For my part, I'd like to point out that these issues are recurring problems, and also that when it comes to BaGLAMa lag, the longer it goes, the more unrecoverable it becomes. Data errors, once introduced, are not repairable.
Dozens of the tracked categories in BaGLAMa are DPLA institutions, and I have shared these links numerous times over the years. So I frequently get questions from partners who check their data and find it months out of date. There is nothing I can tell them in these situations, except that I have regularly seen data get that lagged, and then eventually it reaches a point where (presumably after someone finally reached Magnus?) all the backlogged months come in at once.
This causes its own problems, I believe, because I have to assume in such situations where data is generated after the fact, that it is all corrupt to some degree. My understanding of BaGLAMa is that it counts page views of articles using images from a category. But there is no MediaWiki log of when images were added to a page (or to a category), so if you are counting page views that occurred three months ago based on images that are in a page today, you might be counting crediting three past months with views for an image that was added last week.
This issue causes massive data errors in the other direction too. Sometimes you'll have an unexplained spike, like the several
here (and by spike, I mean 700 million page views), and it's caused by the fact that an image that was on the main page for no more than hours caused BaGLAMa to count the entire month's page views of the main page. These errors are unrecoverable; they stay in the data and just increase the error of the overall total over time. There's never been a time where I could go to a maintainer and point out this massive data error and get that rerun or fixed. Instead, I am often in the embarrassing position of telling partners "Here is the analytics page, but there is a big overcount on one random month, so just always remember to mentally subtract 100 million from your total, and treat these numbers as very inexact."
So as long as we are talking about BaGLAMa at all, I do have to point out that it is an entirely flawed tool and the data is unreliable. And aside from all of those bugs, the methodology is very flawed, since it should not be using the Pageviews API in the first place. I consider the data essentially fictitious anyway— we know the images we are tracking are probably not even receiving half of the article views we are crediting to them, but we continue to report bad data, because our projects rely on having outcomes and reporting analytics. Glamorous and Glamorgan are based on the same flawed methodology.
And I haven't even started on the clunky UI, where an ever-growing list of 1000+ categories are all displayed on the landing page, many of which are typos or non-existent categories that can never be removed or cleaned up.
I guess my main point here is that no amount of band aids will ever resolve some of the issues, and we need to be thinking about entirely redoing the tool itself. Or we should have already done so as soon as the Mediarequests API was released—which was in 2019.
