I think consistent metrics are good BTW, if that means all periods use same
methodology, are revised when errors in input or scripts surfaced, are
recalculated (if possible) when incremental insights lead to revised definition
(so that older metrics remain relevant and comparable with recent
On May 22, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Erik Zachte ezac...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Historically consistent? Hmm, the article's main story is about how
historical in-wiki data are unreliable and a periodic recount is needed. Just
saying.
by “historically consistent” I mean not subject to arbitrary
Awesome.
-m.
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/ - boop! This was my Friday. Previously
we were playing around with them and testing what we needed with a
static snapshot; these dashboards will now update once a day with new
Comparing it to http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Special:Search it do seem
low indeed.
*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se
0729 - 67 29 48
*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens
samlade kunskap. Det är
68,000 searches/day seems *really* low, even by my pretty low expectations
- I would have guessed something like 1% of visitors, which (with 200M page
views a day) means I'm off by an order of magnitude, more or less. Am I
just that far off or is the data still a WIP, or some combination of the
Hi Amir,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:37:03AM +0300, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
Are there statistics about the number of people who click on red links in
Wikimedia projects?
Not sure if you've come across the awesome page at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TOPRED
It's not exactly what
From memory, the traffic figures include 'redlinks' - times someone
has tried to load a page that's not there. If this was combined with
the recent clickstream/referral data, you'd be able to identify only
the ones that came from internal mainspace redlinks.
What they do next is an entire
http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/ - boop! This was my Friday. Previously
we were playing around with them and testing what we needed with a
static snapshot; these dashboards will now update once a day with new
information.
It has turned up some bugs (is the mobile schema just not running?)
and there
Historically consistent? Hmm, the article's main story is about how historical
in-wiki data are unreliable and a periodic recount is needed. Just saying.
And the main theme in comments is do we care about article count?
Erik
-Original Message-
From:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
68,000 searches/day seems *really* low,
right, but I'm not sure search sessions per day is the same as the number
of searches per day.
Oliver, what definition of a search session do you use? How do you
compute it?
Leila
Hi Amir,
As far as I know and as mentioned by others, the exact statistics you're
looking for don't exist. More comments in-line.
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji
.ac.il wrote:
Hi,
Are there statistics about the number of people who click on red
We do not have such statistics.
I wonder if it would be possible to set up an EventLogging schema to log
hits to redlinks and what happens after.
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Hi,
Are there statistics about the number of people who
Thanks for sharing this, Adam. Aside from engagement/funnel data, the critical
question for this feature is: does it bring back eyeballs to the site from
social media? It looks like it doesn’t yet, at least not in a substantial way,
even with the caveat that App traffic is a very small fraction
Probably also an excellent time to consider whether we can do anything
for those languages which don't have wikis yet.
For example, I'm in .nz, which has en, mi and nzs as official
languages, but we're a long way from an nzs.wiki, given that ase.wiki
is still in incubator. With the release of
Reading that excellent presentation, the thought that struck me was:
If I wanted to subvert the assumption that Wikipedia == en.wiki,
linking to http://www.wikipedia.org/ is what I'd do.
A smarter http://www.wikipedia.org/ might guess geo-location and thus
local languages.
cheers
stuart
--
It would be useful to the community, to readers, and perhaps to the WMF
search and readership teams to have a list of pages that are most visited
but have no content and aren't redirects.
Pine
On May 22, 2015 11:50 AM, Kevin Leduc ke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We do not have such statistics.
I
From this week’s Signpost, worth reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-20/In_focus
this is a great illustration of why we need stateless, historically and
globally consistent measurements to report the growth of Wikimedia projects
(and
17 matches
Mail list logo
