Can we compare the monthly totals?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
-- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
-- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics