[Leia, thanks for binding to initial thread.]

I used suggested tool at the approximately top ten the most visited pages at Czech Wikipedia. The result is interesting. The ratio between visitors of the page and corresponding discussion is huge. It's under distinctive ability of the advertising agencies (CPI per week). As seems MediaWiki is resistant against embedded ads based on user names by design. Good news, I think.

Wikidata. My question "Wikidata Query and Wikipedia statistics/meta informations" and responses were deleted by the bot.

Lada ;?


On 2018-06-12 20:18, Leila Zia wrote:
[coming back from a private response to the public list, with
Ladislav's permission.]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:03 AM Ladislav Nešněra
<ladislav.nesnera@otevrenamesta.cz> wrote:

Re: to https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/analytics/2018-May/006349.html

Hi Leila,
I'm sorry for the delay but I'm not subscriber of this forum and registration doesn't work for me :-O (https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics). It means - I had no signal about your answer.

No worries. I understand you're in now. :)


Yes, I'd like to know something about user behaviour. This paragraph limits user names based on potential abuse for promotional purpose. Would be fine to know how many users reach the pages where they can see user names (=discussion + history of the article + history of the discussion). Ideally separate human readers and editors. Is it possible?

There is no immediate data available I can think of to point you, too
(others should feel free, of course, to provide pointers):

* If you're interested in anecdotal evidence: The easiest way I can
think of that you can visually see this information would be using
pageviews analysis tool [1].
* A properly set-up analysis will need to look at the pageviews to the
destinations you mentioned before/after the change, controlling for
seasonality, pageview changes over time, etc.
* Separating editor pageviews vs. reader pageviews will be hard and
that's by design. Even if we can set aside time to run this analysis
for you, this can only be done over the data in the past 90 days (at
most) and I would need to see a relatively strong editor community
support for doing it. (We generally don't do in-depth analysis of what
editors read, so some discussion is needed to make that happen.)
* If you decide to pursue the above, please communicate the priority
of this question on your end to help us prioritize. For example, is
there a community discussion pending on this result? How important is
that discussion? etc.


And one related question - Wikidata Query and Wikipedia statistics.

[Link: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Request_a_query#Wikidata_Query_and_Wikipedia_statistics/meta_informations]

I'll let others who know more answer the question above, my guess
would be what's already said in the link above.

Best,
Leila


Thank you in advance for your time  ;?


[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Cat|Dog



On 2018-05-29 00:59, Ladislav Nešněra wrote:

Dear analytic team ;),

I'd like to know if the policy about promotional user names solve real problem or if this problem was only anticipated in 2007.
Is it possible to get statistic which distinguish between article visitors and people which can see potential promotion names i.e. discussion + history of the article + history of discussion? It'd by ideal exclude editors (it's hard to influence a persons familiar with the subject contrariwise they've be annoyed by promoting) but I don't believe it would be a significant difference.
Can you help me or can you direct me into the right way, please?

Thank you in advance for your time

    Ladislav Nešněra   ;?
    +420 721 658 256



_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics