I don't think I've ever seen that scoring tool before; it's certainly not run by WMF analytics. I would imagine it's producing that result because it is going off the article quality, which hasn't been set for that content, but that's basically idle speculation.
On 15 January 2016 at 01:31, Anders Neld <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I would be grateful to know why the unassessed Wikipedia article *Emelie > Forsberg* hos a score of 0 when the grok statistics say that it has been > viewed in excess of 3,000 times in 90 days. Doesn't the hitcount data for > used for calculating the score use the same data? > > > > > > > > With best regards, > -- > Anders Neld > Sveavägen 59 > SE-182 62 Djursholm > Sweden > [email protected] > Home: +46 8 755 74 25 > Mobile: +46 70 66 66 120 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
