SQL is a nice formal definition for these metrics. Even though it may become out of date (the prod database doesn't change in backwards incompatible ways that often), it's still a big win for the metrics pages IMO.
-Aaron On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: > >Keep in mind that, when I say "metrics documentation", I'm not referring > to documentation about Hive > <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Cluster/Hive>, the webrequest > logs <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data/Webrequest>, or > EventLogging <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/EventLogging>. > >To my mind, those are infrastructure topics that are relevant mainly to > Wikimedia (not MediaWiki) engineers, and so belong on Wikitech. > Agreed > > >I'm talking about documentation relevant to analysts, researchers, and > end users of metrics: "this is how we define an *edit*", "this is why we > use 5 edits as the cutoff for an active editor", "this is sample SQL for > counting surviving new active editors", > Agreed for all but last one, the sql will change. I will keep meta only > about definitions. If you start adding "examples" , it is likely they soon > will be out of date. > > > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Leila Zia <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Makes sense to me. >> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Neil P. Quinn <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Keep in mind that, when I say "metrics documentation", I'm not referring >>> to documentation about Hive >>> <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Cluster/Hive>, the webrequest >>> logs <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data/Webrequest>, >>> or EventLogging >>> <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/EventLogging>. To my >>> mind, those are infrastructure topics that are relevant mainly to Wikimedia >>> (not MediaWiki) engineers, and so belong on Wikitech. >>> >>> I'm talking about documentation relevant to analysts, researchers, and >>> end users of metrics: "this is how we define an *edit*", "this is why >>> we use 5 edits as the cutoff for an active editor", "this is sample SQL for >>> counting surviving new active editors", and so on. I think that kind of >>> information belongs on Meta (and not on mediawiki.org, which was the >>> original thrust of my question). >>> >>> Does that seem like a sensible split to people, or am I just agreeing >>> with one side of the debate? >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> I think having documentation in more than one place is an awful >>>>> experience for newcomers. >>>> >>>> >>>> Which newcomers are you referring to? Newcomers to the WMF engineering >>>> staff or newcomers to research/analytics of Wikimedia projects? >>>> >>>> It's OK to not understand the different purposes of our Wikis right >>>> away, but I don't think that is a good reason to undermine their purposes. >>>> I certainly don't see why wikitech is a desirable hub for this kind of >>>> information. From my point of view Wikitech is the *worst* potential hub >>>> of information that is not specific to engineering. >>>> >>>> What, exactly, is the trouble with having metrics documentation on >>>> Meta? How would moving *some of the the documentation* to wikitech help >>>> that? (Because you're not going to move research project documentation >>>> without even stronger disagreement from the locals.) >>>> >>>> -Aaron >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Dan Andreescu < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Strongly oppose moving the Research namespace hosted metrics >>>>>> documentation off Meta. It's s'posed to be broadly accessible. Wikitech >>>>>> is >>>>>> on few peoples' radar. Mediawiki.org is for software documentation. Meta >>>>>> is >>>>>> the central wiki for the movement (however imperfect). - J >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I respect the fact that these kinds of distinctions make sense to >>>>> people who are already familiar with the movement and research / >>>>> analytics. But to someone relatively new, and to me for the first year at >>>>> the foundation, those distinctions made zero sense. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not saying it's easy, but I think having documentation in more >>>>> than one place is an awful experience for newcomers. We'll continue to >>>>> move things to wikitech and leave nice high level landing pages on the >>>>> other wikis. Others are welcome to act differently if they so see fit. I >>>>> know a lot of research stuff is on meta, so maybe in your case it makes >>>>> sense to standardize on meta and point to it from the other wikis. >>>>> >>>>> You're of course welcome to disagree with me but I'd suggest first >>>>> trying to come up with examples of newcomers who understand the purpose of >>>>> our different wikis perfectly right away. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Analytics mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Analytics mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Neil P. Quinn <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>, >>> product 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
