- http://ffnresearch.blogspot.ca/2011/03/fan-fiction-demographics-in-2010-age.html on FF.net demographics
- http://destinationtoast.tumblr.com/stats & http://destinationtoast.tumblr.com/tagged/ao3+analysis+series/chrono/
- http://curlicuecal.tumblr.com/post/54793630226/oops-i-nerded Homestuck specific
- http://www.noseyhedgehog.co.uk/processing/ on crossovers
- http://thisisevenharderthannamingablog.tumblr.com/tagged/statistics-for...-fun%3F Pacific Rim and Marvel tracking over time
- http://fanlore.org/wiki/Special:Statistics and http://fanlore.org/wiki/Fanlore#Statistics
- Statistics. How Much Fan Fiction Is There on the Web? How Many Fans? Who Are They?
- The Fanfiction Universe: Some Statistical Approaches
- If someone has a copy of The Tides of Time#Issue 27 zine, the piece "Mathematics Cannot Lie II" may contain stats about Doctor Who fanworks, but it also might be about the show. Hard to tell from the blurb.
- In Come Together#Issue 24, someone did a quick poll of LoCs and had something interesting to say about prolific reviewers and positive vs. negative tendencies in reviews.
- http://melannen.dreamwidth.org/77558.html on slasher sexuality
- Fan Survey (and the category)
- http://blogger.ghostweather.com/2012/07/captain-america-is-getting-some-in.html on Marvel shipping
Yay, thank you for starting the post! I do want to mention that fandom stats have been around for a long time (like, longer than I've been alive), and Toasty, though awesome, didn't start them. Nor would I say any one fandom statistician is the most well-known? Comparatives like that are hard to prove. It might be better to just say "Destinationtoast is one well-known publisher of statistical analyses, with a focus on AO3, ff.net, and Tumblr". After all, statistics exist for a wide variety of sites and fangroups all over the world, and I have no idea what all the different fan statisticians are tracking. But I'm excited to find out! (Off to find more fun!) -the old briar pipe (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I definitely never meant to imply otherwise, and I definitely see what you mean about the comparisons. I was mostly aiming to get some words onto the page, so it wasn't super high quality. I like how you've changed it! The structure's also great, and I've started populating the methods section, and I added a pitfalls section which needs improvement but definitely needs to be in there in some form. Sungabraverday (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yay, more text! Thank you for the examples and filling in the giant, gaping holes. I've talked to Toasty, and if they have time, they might be willing to drop by and help with methods & such. We may be able to create a separate page devoted just to their analyses, if we have enough material. They also suggested we reach out to others they've reblogged or tagged and encourage them to bring their experiences, methods, etc. over. So we have lots of options! I'm going to get an email conversation going with them, so if you have anything you want to pass along, please do! -the old briar pipe (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've started adding a bunch of methodology for the fanworks analysis sections. I still need to flesh out the explanations and provide links (especially because some of it sounds kind of theoretical or how-to right now, and I want to provide examples of where these techniques have actually been applied, instead). But before I spend too much time making those changes, I'd love some feedback on whether this is the right kind of info and the right level of detail to be including in this article. Thanks! destinationtoast, 22 September 2013
- Thank you so much for all of this, wow! I really like it so far. I think section 2.2 will need to be broken down a bit from the lengthy paragraphs there now - more newspaper style in format, I think - but the info itself is very good. If you have links for references, I'd be happy to help you put those in. If you find any one section gets unwieldy, we can break it off into its own subpage. But I don't think that's the case right now with 2.2 or 2.3. For "how to", the Relative Frequency section looks fine. In the other three, I think less "if one wants to do this, one should" and more "a fan might want to know X, so they do Y". It's more language than content. And yes, examples would help. But overall, I love it! --the old briar pipe (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
A way to disambiguate?
When I search for "Statistics" on Fanlore, I get the official Fanlore statistics page. I wonder how one can tweak things so that "Fandom Stats" is also an option as a landing page? Any ideas? P.S. I love all the work folks are doing on this subject, and welcome to destinationtoast! --Mrs. Potato Head (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hm. We might need to rename this page "Fandom Statistics"? And also give it a lot of hits, since search is somewhat automatic by hit count, iirc? --the old briar pipe (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I wish there was a way to make "Statistics" a disambiguation page, but I don't see a way to do this when the "Statistics" page is an official one (no "edit" button on that page.) If we could, we could do "Statistics," Fanlore administration page for statistics, and "Fandom Statistics." --Mrs. Potato Head (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've made Statistics a disambiguation page, it was just automatically redirecting to Special:Statistics before. --sparc (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know how you did that, but thank you! --Mrs. Potato Head (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)