Not really; the new pageviews definition wouldn't include those files
anyway. It seems silly, thought, be deliberately generating a large
amount of automated noise and client requests for this :/.

On 4 February 2015 at 15:00, Gergo Tisza <gtisza@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Erik Zachte is working on file view stats and is looking for a way to track
> Media Viewer image views (for which there is no 1:1 relation between server
> hits and actual image views); after some back and forth in
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T86914 I proposed the following hack:
>
> whenever the javascript code in MediaViewer determines that an image view
> happened (e.g. an image has been displayed for a certain amount of time), it
> makes a request to a certain fake image, say
> upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Virtual-imageview-<real
> image name>/<size>px-thumbnail.<ext> . These hits can than be easily
> filtered from the varnish request logs and added to the normal requests. We
> would add a rule to Vagrant to make sure it does not try to look up such
> requests in Swift but returns a 404 immediately.
>
> This would be a temporary workaround until there is a proper way to log
> virtual image views, such as EventLogging with a non-SQL backend.
>
> Do you see any fundamental problem with this?
>

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



--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

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