Talk:Reading/Multimedia/Media Viewer/Research 2014

From MediaWiki.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Intentional views[edit]

Re Multimedia/Media Viewer/Research 2014#Intentional Views, I don't think thumb + lens + next + hash can be compared to the former counts for visits to file description alone.

  1. By "hash" I think you mean the direct link to a wiki/Page#File:... URL. Some such links have probably replaced direct upload.wikimedia.org links.
  2. "Next" is not necessarily intentional, because the next image might be anything and is often an icon or irrelevant metadata image (most templates, images and classes were not updated yet). For example, on the file description for a multi-page PDF I can see a preview of the next page and decide whether to click or not; but I have no such option in this viewer.

--Nemo 09:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's not a perfect metric, but I think it's good enough to be used (and the best we can make with the available data). Direct links to uploaded files used to be very rare in comparison to thumbnails; hash events are not so rare but still don't change the magnitudes (see breakdown). From checking a bunch of random articles on enwiki, it seems now pretty hard to find articles where anything unneeded is included in the Media Viewer image sequence; if previously a significant number of such images had been included and accessed, I would expect to see a drop in the number of next actions over time, but there is no such thing. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

en.wiki might not be representative in that regard. I certainly found and still find a lot to do on it.wiki. --Nemo 22:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It's representative(ish) in the sense that nearly half the traffic goes there. enwiki + commonswiki next clicks account for about half of the total next clicks. It's certainly true that enwiki got more attention during Media Viewer development, both in terms of communication/support and code features, so I would expect most other wikis to be worse off, but I don't think that would make a difference in the stats, as we don't see much difference between early enwiki and current enwiki either. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Performance[edit]

After fixing some configuration issues (China was oversampled), it seems on average Media Viewer is significantly faster than the file page both for median and high-percentile users (although not as much as the graph would suggest; limn likes non-zero-based charts). --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)