Message-ID: <937d27e10803170149u1820920s4efc01b5fa03a5bf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:49:15 +0000
From: "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: "Greg Smith" <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Subject: Re: Popular pages on techdocs
Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0803141359350.8220@westnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0803132046070.23300@westnet.com>
	<937d27e10803140132v47eed3a4lbf2f06ce7b5d0203@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0803141359350.8220@westnet.com>

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > You might be able to extract some useful data from Google Analytics if
>  > you're willing to give it a go?
>
>  I certainly was.  Ignoring the main navigation pages, here are the most
>  popular pages on techdocs:
>
alter table
change password
sequence
psql
...
>
>  I had been working on a more task-oriented FAQ for postgresqldocs.org,
>  staring at this data makes me think that would be nice to integrate with a
>  "Popular manual sections" page of some sort.  I sometimes guess what
>  people want but it's always nice when it can be measured like the above
>  instead.

Agreed.

Magnus, do you think it would be worth adding this data as an
additional weighting on the search engine to favour appropriate pages?
Or perhaps we should just update the docbot thingy.

>  > I am aware that some of the text we migrated is *really* old now, so a
>  > culling/archiving session would be a worthwhile pursuit.
>
>  While there are some recent articles like my MySQL comparision, many of
>  the most popular pages were dated 2001.  There's plenty to be culled, but
>  some it should be probably be refreshed instead.

You sound like you're volunteering :-p

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK Ltd: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk