On 17 August 2015 at 16:20, Adam Baso <[email protected]> wrote: >> Whose job is it to review pageviews and update the definition when >> issues are found? > > > I see the thread evolved a bit today. But I'll note this for people going > through the archives: > > There seem to be a few levels of review of pageviews. There's been stuff for > the monthly metrics meetings (e.g., earlier this month Kevin Leduc ran some > reporting). Tilman Bayer is also working on some regular reports for > Reading; he has generated quarterly scorecards around this sort of data in > the past, too. Reading is a customer of the data so to speak. I think a lot > of us are doing ad hoc lookups from time to time.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about review in the sense of using it, I was talking about review in the sense of actively looking for issues. > > For reporting issues my working understanding is if someone notices an issue > we should submit a bug against #analytics in Phabricator, with Analytics > implementing updates as needed (as Oliver noted in a later report, how to > systematize review is a question he and Joseph will look to answer). > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > -- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
