Those sound like relatively advanced features a bit beyond the initial offering, but like useful things to provide in the long-term, yeah. I'm not sure what the status of the redirects inclusion (which is sort of a question about the underlying data source rather than the endpoint) is.
On 15 January 2016 at 11:28, Alex Druk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > My two cents to discussion about endpoints to pageview API: > 1) stats for categories that include all subcats and all pages, > 2) include redirects to article counts > > All the best, > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:05 PM, 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 >> > > > > -- > Thank you. > > Alex Druk, PhD > wikipediatrends.com > [email protected] > (775) 237-8550 Google voice > > _______________________________________________ > 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
