Embedding images doesn't work, I guess. Here's a link to the chart. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GzxDEhF6tx9_bsFc4LuUzgoIaMSiEV5s/view?usp=sharing
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Aaron Markham <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to get a sense of people's feelings with regard to actual > data on the usage of the site. > *Users prefer master* > Despite it defaulting to version 1.1.0, nearly 60% of the page views are > on master. I think it is pretty clear what the website users want. > I've implemented a new site building script > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/master/docs/build_version_doc#build_site_tagsh> > that can easily swap the default version to any tag, and hope to get that > integrated with the CI process this week. We could go live with master > being default whenever it is agreed. > > *Time-travel website is difficult to maintain, confuses search, and is a > strange user experience* > Switching versions on the whole site and maintaining these time-traveling > website builds is not really worth the effort and these old sites > introduces a lot of problems with search and poor information. (+1 to > Christopher's sentiments on UX). > I think that we should keep the versions of MXNet limited to the install > page(s) and the API docs. This is where versions have value and user > traffic. This accounts to over 50% of all traffic in the legacy versions, > and 80%+ of this traffic is coming directly from search, primarily Google. > We can enhance visibility to these data points by enabling the Google > Analytics Search Console, but in absence of that, experience suggests that > if old content is available and linked to, it reinforces itself despite it > being deprecated or even inaccurate. By stashing versioned content where it > is accessible, but not highlighted, we'll force the search engines to > update their links, and over time, any dent to the ranking of search > results will heal, and the site's primary and current content will appear > at the top of the results. > > *Maintaining tutorials and examples in master is easier, will help search, > and provide a better user experience* > There's another 15-25% of legacy version traffic going to tutorials, and > all of it comes from search. These old tutorials are not maintained and > while they might theoretically work with the specific API version they're > coupled with in the build, they are also riddled with broken links, missing > datasets and Python 3 incompatibilities. IMO, we should flag each tutorial > in master with the minimum required API version and Python version, and no > longer support legacy tutorials as a matter of course. If someone wants to > fix them, then great. They can make the tutorial in master backwards > compatible, or create a separate tutorial that focuses on the legacy > version. But it is maintained in master. This shift will force search to > update, guiding users to working tutorials and fresh content. > > In conclusion there are three overlapping proposals here. > 1. Make master primary. > 2. Remove time travel from the website. Provide specific instructions on > installing master, current release, and a subset of legacy versions. > Provide versioned API docs on the website. People can still download tagged > releases and build the old site and docs if they wish. > 3. Maintain tutorials and examples in master. > > Cheers, > Aaron > > P.S. Any moves or removal of content will be handled by 301 permanent > redirects, so we can soften the transition. > > > On Mar 1, 2018 19:55, "Barber, Christopher" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I was thinking more along the lines of benchmarks of MXNet vs TensorFlow, >> PyTorch, and Caffe2. Benchmarks of edge devices would definitely be >> interesting, but I would also want to see benchmarks of training time and >> memory use and accuracy on large models. Obviously this would be a >> non-trivial amount of work, which is why no one else is doing it, but there >> would be a lot of interest in this. Also would like to see benchmarks of >> ndarray, vs symbol vs gluon. >> >> But yes, if you want to drive traffic to the website you should have >> content that changes frequently. I have to say I find it really strange to >> have the entire website change when I select a different version from the >> top tab. The design of the website should be independent of the code >> version. >> >> - Christopher >> >> On 3/1/18, 4:33 PM, "Marco de Abreu" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> As far as I know, there are plans to make regular benchmarks and >> generate >> statistics. We could use that data. My personal task after CI is >> creating >> an infrastructure to automatically perform performance and power >> consumption benchmarks on edge devices (raspberry and Nvidia Jetson). >> It >> would definitely be a good idea to share this data with the community >> (especially considering the impressive performance of MXNet). >> >> Aaron is currently gathering requirements for recreating the website >> build >> and publish process, so input like this is definitely helpful. This >> could >> basically be summarized as a requirement to make the website contain >> static >> parts (e.g. APIs and documentation) as well as dynamic parts (e.g. >> news, >> statistics, recent papers etc). >> >> How does that sound? >> >> -Marco >> >> Aaron Markham <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 1. März >> 2018, >> 22:11: >> >> > Do you have specific public benchmarks in mind? >> > >> > On Mar 1, 2018 10:13, "Barber, Christopher" < >> [email protected] >> > > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I think one thing that could draw more users would be published >> > benchmarks >> > > that show that networks implemented using MXNet perform better >> than >> > > comparable ones using other platforms using the same hardware. If >> you can >> > > definitively show that MXNet is much faster and/or uses much less >> memory, >> > > you will attract much more interest. >> > > >> > > - Christopher >> > > >> > > On 2/25/18, 11:53 PM, "Li, Mu" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > That's a great idea. The thing Simon's team is doing is >> publishing >> > > more tutorials on both MXNet website and AWS blog, which may >> attract a >> > lot >> > > of traffics. Also Sukwon is tracking the progress of publishing >> news more >> > > frequently on the homepage. >> > > >> > > Best, >> > > Mu >> > > >> > > > On Feb 25, 2018, at 8:48 PM, Chris Olivier < >> [email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > My (probably less-than-$0.02): >> > > > >> > > > I have as my home page on my >> > > > phone, the Google Research Blog, and they frequently >> release stuff >> > > like >> > > > data sets and models do this or that. Usually it seems >> pretty >> > > interesting >> > > > and I am compelled to try it. >> > > > >> > > > Maybe we do something similar, but I’m not aware of it. I >> know we >> > > have all >> > > > sorts of examples and whatnot, but it doesn’t seem the same >> as what >> > > at >> > > > least appears to be something new to play with scrolling >> past every >> > > couple >> > > > of weeks: >> > > > >> > > > For example, a few days ago: >> > > > >> > > > “Introducing the HDR+ Burst Photography Dataset”. >> > > > >> > > > https://research.googleblog.com/2018/02/introducing-hdr- >> > > burst-photography.html?m=1 >> > > > >> > > > Reading that makes me want to download it and play around. >> > > Obviously I >> > > > would use Tensorflow by default because it’s ready to roll >> as-is >> > > with this >> > > > dataset/model. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -Chris >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 8:34 PM Mu Li <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> Not sure why the screenshot of the page view is not there, >> attach >> > > it again: >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Best, >> > > >> Mu >> > > >> >> > > >>> On Feb 25, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Li, Mu <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Hi Team, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> We are in trouble attracting new users. According to >> Google >> > > analytics, >> > > >> there is almost no increase in the number of paper views >> for the >> > > document >> > > >> site mxnet.io. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> The number of paper views is an important metric for the >> > adoption, >> > > I >> > > >> would like to take actions to improve this number. It >> includes >> > > improving >> > > >> the website so that users can get information easier. >> However, the >> > > current >> > > >> website displays the last stable version instead of the >> master >> > > branch. Then >> > > >> the effect of a modification, namely the user behaviors, >> may need >> > a >> > > few >> > > >> months to observe, which is definitely not effective. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> One aggressive idea is just showing the master branch in >> default >> > > during >> > > >> the website improvement period (may take 3 months). >> Another way is >> > > >> releasing more frequently, e.g a new release per 2 weeks. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> What's your thoughts? >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Best, >> > > >>> Mu >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>
