http://en.wikipedia.org/stats/
How accurate do we think these numbers are?
Obviously, Dec and Jan are low, way low, and I believe I heard that some logfiles were/are missing?
February shows a much higher average than March, 3 million pageviews per day as opposed to 2 million. Does that seem plausible? Both numbers are more than double our previous "best" month, which was November of last year. (But of course Dec and Jan seem obviously broken.)
I'm just looking for a nice number to tell reporters who ask me.
Can I safely say 75 million pageviews per month?
--Jimbo
http://en.wikipedia.org/stats/
How accurate do we think these numbers are?
Obviously, Dec and Jan are low, way low, and I believe I heard that some logfiles were/are missing?
February shows a much higher average than March, 3 million pageviews per day as opposed to 2 million. Does that seem plausible? Both numbers are more than double our previous "best" month, which was November of last year. (But of course Dec and Jan seem obviously broken.)
I'm just looking for a nice number to tell reporters who ask me.
Just have a look to http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/PlotsPngUsageVisits.htm
Maybe this can help you.
Shaihulud
On Mar 12, 2004, at 11:36, Jimmy Wales wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/stats/
How accurate do we think these numbers are?
Take them with a salt mine.
Obviously, Dec and Jan are low, way low, and I believe I heard that some logfiles were/are missing?
Those stats weren't being maintained for quite some time on en, what with the en/en2 split and various swapping of servers every five minutes.
February shows a much higher average than March, 3 million pageviews per day as opposed to 2 million. Does that seem plausible?
That looks like an artifact of twiddling with the webalizer configuration. For February, nearly all total 'hits' are counted as 'pages', while the proportion counted as such is lower in March. The 'hits' and 'files' daily averages both go up moderately from February to March, while 'visits' is down moderately.
Both numbers are more than double our previous "best" month, which was November of last year. (But of course Dec and Jan seem obviously broken.)
a) the previous stats show a doubling in daily pageviews from june to september, a similar timeframe b) lots of publicity recently c) new servers up increased capacity to serve demand d) i'm not sure the previous stats included 'en2' e) i'm not sure the new stats are accurate at all :)
Gabriel's now maintaining the stats; I don't know if they come from the squid, the combined web server logs, both, or what.
I'm just looking for a nice number to tell reporters who ask me.
Can I safely say 75 million pageviews per month?
(shrug)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:02:42 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Mar 12, 2004, at 11:36, Jimmy Wales wrote:
February shows a much higher average than March, 3 million pageviews per day as opposed to 2 million. Does that seem plausible?
That looks like an artifact of twiddling with the webalizer configuration. For February, nearly all total 'hits' are counted as 'pages', while the proportion counted as such is lower in March. The 'hits' and 'files' daily averages both go up moderately from February to March, while 'visits' is down moderately.
Unfortunately webalizer only supports dumb file extensions to determine what a 'page' is, no path regexes. It's using an ugly hack (most images end with 'g') now, but it's matching the url group for /wiki/ and /w/ pretty well.
Gabriel's now maintaining the stats; I don't know if they come from the squid, the combined web server logs, both, or what.
Only the squids. The last rotation is done at the same time each night, the logs are moved to zwinger, there they're merged, sorted (by domain, purges removed etc) & analyzed.
I'm just looking for a nice number to tell reporters who ask me.
Can I safely say 75 million pageviews per month?
Don't cite february's 'page view' number, rather use the url group one ('wiki pages' and 'special pages and editing' combined). Webalizer calculates 'visits' based on page views, so substract maybe 1/3 in february. The march 'page view' number is ok as it is.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org