QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 2:53pm)
The articles I worked on were all highly viewed and traditional when it came to academia.
However, most of the articles at FAC were obscure animals, obscure roads, obscure bands, obscure military battles, etc.
The review divides FA editors into categories.
Dabblers: Typically a single FA on a low view topic . Example: Harrias writing “Herbie Hewittâ€, a 19th century cricket player.
Star collectors: High production of FA stars by emphasizing low-relevance content.like Malleus, Ealdgyth, Casliber, Ucucha, Brianboulton etc. that work on obscure articles with few page views per month and not on important articles.
Champions: Typically a single FA on an important topic. An example is user Jakob.scholbach writing “Logarithmâ€.
Battleships: Multiple high impact FAs. An example is user Hawkeye writing “Manhattan Project†and “Leslie Grovesâ€. (These editors can also be Star collectors.)
"Champions deliver more value than star collectors, per capita and overall: High relevance/low production beats low relevance/high production."
"Star collecting delivers little benefit as a segment.
•Even though there are almost twice as many star collectors as champions, the champion group delivers eight times the value.
•Star collectors and dabblers together deliver only 7% of overall FA viewer impact.""Ucucha had 14 times the stars as Garrando in 2011 JAN-SEP. But since Garrando’s single article has 180 times the popularity of Ucucha’s average article, Garrando had 13 times the total reader impact. Champion beats star collector."This post has been edited by chrisoff: