Sorry I forgot to address this earlier: >Do you think there are ways to fine-tune this, perhaps by excluding clients that also didn't download images? We can look at that but I suspect results will not differ much. Let me know if you think is necessary.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: > >That number is higher than I expected given that the general web was > apparently closer to 1.3% in 2010 > <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistics-on-javascript-disabled> > . > mmm.. that study looks too old to be relevant, two things on that: > > *1) Numbers from 2010 do not include mobile browsers with widespread > use nowadays. * > For example: "Opera Mini". We have >1% of requests only from this browser > (and I bet than in 2015 Yahoo is seeing quite a few of those). Note that > this 1% is a more precise one, derived directly from hadoop logs, requires > no guesswork. > > So it is not surprising that the number of disabled javascript pageviews > has gone up if you take mobile into account. Opera Mini does not support > javascript in the ways you would expect: > https://dev.opera.com/articles/opera-mini-and-javascript/ > > > *2) Our data differs from global stats in significant ways. * > For example, our IE6 and IE7 traffic is way higher than global stats > reported by http://gs.statcounter.com/ on the month of January. And note > these browser percentages are more precise estimates on our end (unlike the > javascript estimate that requires some cross checking and guesswork). Also, > note the total percentage we report over pageviews includes bots so > excluding those our IE6 and IE7 traffic is even higher than the one I am > noting below. > > Browser, Percentage of total pageviews by our account, global percentage > by statscounter > IE6: 1.01%, 0.09% > IE7: 0.7% , 0.14% > > I do not expect that our numbers are going to match 100% to statscounter > but I think is an OK guide to cross-check oneself, especially cause they > deploy their beacons worldwide:http://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology > > > >Finally, is there a way to gauge the difference in JS support between > anonymous & authenticated users from this data? > No, I do not think we can do that with this dataset. > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Gabriel Wicke <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thank you, Nuria! >> >> That number is higher than I expected given that the general web was >> apparently closer to 1.3% in 2010 >> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistics-on-javascript-disabled>. >> Do you think there are ways to fine-tune this, perhaps by excluding clients >> that also didn't download images? >> >> Finally, is there a way to gauge the difference in JS support between >> anonymous & authenticated users from this data? >> >> Gabriel >> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Gabriel: >>> >>> I have run through the data and have a rough estimate of how many of our >>> pageviews are requested from browsers w/o strong javascript support. It is >>> a preliminary rough estimate but I think is pretty useful. >>> >>> TL;DR >>> According to our new pageview definition ( >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view) about 10% of >>> pageviews come from clients w/o much javascript support. But - BIG CAVEAT- >>> this includes bots requests. If you remove the easy-too-spot-big-bots the >>> percentage is <3%. >>> >>> Details here (still some homework to do regarding IE6 and IE7) >>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Reports/ClientsWithoutJavascript >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Nuria >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
