On 17 August 2015 at 16:20, Adam Baso <abaso(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Whose job is
it to review pageviews and update the definition when
issues are found?
I see the thread evolved a bit today. But I'll note this for people going
through the archives:
There seem to be a few levels of review of pageviews. There's been stuff for
the monthly metrics meetings (e.g., earlier this month Kevin Leduc ran some
reporting). Tilman Bayer is also working on some regular reports for
Reading; he has generated quarterly scorecards around this sort of data in
the past, too. Reading is a customer of the data so to speak. I think a lot
of us are doing ad hoc lookups from time to time.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about review in the sense of using it, I was
talking about review in the sense of actively looking for issues.
For reporting issues my working understanding is if someone notices an issue
we should submit a bug against #analytics in Phabricator, with Analytics
implementing updates as needed (as Oliver noted in a later report, how to
systematize review is a question he and Joseph will look to answer).
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
--
Oliver Keyes
Count Logula
Wikimedia Foundation