clients that also didn't download images?
We can look at that but I suspect results will not differ much. Let me
know if you think is necessary.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Nuria Ruiz <nuria(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
That
number is higher than I expected given that the general web was
apparently closer
to 1.3% in 2010
<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistics-on-javascript-disabled>
.
mmm.. that study looks too old to be relevant, two things on that:
*1) Numbers from 2010 do not include mobile browsers with widespread
use nowadays. *
For example: "Opera Mini". We have >1% of requests only from this
browser (and I bet than in 2015 Yahoo is seeing quite a few of those).
Note that this 1% is a more precise one, derived directly from hadoop logs,
requires no guesswork.
So it is not surprising that the number of disabled javascript pageviews
has gone up if you take mobile into account. Opera Mini does not support
javascript in the ways you would expect:
https://dev.opera.com/articles/opera-mini-and-javascript/
*2) Our data differs from global stats in significant ways. *
For example, our IE6 and IE7 traffic is way higher than global stats
reported by
http://gs.statcounter.com/ on the month of January. And
note these browser percentages are more precise estimates on our end
(unlike the javascript estimate that requires some cross checking and
guesswork). Also, note the total percentage we report over pageviews
includes bots so excluding those our IE6 and IE7 traffic is even higher
than the one I am noting below.
Browser, Percentage of total pageviews by our account, global percentage
by statscounter
IE6: 1.01%, 0.09%
IE7: 0.7% , 0.14%
I do not expect that our numbers are going to match 100% to statscounter
but I think is an OK guide to cross-check oneself, especially cause they
deploy their beacons
worldwide:http://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology
Finally, is there a way to gauge the difference in
JS support between
anonymous & authenticated users from this data?
No, I do not think we can do that with this dataset.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Gabriel Wicke <gwicke(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Thank you, Nuria!
That number is higher than I expected given that the general web was
apparently closer to 1.3% in 2010
<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistics-on-javascript-disabled>.
Do you think there are ways to fine-tune this, perhaps by excluding clients
that also didn't download images?
Finally, is there a way to gauge the difference in JS support between
anonymous & authenticated users from this data?
Gabriel
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Nuria Ruiz <nuria(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> 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
>