Ya, we can probably tweak pageview definition to use page_id / page_title if they exist, and only use the rest of the logic if they don’t.
On Aug 19, 2015, at 12:24, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
It'll need to be, some requests don't know pageID in advance, which I think was the reason Apps initially didn't implement this.
On 19 August 2015 at 12:19, Andrew Otto aotto@wikimedia.org wrote:
If your app/site/etc. is creating a request that it wants to count as a pageview, add an X-Analytics header with pageview_id=<page_id> or pageview_title=<page_title>
page_id is the current key, so let’s keep that. page_title would be good to have too. Let’s make it an and/or.
On Aug 19, 2015, at 12:17, Bernd Sitzmann bernd@wikimedia.org wrote:
If your app/site/etc. is creating a request that it wants to count as a pageview, add an X-Analytics header with pageview_id=<page_id> or pageview_title=<page_title>
Ideally the page id would be the way to go. From a client's perspective I prefer the page title since clients don't always know the page id ahead of time. (We could put that header into the second request of loading the page but I cannot guarantee that we we will always have a second request in the future.)
--Cheers, Bernd
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
This (making pageviews proactive) is a great idea, and we should follow through. Here's a simple start:
If your app/site/etc. is creating a request that it wants to count as a pageview, add an X-Analytics header with pageview_id=<page_id> or pageview_title=<page_title>
If we can make this change uniformly, I think we'd be in a very good place.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 19 August 2015 at 10:19, Andrew Otto aotto@wikimedia.org wrote:
If we /do/ include RESTBase requests we will not only have to rewrite the pageview definition for the apps to recognise the new URL scheme
I really think that apps and APIs should do something proactive to tag or log a pageview. With more ways of viewing content, it is going to get harder and harder to maintain a pattern based definition. A pageview should be an event that is logged, not something that is pattern matched out of a very noisy stream of data.
Most mediawiki requests do this now, via the page_id field in the X-Analytlics header, but we can’t use this for all pageviews because APIs are more complicated (e.g. more than one page can be served in a single request, etc.). In the longterm, there should be a pageview event stream just like rcstream! :)
This is an excellent point. IIRC we'd been asking Apps to do this for kind of a while, so...
-Ao
On Aug 18, 2015, at 19:58, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 19:11, Bernd Sitzmann bernd@wikimedia.org wrote: > This discussion is about needed updates of the definition and > Analytics > implementation for mobile apps page view metrics. There is also an > associated Phab task[4]. Please add the proper Analytics project > there. > > Background / Changes > > As you probably remember, the Android app splits a page view into two > requests: one for the lead section and metadata, plus another one for > the > remainder. > > The mobile apps are going to change the way they load pages in two > different > ways: > > We'll add a link preview when someone clicks on a link from a page. > We're planning on switching over the using RESTBase for loading pages > and > also the link preview (initially just the Android beta, ater more) >
Woah woah woah woah woah. By RESTBase do you mean Gabriel's RESTful service API?
Last time I checked that wasn't even consumed by HDFS. Is it now being consumed by HDFS?
More importantly the actual URLs are going to look /totally/ different. If we do not include RESTBase requests, we will miss the apps. If we /do/ include RESTBase requests we will not only have to rewrite the pageview definition for the apps to recognise the new URL scheme, we will also potentially have to rewrite every /other/ bit of the definition to /not/ incorporate those requests.
(I use "we" in a collective sense. This isn't my baby any more, although if Joseph et al want help with the refactor here I'm happy to spend my volunteer time on it).
But basically every other bit of your email is important but now secondary: this is a potentially massive change, all on its own, even without the link preview, even if the substance of the requests going to RESTBase were identical.
> This will have implications for the pageviews definition and how we > count > user engagement. > > The big question is > > Should we count link previews as a page view since it's an indication > of > user engagement? Or should there be a separate metric for link > previews? > > Counting page views > > IIRC we currently count action=mobileview§ions=0 query parameters > of > api.php as a page view. When we publish link previews for all Android > app > users then we would either want to count also the calls to > action=query&prop=extracts as a page view or add them to another > metric. > > Once the apps use RESTBase the HTTPS requests will be very different: > > Page view: Instead of action=mobileview§ions=0 the app would call > the > RESTBase endpoint for lead request[1] instead of the PHP API > mentioned > above. Then it would call [2]. > Link preview: Instead of action=query&prop=extracts it would call the > lead > request[1], too, since there is a lot of overlap. At least that our > current > plan. The advantage of that is that the client doesn't need to > execute the > lead request a second time if the user clicks on the link preview (-- > either > through caching or app logic.) > > So, in the RESTBase case we either want to count the > mobile-html-sections-lead requests or the > mobile-html-sections-remaining > requests depending on what our definition for page views actually is. > We > could also add a query parameter or extra HTTP header to one of the > mobile-html-sections-lead requests if we need to distinguish between > previews and page views. > > Both the current PHP API and the RESTBase based metrics would need to > be > compatible and be collected in parallel since we cannot control when > users > update their apps. > > [1] > > https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html-sections-lead/Dilbert > [2] > > https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html-sections-remaining/Dil... > [3] > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/RESTBase_services_for_app... > > [4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T109383 > > > Cheers, > > Bernd > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
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
-- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics