A metric that is based on a draft RfC that was only created this year and depends on JS? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it has problems of its own ;p
On 3 December 2015 at 14:22, Gabriel Wicke gwicke@wikimedia.org wrote:
I have witnessed this discussion about what constitutes a page view repeatedly over the last months, and suspect that it is only going to get murkier the more interactive and non-navigation features we add. Some of these decisions are somewhat arbitrary, making the page view metric a less accurate indicator for the true engagement of users with our site.
I think we should complement pageviews with a new metric that side-steps a binary 1/0 decision: Time on Site. I have written up some thoughts on this at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T119352.
Gabriel
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
I have been informed MW Core no longer exists. Fair catch ;p. But this is software development, not Oprah - product ownership is not something under the seat of every audience member. Someone needs to actually own the definition. I don't mind if it's AnEng, Research, Readership, Search, whoever, but it being an unknown and undisclosed responsibility that falls on the shoulders of everyone is a really bad way of doing it.
This is an organisational metric. Someone needs to own it.
On 3 December 2015 at 13:11, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sure, but ownership does not mean "knows everything" it means "Makes sure it gets done". MediaWiki is owned by everyone, sure, but the actual idea of what MediaWiki core is has a team. The MediaWiki core team.
On 3 December 2015 at 13:07, Nuria Ruiz nuria@wikimedia.org wrote:
So the pageview definition, one of our core organisational KPIs, is owned simultaneously by everyone?
Sure, just like mediawiki codebase is collectively own.
Personally I do not see that as a problem and regardless I think it reflects reality, analytics team -as I mentioned before- doesn't have the knowledge or authority to "decide" what constitutes a search pageview without talking to the team/devs/community memebers that actually know how search works.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
So the pageview definition, one of our core organisational KPIs, is owned simultaneously by everyone?
On 3 December 2015 at 12:54, Nuria Ruiz nuria@wikimedia.org wrote:
>Who does own it? On our opinion every team should own the definition of a pageview in their product right and when in doubt analytics or research can be involved to provide feedback on lessons learned.
For example: who is best qualified than IOS team to decide what constitutes a page in the IOS app?
With that in mind I have created a ticket to define what constitutes a Search pageview: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120249
Let me know what is a good discovery project to tag this ticket with so this ticket gets some visibility.
Thanks,
Nuria
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote: > > On 2 December 2015 at 15:38, Nuria Ruiz nuria@wikimedia.org wrote: > >>It's true that MediaWiki supports search based solely on the ?search > >> query > >> parameter. Regardless of whether title=Special:Search is specified. > >>This is mostly for legacy reasons as search predates the concept of > >> special > >> pages. > >>However, would it make sense to instead count these as page views for > >> 'Special:Search'? > > > > One thing worth clarifying is that analytics team doesn't own the > > pageview > > definition (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view), we > > implement it to the best of our ability. Deciding what constitutes a > > pageview for search falls on the search team as they are the ones > > that > > know > > their functionality best (substitute "search team" by "some entity > > with > > knowledge of mediawiki's search abilities") According to Timo's > > comment > > it > > seems that "?search" requests should be counted as true pageviews but > > let us > > know otherwise via phab ticket or this list. > > > > Who does own it? > > > Thanks, > > > > Nuria > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) > > nemowiki@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> > >> Oliver Keyes, 02/12/2015 18:52: > >>> > >>> Via Brian Davis we find out the responsible patch is > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> https://github.com/wikimedia/analytics-refinery-source/commit/05e5da92553dbd... > >> > >> > >> Context: > >> > >> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Page_view/Archive_1#Parameters... > >> > >> Nemo > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
-- 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
-- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
-- Gabriel Wicke Principal Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics