Re: [Analytics] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts
I think consistent metrics are good BTW, if that means all periods use same methodology, are revised when errors in input or scripts surfaced, are recalculated (if possible) when incremental insights lead to revised definition (so that older metrics remain relevant and comparable with recent data), and so on. So consistent metrics yes, but static metrics no. And that difference is relevant here. It seems to me I read not often enough about an updated metric in the world at large. Something like inflation in 2001 in US has been reassessed to have been 2.2% where up till yesterday we thought it had been 2.1% Erik -Original Message- From: Erik Zachte [mailto:ezac...@wikimedia.org] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 23:15 To: 'A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics.' Subject: RE: [Analytics] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts Historically consistent? Hmm, the article's main story is about how historical in-wiki data are unreliable and a periodic recount is needed. Just saying. And the main theme in comments is do we care about article count? Erik -Original Message- From: analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 21:38 To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. Subject: [Analytics] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts From this week’s Signpost, worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-20/In_focus this is a great illustration of why we need stateless, historically and globally consistent measurements to report the growth of Wikimedia projects (and particularly why the legacy definition of a “countable” article is ridiculously problematic): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Refining_the_definition_of_monthly_active_editors#Principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics_standardization Dario ___ 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
Re: [Analytics] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts
On May 22, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Erik Zachte ezac...@wikimedia.org wrote: Historically consistent? Hmm, the article's main story is about how historical in-wiki data are unreliable and a periodic recount is needed. Just saying. by “historically consistent” I mean not subject to arbitrary changes making measurement foo at time t1 incommensurable with foo at time t2. Aaron and I put a good deal of thinking into how to avoid recounts or issues due to arbitrary software configuration changes. And the main theme in comments is “do we care about article count? agreed. I added a note in the comments on work related to quality assessment. -Original Message- From: analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 21:38 To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. Subject: [Analytics] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts From this week’s Signpost, worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-20/In_focus this is a great illustration of why we need stateless, historically and globally consistent measurements to report the growth of Wikimedia projects (and particularly why the legacy definition of a “countable” article is ridiculously problematic): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Refining_the_definition_of_monthly_active_editors#Principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics_standardization Dario ___ 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
Re: [Analytics] Search dashboards are now running on live data
Awesome. -m. On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/ - boop! This was my Friday. Previously we were playing around with them and testing what we needed with a static snapshot; these dashboards will now update once a day with new information. It has turned up some bugs (is the mobile schema just not running?) and there are more metrics to add. But for the time being, is progress :) -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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
Re: [Analytics] Search dashboards are now running on live data
Comparing it to http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Special:Search it do seem low indeed. *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali* Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se 0729 - 67 29 48 *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se 2015-05-23 0:14 GMT+02:00 Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org: 68,000 searches/day seems *really* low, even by my pretty low expectations - I would have guessed something like 1% of visitors, which (with 200M page views a day) means I'm off by an order of magnitude, more or less. Am I just that far off or is the data still a WIP, or some combination of the two? Luis On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Michael Holloway mhollo...@wikimedia.org wrote: Awesome. -m. On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/ - boop! This was my Friday. Previously we were playing around with them and testing what we needed with a static snapshot; these dashboards will now update once a day with new information. It has turned up some bugs (is the mobile schema just not running?) and there are more metrics to add. But for the time being, is progress :) -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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 -- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.* ___ 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
Re: [Analytics] Search dashboards are now running on live data
68,000 searches/day seems *really* low, even by my pretty low expectations - I would have guessed something like 1% of visitors, which (with 200M page views a day) means I'm off by an order of magnitude, more or less. Am I just that far off or is the data still a WIP, or some combination of the two? Luis On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Michael Holloway mhollo...@wikimedia.org wrote: Awesome. -m. On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/ - boop! This was my Friday. Previously we were playing around with them and testing what we needed with a static snapshot; these dashboards will now update once a day with new information. It has turned up some bugs (is the mobile schema just not running?) and there are more metrics to add. But for the time being, is progress :) -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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 -- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.* ___ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Re: [Analytics] clicks on red links
Hi Amir, On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:37:03AM +0300, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: Are there statistics about the number of people who click on red links in Wikimedia projects? Not sure if you've come across the awesome page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TOPRED It's not exactly what you asked for (“number of views” instead of “number of people”, and the longtail gets cut off below 1000 views), but maybe it's close enough to be useful for you? Have fun, Christian -- quelltextlich e.U. \\ Christian Aistleitner Companies' registry: 360296y in Linz Christian Aistleitner Kefermarkterstrasze 6a/3 Email: christ...@quelltextlich.at 4293 Gutau, Austria Phone: +43 7946 / 20 5 81 Fax:+43 7946 / 20 5 81 Homepage: http://quelltextlich.at/ --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Re: [Analytics] clicks on red links
From memory, the traffic figures include 'redlinks' - times someone has tried to load a page that's not there. If this was combined with the recent clickstream/referral data, you'd be able to identify only the ones that came from internal mainspace redlinks. What they do next is an entire different problem, though... Andrew. On 21 May 2015 at 06:37, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Hi, Are there statistics about the number of people who click on red links in Wikimedia projects? And about what they do as the next step - go back, close the page, create an article, something else? -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore ___ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
[Analytics] Search dashboards are now running on live data
http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/ - boop! This was my Friday. Previously we were playing around with them and testing what we needed with a static snapshot; these dashboards will now update once a day with new information. It has turned up some bugs (is the mobile schema just not running?) and there are more metrics to add. But for the time being, is progress :) -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Re: [Analytics] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts
Historically consistent? Hmm, the article's main story is about how historical in-wiki data are unreliable and a periodic recount is needed. Just saying. And the main theme in comments is do we care about article count? Erik -Original Message- From: analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:analytics-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 21:38 To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. Subject: [Analytics] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts From this week’s Signpost, worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-20/In_focus this is a great illustration of why we need stateless, historically and globally consistent measurements to report the growth of Wikimedia projects (and particularly why the legacy definition of a “countable” article is ridiculously problematic): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Refining_the_definition_of_monthly_active_editors#Principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics_standardization Dario ___ 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
Re: [Analytics] Search dashboards are now running on live data
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: 68,000 searches/day seems *really* low, right, but I'm not sure search sessions per day is the same as the number of searches per day. Oliver, what definition of a search session do you use? How do you compute it? Leila Luis On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Michael Holloway mhollo...@wikimedia.org wrote: Awesome. -m. On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/ - boop! This was my Friday. Previously we were playing around with them and testing what we needed with a static snapshot; these dashboards will now update once a day with new information. It has turned up some bugs (is the mobile schema just not running?) and there are more metrics to add. But for the time being, is progress :) -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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 -- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.* ___ 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
Re: [Analytics] clicks on red links
Hi Amir, As far as I know and as mentioned by others, the exact statistics you're looking for don't exist. More comments in-line. On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji .ac.il wrote: Hi, Are there statistics about the number of people who click on red links in Wikimedia projects? This you can get from the logs, for the past 30 days. I'm assuming you are not very strict about the definition of people and as long as you can factor out spiders and bots to a good extent you're fine. And about what they do as the next step - go back, close the page, create an article, something else? There are two ways this can potentially be done: EventLogging and if you are not concerned about actions like closed the page, from the logs. Both require quite some work, so my question is: what do you need this information for? We may have other results that can help you answer your questions in some other way. Best, Leila -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore ___ 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
Re: [Analytics] clicks on red links
We do not have such statistics. I wonder if it would be possible to set up an EventLogging schema to log hits to redlinks and what happens after. On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Hi, Are there statistics about the number of people who click on red links in Wikimedia projects? And about what they do as the next step - go back, close the page, create an article, something else? -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore ___ 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
Re: [Analytics] [WikimediaMobile] Share a Fact Initial Analysis
Thanks for sharing this, Adam. Aside from engagement/funnel data, the critical question for this feature is: does it bring back eyeballs to the site from social media? It looks like it doesn’t yet, at least not in a substantial way, even with the caveat that App traffic is a very small fraction of total mobile traffic. Having looked into referrals for this feature before and after comparing them to Twitter’s own engagement analytics (and finding some big discrepancy), you should consider removing spiders/crawlers from the data (see [1]) to avoid inflating pageviews with non-human activity. I’m a big fan of this feature and look forward to seeing how you guys intend to scale it. Dario [1] https://github.com/ewulczyn/wmf/blob/b9f726ee3468852c3fed2780af1d8ac0004eda73/mc/oozie/hive_query.sql#L60 https://github.com/ewulczyn/wmf/blob/b9f726ee3468852c3fed2780af1d8ac0004eda73/mc/oozie/hive_query.sql#L60 On May 21, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Toby Negrin tneg...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all - some interesting analysis on the share-a-fact feature from the mobile team. -Toby Begin forwarded message: From: Adam Baso ab...@wikimedia.org mailto:ab...@wikimedia.org Date: May 21, 2015 at 12:05:29 PDT To: mobile-l mobil...@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:mobil...@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikimediaMobile] Share a Fact Initial Analysis Hello all, We’ve been looking at some initial results from the Share a Fact feature introduced on the Wikipedia apps for Android and iOS in its basic minimal viable product implementation. Here’s some analysis, using data from one day (20150512) with respect to the latest stable versions of the apps (2.0-r-2015-04-23 on Android and 4.1.2 on iOS) for that day. * On iOS, when a user initiates the first step of the default sharing workflow - tapping the up-arrow box share button (6,194 non-highlighting instances for the day under question) - about 11.7% of the time it yielded successful sharing. * On Android, it’s not possible to easily tell when the sharing workflow was carried through to successful share, but we anticipate the Android success rate is currently much higher, as general engagement percentage up to the point of picking an app for sharing is higher on Android than on iOS. * On Android, when presented with the share card preview, 28.0% of the time the ‘Share as image’ button was tapped and 55.5% of the time the 'Share as text' button was tapped, whereas on iOS it was 8.4% ‘Share as image’ and 16.8% ‘Share as text’. * The forthcoming 4.1.4 version of the iOS app will relax its default sharing snippet generation rules and be more like the Android version in that respect. We anticipate this will result in higher engagement with both the ‘Share as image’ and ‘Share as text’ buttons on iOS, and we should be able to verify this once the 4.1.4 iOS version is released and generally adopted (usually takes 4-5 days after release; the 4.1.4 release isn’t released yet). * On the Android app the ‘Share’ option is located on the overflow menu, not as part of the main set of UI buttons. This potentially increases the likelihood of Android users being primed to step through the workflow. On the iOS app, the share button (up-arrow box) is plainly visible from the main UI and not an overflow menu, and this probably creates a different priming dynamic for the iOS demographic. * When users on iOS tapped on the ‘Share as image’ or ‘Share as text’ buttons, there is a pretty sharp drop off at the next stage - the system sharesheet. Once the sharesheet was presented to iOS users, 41.6% of the time it resulted in active abandonment. We believe this probably has something to do with the relatively small set of default apps listed on the sharesheet and the extra work involved with exposing additional social apps for sharing in that context. As with the Android app, the labels of ‘Share as image’ and ’Share as text’ may also pose something of a hurdle at least for first time users of the feature. To this end, there is an onboarding tutorial planned at least on Android. * For a one hour period (2015051201) there were about 100 pageviews in some sense attributable to Share a Fact using a provenance parameter available on the latest stable versions of the apps at that time; this may slightly overstate the number of pageviews attributable to the two specific apps reviewed in this analysis, but probably not too much (n.b., previously a different source parameter was used than the new wprov provenance parameter). Pageviews are not the sole motivation for the feature, but following the trendline over the long run should be interesting. Impact on social media and the destinations of shares is a little harder to capture directly, but https://twitter.com/search?f=realtimeq=%40wikipedia%20-%40itzwikipedia%20filter%3Amedia
Re: [Analytics] [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: Traffic to the portal from Zero providers
Probably also an excellent time to consider whether we can do anything for those languages which don't have wikis yet. For example, I'm in .nz, which has en, mi and nzs as official languages, but we're a long way from an nzs.wiki, given that ase.wiki is still in incubator. With the release of Unicode 8 with Sutton SignWriting in June, these may or may not kick off in a big way. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Agreed! That's one of the changes I'd really like to push ahead with, although we're going to do some more in-depth data collection before any redesign :). On 6 May 2015 at 20:27, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com wrote: Reading that excellent presentation, the thought that struck me was: If I wanted to subvert the assumption that Wikipedia == en.wiki, linking to http://www.wikipedia.org/ is what I'd do. A smarter http://www.wikipedia.org/ might guess geo-location and thus local languages. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Cross-posting to research and analytics, too! -- Forwarded message -- From: Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org Date: 6 May 2015 at 13:11 Subject: Traffic to the portal from Zero providers To: wikimedia-sea...@lists.wikimedia.org Hey all, (Throwing this to the public list, because transparency is Good) I recently did a presentation on a traffic analysis to the Wikipedia home page - www.wikipedia.org.[1] One of the biggest visualisations, in impact terms, showed that a lot of portal traffic - far more, proportionately, than traffic to Wikipedia overall - is coming from India and Brazil.[2] One of the hypotheses was that this could be Zero traffic. I've done a basic analysis of the traffic, looking specifically at the zero headers,[3] and this hypothesis turns out to be incorrect - almost no zero traffic is hitting the portal. The traffic we're seeing from Brazil and India is not zero-based. This makes a lot of sense (the reason mobile traffic redirects to the enwiki home page from the portal is the Zero extension, so presumably this happens specifically to Zero traffic) but it does mean that our null hypothesis - that this traffic is down to ISP-level or device-level design choices and links - is more likely to be correct. [1] http://ironholds.org/misc/homepage_presentation.html [2] http://ironholds.org/misc/homepage_presentation.html#/11 [3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T98076 -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Re: [Analytics] [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: Traffic to the portal from Zero providers
Reading that excellent presentation, the thought that struck me was: If I wanted to subvert the assumption that Wikipedia == en.wiki, linking to http://www.wikipedia.org/ is what I'd do. A smarter http://www.wikipedia.org/ might guess geo-location and thus local languages. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Cross-posting to research and analytics, too! -- Forwarded message -- From: Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org Date: 6 May 2015 at 13:11 Subject: Traffic to the portal from Zero providers To: wikimedia-sea...@lists.wikimedia.org Hey all, (Throwing this to the public list, because transparency is Good) I recently did a presentation on a traffic analysis to the Wikipedia home page - www.wikipedia.org.[1] One of the biggest visualisations, in impact terms, showed that a lot of portal traffic - far more, proportionately, than traffic to Wikipedia overall - is coming from India and Brazil.[2] One of the hypotheses was that this could be Zero traffic. I've done a basic analysis of the traffic, looking specifically at the zero headers,[3] and this hypothesis turns out to be incorrect - almost no zero traffic is hitting the portal. The traffic we're seeing from Brazil and India is not zero-based. This makes a lot of sense (the reason mobile traffic redirects to the enwiki home page from the portal is the Zero extension, so presumably this happens specifically to Zero traffic) but it does mean that our null hypothesis - that this traffic is down to ISP-level or device-level design choices and links - is more likely to be correct. [1] http://ironholds.org/misc/homepage_presentation.html [2] http://ironholds.org/misc/homepage_presentation.html#/11 [3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T98076 -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Re: [Analytics] clicks on red links
It would be useful to the community, to readers, and perhaps to the WMF search and readership teams to have a list of pages that are most visited but have no content and aren't redirects. Pine On May 22, 2015 11:50 AM, Kevin Leduc ke...@wikimedia.org wrote: We do not have such statistics. I wonder if it would be possible to set up an EventLogging schema to log hits to redlinks and what happens after. On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Hi, Are there statistics about the number of people who click on red links in Wikimedia projects? And about what they do as the next step - go back, close the page, create an article, something else? -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore ___ 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] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts
From this week’s Signpost, worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-20/In_focus this is a great illustration of why we need stateless, historically and globally consistent measurements to report the growth of Wikimedia projects (and particularly why the legacy definition of a “countable” article is ridiculously problematic): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Refining_the_definition_of_monthly_active_editors#Principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics_standardization Dario ___ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
