Talk:Similarweb

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: material from Similarweb and SimilarGroup cut-and-paste moved incorrectly to SimilarWeb by the nominator. Rather than attempt a messy histmerge, I will put attribution on the talk page of the new article, despite it being a recreation of an article that was previously deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Similarweb → SimilarWeb – Page should be renamed as far as SimilarWeb Ltd. itself uses this type of inscription of it's company name as we can see it from the company logo. Therefore readers would be able to recognize the company instantly and be sure that they got on the right page. Moreover existing SimilarWeb page is empty and has redirection to the current page. Google also shows you the company name it the format mentioned above: https://www.google.co.il/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=similarweb Cohentom (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I had the same thought. eBay for example has the main article under eBay, not ebay. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per various precedents, as long as the CamelCase usage is demonstrably consistent. If it's not and they just style it this way sometimes (what about in their legal filings?), then do not move, also per lots of precedent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested revision

Hope I'm doing it right now - Can you please set the intro to fit the one before the editing?: Similarweb is a digital intelligence solution provider for enterprise and small to mid-sized business (SMB) customers. The platform provides web analytics services for businesses. The company offers its customers information on their clients' and competitors' web traffic volumes, referral sources which include keyword analysis and demographics, and website "stickiness" (e.g., time on site, page views, bounce rate), as well as other features. It extrapolates data from a panel of web users who allow the monitoring of their internet activity, combined with direct observations for a subset of internet properties, such as websites' own traffic statistics. In 2019, it claimed to have the world's largest panel, with hundreds of millions users. This was the published version here until earlier today (+ the 1st sentence). Lem4 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This doesn't really describe the company in a lead-like way, but it comes off as advertorial. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Hmm...

Alexa Internet shut down on 1 May 2021...and SimilarWeb's IPO was 12 days later. This isn't worth mentioning??? 142.181.93.182 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Should Similarweb be cited to report web traffic rankings on Wikipedia?

(I apologize if I've used the incorrect template. If so, please replace it with the appropriate one.)

This topic came up on Talk:GunBroker.com, and merits further discussion by the community at large, given the large number of pages that could be affected (to date, 166 pages). It is not my intention to engage in Wikipedia:Edit warring, but to work toward Achieving consensus.

User:Lightoil stated on 4 May 2023 that "Similarweb may be used if it is considered a reliable source."

On 24 August 2023, User:Spintendo implemented a COI edit request to cite Similarweb web traffic data.

On 26 September 2023, User:Graywalls removed the cited data and maintains that "Similarweb.com is not really a data source. [...] Similarweb is just a data aggregation."

Graywall and I have not been able to reach consensus on this matter, so it seems opening up the topic is warranted.

Should Similarweb be cited to report web traffic rankings on Wikipedia?

Similarweb is used to report rankings all over Wikipedia, most notably the entire List of most-visited websites page, which relies solely on Similarweb as the source.

There are at least 165 other Wikipedia pages (to date) relating to website traffic for entities like Facebook, Weather Underground (weather service), WebMD, and numerous international entities. Other notable pages using these metrics include List of most popular Android apps, List of employment websites (which sorts the data based on Similarweb traffic rank), and List of online video platforms, to name a few.

The question is whether or not Similarweb rankings are a valid source, as it is common practice to use them as an exclusive source on Wikipedia pages (as evidenced by the above links and articles). Since data from sources like Alexa Internet has been discontinued, I'm at a loss to find other secondary sources for website traffic data that could be used on any pages. I would welcome other reliable secondary sources if any could be provided. LoVeloDogs (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to disclose that you're a publicist discussing on behalf of the company in the opening of any discussion in which you have a direct COI rather than assume people will look at the talk page or your user page to determine it. Graywalls (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls

I have no COI with Similarweb. LoVeloDogs (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@LoVeloDogs:, Lightoil declined your edit, because of their assessment of neutral point of view. They believed your request did not conform to neutrality, not that the source's accuracy is questionable. You omitted this in this discussion. I believe the decision to present this in the article is undue. You were wanting to embellish ranking information that you want to highlight based on company affiliated editorial discretion which was to exhibit it shows up as number 1 in the very narrowly filtered category. The site reliably supports the basic data you're wanting to present, but What's the justification to include this rather than just being 3,664th visited website? https://casetext.com/case/gunbrokercom-llc-v-ill-dept-of-fin-profl-regulation this would likely pass as reliable for the information presented, but if there's no secondary source (a reliable source discussing about it, such as newspaper), the inclusion isn't a reliability issue, but a undue contents issue. Using it to support the position in list of most visited online pet goods store calls is a different context than using it to insert a line into the page of a pet goods website that inserting a promotional trivia like "pet goods store was ranked the 2nd most popular pet goods store in the world". Graywalls (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls

Respectfully, this discussion is not an appropriate venue for matters on the Talk:GunBroker.com page, I only referenced it for context since that is where you brought Similarweb's validity as a source citation into question, not to lobby for any changes to the GunBroker.com page to be implemented. I had been making the case on that talk page, but it became apparent that there is a larger question to be addressed: whether or not Similarweb is a data source.

This discussion is to address your assertion that "Similarweb.com is not really a data source. [...] Similarweb is just a data aggregation." That opinion may well be shared in the community, and this would be the appropriate talk page for the subject "Should Similarweb be cited to report web traffic rankings on Wikipedia?". The aim here is Achieving consensus on the worthiness of Similarweb's traffic data for all of the pages mentioned above (now 167, to date), and any pages that may cite their data in the future.

Wikipedia articles do make reference to Similarweb rankings in filtered categories, for example:

Weather Underground (weather service): "SimilarWeb rates the site as the second most visited weather website globally, attracting more than 47 million visitors per month."

Yahoo! Finance: "It is ranked 20th by SimilarWeb on the list of largest news and media websites."

news.com.au: "SimilarWeb rates the site as the third most visited news website in Australia, attracting more than 18 million visitors per month."

Hattrick (video game): "SimilarWeb rates the site as the most visited fantasy sports website globally, attracting almost 4.6 million visitors per month."

AutoTrader.co.za: "According to SimilarWeb, autotrader.co.za is South Africa's largest website in their Autos and Vehicles category."

As previously mentioned, all of the following are filtered categories using Similarweb as the sole reference:

List of most popular Android apps

List of employment websites

List of online video platforms

However, on CodePen, Similarweb was questioned as a potentially unreliable source: "[...] registered users and 14.16 million monthly visitors.", and I'm sure there are other examples of this.

Pending the outcome of the consensus, an audit of the affected pages would be warranted in order to ensure consistency throughout. LoVeloDogs (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

References