Yeah. I'm going to be completely sincere for a moment here (I know right) and express to you, Lyrithya, my true feelings: I really don't not like you. I think you think I'm like angry at you all the time or something but that's basically not true at all. You're by far one of our most valued contributors and I think I may value your valuability around here the most. Every time I'm in IRC now I hope you come online so I can beg to you to fix something I found that's broke, since no one else on this site is competent enough to do it. If you quit now, who else will we have to run against Roman Dog Bird on UotY? Quitting is for quitters like Flumpa. The only person on the site who's a genuine asshole who doesn't like you is Olipro and I don't think anyone respects him. So basically: don't leave. Also, Skully only acts weird towards you because he has a crush on you. There, I said it. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:07, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
          • And I'll say this. You're very strange. But even so, thank you.

1234 ~ 18:36, 30 July 2011

• • We're kinda aiming for realistic proposals here, Lyrithya. See mine for a great example. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:34, 29 July 2011
    • Hmm... we could deop Olipro. Well, apply behavioural standards to admins in general, I mean. Certain things get users banned pretty much without fail; shouldn't admins likewise be accountable for their actions? Seeing them getting away with basically whatever and then encountering retribution upon doing similar isn't apt to make most folks feel welcome, and yet it's natural for new folks to look up to admins for examples of what to do, how to be, how to approach things, etc.

1234 ~ 07:18, 30 July 2011

• • • • So you're saying we should de-op everyone? --Mn-z 12:46, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
        • As well as ban half of the userbase. It's not such a bad idea when you think about it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:59, 30 July 2011
          • Sounds like a plan.

1234 ~ 18:36, 30 July 2011

• • No YOU shut up! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:40, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
• We need more casual racism and random fetish pr0n. And articles in bad taste for the sake of bad taste. --Mn-z 04:23, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
• Get money from ad revenue, then spend it on ads on other sites. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:39, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
• Have a Welcome message that doesn't say "If you don't like it, here's the door." in the 1st paragraph. I never understood that one, and it is on every welcome message. Talk about a welcome! Mattsnow 04:51, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
• Also, have a Facebook "Like" button on the Main Page, maybe? Mattsnow 04:51, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
• When an admin hasn't contributed for a week, remove him from UN:AA. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 04:55, 30 July 2011
• Ban users with effeminate usernames. Ahem. Only joking Lollipop.HauntedUndies. 13:07, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
• Once in awhile, when you come across an hilarious article (or you write one!), share it on Facebook or whatever using the weird button that looks like this: <. (To the left of "Unwatch") Mattsnow 05:25, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
• We need superior quality control and be more open to new users and even anonymous edits. There have been too many instances of admins simply reverting edits of new users and IPs, assuming that they're vandalism, when they might just be some crass and childish jokes. Banning users who repeatedly create poor content without so much as advising them on what they're doing wrong would really discourage new people from contributing. I think that this problem exists more with IPs, who's edits seem to be considered "generally crap" by some, and hence a lot of their edits never survive on this wiki. Unlike registered users, these people are probably not even that well aware of the Beginner's Guide and HTBFANJS (sure, you get that message in the editing window, but it's not like anybody really reads into it). I think that we need to be more forthcoming and helpful to newer contributors, you know. Check on the new stuff they're coming up with, and try our level best to assume good faith in their actions. As an example of being more forthcoming, if a new user finds a recent article to be sub-par, and decides to tag it as ICU, he should also go to the contributor's talkpage and offer some more personalized advice on how to improve his writing. Because if new contributions are encouraged rather than dismissed, we could be opening ourselves up to completely new forms of humor, which us established users may have never thought of. To regain popularity, we must grow. And to grow, we must be more inclusive. --Scofield & Dudes 17:06, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, quality control is a double-bladed cheese, so to speak. Most of what new users to is irredeemable crap, often simply for choosing to write about utter irredeemable crap. I know this because I used to go through so much of it, and yet many of them do improve in their subject choices, style, and whatnot the more they write and stick around, but they're less likely to stick around if their first things get deleted... but you're entirely right about at least making it more personal. That does sometimes help. And the ICU itself has a fix message option to add specifics, as well.

1234 ~ 18:39, 30 July 2011

Would someone care to...

...Draw a vertical line on the graphs where the date is that Wikia took over hosting + moved the domain from uncyclopedia.org to uncyclopedia.wikia.com -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:35, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

That was around October 2008 which, if you look at all the graphs carefully, is a time when all of our everything decided to go up for a while, before plummeting mid-2009 for some reason. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:03, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's either organic, or Wikia started to attract enough spam/other shit that Google began to drop the rankings for everything on wikia.com, dragging us down with it -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 16:25, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

I mean it could be that second thing, or maybe for once we can start taking responsibility for our own decline and do something more constructive than bitch at Wikia. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:34, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think we all know what happened: our userbase finally had somewhere better to be immature and is now growing up faster than they would have liked, struggling through life due to various mental disorders and attempting to work themselves out of an inescapable future prospect of poverty on accoooount of the ecahhhh-nomy. That said, and more on-topic, any attempt to produce more stats, especially ones with greater month to month resolution and those that are exportable to delimited files we can fuck the shit out of, sounds like a plan to me. And, if such resolution improves, I wonder how long it will be before someone figures out how to leverage the recently departed users section to harass on an automatic basis those of us who seem to leave for months at a time into eventually coming back to fill the void of the legions of IPs who have left us over the years as we have systematically discouraged them by deleting their shit articles, and in many cases, what probably would have been their first forays into regularly editing the site, which in turn is increasingly less able to serve as an terribly, offensively written encyclopedia. Or they just got caught up in the free porn clip tube site rush of late 2007. Is there a way to compute the trending of active, valuable users? In any case, all Uncyc needs to do to get back the Internet's interest is to get ourselves into controversies that get us written up in the nightly news as a lovable rascal. You know, just write more parody of businesses, cities, and military dictatorships that would be libel if we were anywhere close to serious and/or credible. On that note, I've often heard advocacy for an UnWikiLeaks sort of setup. Maybe the answer lies in social media. We could make a facebook game! Think of how cool it would be if Uncyclopedia became mainstream! Chicks would dig our regular contributors and we could list our awards on our resumes and be totally idolized wherever we go! We could get press passes and have our own satellite TV station. Or we could just not care because in all likelihood that's just not going to happen. Perhaps we've simply reached internet parody wiki saturation. Perhaps, 10 years from now, we will have dwindled to nothing and have been domain name parked. I think we all know that's a little more realistic. In short, yes to stats. --KUN VFH POTM VFP(IMAGES⇔TALK) 21:18, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and looking at Zeitgeist I thought the first number was some sort of ranking (certain pages excluded) and the superscript was its ranking in the previous month, but according to Wikipedia's version, the formula is as follows: "For each month articles with most contributors in that month are shown. x ^ y z ⇐ x = rank, y = contributors in that month, z = article title". --KUN VFH POTM VFP(IMAGES⇔TALK) 21:35, July 30, 2011 (UTC)