: 'A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an
interest in Wikipedia and analytics.'; 'Wikimedia developers'
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Analytics] Fwd: Page view stats we can believe in
On 02/14/2013 02:56 AM, Erik Zachte wrote:
Lars,
I think you are overdoing
.'; 'Wikimedia developers'
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Analytics] Fwd: Page view stats we can believe in
On 02/14/2013 02:56 AM, Erik Zachte wrote:
Lars,
I think you are overdoing it.
The reports are not nonsense, but have over time become more inaccurate than
some other stats we present.
Actually
Lars Aronsson, 14/02/2013 04:02:
On 02/14/2013 02:56 AM, Erik Zachte wrote:
Lars,
I think you are overdoing it.
The reports are not nonsense, but have over time become more
inaccurate than some other stats we present.
Actually if the reports would have mentioned 'pages served' rather
than
Hi,
On 02/14/2013 12:04 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Why are those bots not using the API, by the way?
One possible reason, I can imagine:
Maybe because it's turned off on many private wikis. I saw spam on such
ones as well. Obviously there is a framework, which doesn't need to use
the
Hi Erik,
You're quite right numbers are inflated, and we've been over this before [1].
Below are some sampled data for da.wiktionary from webstatscollector [2] and
squid log [3]
Bot traffic is a substantial share of 'page views' (but not the majority as you
suggest).
We discussed this
Lars,
I think you are overdoing it.
The reports are not nonsense, but have over time become more inaccurate than
some other stats we present.
Actually if the reports would have mentioned 'pages served' rather than 'page
views' they still would be spot on.
Of course I also would have hoped
On 02/14/2013 02:56 AM, Erik Zachte wrote:
Lars,
I think you are overdoing it.
The reports are not nonsense, but have over time become more inaccurate than
some other stats we present.
Actually if the reports would have mentioned 'pages served' rather than 'page
views' they still would be
