Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations [was: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Geo-aggregation of Wikipedia page views: Maximizing geographic granularity while preserving privacy – a proposal]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Aaron Halfaker wrote: > For example, not collecting usage data about certain sections of our > population (e.g. IE10 users where DNT is set by default) means that we > don't know if our software works for them. > Note that IE 10 does inform you about the option

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

There may be room for a little nuance here. We can try to interpret DNT as a strict "do not collect anything" flag by default, and say from the start that it may be necessary to ignore it in some rare cases when we need access to data from IE10 users or similar. This creates a little extra work f

Re: [Analytics] Hadoop Upgrade and Downtime

I am starting this now. > On Jan 15, 2015, at 11:34, Andrew Otto wrote: > > Hi all, > > I’m in the middle of a (slow) upgrade process for the Hadoop cluster. > Currently, we are running CDH 5.0.2, and would like to upgrade to CDH 5.3. > There are several steps to this process, the first of

Re: [Analytics] Hadoop Upgrade and Downtime

Done! analytics1001 and analytics1002 are now the Hadoop NameNodes, and the analytics1001 is the YARN master. Thanks all! -Ao > On Jan 16, 2015, at 10:46, Andrew Otto wrote: > > I am starting this now. > > >> On Jan 15, 2015, at 11:34, Andrew Otto > > wrote:

Re: [Analytics] Hadoop Upgrade and Downtime

Not that if you use ssh tunnels to access any of the Hadoop GUIs that were previously on analytics1010, you should now use analytics1001 instead. > On Jan 16, 2015, at 11:47, Andrew Otto wrote: > > Done! analytics1001 and analytics1002 are now the Hadoop NameNodes, and the > analytics1001 is

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

>What I find concerning is the idea that a biased subset of our users would be categorically ignored for this type of evaluation. If >you agree with me that such evaluation is valuable to our users, I think you ought to also find such categorical exclusions >concerning. Dan has mentioned a possibl

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

(sorry, send it too soon, re-sending) >What I find concerning is the idea that a biased subset of our users would be categorically ignored for this type of evaluation. If >you agree with me that such evaluation is valuable to our users, I think you ought to also find such categorical exclusions

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

Hi Aaron, On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:38:40PM -0600, Aaron Halfaker wrote: > [...] if you only say how I > misunderstood you without suggestion how I might have understood you > better, [...] This was on purpose. The thread (especially the non-public part) got too emotional/heated, and people comp

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote: > What I find concerning is the idea that a biased subset of our users would > be categorically ignored for this type of evaluation. If you agree with me > that such evaluation is valuable to our users, I think you ought to also > find such

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

Ori, I agree on all points. My assertions are this: 1. DNT means 3rd party tracking. It's in the definition. 2. However, we'd like to have a strict interpretation and act beyond the definition. This empowers our users and sets a good precedent. 3. The categorical exclusion of a sub

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

I second Aaron’s concerns, which I previously expressed during the consultation about the new privacy policy. My main objection to the proposed solution is that by saying “Wikimedia honors DNT headers” we imply – by the most popular/de facto interpretation of DNT – that we do 3rd party tracking

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > I second Aaron’s concerns, which I previously expressed during the > consultation about the new privacy policy. My main objection to the > proposed solution is that by saying “Wikimedia honors DNT headers” we

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Ori Livneh wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Dario Taraborelli < > dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> I second Aaron’s concerns, which I previously expressed during the >> consultation about the new privacy policy. My main objection to the >> propos

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Dario Taraborelli < dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > I second Aaron’s concerns, which I previously expressed during the > consultation about the new privacy policy. My main objection to the > proposed solution is that by saying “Wikimedia honors DNT headers” we

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

Ori, > we are making use of the header that we think is consistent with the > expectation of users based on what evidence? I’ve seen a single reference cited in this thread pointing to a study that candidly declares in its abstract: “Because Do Not Track is so new, as far as we know this is t

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

I didn’t reference the McDonald study in my reply, but I too am not particularly persuaded by the conclusions. “Many think it means they will not be tracked at all, including collection” suggests to me a fundamental lack of literacy among the users surveyed about what data that browsers pass

Re: [Analytics] DNT, standards, and expectations

I’m searching for references looking at user perception of third-party behavioral tracking vs logging, any pointer would be appreciated. > On Jan 16, 2015, at 8:16 PM, Dario Taraborelli > wrote: > > I didn’t reference the McDonald study in my reply, but I too am not > particularly persuaded