Neil:
Some of the rules used to identify automated traffic have been used by the
community for now couple years. See for example [1] and [2]. For more
information you can always ping us.
Thanks,
Nuria
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/topviews/faq/#false_positive
[2]
Ah, cool. Thanks a lot for pointing this out, Francisco!
It's great that the automated views are separated out now.
Thanks!
Bob
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:19 AM Francisco Dans wrote:
> Robert: the pageview tool now also shows automated views, so you can check
> that it is indeed traffic
Robert: the pageview tool now also shows automated views, so you can check
that it is indeed traffic detected as unreported bots:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org=all-access=automated=0=latest-90=Main_Page
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:14 AM Robert West wrote:
> Ah,
Ah, nice!
I noticed that en:Main_Page traffic dropped by 40% as early as April 30, 5
days before Nuria's message.
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org=all-access=user=0=latest-90=Main_Page
Just double-checking whether the drop is caused by the change in logging.
Thanks!
Nuria,
Thank you for this update! I'm very excited about this new system.
I did notice that there's not much explanation of the particular rules or
strategies that are used to identify automated traffic, or a link to the
implementing code. I can imagine this might be intentional, to make it
Hello:
We have added the 'automated' maker to Wikimedia's pageview data. Up to now
pageview agents were classified as 'spider' (self reported bots like
'google bot' or 'bing bot') and 'user'.
We have known for a while that some requests classified as 'user' were, in
fact, coming from automated
