I was thinking about a list like this in December and had hoped that you would pull together a 2020 Top list for the Signpost. I usually scan the weekly list but read this one thoroughly and can tell how much time you put into it. Some surprises, it's interesting to compare articles that had one strong week (RBG) vs. less newsworthy articles that get a moderate amount of views but more consistently over the year (United States). You can always rely on the Deaths article to be pretty high on the top list. It would be interesting to compare views vs. edits, to see whether those articles that were most popular also received the most attention from Wikipedia editors. LizRead!Talk!22:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: WHAT? Seriously, what are you referring to and why are you annoyed at what honestly sounds like some sarcastic comment. Come on. You say "please stop" like it's some disruptive edit I keep making jfc Kingsif (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
??? Calm down - you're not making much sense. I'm referring to your comment (obviously), which you you chose to phrase in the present continuous. You're very touchy. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ed. Since I don't edit Signpost and don't remember a comment to John it's super clear he was not making any sense. I'm referring to your comment (obviously) - clearly it was a comment I made, but which is ridiculously not obvious. Oh, from the Top 50. Maybe if you needlessly told me off at that page I'd have understood. Sorry for using the 2018 figures, sorry for being humorous on a page with the purple banner at the top. So I repeat: jfc. What an unnecessary instruction. Kingsif (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it wasn't clear - since I commented at this page I still don't see why it wasn't totally obvious I was referring to one of your few sections here, and I included a quote so you could have3 found out which if you didn't know. Those statements were just as wrong in 2018, I think you'll find, & I'm not sure what was supposed to be "humorous". Why is it "needless" and "unnecessary" to point out a mistaken assumption by someone claiming a degree of responsibility for editing the main page? Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What an utterly appalling format! I felt almost nauseous by the end. Why on earth use a vertical table arranged in columns with three words per line? Just suppose the whole of article space were arranged like this? Approximately 97% of the space is entirely wasted. About as much fun to read as having a tooth extracted without anaesthetic. Obviously you are not responsible for the 'winners', but as a confirmed republican reading about our useless inbred dysfunctional royal family made the entire experience even more utterly dispiriting. You even made me use an exclamation mark, which really defines a low point for me. 0/10. MinorProphet (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We always expect someone to complain about the content, but not the format - specially as is the same of every month of the Traffic Report (plus every week here), only with an extra column for the "peak views" and colors to note who wrote each entry, as it's been done since 2017. igordebraga≠05:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing read. Predictable yet Super interesting. Whoever wrote the text on the Shooting of Breonna Taylor must've really been hurt/annoyed/pissed. I could literally feel the emotion while reading. Sad. --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Traffic report