Talk:Wikistats 2.0 Design Project/RequestforFeedback/Round2

Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL
ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

It seems to me like at the present there are new statistics available for Wikidata. The old statistics hosted at https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaWIKIDATA.htm#editor_activity_levels are offline but the new one's aren't yet online.

When will I be able to look at statistics again?

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

At the moment, the new Wikistats interface is being developed and we should have a basic version with very few metrics up within a month or so. Over the next three months we will work on the API that will serve the rest of the statistics, and plugging these into the front end. In the meantime, Erik Zachte may choose to update the old statistics if he's able to. However, there may be slight delays in this timeline because two key members (myself included) are expecting babies this summer. Hope this helps.

Reply to "Availability of statistics"
Elitre (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The one at the top of https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm, in addition to only sending people to previous round, is probably not as effective as it focuses on the May 2016 date.

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Sadly the banner is dynamically generated and present on hundreds of pages, so it's hard to change manually. And Erik is on leave, and we don't know how to re-build Wikistats with the old perl scripts without messing things up.

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I just checked, the banner is present on 17000+ pages (dynamically generated).

Elitre (WMF) (talkcontribs)

That's ok. I probably only really meant the main "Statistics per Wikimedia project" ones. But you know that if you need more people we can find different ways to make it happen.

Reply to "Maybe update banner?"
Stuartyeates (talkcontribs)

The demo has what looks like a search box which isn't actually a search box, it's a dropdown. Very confusing to me. ~~~~

Jan Dittrich (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Yes – though I could easily use it, I even referred to it as "search box" already in conversations already (On the other hand, with many metrics to choose from it might make sense for it to be more like a search box and at least allow text input to get suggestions)

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Do you mean the Wiki search box or the Explore Topics one? In the wiki one you can select and erase the text and search with auto-complete, we'll make that more obvious in the real version. In the Explore Topics one, you're right, I should've made that auto-complete too.

Jan Dittrich (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

For me it was the "Explore Topics" box. Long input field and right hand "go"-button makes it a bit search-y, I assume.

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Ah! Sorry, yes, that's totally supposed to be a search box in the final version, it's just like this now for the prototype.

Reply to "search box?"

Provide Statistics on Flagged Revision Status

1
Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

This very interesting task posted on the Analytics team points out that we know very little about how different wikis deal with Flagged Revisions: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T44360

This seems like the kind of thing we could add to Wikistats in a future iteration, but I agree that we should do so as soon as possible. Some more detail on exactly what reports would be useful would be great.

Reply to "Provide Statistics on Flagged Revision Status"

Do breakdowns make more sense when you can see the graph change?

5
Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

This was the main point of confusion on the first round of feedback, how the breakdowns would work. You can explore this in the prototype on the [https://analytics-prototype.wmflabs.org/#/contributing/active-editors Active Editors metric]. Toggle the breakdown button and check/uncheck the various checkboxes. You can also change the graph type to "table" and see the same thing. Does this work the way you'd expect or is it still confusing?

Jan Dittrich (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

I could "intuitively" understand it (before reading this).

The only thing I found difficult is that categories like "lightly active" seem rather opaque to me, and even if I could read what it means I would be much interested in seeing small multiples of histograms or any other standard visualization of more raw data than predefined categories.

Erik Zachte (talkcontribs)

I assume it was a conscious decision to make the different sections of a metric mutually exclusive. I'm not sure yet whether I like it, but for sure it's different than Wikistats 1.0 Could that raise any confusion? In Wikistats 1.0 the figure for 5+ editors does include the 100+ editors.

Jan Dittrich (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

I did not mind it being mutually exclusive (this is rather what I expected knowing histograms etc.); My concern was that I was unsure what "lightly active" actually means and that I got a predefined splitting point to the next data bin (which would be medium active, or something like this)

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

This is, indeed, not something we're fully decided on how to handle. With mutually exclusive breakdowns we have the flexibility to show 5+ or 5-100 as we wish. So we're writing the back-end this way and then we are planning two interfaces. One is the one you see, and we're aiming for "easy to understand". And another is a flexible "big table" that we hope can handle most of the big table use cases possible in Wikistats 1.0. In that scenario, you will be able to get 5+ editors and any other kind of metric you might be interested in, and save bookmarks for it.

Reply to "Do breakdowns make more sense when you can see the graph change?"
Jkatz (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Hey Dan and team - this is really nice and thanks for reaching out to us for feedback! I had some thoughts:

  • it seems like the current display doesn't have room for annotations, whether they be related to technical changes (like definitions), anomalies, or external events (we rolled out a new feature, a country blocked Wikipedia, etc). This seems like an important thing to have room for to me.
  • I think the bot/not bot distinction could be made clearer, particularly for pageviews, where the default assumption of 3rd party users is that bots are automatically excluded. Excluding bots should be the default behavior and noted somewhere
  • It seems like definitions of the various editing types would be really useful as well.
  • Some breakdowns that are valuable to external users that I don't see here: mobile/desktop, country
  • Question: is there room in the design to eventually accommodate new metrics that we want to promote as top-level health metrics, like visit frequency and time spent on site?
Reply to "Misc feedback"
Erik Zachte (talkcontribs)

Here is a very minor poinr. To me '2015 Apr Jul Oct' as in https://analytics-prototype.wmflabs.org/#/contributing works better than 'D J F M A M J J A S O N D'.as on the dashboard. Even month numbers would work better. Maybe this is a matter of taste.though.

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I agree AMJJASOND is likely to be confusing to anyone but the most astute English speakers. Hm... maybe roman numerals so it stands apart from the other numbers on the chart? Problem is there's not a lot of space under those charts.

MichaelMaggs (talkcontribs)

Roman numerals are really, really horrible and non-intuitive!

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Yeah, hard problem then... How about localized month abbreviations? Vertical text?

MichaelMaggs (talkcontribs)

Either localised abbreviations or month numbers, I think

Reply to "On abbreviations"

What exactly is Lightly Active Editors?

4
Erik Zachte (talkcontribs)

Is it 1+ edits per month, or 3+?

Just in case the answer is 1+. As I explained in mailing lists (and am happy to expound on here) I find it hard to support the idea that a person with just one edit is even called an an editor. Just like a person who writes one word or even sentence per month isn't called a writer. Words lose their meaning if they comprise such fringe cases.

I'm note sure 3+ adds much of a new perspective. We've been consistently using 5+ and 100+ thresholds for so long, without ever much controversy, which says a lot in Wikimedia context ;-)

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I think we were thinking 3-4 (since 3+ would be inclusive), I agree with you about 1+. These breakdowns are the least finalized part of the data model. We're aiming them mostly to satisfy quick lookups and we're hoping the more advanced table interface (not designed yet) will cover everyone's needs. I think we should revisit the breakdowns once we figured out what that big table thing looks like.

Elitre (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Aren't we going with canonical/consolidated definitions?

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

We have a hard task of combining multiple conflicting definitions and making use of richer data. The canonical definitions will be available at least in the advanced table view.

Reply to "What exactly is Lightly Active Editors?"
MichaelMaggs (talkcontribs)

I can see that with the availability of very attractive and data-rich graphs, users are going to want to embed them as clickable images in non-article namespaces such as user pages, WikiProject pages, help pages, discussion venues and the like. Would it be possible to provide some sort of new interwiki link that could be used to pull up a specific stored version of a graph at a variable size? This would of course display just the graph itself, and not the remainder of the webpage that the user would see when viewing the same graph on the main statistics site.

Something like [[SpecialNewLink1234 | thumb | right | 250px]].

Either the graph could update automatically when the page is loaded or - as that may be too slow - some OnClick-type mechanism could be provided to allow users to force an update as needed.

I understand that that may be one for further down the line.

Milimetric (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I feel strongly that this should exist, but so far it's been the Graph extension that provides this functionality: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Graph. We can work together to make some templates that hook up Graph extension graphs to the new API we're building (there are already pageview API-consuming graph templates so it won't be very hard).

The graphs themselves on wikistats will be bookmark-able, but to embed them we'd have to duplicate functionality with the Graph extension, so that one needs more thought. One of my longer term goals at the foundation is to shift more focus on rich content creation, like Yuri described in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Yurik/I_Dream_of_Content. But that's outside the scope of the Analytics team.

Reply to "Quick link to an on-wiki view"
75.172.114.50 (talkcontribs)

So we do not forget we want to make sure we use line graphs rather than bar charts where it pertains in real application. We have couple examples with real data in which trends are much harder to spot in bar charts.

Reply to "Line graphs versus bar charts"