> > I think Gilles and Erik want to calculate page views for GLAM mainly > (although there are some other good reasons too) -- sampling would probably > be ok but we'd miss the long tail of views. >
That's correct. We're looking to compile media view counts as accurate as the ones we have for article views at the moment. Sampling would be fine to identify the X most viewed media across a wiki, but it definitely wouldn't help small GLAMs who want to get that information about their own collection, if their media happen to be "low traffic" in the grand scheme of things. I think that the latter is the main use case for doing this, which is why I'm looking for a solution that wouldn't involve sampling. Compiling the top list has entertainment value, letting GLAM contributors get accurate statistics about their content improves the chances that they will keep contributing more. I think that's more valuable than the entertainment factor of the top list. On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Toby Negrin <tneg...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > I think Gilles and Erik want to calculate page views for GLAM mainly > (although there are some other good reasons too) -- sampling would probably > be ok but we'd miss the long tail of views. > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Nuria Ruiz <nu...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> I see. My main point was that -regardless of collection method- we might >> not need every single data point to calculate uniques. >> >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Toby Negrin <tneg...@wikimedia.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes -- we disabled it because there wasn't a use case. We have one now :) >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Nuria Ruiz <nu...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >>> >>>> > I believe there is already an EL-Kafka pipeline and this would make >>>> it easy to integrate page views with our regular processing. >>>> >>>> Note that the pipeline was disabled 6 months ago and thus my comment >>>> "in the near term" >>>> >>>> https://github.com/wikimedia/operations-puppet/commit/f85b1dbcd61bbb58684ff93704c1804e808a5d6e >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Toby Negrin <tneg...@wikimedia.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd also like us to consider routing this dataset to hadoop. I believe >>>>> there is already an EL-Kafka pipeline and this would make it easy to >>>>> integrate page views with our regular processing. >>>>> >>>>> Gilles -- are mobile page views included in your stream? >>>>> >>>>> -Toby >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Nuria Ruiz <nu...@wikimedia.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >Great, then I guess it's a matter of only making the data go to >>>>>> files and not to DB for the particular schema we'll create. Does >that >>>>>> sound like something feasible? How much work would be required to set it >>>>>> up? >>>>>> I do not think this is feasible on the near term w/o changes in our >>>>>> end. I also am not sure it is really needed. You are concern about >>>>>> sending >>>>>> stuff to db due to "volume", correct? I do not understand why logging >>>>>> every >>>>>> single data point would be needed. Maybe you can explain that with a bit >>>>>> more detail for us to grasp the use case? >>>>>> >>>>>> If it is a matter of identifying distinct requests that can be done >>>>>> having sampled your dataset if it is large enough, we can help with that >>>>>> and leila just put together some docs on this regard, while this is for >>>>>> hive queries principles can apply elsewhere: >>>>>> https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Cluster/Hive/Counting_uniques >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Gilles Dubuc <gil...@wikimedia.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Right -- couldn't we just tag the URL? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The event of the user actually viewing the image is completely >>>>>>> disconnected from the URL hit in Media Viewer, which is why we need EL >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> can't rely on existing server logs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eventlogging data currently does go to files, as well as to the DB. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Great, then I guess it's a matter of only making the data go to >>>>>>> files and not to DB for the particular schema we'll create. Does that >>>>>>> sound >>>>>>> like something feasible? How much work would be required to set it up? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Andrew Otto <ao...@wikimedia.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eventlogging data currently does go to files, as well as to the >>>>>>>> DB. Check it out on stat1003 at /srv/eventlogging/archive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you need something with higher throughput then eventlogging >>>>>>>> itself supports…then let’s talk :D >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Ao >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 6, 2015, at 13:28, Erik Zachte <ezac...@wikimedia.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You mean attach an X-analytics parameter, for extra images beyond >>>>>>>> the one the user initially requested. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But then we would undercount, basically missing all image views >>>>>>>> from clicking right arrow in image viewer. >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how much we would miss then. >>>>>>>> iirc Gilles said this browsing feature was used quite a long, but >>>>>>>> I'm not sure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [ >>>>>>>> mailto:analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>>> <analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>] *On Behalf Of *Toby Negrin >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 06, 2015 19:16 >>>>>>>> *To:* A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody >>>>>>>> who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. >>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Analytics] Making EventLogging output to a log >>>>>>>> file instead of the DB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right -- couldn't we just tag the URL? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Erik Zachte <ezac...@wikimedia.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just to clarify, this is about prefetched images which have not >>>>>>>> been shown to the public. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They were sent to the browser ahead of a possible request to speed >>>>>>>> things up but in many cases never actually requested. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Media_file_request_counts#Prefetched_images >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Erik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: >>>>>>>> analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Toby Negrin >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 06, 2015 18:49 >>>>>>>> *To:* A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody >>>>>>>> who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. >>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Analytics] Making EventLogging output to a log >>>>>>>> file instead of the DB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Gilles -- why won't the page view logs work by themselves for >>>>>>>> this purpose? EL can be configured to write into Hadoop which is >>>>>>>> probably >>>>>>>> the best way to get the throughput you need but it seems >>>>>>>> overcomplicated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Toby >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Gilles Dubuc <gil...@wikimedia.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This depends on [1] so we're not going to need that immediately, >>>>>>>> but in order to help Erik Zachte with his RfC [2] to track unique media >>>>>>>> views in Media Viewer, I'm going to need to use something almost >>>>>>>> exactly >>>>>>>> like EventLogging. The main difference being that it should skip >>>>>>>> writing to >>>>>>>> the database and write to a log file instead. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's because we'll be recording around 20-25M image views per >>>>>>>> day, which would needlessly overload EventLogging for little purpose >>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>> the data will be used for offline stats generation and doesn't need to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> made available in a relational database. Of course if storage space and >>>>>>>> EventLogging capacity were no object, we could just use EL and keep the >>>>>>>> ever-growing table forever, but I have the impression that we want to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> reasonable here and only write to a log, since that's what Erik needs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So here's the question: for a specific schema, can EventLogging >>>>>>>> work the way it does but only record hits to a log file (maybe it >>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>> does that before hitting the DB?) and not write to the DB? If not, how >>>>>>>> difficult would it be to make EL capable of doing that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T44815 >>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Media_file_request_counts >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Analytics mailing list >>>>>>>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Analytics mailing list >>>>>>>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Analytics mailing list >>>>>>>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Analytics mailing list >>>>>>>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Analytics mailing list >>>>>>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Analytics mailing list >>>>>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Analytics mailing list >>>>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Analytics mailing list >>>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Analytics mailing list >>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Analytics mailing list >> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
