39.5% of the clicks coming through in-body external links is a bit concerning, no? I thought such hyperlinks were generally discouraged.
W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 10:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
As was commented in the article, the split was "Infoboxes","References", "Other" (also called main body). As such, two EL, one in the lede or in a section outside of a reference and one properly in an EL section would be viewed identically. I would *love* to see the analysis done with an EL section split from "Other/main body".
Naraht (
talk) 15:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Ah, I did not consider that ==External Links== would not be considered under References. Yes, it would indeed be interesting to see such an analysis.
W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 15:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes - such a frustrating oversight! I have to say though, I'm actually surprised that the overall dolar value came out so low (basically negligeable when spread across so many potential target organisations). I suppose it's actually good news, since it discourages manipulation by companies.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I wonder if it changes when an archived page from the Wayback machine is used? I fixed a rotted url today regarding an external link to a building preservation group. The structure is being demolished so preservation is moot and while the group has disbanded their domain redirects to a porn site. If the above analysis is correct then having the link in Wikipedia may have increased its value for the domain brokers. Or maybe it now goes down because a click on wikipedia no longer takes one to the porn site. BlueRiband► 04:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
