Hi Marcel,
It will take time for frameworks to implement an amended User-Agent policy. For example, pywikipedia (pywikibot compat) is not actively maintained. We dont know how much traffic is generated by compat. There was a task filled against Analytics for this, but Dan Andreescu removed Analytics (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99373#1859170).
There are a lot of clients that need to be upgraded or be decommissioned for this 'add bot' strategy to be effective in the near future. see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Client_code
The all important missing step is
3. Create a plan to block clients that dont implement the (amended) User-Agent policy.
Without that plan, successfully implemented, you will not get quality data (i.e. using 'Netscape' in the U-A to guess 'human' would perform better).
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Marcel Ruiz Forns mforns@wikimedia.org wrote:
So, trying to join everyone's points of view, what about?
Using the existing https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User-Agent_policy and modify it to encourage adding the word "bot" (case-insensitive) to the User-Agent string, so that it can be easily used to identify bots in the anlytics cluster (no regexps). And link that page from whatever other pages we think necessary.
Do some advertising and outreach and get some bot maintainers and maybe some frameworks to implement the User-Agent policy. This would make the existing policy less useless.
Thanks all for the feedback!
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Marcel Ruiz Forns mforns@wikimedia.org wrote:
Clearly Wikipedia et al. uses bot to refer to automated software that edits the site but it seems like you are using the term bot to refer to all automated software and it might be good to clarify.
OK, in the documentation we can make that clear. And looking into that, I've seen that some bots, in the process of doing their "editing" work can also generate pageviews. So we should also include them as potential source of pageview traffic. Maybe we can reuse the existing User-Agent policy.
This makes a lot of sense. If I build a bot that crawls wikipedia and facebook public pages it really doesn't make sense that my bot has a "wikimediaBot" user agent, just the word "Bot" should probably be enough.
Totally agree.
I guess a bigger question is why try to differentiate between "spiders" and "bots" at all?
I don't think we need to differentiate between "spiders" and "bots". The most important question we want to respond is: how much of the traffic we consider "human" today is actually "bot". So, +1 "bot" (case-insensitive).
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:16 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 Jan 2016 11:28 pm, "Marcel Ruiz Forns" mforns@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why not just "Bot", or "MediaWikiBot" which at least encompasses all sites that the client can communicate with.
I personally agree with you, "MediaWikiBot" seems to have better semantics.
For clients accessing the MediaWiki api, it is redundant. All it does is identify bots that comply with this edict from analytics.
-- John Vandenberg
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
-- Marcel Ruiz Forns Analytics Developer Wikimedia Foundation
-- Marcel Ruiz Forns Analytics Developer Wikimedia Foundation
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics