Erik Zachte <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
           Priority|Unprioritized               |Low
                 CC|         |

--- Comment #2 from Erik Zachte <> ---
Would be nice. But would be incomplete at best, and possibly a major task,
depending on ambition level, as there are many metrics, and plausible rate of
change could differ per project. It also could create lots of false positives,
depending on thresholds chosen. 

BTW manual vetting is mostly quick comparison of key metrics on old and new
reports for some wikis (mostly English Wikipedia) to see if these metrics are
ballpark within expected range. Other than that many eyeballs keep Wikistats
under scrutiny. 

Background: Several years ago there was a major bug that caused all article
counts to be twice as high (redirects were not recognized, or something of that
nature). Given that Wikistats regenerates all historic months on every run that
gave the impression of a complete overhaul of Wikistats methodology and caused
some turmoil. Given the high stability of the wikistats scripts (after 10 years
of operation few operational errors has skewed stats) the fact that any
software can fail in changing circumstances came as a surprise to some users.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list

Reply via email to