Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-16/Traffic report
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Kaiser matias in topic Discuss this story
Discuss this story
- Anyone interested in how the US GOP candidates are doing, here's my updated viewcount chart through this past week:[1]--Milowent • hasspoken 19:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
![[1]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPDC9GHUsAAxe0w.png:large){kind=link}
- Why not both Republicans and Democrats? Or exploring the relationship between page views[2][3] and other measures? EllenCT (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Because I am particularly interested in the circus of Trump, because his wikipedia numbers seem to be correlated with his poll standings. It is extremely doubtful that any Republican candidate can be elected president in 2016. The Democratic race is comparatively boring, and Hillary Clinton is very likely to be the nominee, and next president.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you doubt a Republican can be elected, why wouldn't that make the Democratic race less boring? Trump is, as you and he both say, a circus for ratings to try to get people to passively consume media without any meaningful participation. Hillary Clinton is no longer leading likely primary voter polls in New Hampshire or Iowa. Saying her election is "very" likely requires ignoring substantial signals and clear trends. Neither oddsmakers nor candidates' fundraising statistics suggest a noncompetitive Democratic race. EllenCT (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll pay attention to the candidates on substance a year from now, for now I'm just enjoying the spectacle of Trump. Since reporting is so devoid of substance on the candidates' positions, anybody can lead in the polls no matter how ridiculous they are. E.g., Trump can't deport 11 million people, will never happen. Its like Pakistani's who devoutly defended Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car -- the stupid burns. Even when i was really young, I liked Ross Perot only for the spectacle. So I warped early on. But -- I'm mindful of your point that I should be careful about ordaining Hillary even in jest when I write the report, so I appreciate you approaching this issue rationally.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you doubt a Republican can be elected, why wouldn't that make the Democratic race less boring? Trump is, as you and he both say, a circus for ratings to try to get people to passively consume media without any meaningful participation. Hillary Clinton is no longer leading likely primary voter polls in New Hampshire or Iowa. Saying her election is "very" likely requires ignoring substantial signals and clear trends. Neither oddsmakers nor candidates' fundraising statistics suggest a noncompetitive Democratic race. EllenCT (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Because I am particularly interested in the circus of Trump, because his wikipedia numbers seem to be correlated with his poll standings. It is extremely doubtful that any Republican candidate can be elected president in 2016. The Democratic race is comparatively boring, and Hillary Clinton is very likely to be the nominee, and next president.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why not both Republicans and Democrats? Or exploring the relationship between page views[2][3] and other measures? EllenCT (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Minor correction. The Queen isn't Queen of England, as that hasn't been a title since 1707. She's Queen of the United Kingdom (and the other 15 Commonwealth Realms). Kaiser matias (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)