Peter Gervai wrote: > Hello, > > I see I've created quite a stir around, but so far nothing really > useful popped up. :-( > > But I see that one from Neil: >> Yes, modifying the http://stats.grok.se/ systems looks like the way to go. > > For me it doesn't really seem to be, since it seems to be using an > extremely dumbed down version of input, which only contains page views > and [unreliable] byte counters. Most probably it would require large > rewrites, and a magical new data source. > >> What do people actually want to see from the traffic data? Do they want >> referrers, anonymized user trails, or what? > > Are you old enough to remember stats.wikipedia.org? As far as I > remember originally it ran webalizer, then something else, then > nothing. If you check a webalizer stat you'll see what's in it. We are > using, or we used until our nice fellow editors broke it, awstats, > which basically provides the same with more caching. > > Most used and useful stats are page views (daily and hourly stats are > pretty useful too), referrers, visitor domain and provider stats, os > and browser stats, screen resolution stats, bot activity stats, > visitor duration and depth, among probably others. > > At a brief glance I could replicate the grok.se stats easily since it > seems to work out of http://dammit.lt/wikistats/, but it's completely > useless for anything beyond page hit count. > > Is there a possibility to write a code which process raw squid data? > Who do I have to bribe? :-/ >
We do have http://stats.wikimedia.org/ which includes things like http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/VisitorsSampledLogOrigins.htm -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
