Is this a potential solution to Oliver's concern:

For "real" image views, add an X-Analytics header value of "real-view=true"
to the request itself?

If that's not feasible, we should look into using statsv for this (not sure
how that works) or having this be a different kafka topic and not consumed
into HDFS.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Toby Negrin <[email protected]> wrote:

> I created a card -- modify as desired:
>
> https://trello.com/c/HMgVD4mz
>
> -Toby
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Toby Negrin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It turns out that the media viewer (on desktop; don't know about mobile)
>> does a lot of caching so just because an image is loaded from swift, it
>> doesn't mean it is viewed. We'd like to provide more accurate stats to the
>> GLAM folks, so yes, I think this needs to be added eventually. Let's leave
>> it out of scope for now.
>>
>> -Toby
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We want to include these files in the pageview definition? :/.
>>>
>>> My point was more that we should try to avoid traffic-generating
>>> requests that exist solely as a hack for analytics purposes; it's
>>> artificial work for both users and us. If this is the only way of
>>> doing things that's totally fine.
>>>
>>> On 5 February 2015 at 11:38, Toby Negrin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Hi Gergo -- I like this idea.  As far as capacity, any EL-Hadoop based
>>> > solution would be basically doing the same thing as you propose.
>>> >
>>> > Can you please run it past ops (especially the 404 v 204) part?
>>> >
>>> > Oliver -- the issue is that we'd like to figure out a way to provide
>>> > accurate views of the media files; because of client side caching, we
>>> can't
>>> > use the current requests. But your point is a good one -- we'll need
>>> to add
>>> > this to the PV definition.
>>> >
>>> > -Toby
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:18 AM, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> A nice theory, but if they appear in the webrequest table (presumably
>>> >> they would, and we're not creating an entirely new set of varnishes
>>> >> for the transmission of dummy images?) they have to be factored in.
>>> >> Again, however, the new definition automatically filters them by
>>> >> checking the webrequest source and MIME type, so this is not a
>>> >> problem, as I originally stated.
>>> >>
>>> >> On 5 February 2015 at 08:10, Erik Zachte <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> > Oliver, this is not about pageviews, but about media file views.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > These will be collected and dumped separately, as per
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Media_file_request_counts
>>> >> > .
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Erik
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > From: [email protected]
>>> >> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nuria
>>> Ruiz
>>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 22:28
>>> >> > To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who
>>> has
>>> >> > an
>>> >> > interest in Wikipedia and analytics.
>>> >> > Subject: Re: [Analytics] Virtual file view hack for Media Viewer
>>> views
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>We would add a rule to Vagrant to make sure it does not try to look
>>> up
>>> >> >> such
>>> >> >> requests in Swift but returns a 404 immediately.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I bet ops would like it a lot better if this is a 204 and it kind of
>>> >> > makes
>>> >> > sense as it is the code used for beacons and such. Otherwise they
>>> might
>>> >> > get
>>> >> > alarms on 404s increasing.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]
>>> >
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Not really; the new pageviews definition wouldn't include those
>>> files
>>> >> > anyway. It seems silly, thought, be deliberately generating a large
>>> >> > amount of automated noise and client requests for this :/.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On 4 February 2015 at 15:00, Gergo Tisza <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >> Hi all,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Erik Zachte is working on file view stats and is looking for a way
>>> to
>>> >> >> track
>>> >> >> Media Viewer image views (for which there is no 1:1 relation
>>> between
>>> >> >> server
>>> >> >> hits and actual image views); after some back and forth in
>>> >> >> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T86914 I proposed the following
>>> hack:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> whenever the javascript code in MediaViewer determines that an
>>> image
>>> >> >> view
>>> >> >> happened (e.g. an image has been displayed for a certain amount of
>>> >> >> time),
>>> >> >> it
>>> >> >> makes a request to a certain fake image, say
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Virtual-imageview-
>>> <real
>>> >> >> image name>/<size>px-thumbnail.<ext> . These hits can than be
>>> easily
>>> >> >> filtered from the varnish request logs and added to the normal
>>> >> >> requests.
>>> >> >> We
>>> >> >> would add a rule to Vagrant to make sure it does not try to look up
>>> >> >> such
>>> >> >> requests in Swift but returns a 404 immediately.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> This would be a temporary workaround until there is a proper way
>>> to log
>>> >> >> virtual image views, such as EventLogging with a non-SQL backend.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Do you see any fundamental problem with this?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> Analytics mailing list
>>> >> >> [email protected]
>>> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > Oliver Keyes
>>> >> > Research Analyst
>>> >> > Wikimedia Foundation
>>> >> >
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > Analytics mailing list
>>> >> > [email protected]
>>> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > Analytics mailing list
>>> >> > [email protected]
>>> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Oliver Keyes
>>> >> Research Analyst
>>> >> Wikimedia Foundation
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Analytics mailing list
>>> >> [email protected]
>>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Analytics mailing list
>>> > [email protected]
>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Oliver Keyes
>>> Research Analyst
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Analytics mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

Reply via email to