Those sound like relatively advanced features a bit beyond the initial
offering, but like useful things to provide in the long-term, yeah.
I'm not sure what the status of the redirects inclusion (which is sort
of a question about the underlying data source rather than the
endpoint) is.

On 15 January 2016 at 11:28, Alex Druk <alex.druk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My two cents to discussion about endpoints to pageview API:
> 1) stats for categories that include all subcats and all pages,
> 2) include redirects to article counts
>
> All the best,
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Nuria Ruiz <nuria@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> Trying again, adding analytics@ (public e-mail list)
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Marcel Ruiz Forns <mforns@wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I also think we should start with exposing the 3 api's endpoints in a
>>> GUI, which - as Dan says - we know respond to community interests. And then
>>> ask the community for more input, that could mean improvements to the tool,
>>> new endpoints or completely new ideas...
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Dan Andreescu
>>> <dandreescu@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm ok if people want to take an iterative approach, I just want to
>>>> point out that the usage information is not very indicative of value at this
>>>> point.  The API is not widely used and the per-article endpoint is expected
>>>> to be hit much much more than per-project or top simply because the queries
>>>> are many orders of magnitude more granular.  So we can't really judge
>>>> importance from that comparison.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Leila Zia <leila@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Dan Andreescu
>>>>> <dandreescu@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My question is: How are we going to define the requirements for the
>>>>>>> tool? I was planning to get some community input on defining which stats
>>>>>>> would help contributors the most. What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My opinion here is that we should just expose everything the pageview
>>>>>> API is capable of.  It's only 3 different end points and they were chosen
>>>>>> based on what the community found useful.  As we add more endpoints we can
>>>>>> keep checking if visualization is important.  But of course if others have
>>>>>> other more specific plans, we can wait for those tools to be built and
>>>>>> iterate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Building up on Dan's suggestion: I'd go with communicating and/or
>>>>> discussing the following with the community:
>>>>>
>>>>> * the 3 different metrics we can offer a UI for
>>>>> * what other metrics they find useful for their work. This will help us
>>>>> collect information about what other kind of metrics we should offer as an
>>>>> end-point if we decide to add to the end-points (pageview per article by
>>>>> country has come up many times, for example)
>>>>> * whether they consider the wish as satisfied if we offer a UI for the
>>>>> 3 different metrics, and perhaps over time add more metrics to the UI as
>>>>> they become available (not necessarily in 2016).
>>>>>
>>>>> Leila
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marcel Ruiz Forns
>>> Analytics Developer
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Analytics mailing list
>> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thank you.
>
> Alex Druk, PhD
> wikipediatrends.com
> alex.druk@gmail.com
> (775) 237-8550 Google voice
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>



--

Oliver Keyes
Count Logula

Wikimedia Foundation

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