This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool at http://stats.grok.se has been recently quoted in a number of WP:RM discussions.
I've created this talk page as a central point for discussion as to its merits, and how it should be used. I'll put some basic information in the project page as well, but this talk page is the more important one for now. Andrewa ( talk) 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've turned off sinebot for this page... Please sign comments, but I don't think you need to sign entries in the list of requested moves nelow. Andrewa ( talk) 14:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In order to evaluate the usefulness of the tool for the purposes of WP:RM, I've started a list of discussions in which the tool has featured. It's not exhaustive; Feel free to add to it. We might keep it alphabetical for now. Andrewa ( talk) 01:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Results are in the format closed support-oppose result, ratio of page hits as measured by the web statistics tool to next most viewed page. Results of open discussions are not shown.
Situations where the counts have been obviously in error, possibly because of a program accessing an article a large multiple number of times, and not reflecting actual users.
There are also examples where an article actually receives a large number of views on one day because of media attention. Examples of that are Superdelegate and Julie Dubela, and most weekly TV shows such as American Idol. Heath Ledger went from 4,000 views to 2 million the day after his death and has been steadily tapering off since. Articles that are featured on the Main page clearly get a lot of views because of that exposure such as Xenon which was a featured article on February 10th. Valentine's day got 1.1 million views on, well, Valentine's day.
Is anybody clicking through and reading any of these sub-articles?
From Talk:Willie Johnson#Survey:
The stat tool should be the only evidence that matters. It tells you who is viewing what pages based on what words they enter to get to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger ( talk • contribs)
From http://stats.grok.se/about :
I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats.
More discussion is required before we adopt Tony's recommendation, IMO! Andrewa ( talk) 02:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
One editor appears to think that the tool is the only criteria that should be used for establishing primary usage. -- Gonezales ( talk) 03:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, seeing that a page seems to have been created to discuss this I thought that I'd use it to gather suggestions. If you have any suggestions or thoughts on new features you'd like to see in the statistics tool, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Some of the thoughts I've had so far is to be able to view a ranked list of all articles in a category, and to compare several articles directly. Some of the other suggestions have been an API, being able to view most accessed non-existent pages, fixing case insensitivity, and top lists for all languages. I'd be willing to be open to letting people here guide the development if we can come up with a ranked list of things you'd like me to start with. What would be most useful? henrik• talk 22:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the tool itself is great. What needs development is the methodology for its use... some guidelines, based on existing guidelines and of course policy.
At the very least, the tool is useful to suggest paths of enquiry, for example suggesting what might be a primary usage. Evidence as to whether or not this is true can then be gathered from other sources. At the very most, IMO its usefulness falls short of the proposal that it is (or should be) the only evidence that matters in deciding primary usage.
If so, these are boundaries. They're very conservative IMO, and deliberately so, as a starting point. How can we improve on them? Or can we at least agree on them, as the first step to refining them? Andrewa ( talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in over 5 weeks. I put in a redirect from the suggested new name. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 08:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Web statistics tool → Wikipedia:View count tool — There are many web statistics tools for Wikipedia, but this page apparently deals exclusively with a specific view count tool, and the name of the page should reflect that. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 05:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the note
This page is probably less important for the moment than the talk page so far. Feel free to expand this page, and remove this notice when it's no longer needed.
to encourage filling the actual article instead of the talk page. This talk page is already too long to conveniently read entirely, so it's better to sort out the important parts to the actual article. Feel free to complement with content from this talk page.
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 05:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, this tool calculated its last view counts on Mars 15. Does anyone know if this state is permanent, and if so, are there any other view count tools out there? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 05:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
If it counts only "views", how does it deal with redirects that just redirect and don't get viewed? Kauffner ( talk) 10:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Wikipedia:Pageview statistics, has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Rezonansowy (
talk •
contribs) 15:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Rezonansowy and Anthony Appleyard: This merge has not been done yet, meanwhile there are 2 more pages generally dealing with the same subject:
what do you think? -- .js democracy needed 02:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to matter what article I check, the stats are missing for 7–10 February 2015. Does anyone know what happened? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
[moved from Wikipedia:Web statistics tool] I don't know whether this is the right place to ask. I just looked up stats for John Yudkin, and the tool offered now under tools --> page information --> page view statistics offers only the last 90 days. [3] Is that a temporary thing or is that all that's on offer now? Pinging @ MusikAnimal, Kaldari, and Mforns (WMF):, whose names are on the page. SarahSV (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks really rubbish that there's effectively a dead link on the main sidebar of every page - it is not time that the "Traffic stats" link was updated to the Labs stats tool? Or is it not ready for that yet? Le Deluge ( talk) 12:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Jdforrester (WMF): the WP:POPULARLOWQUALITY list suffers from the "known anomalies" problem of transient spikes. There is a general solution to a closely related problem in the R code on pp. 191-2 of Xu et al. (2014) but I think it's much easier to use some measure of whether a spike less than four days long have standard deviations above, say +6, or one of the algorithms in [4]. Can we get a separate API resource access for a filtered top-1000, please? EllenCT ( talk) 17:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Jdforrester (WMF): before I make a formal request for it, is there any way you could please ask around the Analytics team to find out whether a top 100,000 list would be feasible to produce? WP:POPULARLOWQUALITY would be far better if it could show just Stub- and Start-class predictions from those, instead of C-class predictions from the top 1,000, many if not most of which would probably not be considered particularly urgently in need of improvement. EllenCT ( talk) 12:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
when I click on this tool - http://stats.grok.se/ - these words pop up - internal server error Red Rose 13 ( talk) 13:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool at http://stats.grok.se has been recently quoted in a number of WP:RM discussions.
I've created this talk page as a central point for discussion as to its merits, and how it should be used. I'll put some basic information in the project page as well, but this talk page is the more important one for now. Andrewa ( talk) 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've turned off sinebot for this page... Please sign comments, but I don't think you need to sign entries in the list of requested moves nelow. Andrewa ( talk) 14:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In order to evaluate the usefulness of the tool for the purposes of WP:RM, I've started a list of discussions in which the tool has featured. It's not exhaustive; Feel free to add to it. We might keep it alphabetical for now. Andrewa ( talk) 01:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Results are in the format closed support-oppose result, ratio of page hits as measured by the web statistics tool to next most viewed page. Results of open discussions are not shown.
Situations where the counts have been obviously in error, possibly because of a program accessing an article a large multiple number of times, and not reflecting actual users.
There are also examples where an article actually receives a large number of views on one day because of media attention. Examples of that are Superdelegate and Julie Dubela, and most weekly TV shows such as American Idol. Heath Ledger went from 4,000 views to 2 million the day after his death and has been steadily tapering off since. Articles that are featured on the Main page clearly get a lot of views because of that exposure such as Xenon which was a featured article on February 10th. Valentine's day got 1.1 million views on, well, Valentine's day.
Is anybody clicking through and reading any of these sub-articles?
From Talk:Willie Johnson#Survey:
The stat tool should be the only evidence that matters. It tells you who is viewing what pages based on what words they enter to get to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger ( talk • contribs)
From http://stats.grok.se/about :
I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats.
More discussion is required before we adopt Tony's recommendation, IMO! Andrewa ( talk) 02:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
One editor appears to think that the tool is the only criteria that should be used for establishing primary usage. -- Gonezales ( talk) 03:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, seeing that a page seems to have been created to discuss this I thought that I'd use it to gather suggestions. If you have any suggestions or thoughts on new features you'd like to see in the statistics tool, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Some of the thoughts I've had so far is to be able to view a ranked list of all articles in a category, and to compare several articles directly. Some of the other suggestions have been an API, being able to view most accessed non-existent pages, fixing case insensitivity, and top lists for all languages. I'd be willing to be open to letting people here guide the development if we can come up with a ranked list of things you'd like me to start with. What would be most useful? henrik• talk 22:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the tool itself is great. What needs development is the methodology for its use... some guidelines, based on existing guidelines and of course policy.
At the very least, the tool is useful to suggest paths of enquiry, for example suggesting what might be a primary usage. Evidence as to whether or not this is true can then be gathered from other sources. At the very most, IMO its usefulness falls short of the proposal that it is (or should be) the only evidence that matters in deciding primary usage.
If so, these are boundaries. They're very conservative IMO, and deliberately so, as a starting point. How can we improve on them? Or can we at least agree on them, as the first step to refining them? Andrewa ( talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in over 5 weeks. I put in a redirect from the suggested new name. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 08:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Web statistics tool → Wikipedia:View count tool — There are many web statistics tools for Wikipedia, but this page apparently deals exclusively with a specific view count tool, and the name of the page should reflect that. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 05:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the note
This page is probably less important for the moment than the talk page so far. Feel free to expand this page, and remove this notice when it's no longer needed.
to encourage filling the actual article instead of the talk page. This talk page is already too long to conveniently read entirely, so it's better to sort out the important parts to the actual article. Feel free to complement with content from this talk page.
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 05:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, this tool calculated its last view counts on Mars 15. Does anyone know if this state is permanent, and if so, are there any other view count tools out there? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 05:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
If it counts only "views", how does it deal with redirects that just redirect and don't get viewed? Kauffner ( talk) 10:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Wikipedia:Pageview statistics, has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Rezonansowy (
talk •
contribs) 15:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Rezonansowy and Anthony Appleyard: This merge has not been done yet, meanwhile there are 2 more pages generally dealing with the same subject:
what do you think? -- .js democracy needed 02:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to matter what article I check, the stats are missing for 7–10 February 2015. Does anyone know what happened? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
[moved from Wikipedia:Web statistics tool] I don't know whether this is the right place to ask. I just looked up stats for John Yudkin, and the tool offered now under tools --> page information --> page view statistics offers only the last 90 days. [3] Is that a temporary thing or is that all that's on offer now? Pinging @ MusikAnimal, Kaldari, and Mforns (WMF):, whose names are on the page. SarahSV (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks really rubbish that there's effectively a dead link on the main sidebar of every page - it is not time that the "Traffic stats" link was updated to the Labs stats tool? Or is it not ready for that yet? Le Deluge ( talk) 12:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Jdforrester (WMF): the WP:POPULARLOWQUALITY list suffers from the "known anomalies" problem of transient spikes. There is a general solution to a closely related problem in the R code on pp. 191-2 of Xu et al. (2014) but I think it's much easier to use some measure of whether a spike less than four days long have standard deviations above, say +6, or one of the algorithms in [4]. Can we get a separate API resource access for a filtered top-1000, please? EllenCT ( talk) 17:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Jdforrester (WMF): before I make a formal request for it, is there any way you could please ask around the Analytics team to find out whether a top 100,000 list would be feasible to produce? WP:POPULARLOWQUALITY would be far better if it could show just Stub- and Start-class predictions from those, instead of C-class predictions from the top 1,000, many if not most of which would probably not be considered particularly urgently in need of improvement. EllenCT ( talk) 12:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
when I click on this tool - http://stats.grok.se/ - these words pop up - internal server error Red Rose 13 ( talk) 13:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |