Talk:List of most-visited websites

Wikipedia must be in the 7th place?

I don´t really understand why some sites are discriminated for country/language (like Amazon or Yahoo) and Wikipedia it´s not discriminated in the same way (all languages access are considered part of the same thing, and all access are counted in the same place, resulting in a 7th place for Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.133.167 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the same web address for its various language versions of the site, while Yahoo and Amazon use different web addresses for its various language sites, therefore are counted separately. Frmorrison (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please sort this out?

Not only the ranking of website is wrong but it is also so intentionally. I identified at least one post that maliciously use wikipedia to increase the traffic on specific websites.

Have a look at this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_most_popular_websites&diff=532018164&oldid=531993743

For instance, Babylon.com has never been ranked 28. There is presumably more of those.

Could someone please fix or get rid of this page?

Thanks.

Wrong Ranking

The ranking of the pages is wrong, it has not been updated in a month — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.35.109 (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Pointless?

Given the wildly inaccurate nature of the ranking measures in use for this list, isn't this page largely pointless? --gilgongo (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder.

Can I see most popular websites in the past? For example,in 2007,2008 and 2009.Manzzzz^(talk) 14:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Manzzzz. This article is currently lacking that information, but I think such information would be an important subject for this article to include. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

similarweb ranking

I wonder if we should include the similarweb ranking in this list. It's a web measurement firm from Israel competing with Alexa’s stronghold in web rankings (techcrunch, thenextweb). I'd expect their data to be as questionable as Alexa's, but the comparison with similarweb global top100 may make this clearer and be interesting. --Atlasowa (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended content
{{{1}}}

Seems reasonable to me. Including SimilarWeb's rankings would help the article remain neutral. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, this whole list article is a spammers paradise, it's impossible to maintain/update adequately and every second day some IP-user changes 1 or 2 other spamlinks on the list. I'm giving up and kicking this off my watchlist. I'd recommend removing "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." and putting this article under pending changes or half protection, but frankly this is a lost cause and not worth it. --Atlasowa (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page after an inspection of the edit history. I have also removed the incomplete notice, as suggested. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Arbitrarily0, and sorry for venting. The problem is: Alexa ranking, the google ranking and SimilarWeb's ranking changes - daily? Updating a Top 100 wikitable is not a quick thing to do (unless there is some method i don't know) - I looked at this for including SimilarWeb in the table. Can someone recommend a good updating method and a reasonable updating rhythm? --Atlasowa (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding SimilarWeb rankings is a good idea, here is the list Top 100 sites. Normally only the top 50 is shown, but there is a free demo to see the top 100. Frmorrison (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Google Ad Planner

I wonder why Wikipedia has an entry in the Google ad planner list?--Mideal (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

incorrect information

www.vk.com is NOT a video game review website. It is the largest social networking site in Russia and has nothing to do with video game reiews.

Edit request on 10 July 2013

Please change VKontakte from 'videogame reviews' to 'social networking'. It is a social networking site similar to facebook that is popular in the former soviet union. source: vk.com 84.82.94.237 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Done 786b6364 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013

Please, change the type of Universo Online Site from "Search" to "Portal". Universo Online is a huge portal from Brazil. Bernardo Silva (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have done it for you this time, but Adrian please change |answered=no to |answered=y when completing a request in the future to remove it from the list of requests needing assistance. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops! I usually do. Thanks Technical 13. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

The type provided for Amazon.com in the table should be changed from "Microblogging / Instant Messaging / Social Media" to "Commerce", for general accuracy as well as consistency with the other Amazon sites. 121.98.124.75 (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You're going to have to be more specific. You are probably also going to need to offer some reliable source. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Your response is a bit confusing - my proposed change follows exactly the format requested, and an adequate source for this change is the Wikipedia article for Amazon.com itself. The only way to be more specific is to go directly to the markup code: Please change

|-
| [[Amazon.com]]
| amazon.com
| 12
| 6,183,107
| 15
| Microblogging / Instant Messaging / Social Media

to

|-
| [[Amazon.com]]
| amazon.com
| 12
| 6,183,107
| 15
| Commerce

121.98.124.75 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are a number of mis-matched site types; the problem appears to have arisen with this change: [1][2]. The best approach might be to revert and then apply the ranking update more carefully.121.98.124.75 (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Good catch, thanks. Since no ref was given, I simply reverted that edit. Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

Please change xnxx.com from position 99 because according to Alexa XNXX.com is 101 and ThemeForest.net is 99.

Source:

• http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/xnxx.com
• http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/themeforest.net

|- | Xnxx | xnxx.com | 99 | | Pornography |-

|- | ThemeForest | themeforest.net | 99 | | E-Commerce |-

Ivorpad (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - as the column clearly states - Alexa traffic rank June 2014
When Alexa issue their July 2014 rankings we will update the entire list, but not until then, as all entries need to use the same base date. - Arjayay (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Original Research

This article claims in its body to be original research; the ranking is a combination of several metrics in a totally undocumented way. It does not reflect directly the data gathered from any of the sources listed. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Either the list should directly reflect an external secondary source, or it should be removed. Gorman (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the list is Alexa's top 100 of June 2014. (Plus for 18 entries the Ad Planner stats.) It's not original research. It needs to be slightly rewritten and updated to show the present stats instead of those of June, and the article needs to be moved to reflect that it shows the popularity according to Alexa; List of most popular websites by Alexa traffic rank or whatever. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

bp-b.blogspot.com instead of bp.blogspot.com 103.6.156.173 (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: That website is someone elses by the looks of it so not done. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

NetEase website (163.com) provides News and Online Games too, besides Search. Chenxuancui (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Not a popular website, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Done:: 163.com is a top 100 site, so I added Portal to its description. Frmorrison (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Show if server is IPv6 or not

Hello, I've got an idea about trying to make more sites IPv6. And that is to show if the site is 4/6 in a column. Maybe even an automated script showing all addresses in future on all wikipedia but we'll have to start somewhere. I could check all the url's in list of most popular websites. Tell me what you think about it. Thanks Dammew (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

While it may be nice to know is a server uses IPv6, it doesn't really have a place on a list of the most popular websites. Frmorrison (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015

AdobeVideos

| Adobevideos.com | 3 | 3 | Video sharing |- Balu 1411 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No wiki page, Alexa ranking is 3 million. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/adobevideos.com Cannolis (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

URL in final row should be indiatimes.com, not in.google.com

The final entry in the table is for India Times, but the URL is for Google's India page. The correct URL is indiatimes.com. ( http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/indiatimes.com ) Untorqued (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Multiple listings

Why does Google have separate listings for Google Japan, Google India, etc. but Wikipedia does not have separate listings for the English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, etc. Shouldn't we use the same rules for all sites on the list? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Was this not already answered here? 80.1.219.140 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That answer ("Wikipedia uses the same web address for its various language versions of the site, while Yahoo and Amazon use different web addresses for its various language sites, therefore are counted separately") is factually incorrect. yahoo.co.jp and yahoo.com are different web addresses. ja.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org. are different web addresses. Each leads to a different website. Whether different-language websites controlled by the same organization are listed separately should not depend on trivial differences in the URL naming scheme. BTW, http://www.wikipedia.jp is also the web address for the Japanese Wikipedia. Try it! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

We, as editors, do not decide which websites are the most popular, we use 3rd party sources. If the 3rd party sources only list one webiste, wikipedia.org, then that means only one website is is going to be listed. --Frmorrison (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Which third party source? http://www.alexa.com/topsites splits Google into Google.com, Google.co.in, Google.co.jp, and Google.de, and puts Google.com at #1. http://www.similarweb.com/global splits Google into Google.com, Google.com.br, Google.co.in, Google.fr, Google.co.uk, Google.es, Google.com.tr, Google.pl, Google.ru Google.it, Google.ca, Google.co.jp, Google.com.mx, Google.com.ar and puts Google.com at #2. We are using sources that compare apples and oranges. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

3rd party sources can be found by clicking on the bracketed numbers, such as [1], [2]; this ranks website according to Alexa and then shows the differing ranksing from Similarweb. Both of these sources list Google with its separate sites and Wikipedia as one site. If those sources rank Wikipedia into different websites, then this list should be updated. However, unless the sources change their ranking systems, Wikipedia will remain ranked as one website. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is Wikipedia ends with .org and Google ends with .com .co.uk etc as seen here so the one we are currently on is the English language version of Wikipedia with starts in en. and if you look at say the Italian version it starts with it. but all are under the same domain which is .org as opposed to Google which ends with different domains for their language versions. If you think about it this is not www.Wikipedia.en (also the Japanese example used is not hosted on .jp it just redirects to .org) 80.1.219.140 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: "all are under the same domain which is .org as opposed to Google which ends with different domains for their language versions" you are mistaken as to the meaning of the phrase "domain". See Domain name and Fully qualified domain name. en.wikipedia.org is a domain name. jp.wikipedia.org is a different domain name. www.yahoo.com is a domain name. yahoo.co.jp is a different domain name. Also a domain name that redirects to another domain name is still a domain name, as is one that hosts a web server, an email server, or nothing at all. The content doesn't change whether it is a domain name or not. Thus www.yahoo.com and yahoo. com are different domain names with the non-www domain name redirecting to the www domain name. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

See here and you will find Wikipedia uses subdomains which are a part of the main domain which is .org as opposed to Google which does not use subdomains. 80.1.219.140 (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand how the domain name system works. I was a minor contributor to the original DNS design discussions. What you have not explained is why you think that this is significant. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the sources used might be tracking the hits to the websites that way. 80.1.219.140 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read the article it says "Only the site's highest-level domain is recorded, aggregating any subdomains." so I would advise you find sites that do not track them that way if it's such an issue. 80.1.219.140 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to differentiate between TLD URLs and websites. A piece of text should be added explaining situations where one website operates under different addresses. If Facebook decided to move only your personal profile editing pages to "facebook.me", would people seriously treat it as a separate website in real life? Whatsbrocolli (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2015

Dailymotion is a French company and not a US one, as specified in the table.

Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dailymotion

81.67.197.104 (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out

Need Update

As per Alexa Ranking Youtube.com take over the Facebook.com and in 2nd place. Kindly update the Details as soon as possible and frequently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenifersoflous (talk • contribs) 13:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone else undated it a few weeks ago, but it was done incorrectly so it should be good now. It is very tedious to update this list and I have done it every 4-6 months the last two years. If you think it should be updated more frequently, you are welcome to check the references and update it. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Is google a search engine?

Yes, obviously. But also the domain is used for so much more e.g. play.google.com mail.google.com analytics.google.com so isn't calling it just a search engine a generalisation that doesn't really cover its full traffic? Rayman60 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Censored?

According to an NPR program, Under the Influence, on May 7, 2016, pornography sites are in the top 5.64.53.191.77 (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)