User talk:Henrik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome! This is my user talk page. If you want to communicate with me for any reason, especially about pages I have made or edited, or any administrative actions I've performed, feel free to do so here.
I will generally reply here, unless you request otherwise.
About the pageviews statistics tool, you may want to read some FAQs before.

NOTE: Since March 2010 Henrik rarely answers questions here. Archives 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and this page contain mostly unanswered questions. - 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally: Whenever is down, the only way to get Wikipedia traffic statistics is to change to This is the only version that contains data when the new version has an internal server error. However, will not display old data, so beware. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

Help for Wiki Page views[edit]

Hi Henrik,

I am Akshit (Co-Founder of Wibe) and we are trying to build a platform which provides information with the power of videos.

So to back it up we are recommending articles on it and want the page views but when we hit on your website it takes around 9-10 sec. to get results back, can you please tell us any better solution or can you provide us the final page views for every article so that we can run our query on it.

If you can help us in it then we will be very thankful to you.

Cheers, Akshit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aki92 (talkcontribs) 13:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit] vs[edit]

Hi, Henrik. I have 2 questions according the tool.

  1. I`ve noticed that statistic and gives different resaults. For example an article "uk:Україна" during November, 2014 was visited 49182 times but according to it was 50 413. Also different resaults are reached if summarize the stats from month-by-mobnth or take from (see some of my calculations at uk:Вікіпедія:Проект:Популярність/Списки популярних статей/2014) Why it differs? --A1 (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Does your statistic include visitors who comes through redirect pages? For example during December, 2014 the page uk:Список загиблих учасників Євромайдану was visited 840 times while uk:Небесна_сотня - 7754 times. uk:Список загиблих учасників Євромайдану redirects to uk:Небесна_сотня. Does it mean the page uk:Небесна_сотня was viewed 7754 + 840 = 8594 times in total during this that month? --A1 (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statistics available?[edit]

Hi Henrik -- I'm writing because I understand you maintain some statistics about page counts. I'm trying to find out some statistics about the following: User searches for say "fbi", is redirected to "Federal Bureau of Investigation", then clicks on "FBI (disambiguation)" -- that is, searches for a particular abbreviation, gets an expanded name, then clicks on the abbreviation disambiguation page. Do you know how I might find such statistics? Many thanks. (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Each page has its own set of page-view stats. At the top of the Federal Bureau of Investigation article is a link to the article history. The page-view stats can be found there. If you came from the redirect FBI or fbi, there will be a link to the redirect-page itself near the top of the article. If you click that link, you can check the stats for the redirect page.
If you want to know how many people are viewing the article in total, look in the left-hand column for a link that says "what links here." This will show all of the redirect pages, and then you'll need to check each page's history and add them up. Zaereth (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zaereth, many thanks for your suggestion. But I don't think it's what I'm looking for, as I can't see how they differentiate page views from different referrers. If we see that "FBI (dis)" has 1000 page hits, perhaps 100 came from the hatnote link at "Federal Bureau of Investigation", and of those perhaps 10 came from the redirect at "FBI". This 10 would be a measure of how many people searched for FBI but didn't want Federal Bureau of Investigation. That's the kind of statistic I'm trying to find. Thanks for any further suggestions. Kind regards. (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It is impossible to tell who came from where, because the stats only record "hits." You can do a bit of extrapolating, but there is no way to be 100% sure. For example, the page "FBI" gets an average of ~ 600 hits per day. The page "Federal Bureau of Investigation" gets an average of ~ 1600 hits a day, so that is roughly an average of 2200 people viewing the article (from just those two pages). The page "FBI (dis)" gets an average of ~ 15 hits per day, and it is a good bet that nearly all of them came from the "Federal" article (but no way to know how those 15 people arrived at that article, due to there being so many redirects to it.) Zaereth (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I might also add that the stats do not distinguish between individual users, bots, web-crawlers, etc... In some instances, the same user could have come back tens or hundreds of times. Nor do they show how many people actually read the article. (See: User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer#Who reads these articles anyway? for more information. Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
While I'm sure you're right in this example case, it's exactly this inference I'm trying to get some statistics to illuminate. Thanks for your interest. Kind regards, (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Page visit stats for Bhojpuri wikipedia[edit]

Hi Sir,

I just found about your visit stas tool, though, I got disapointment as this tool does not enlist stats for bh.wikipedia!

Is there any chance to get stats for bhwiki?--SatyamMishra (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC) won't have old data - could this be fixed? (I asked this back in May, but a bot moved it)[edit]

I did read your message back in May, but I prefer the classic version (it's better than the new one), used it since January 2012 when you redesigned your tool, as the current one takes so long to load. I love checking historical stats, and the articles' 2010 rankings. (I forgot to ask you to keep the 2010 most viewed pages when I asked in May.)

I feel like the code changes in May made the classic version misleading for a few reasons:

  • The old data used to have 2010 rankings until April (after the 201403 rankings were released on, which I find useful as the 201401 rankings have glitches, misleading people.
  • On the homepage of, the links point to 200712 data, and it would appear as 0 pageviews, that make viewers go, "What? There can't be zero!" There are a few other pages that link to this classic model to a month were stats are not available. For all articles for December 2013 and previous data, I feel like users would be wondering that the article actually has no pageviews, while I'm certain there would be some.
  • You have to scroll to the right to get the number of pageviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Great Catholic Person (talkcontribs) 03:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 201401 doesn't count data for the 6th and 7th.

I do not mind if rankings are outdated - it's fine if they're old - I was checking rankings of articles with over 64000 pageviews in 201012, I couldn't anymore, I'm very curious of the 2010 rankings now. Could one last code change be good enough? (I realize it could take a lot of time - whenever you can, could the code change occur? Because, again, I've been angry since May because of the rankings and the old data before 201312. I waste time every day comparing the 2014 and 2010 data, putting stress on me. If you put it back to 2010, this will stop.) The classic version is the only stats available when is off by some error.

If not, is it possible that you can create a list of top 10000 articles of every month? Thanks. I'm the same user who notified you in May, I changed my username. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]