- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:53:22 -0700
- To: sean@elementary-group.com
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
- Message-Id: <6240A29B-8325-4F9F-9CF3-39F9DF625BB2@apple.com>
On Apr 24, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Sean Fraser wrote: > > > On Tue Apr 24 15:22 , Dan Connolly sent: > > >>In the teleconference survey, Josef Spillner writes: > > >> "Clarification would be needed on the top200 vs. top200-US sites > survey > >> suggestions. The latter one would clearly produce skewed > results, but > >> the former one should also not be more than a tiny source of > input, as > >>top sites usually don't build HTML pages, they buy them instead." > >> -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tel26Apr/results > > > I'm not really that picky. If you want to survey the top 200 sites > > in the world, go for it. If you want to survey the top 3 sites > > in your neighborhood, that's perhaps a little less interesting, > > but I'd still like to hear about it. > > Alexa's an ideal source. It generates the Top 500 most _popular > Global_ sites, e.g., MySpace and YouTube, which will give more > diverse data regardless if the sites are templates or hand-coded. > Very few WordPress sites are not templates. And, template authors > are still authors. Another useful source of sites to look at might be sites with Google PageRank 9 or 10. Although there are some quirky entries, this is a good indicator of sites that are heavily linked to. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 01:53:51 UTC