Hoi, When a bot has the bot flag, it is not the recent changes that are flooded. The default setting for recent changes is NOT to show changes by bots. It is the changes to the watch list that are affected here the bot changes ARE shown by default. You can hide the changes to bots.. So the argument is fairly weak. Thanks, GerardM Andrew Garrett schreef:

Do we have any processes that simply aren't working when limited to 6/min; 360/hr; 8640edits/day? [[en:user:xaosflux]] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Cushman" <mets501wiki(a)gmail.com> To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

Jeremy Cushman wrote: That strikes me as useful, but not urgent. I think the current limit makes sense for such bots (or bot tasks). For urgent ones, perhaps there could be an exception. Matthew Flaschen

On 2/21/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote: Could we increase the limit to 12/minute on a trial basis? Steve

On 2/21/07, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: OK, I propose raising the edit rate to 15 edits per minute. I will mention it on the community noticeboard and see if there are any objections there before putting it into the policy. --Mets501

2007/2/21, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org>rg>: Does this mean I can disable the get-throttling of the bots? Or does this statement only hold for the edit limit? -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

Tim Starling wrote: Amazing: You were very tempted to block them because they were causing too much traffic, but it still didn't occur to you to simply add the count to the Special:Contributions page, thereby peacefully rendering them obsolete? Timwi

Simetrical wrote: Are you suggesting that because people want "more than just X", they shouldn't even have X? Timwi

Andre Engels wrote: And how is that a reason not to let them have X?

or nine are just to find out the raw edit count, and the rest are used to find namespace distributions, edit summary and minor edit usage. So, displaying user_editcount on Special:Contributions will cause scrape requests to take a substantial hit... Titoxd. -----Original Message----- From: Andre Engels [mailto:andreengels@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:54 AM To: Wikimedia developers Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates 2007/2/25, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net>et>: It's not, but it might be a reason to spend time on other things rather than on giving the users X. Developer time is not a commodity we have excess of. -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

Yes, every editcount, regardless of what one is looking for, is the same request. If a user wants to find the edit summary usage of another user throughout his *entire* editing history, it's still the same number of hits to /w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=5000 from a scraper than to request a user's raw edit count. Since there aren't that many users who want to know the minor edit usage of an editor with 75,000 edits (only RFA and RFB in en.wp comes to mind), but there are more that want to see that the editor indeed has 75,000 revisions to his credit, there's where the problem lies. A total editcount can be calculated by a simple database lookup to $wgDBname_user.user_editcount; for those who want to know whether they're close to making their 1000th edit or whatever, making a SELECT of 1000 revisions is overkill. While some smart edit counters have a built-in memory and store revisions in an internal database, the most popular ones do not. The number of requests for a relatively-new user is indeed the same: one. However, again, making a SELECT query for the user's row is much faster, and much less expensive, than a SELECT on the revision table for tons of revisions. I'd be interested in seeing this enabled, and measuring how many times the 5000-revision requests on Special:Contributions drop. That would be the best estimate as to the impact of scrapers on the site. -----Original Message----- From: Simetrical [mailto:Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 6:37 PM To: Wikimedia developers Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates On 2/26/07, Titoxd@Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia(a)gmail.com> wrote: eight Doesn't any kind of edit count, with or without detailed statistics, require exactly one request per page of contributions? You can't know how many edits the person has without figuring out how many pages there are, but that requires going through every page, which hopefully you've used to scrape all of the contributions into some kind of internal data structure, from which you can then divine whatever statistics you want, no? Is it that statistics only care about the last 1000 edits or whatever, so there's a limit on how many page requests they'll need if not for wanting the full edit count?

On 2/27/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: Possibly. The question is how long it would take to run all the queries for a user with tons of edits. How long does something like SELECT COUNT(*) FROM revision WHERE rev_user=whatever AND rev_minor_edit = 1 take, for instance? It's certainly not a drain on resources unless you set edits per page to 5000 and load it a lot. Even then, it's not anything breathtaking, I assume, or else it would be shut off user complaints or no. It's presumably excessive, but not grossly so.

Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote: It didn't.

Well, that was the point of the email that didn't get through. In my experience, 80% of users who request their edit counts via scapers want their edit counts, and nothing more. Those who want really detailed analysis of edit statistics will keep using scrapers, but adding user_editcount to Special:Contributions will cause a significant drop in scraper requests. Titoxd. -----Original Message----- From: Timwi [mailto:timwi@gmx.net] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:41 AM To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates Andre Engels wrote: than of. Within the time you and others have spent in this thread trying to argue against putting the edit count on Special:Contributions, it could have been put there a million times over. If nobody wants to do this incredibly trivial thing, do you want me to do it? (I'm asking because I don't want to spend time on installing MediaWiki specially for this just to have someone reject it for some ridiculous reason.) Timwi

Tim Starling wrote: Hm, you are being a bit ambiguous -- your message /could/ be taken to mean that the edit count is already displayed on Special:Contributions. However, I can't see it. Am I not looking in the right place, or did I misunderstand you?