why pageviews abruptly halved in the middle of February). Have fun, -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

I'm also confused. As I understand it, stats.wikimedia.org is consuming the data that is represented by the green line in your graph. Therefore we would see this drop in the wikistats data that Erik referred to, but we don't. I think we need to understand why this is so. -Toby On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Well, I'm no longer our resident anything expert, merely /a/ anything > expert :). > > The "concoction", as you put it, comes from the webrequest_all_sites > data that is consumed by stats.wikimedia.org's primary report - I > can't speak for how the dashboard you're linking to is constructed. > Perhaps you could? I doubt this is a "concoction" problem given that, > as you will note if you've studied the visualisations, both the UDF > and the hive query implementation (which were written by two different > people, and code reviewed by two /more/ people) agree that this > dramatic, unexplained and untracked drop happened. And, since we've > been using the hive query implementation for all our high-level > numbers for about six months, a bug of this magnitude in the > /implementation/ of the definition would be....worrying. > > Indeed, your report says 20B per month (again, is it drawing from the > same data source as the aggregate, high-level number?) - I never > claimed 1.1B a day, you did. Instead, it started off as approximately > 1.1-1.2Bn, before dropping down to between 600m and 700m, where it has > resided ever since. That sounds, averaged, like approximately 0.75B, > no? The disadvantage of comparing a single monthly number against a > more granular dataset. > > On 12 March 2015 at 17:55, Erik Zachte <ezachte(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > > I'd rather see you explain this, Oliver, as our incumbent page views > > expert. > > Your concoction of legacy PV seems to suggest 'Old definition, UDF' > > was > > about 1.1B per day. > > > > Yet > > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyAllProjects.htm > > shows 20B per month, 0.75B per day > > > > Erik > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: analytics-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > [mailto:analytics-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Oliver > > Keyes > > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 19:38 > > To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who > > has > > an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. > > Subject: [Analytics] [Technical] final pageviews QA > > > > Hey all, > > > > After the patches to the definition following the previous > > hand-coding > > run (see older threads) I've run a second set of tests. These can be > > seen at > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pageviews_QA_2.png and > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pageviews_QA_jittered_2.png > > > > There's nothing particularly shocking in the new definition; it > > follows > > the seasonal pattern that we're used to. I think we can call the new > > definition done, with these tweaks! It's also not as unstable as the > > legacy > > definition (good luck to whoever now has the responsibility of > > explaining > > why pageviews abruptly halved in the middle of February). > > > > > > Have fun, > > -- > > Oliver Keyes > > Research Analyst > > Wikimedia Foundation > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Analytics mailing list > > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Analytics mailing list > > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > -- > Oliver Keyes > Research Analyst > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

Well, again; the wikistats data that Erik refers to doesn't have any granularity within the period this dataset covers. Monthly data misses sub-monthly noise - like a massive transition that only kicks in on the day-by-day. On 12 March 2015 at 18:21, Toby Negrin <tnegrin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > I'm also confused. As I understand it, stats.wikimedia.org is > consuming the data that is represented by the green line in your > graph. Therefore we would see this drop in the wikistats data that > Erik referred to, but we don't. > I > think we need to understand why this is so. > > -Toby > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Oliver Keyes > <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org> > wrote: >> >> Well, I'm no longer our resident anything expert, merely /a/ >> anything expert :). >> >> The "concoction", as you put it, comes from the >> webrequest_all_sites data that is consumed by >> stats.wikimedia.org's primary report - I can't speak for how the dashboard you're linking to is constructed. >> Perhaps you could? I doubt this is a "concoction" problem given >> that, as you will note if you've studied the visualisations, both >> the UDF and the hive query implementation (which were written by >> two different people, and code reviewed by two /more/ people) >> agree that this dramatic, unexplained and untracked drop >> happened. And, since we've been using the hive query >> implementation for all our high-level numbers for about six >> months, a bug of this magnitude in the /implementation/ of the definition would be....worrying. >> >> Indeed, your report says 20B per month (again, is it drawing from >> the same data source as the aggregate, high-level number?) - I >> never claimed 1.1B a day, you did. Instead, it started off as >> approximately 1.1-1.2Bn, before dropping down to between 600m and >> 700m, where it has resided ever since. That sounds, averaged, >> like approximately 0.75B, no? The disadvantage of comparing a >> single monthly number against a more granular dataset. >> >> On 12 March 2015 at 17:55, Erik Zachte <ezachte(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: >> > I'd rather see you explain this, Oliver, as our incumbent page >> > views expert. >> > Your concoction of legacy PV seems to suggest 'Old definition, UDF' >> > was >> > about 1.1B per day. >> > >> > Yet >> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyAllProjects >> > .htm shows 20B per month, 0.75B per day >> > >> > Erik >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: analytics-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > [mailto:analytics-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of >> > Oliver Keyes >> > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 19:38 >> > To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody >> > who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. >> > Subject: [Analytics] [Technical] final pageviews QA >> > >> > Hey all, >> > >> > After the patches to the definition following the previous >> > hand-coding run (see older threads) I've run a second set of >> > tests. These can be seen at >> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pageviews_QA_2.png and >> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pageviews_QA_jittered_2 >> > .png >> > >> > There's nothing particularly shocking in the new definition; it >> > follows the seasonal pattern that we're used to. I think we can >> > call the new definition done, with these tweaks! It's also not >> > as unstable as the legacy definition (good luck to whoever now >> > has the responsibility of explaining why pageviews abruptly >> > halved in the middle of February). >> > >> > >> > Have fun, >> > -- >> > Oliver Keyes >> > Research Analyst >> > Wikimedia Foundation >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Analytics mailing list >> > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Analytics mailing list >> > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >> >> >> >> -- >> Oliver Keyes >> Research Analyst >> Wikimedia Foundation >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Analytics mailing list >> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

Can we compare the monthly totals? On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Well, again; the wikistats data that Erik refers to doesn't have > any granularity within the period this dataset covers. Monthly data > misses sub-monthly noise - like a massive transition that only > kicks in on the day-by-day. > > On 12 March 2015 at 18:21, Toby Negrin <tnegrin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > > I'm also confused. As I understand it, stats.wikimedia.org is > > consuming the data that is represented by the green line in your > > graph. Therefore we would see this drop in the wikistats data > > that Erik referred to, but we don't. > > I > > think we need to understand why this is so. > > > > -Toby > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Oliver Keyes > > <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> Well, I'm no longer our resident anything expert, merely /a/ > >> anything expert :). > >> > >> The "concoction", as you put it, comes from the > >> webrequest_all_sites data that is consumed by > >> stats.wikimedia.org's primary report - I can't speak for how the dashboard you're linking to is constructed. > >> Perhaps you could? I doubt this is a "concoction" problem given > >> that, as you will note if you've studied the visualisations, > >> both the UDF and the hive query implementation (which were > >> written by two different people, and code reviewed by two /more/ > >> people) agree that this dramatic, unexplained and untracked drop > >> happened. And, since we've been using the hive query > >> implementation for all our high-level numbers for about six > >> months, a bug of this magnitude in the /implementation/ of the definition would be....worrying. > >> > >> Indeed, your report says 20B per month (again, is it drawing > >> from the same data source as the aggregate, high-level number?) > >> - I never claimed 1.1B a day, you did. Instead, it started off > >> as approximately 1.1-1.2Bn, before dropping down to between 600m > >> and 700m, where it has resided ever since. That sounds, > >> averaged, like approximately 0.75B, no? The disadvantage of > >> comparing a single monthly number against a more granular dataset. > >> > >> On 12 March 2015 at 17:55, Erik Zachte <ezachte(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> > I'd rather see you explain this, Oliver, as our incumbent page > >> > views expert. > >> > Your concoction of legacy PV seems to suggest 'Old definition, UDF' > >> > was > >> > about 1.1B per day. > >> > > >> > Yet > >> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyAllProject > >> > s .htm shows 20B per month, 0.75B per day > >> > > >> > Erik > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: analytics-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> > [mailto:analytics-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of > >> > Oliver Keyes > >> > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 19:38 > >> > To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody > >> > who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. > >> > Subject: [Analytics] [Technical] final pageviews QA > >> > > >> > Hey all, > >> > > >> > After the patches to the definition following the previous > >> > hand-coding run (see older threads) I've run a second set of > >> > tests. These can be seen at > >> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pageviews_QA_2.png and > >> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pageviews_QA_jittered_ > >> > 2 > >> > .png > >> > > >> > There's nothing particularly shocking in the new definition; > >> > it follows the seasonal pattern that we're used to. I think we > >> > can call the new definition done, with these tweaks! It's also > >> > not as unstable as the legacy definition (good luck to whoever > >> > now has the responsibility of explaining why pageviews > >> > abruptly halved in the middle of February). > >> > > >> > > >> > Have fun, > >> > -- > >> > Oliver Keyes > >> > Research Analyst > >> > Wikimedia Foundation > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Analytics mailing list > >> > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Analytics mailing list > >> > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Oliver Keyes > >> Research Analyst > >> Wikimedia Foundation > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Analytics mailing list > >> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Analytics mailing list > > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > > > -- > Oliver Keyes > Research Analyst > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics