I agree with Dan and Marcel here. Like, iterative approach, sure, and if following an iterative approach it should start with the per-article data because we _know_ that's really valued: look at stats.grok.se's popularity providing just that! But ultimately all 3 endpoints need an interface.
Thank you to everyone who is putting work into this; it's really, truly valued, and we as consumers appreciate it :) On 15 January 2016 at 09:05, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: > Trying again, adding analytics@ (public e-mail list) > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Marcel Ruiz Forns <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I also think we should start with exposing the 3 api's endpoints in a GUI, >> which - as Dan says - we know respond to community interests. And then ask >> the community for more input, that could mean improvements to the tool, new >> endpoints or completely new ideas... >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Dan Andreescu <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm ok if people want to take an iterative approach, I just want to point >>> out that the usage information is not very indicative of value at this >>> point. The API is not widely used and the per-article endpoint is expected >>> to be hit much much more than per-project or top simply because the queries >>> are many orders of magnitude more granular. So we can't really judge >>> importance from that comparison. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Leila Zia <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Dan Andreescu >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> My question is: How are we going to define the requirements for the >>>>>> tool? I was planning to get some community input on defining which stats >>>>>> would help contributors the most. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My opinion here is that we should just expose everything the pageview >>>>> API is capable of. It's only 3 different end points and they were chosen >>>>> based on what the community found useful. As we add more endpoints we can >>>>> keep checking if visualization is important. But of course if others have >>>>> other more specific plans, we can wait for those tools to be built and >>>>> iterate. >>>> >>>> >>>> Building up on Dan's suggestion: I'd go with communicating and/or >>>> discussing the following with the community: >>>> >>>> * the 3 different metrics we can offer a UI for >>>> * what other metrics they find useful for their work. This will help us >>>> collect information about what other kind of metrics we should offer as an >>>> end-point if we decide to add to the end-points (pageview per article by >>>> country has come up many times, for example) >>>> * whether they consider the wish as satisfied if we offer a UI for the 3 >>>> different metrics, and perhaps over time add more metrics to the UI as they >>>> become available (not necessarily in 2016). >>>> >>>> Leila >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Marcel Ruiz Forns >> Analytics Developer >> Wikimedia Foundation > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
