SQL is a nice formal definition for these metrics.  Even though it may become out of date (the prod database doesn't change in backwards incompatible ways that often), it's still a big win for the metrics pages IMO.

-Aaron

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Nuria Ruiz <nuria@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>Keep in mind that, when I say "metrics documentation", I'm not referring to documentation about Hive, the webrequest logs, or EventLogging. >To my mind, those are infrastructure topics that are relevant mainly to Wikimedia (not MediaWiki) engineers, and so belong on Wikitech. 
Agreed

>I'm talking about documentation relevant to analysts, researchers, and end users of metrics: "this is how we define an edit", "this is why we use 5 edits as the cutoff for an active editor", "this is sample SQL for counting surviving new active editors",
Agreed for all but last one, the sql will change. I will keep meta only about definitions. If you start adding "examples" , it is likely they soon will be out of date. 




On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Leila Zia <leila@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Makes sense to me.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Neil P. Quinn <nquinn@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Keep in mind that, when I say "metrics documentation", I'm not referring to documentation about Hive, the webrequest logs, or EventLogging. To my mind, those are infrastructure topics that are relevant mainly to Wikimedia (not MediaWiki) engineers, and so belong on Wikitech.

I'm talking about documentation relevant to analysts, researchers, and end users of metrics: "this is how we define an edit", "this is why we use 5 edits as the cutoff for an active editor", "this is sample SQL for counting surviving new active editors", and so on. I think that kind of information belongs on Meta (and not on mediawiki.org, which was the original thrust of my question).

Does that seem like a sensible split to people, or am I just agreeing with one side of the debate?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I think having documentation in more than one place is an awful experience for newcomers.
 
Which newcomers are you referring to?  Newcomers to the WMF engineering staff or newcomers to research/analytics of Wikimedia projects?

It's OK to not understand the different purposes of our Wikis right away, but I don't think that is a good reason to undermine their purposes.  I certainly don't see why wikitech is a desirable hub for this kind of information.  From my point of view Wikitech is the *worst* potential hub of information that is not specific to engineering.

What, exactly, is the trouble with having metrics documentation on Meta?   How would moving *some of the the documentation* to wikitech help that?  (Because you're not going to move research project documentation without even stronger disagreement from the locals.)

-Aaron

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Strongly oppose moving the Research namespace hosted metrics documentation off Meta. It's s'posed to be broadly accessible. Wikitech is on few peoples' radar. Mediawiki.org is for software documentation. Meta is the central wiki for the movement (however imperfect). - J

I respect the fact that these kinds of distinctions make sense to people who are already familiar with the movement and research / analytics.  But to someone relatively new, and to me for the first year at the foundation, those distinctions made zero sense.

I'm not saying it's easy, but I think having documentation in more than one place is an awful experience for newcomers.  We'll continue to move things to wikitech and leave nice high level landing pages on the other wikis.  Others are welcome to act differently if they so see fit.  I know a lot of research stuff is on meta, so maybe in your case it makes sense to standardize on meta and point to it from the other wikis.

You're of course welcome to disagree with me but I'd suggest first trying to come up with examples of newcomers who understand the purpose of our different wikis perfectly right away.

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



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




--
Neil P. Quinn, product analyst
Wikimedia Foundation


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



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



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