[Labs-l] [Analytics] User registration date on DB replicas

[Felipe Ortega]

Hello all.

@Tim: By "feature" I mean having values for column user.user_registration filled for DB replicas accessible from Tool-Labs, if possible. As Oliver has suggested, I don't see any reason for this info not being available, as it is already public from Special:ListUsers.

@Aaron: Thanks a lot. I belive that is a fairly decent approximation. In fact, I suspect that daily or weekly aggregates would be enough for time-series characterization. My actual goal is comparing trends between different languages, and eventually correlation with other known activity metrics.

Best regards,
Felipe.





El Viernes 14 de febrero de 2014 16:00, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker at gmail.com> escribió:
 
I have a dataset containing estimated registration dates for editors who registered before Dec. 2005.  My method assumes that user_id is monotonically increasing and sets the lowest upper-bound available.  
>
>
>For example.  Let's assume the following rows:
>
>
>    user_id    first_edit
>    12345      20040102030405  
>    12344      NULL
>    12343      20040102050102
>
>
>Since an editor couldn't have saved a revision before registering their account, we can assume that user 12345 registered there account on or before 20040102030405.  If user_id is monotonically increasing, we also know that user 12344 must have registered on or before 20040102030405, which lets us fill in a NULL.  Similarly, we have a first_edit timestamp for user 12343, but that edit happened pretty late.  We can actually just continue to propagate the 20040102030405timestamp to this user too.
>
>
>After performing this approximation, we'd have the following rows:
>
>
>    user_id    first_edit        user_registration_approx
>    12345      20040102030405    20040102030405
>    12344      NULL              20040102030405
>    12343      20040102050102    20040102030405
>
>
>In effect, this is similar to the approximation discussed in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18638, but I'm not trying to interpolate probable registration timings on users.  In practice we're talking about a difference of seconds, so I haven't bothered with the extra work.  
>
>
>I'm generating a datafile for English now that I should be able to share the the end of the day:
>	* user_id
>	* registration_type  (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Attached_user and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newly_registered_user)
>	* user_registration (from user table)
>	* first_edit (lowest timestamp from "revision" and "archive" for user_id)
>	* registration_approx (my approximation based on the method described above)
>-Aaron
>
>
>
>On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Felipe Ortega, 14/02/2014 12:05:
>>
>>
>>Thanks a lot. Then, I look forward to the confirmation and
>>>implementation of this feature. In case it's better to open a new issue
>>>on bugzilla or any other action on my side (lend a hand with value
>>>reviewing/testing) just let me know.
>>>
>>
You could help assess the correctness of and/or code the guesstimate method proposed in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18638 , for the script to fill further blanks.
>>
>>
>>Nemo
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Labs-l mailing list
>>Labs-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/labs-l/attachments/20140214/66706585/attachment-0001.html>