Hi all -
I'm checking with people in ops, but we're planning to add a well defined
parameter to the end of URLs to see the level of clickthroughs on such
links. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epirus?analytics=ios_share_a_fact_v1
(If there are existing params on the URL - not an issue so far that I know
of for the apps as they canonicalize the title and URL - then the param
would be last in the ampersand separated query string parameter.)
And then we'd use Varnish to remove the parameter to reduce the risk of
cache fragmentation.
We "know" this is probably only a short term solution, and as a follow up
from the meeting with the people on the CC line, I'm emailing to open the
discussion on options for a more generic option.
So far I think there are a few options from what we've discussed, if we're
to support additional bucketing.
(1) More parameters (e.g., ?analytics=ios_share_a_fact&version=1)
Downside: potentially harder to standardize and remove things from the URL
(2) More conventional provenance (e.g.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castle&oldid=645632619/ref=_wref…<...more
provenance info as desired>/).
Downside: technically speaking, may break the schema of well-formed titles
(3) Rely upon (1) or (2), or perhaps an even more RESTful shortlinker (it
could have features like target - web or w:// wor wiki:// protocol or
whatever - versioning, etc.).
Downside: maybe a little more work to stand up service. As we recalled,
there's an extension out there that may, perhaps with some tweaks, fit the
build.
-Adam
Hello,
Eventlogging had some issues on March 20th due to an inflow of client side
events higher than the system can support. Inflow was due to the new
instrumentation deployed for Wikitext to be able to compare Wikitext usage
with Visual editor usage.
Issues were resolved promptly and analytics team shall backfill client side
events that were dropped on the 20th as a result of the outage.
Details here:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incident_documentation/20150320-EventLo…
Thanks,
Nuria
Today we will have two presentation:
1. User Session Identification by Aaron Halfaker
2. Mining Missing Hyperlinks in Wikipedia by Bob West.
You can follow the talk on youtube <http://youtu.be/CgkwLXbALQg>.
We will hold a discussion and take questions from remote participants via
the Wikimedia Research IRC channel (#wikimedia-research on freenode).
See you there,
Ellery
Gabriel:
I have run through the data and have a rough estimate of how many of our
pageviews are requested from browsers w/o strong javascript support. It is
a preliminary rough estimate but I think is pretty useful.
TL;DR
According to our new pageview definition (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view) about 10% of pageviews
come from clients w/o much javascript support. But - BIG CAVEAT- this
includes bots requests. If you remove the easy-too-spot-big-bots the
percentage is <3%.
Details here (still some homework to do regarding IE6 and IE7)
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Reports/ClientsWithoutJavascript
Thanks,
Nuria
Sounds great, I believe that normalization of the title will be very useful for future researchers and usages, so as adding the pageId.
Currently it is not always straight forward to correlate the wikipedia page with the unnormalized title
> On Mar 14, 2015, at 14:00, analytics-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> Send Analytics mailing list submissions to
> analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> analytics-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> analytics-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Analytics digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. [Technical][Request for Comment] A new format for the
> pageview dumps (Oliver Keyes)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:06:00 -0400
> From: Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: "A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who
> has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics."
> <analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Research into Wikimedia content and
> communities <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Analytics] [Technical][Request for Comment] A new format for
> the pageview dumps
> Message-ID:
> <CAAUQgdCSVg8htCS4VFDZJaL2rUEjmk5ZEA+zXcp3o9OWn-udfQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> So, we've got a new pageviews definition; it's nicely integrated and
> spitting out TRUE/FALSE values on each row with the best of em. But
> what does that mean for third-party researchers?
>
> Well...not much, at the moment, because the data isn't being released
> somewhere. But one resource we do have that third-parties use a heck
> of a lot, is the per-page pageviews dumps on dumps.wikimedia.org.
>
> Due to historical size constrains and decision-making (and by
> historical I mean: last decade) these have a number of weirdnesses in
> formatting terms; project identification is done using a notation
> style not really used anywhere else, mobile/zero/desktop appear on
> different lines, and the files are space-separated. I'd like to put
> some volunteer time into spitting out dumps in an easier-to-work-with
> format, using the new definition, to run in /parallel/ with the
> existing logs.
>
> *The new format*
> At the moment we have the format:
>
> project_notation - encoded_title - pageviews - bytes
>
> This puts zero and mobile requests to pageX in a different place to
> desktop requests, requires some reconstruction of project_notation,
> and contains (for some use cases) extraneous information - that being
> the byte-count. The files are also headerless, unquoted and
> space-separated, which saves space but is sometimes...I think the term
> is "eeeeh-inducing".
>
> What I'd like to use as a new format is:
>
> full_project_url - encoded_title - desktop_pageviews - mobile_and_zero_pageviews
>
> This file would:
>
> 1. Include a header row;
> 2. Be formatted as a tab-separated, rather than space-separated, file;
> 3. Exclude bytecounts;
> 4. Include desktop and mobile pageview counts on the same line;
> 5. Use the full project URL ("en.wikivoyage.org") instead of the
> pagecounts-specific notation ("en.v")
>
> So, as a made-up example, instead of:
>
> de.m.v Florence 32 9024
> de.v Florence 920 7570
>
> we'd end up with:
>
> de.wikivoyage.org Florence 920 32
>
> In the future we could also work to /normalise/ the title - replacing
> it with the page title that refers to the actual pageID. This won't
> impact legacy files, and is currently blocked on the Apps team, but
> should be viable as soon as that blocker goes away.
>
> I've written a script capable of parsing and reformatting the legacy
> files, so we should be able to backfill in this new format too, if
> that's wanted (see below).
>
> *The size constraints*
>
> There really aren't any. Like I said, the historical rationale for a
> lot of these decisions seems to have been keeping the files small. But
> by putting requests to the same title from different site versions on
> the same line, and dropping byte-count, we save enough space that the
> resulting files are approximately the same size as the old ones - or
> in many cases, actually smaller.
>
> *What I'm asking for*
>
> Feedback! What do people think of the new format? What would they like
> to see that they don't? What don't they need, here? How useful would
> normalisation be? How useful would backfilling be?
>
> *What I'm not asking for*
> WMF time! Like I said, this is a spare-time project; I've also got
> volunteers for Code Review and checking, too (Yuvi and Otto).
>
> The replacement of the old files! Too many people depend on that
> format and that definition, and I don't want to make them sad.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Research Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
> End of Analytics Digest, Vol 37, Issue 33
> *****************************************
According to Dan Garry, the Apps team is now sending sections=all
instead of sections=0 on recent iOS app requests. The result is that
apps will be underreported, since the existing implementation of the
pageview definition does not know this.[0]
I've filed a phabricator ticket,[1] but this is just a note to make
sure it's surfaced more widely - pageviews-based requests using the
"New" definition are not currently reliable for apps. This is the Nth
reminder to !analytics that if you're planning on (a) asking analytics
for data and (b) getting useful numbers, it's probably nice to tell
them about this sort of change /before/ you make it.
[0] https://github.com/wikimedia/analytics-refinery-source/blob/master/refinery…
[1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T93255
--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
Hi,
This month's research showcase
<https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Analytics/Research_and_Data/Sho…>
is scheduled for Wednesday, March 25, 11:30 (PST).
We will have two presentations on user session identification by Aaron
Halfaker, and mining missing hyperlinks in Wikipedia by Bob West.
As usual, the event will be recorded and publicly streamed on YouTube
(links will follow). We will hold a discussion and take questions from
remote participants via the Wikimedia Research IRC channel
(#wikimedia-research on freenode).
Looking forward to seeing you there.
Leila
So, we've got a new pageviews definition; it's nicely integrated and
spitting out TRUE/FALSE values on each row with the best of em. But
what does that mean for third-party researchers?
Well...not much, at the moment, because the data isn't being released
somewhere. But one resource we do have that third-parties use a heck
of a lot, is the per-page pageviews dumps on dumps.wikimedia.org.
Due to historical size constrains and decision-making (and by
historical I mean: last decade) these have a number of weirdnesses in
formatting terms; project identification is done using a notation
style not really used anywhere else, mobile/zero/desktop appear on
different lines, and the files are space-separated. I'd like to put
some volunteer time into spitting out dumps in an easier-to-work-with
format, using the new definition, to run in /parallel/ with the
existing logs.
*The new format*
At the moment we have the format:
project_notation - encoded_title - pageviews - bytes
This puts zero and mobile requests to pageX in a different place to
desktop requests, requires some reconstruction of project_notation,
and contains (for some use cases) extraneous information - that being
the byte-count. The files are also headerless, unquoted and
space-separated, which saves space but is sometimes...I think the term
is "eeeeh-inducing".
What I'd like to use as a new format is:
full_project_url - encoded_title - desktop_pageviews - mobile_and_zero_pageviews
This file would:
1. Include a header row;
2. Be formatted as a tab-separated, rather than space-separated, file;
3. Exclude bytecounts;
4. Include desktop and mobile pageview counts on the same line;
5. Use the full project URL ("en.wikivoyage.org") instead of the
pagecounts-specific notation ("en.v")
So, as a made-up example, instead of:
de.m.v Florence 32 9024
de.v Florence 920 7570
we'd end up with:
de.wikivoyage.org Florence 920 32
In the future we could also work to /normalise/ the title - replacing
it with the page title that refers to the actual pageID. This won't
impact legacy files, and is currently blocked on the Apps team, but
should be viable as soon as that blocker goes away.
I've written a script capable of parsing and reformatting the legacy
files, so we should be able to backfill in this new format too, if
that's wanted (see below).
*The size constraints*
There really aren't any. Like I said, the historical rationale for a
lot of these decisions seems to have been keeping the files small. But
by putting requests to the same title from different site versions on
the same line, and dropping byte-count, we save enough space that the
resulting files are approximately the same size as the old ones - or
in many cases, actually smaller.
*What I'm asking for*
Feedback! What do people think of the new format? What would they like
to see that they don't? What don't they need, here? How useful would
normalisation be? How useful would backfilling be?
*What I'm not asking for*
WMF time! Like I said, this is a spare-time project; I've also got
volunteers for Code Review and checking, too (Yuvi and Otto).
The replacement of the old files! Too many people depend on that
format and that definition, and I don't want to make them sad.
Thoughts?
--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
Hi,
I'm looking to generate some data around what percentage of claims in
Wikidata have references.
What's the best way for me to get this data?
As a bonus, I would like to find out what percentage of claims in Wikidata
have references other than "XX Wikipedia".
Thanks,
Kaldari