Erm, dumb question: if the use-case is "journalist is confused by current stats not matching previous claims", can't we just set up archives of the HTML reports?
Wouldn't that add to the confusion? I'd prefer a simple explanation in the introduction.
Also 800 wikis x 27 languages x so many static tables is already 20 GB per month.
Erik Zachte
-----Original Message----- From: Federico Leva (Nemo) [mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:53 PM To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. Cc: Erik Zachte Subject: Re: [Analytics] Stat variances over time
Erik Zachte, 17/03/2013 20:15:
TL;DR static monthly counts will be costly to implement and cure the lesser problem, while possibly making trends harder to assess
Thanks Erik for this lovely email. :) Erm, dumb question: if the use-case is "journalist is confused by current stats not matching previous claims", can't we just set up archives of the HTML reports?
[...] Regardless from C1) and C2) it would be great if we could add missing meta info to stub dumps, so we can forget about full archive dumps all-together in a wikistats context, and be more consistent . See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42318 comment 5
+1 (shameless plug for own bug).
[1] BTW Wikistats is still behind on including some namespaces into article counts. Technically the scripts are ready to automate this fully, but I haven't put it up for decision yet.
Nemo