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 'page views' they still would be spot on.
Noooo, nobody in the web business counts bot accesses.
Pages, page views, are human page views. You need
to filter out bots, API calls, and non-page fetches.
The main Wikistats, counting articles and users is
very accurate, and these nonsense page view stats
give Wikistats a bad name. Plus they are used by all the
GLAM projects to show museums how much people view
pictures from their museum, and now that's all fake and
exaggeration. It's 2-3 years wasted. Please don't waste
any more years or months of our time. We now have
to go back to museums and apologize.
You're exaggerating a bit here I think; the first thing we tell
potential GLAM partners is that we don't have any way to give meaningful
stats (and yes, this is often the main deal-breaker). The only stats
they care about, anyway, are often visitors coming from Wikimedia
projects, which they measure themselves.
As for meaningful stats, we've been using comScore for a long while and
pageviews only for rough measure of total reach growth and for
comparison between pages on the same project, not really to compare
different projects (or other websites). Indeed comparing Wiktionary to
Wikisource with this data makes no sense, thanks for reminding us.
Bots creating articles and bots reading them, what a joke!
And they are creating articles about spiders!
LOL
sv.wiki is indeed becoming a bot realm. ;)
Why are those bots not using the API, by the way?
Nemo
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
