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