Jump to content

User talk:Henrik: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 312: Line 312:
::::::::Es ist sehr schade, dass die Zählung nicht mehr funktioniert. Ich habe mich gern und regelmäßig über die Zugriffe auf bestimmte Seiten informiert. Vielleicht kommt es irgendwann doch wieder in Gang? Ich würde mich freuen. -- [[User:Spurzem|Spurzem]] ([[User talk:Spurzem|talk]]) 11:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Es ist sehr schade, dass die Zählung nicht mehr funktioniert. Ich habe mich gern und regelmäßig über die Zugriffe auf bestimmte Seiten informiert. Vielleicht kommt es irgendwann doch wieder in Gang? Ich würde mich freuen. -- [[User:Spurzem|Spurzem]] ([[User talk:Spurzem|talk]]) 11:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::(rough translation of above comment from Spurzen courtesy Google translate: It is a pity that the count does not work anymore. I gladly and regularly informed about access to certain pages. Maybe someday but it comes again? I would be happy.)--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 11:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::(rough translation of above comment from Spurzen courtesy Google translate: It is a pity that the count does not work anymore. I gladly and regularly informed about access to certain pages. Maybe someday but it comes again? I would be happy.)--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 11:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

==Stats R dead==
:http://stats.grok.se/pt/201110/Mulher_na_hist%C3%B3ria <> No stats here for long time!!

Revision as of 08:31, 14 October 2011

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. Please start a new section for new conversations.
About the pageviews statistics tool, you may want to read some FAQs before.
Here is an alternate page view tool

Wikipedia article traffic statistics

Hallo Henrik, what the matter that the views to articles in Wikipedia on July 12 and 13 are not countet? Kindest regards -- 80.144.249.207 (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2011 (Lothar Spurzem)

Statistics

Hi! I'm Nicolai from the Faroese Wikipedia. I just found the website http://stats.grok.se/ with statistics over visited Wikipedia-articles on several Wikis. How come the Faroese Wikipedia isn't included, and what can I do to include it? Niceley) 01:08 PM July 28th 2011

Incorrect stats?

http://stats.grok.se/en.b/201109/OpenGL_Programming

30,000 visits on September 8th?? That would be great, but none of the other wikibooks page show any increase in traffic, so I suppose there's a bug somewhere :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beuc (talk • contribs) 08:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could check yourself to see if the bug was in Henrik's tool or the source data by reviewing the source. http://dammit.lt/wikistats/ Killiondude (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go:
pagecounts-20110908-000000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 3 42536
pagecounts-20110908-010000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 4 54168
pagecounts-20110908-020000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 4 54163
pagecounts-20110908-030000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 5 100697
pagecounts-20110908-040000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 7 95046
pagecounts-20110908-050001.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 4 54172
pagecounts-20110908-060000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 7 141103
pagecounts-20110908-070000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 6 81506
pagecounts-20110908-080000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 10 109839
pagecounts-20110908-090000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 3 29387
pagecounts-20110908-100000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 9 109764
pagecounts-20110908-110000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 10 280974
pagecounts-20110908-120000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 4 43191
pagecounts-20110908-130000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 10 114385
pagecounts-20110908-140000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 4 43032
pagecounts-20110908-150000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 6 57735
pagecounts-20110908-160001.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 7 86035
pagecounts-20110908-170000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 6 189089
pagecounts-20110908-180000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 5 72951
pagecounts-20110908-190000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 14 105285
pagecounts-20110908-200000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 15 186706
pagecounts-20110908-210000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 33 513675
pagecounts-20110908-220000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 18 210993
pagecounts-20110908-230000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 16 209817

=> 210

This means there's a bug in Henrik's tool? Beuc (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the tool is posting to the wrong day. Looking at http://stats.grok.se/en.b/201109/OpenGL_Programming, 210 views should be on the 8th and 30k views on the 9th. http://stats.grok.se/en.b/latest/OpenGL_Programming has the days correct. —Bruce1eetalk 14:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info:
pagecounts-20110909-110000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 12764 178958480
pagecounts-20110909-120000.gz:en.b OpenGL_Programming 16951 237687842

So that would be in the stats. That's pretty weird. Do you have any contact who could investigate? Beuc (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik hasn't been active here since March this year, so I doubt he'll see this. I did send him an email last week at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Henrik about this issue, but I haven't heard from him. The only other person I can think of is Killiondude, who responded above. —Bruce1eetalk 10:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Henrik occasionally uses irc. I can poke him there if I see him but from what I've heard he also checks his email somewhat frequently. It's really nice of Henrik to put this tool together but it's also very lazy for the Wikimedia Foundation to not have a tool like this of their own. Relying on a third party volunteer for years is not ideal. Killiondude (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and kudos to Henrik. —Bruce1eetalk 05:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've noticed incorrect data on a minor level for a long time. By that I'm talking about pages that average under a hundred hits a day. Some days, the exact number of hits register two or more days in a row. I'll test it by adding a random number of extra hits on my own. And, yet, it still does that repetition error. And after a few days, the stats go up or down. I think either the source data or the tool is not 100% accurate all the time.Maile66 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for article 'Yeung Kui-wan'

The 'Yeung Kui-wan' article has been newly created by renaming the article 'Yang Quyun'. At present, the statistics are typical for a new article, but also include hits on the 'Yeung Kui-wan Redirect' to the old 'Yang Quyun' article.

Would it be possible for the statistics for this article be integrated with the old statistics when it was called 'Yang Quyun'? Duncan.france (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

deletion of Letter to Hillary Clinton

Hello Henrik, could you please lend a hand with my, continuing problems with getting a new article up, I wrote the page first and then adjusted the main page of Rick Perry for reflect the same wording. I would like your hep to recreate the letter.

Since you seem to be from Sweden, I have a question about Wikileaks,

Lastly do you remember this,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda

The article of course notes the use of fake accounts for American purposes and I believe naturally that other countries could use the same tactic to influence American elections

The reason I mention it is noted on the Discussion page of Rick Perry

thx, Chris ConnollySnettie 15:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

Why are there views showing for non-existent articles?

I have just added a new article Randall Denley to Wikipedia, but was surprised to find out it already had some views recorded before I created it: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Randall_Denley Just curious why that is? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were there red-links from other articles to this article before you created it? I think clicks to red-linked (non-existent) articles are recorded as well. —Bruce1eetalk 07:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the last couple of days I tried to add some wikilinks (so that I could build an article), but they were promptly removed. In any case, I just found out that in July of this year there were 82 views of this (at the time, non-existent) article. So how is this possible? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the article existed back then; it was deleted on July 20 (see here). —Bruce1eetalk 05:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the information. Is there a way to find out also what were the contents of the old deleted article? I ask because Randall Denley is threatened with deletion, once more, even though it has had over 300 views in the last couple of days. Not too shabby for a stub that has only been up for 4 days in my experience. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can contact the admin who deleted it for the contents, or any other admin for that matter. —Bruce1eetalk 05:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Just wondering if there is a way to get the information without inconveniencing an overworked wikipedian :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone is interested, the article I was talking about has now been deleted, but managed to receive over 2,000 hits according to Henrik's tool at: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Randall_Denley Ottawahitech (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Randall Denley was deleted/redirected as a result of an AFD on Sept 25. I just noticed traffic to this article started building up again on Sept 27 and the Sept views now total 2,120. Can anyone here explain this mystery? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything unusual about this. The article still exists (albeit as a redirect), and people are still hitting on it. It could also be a carryover from the AFD – even though the debate is closed, people are still interested in the results. —Bruce1eetalk 12:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember looking up what happens when an article is redirected, but I forget where I saw it. I thought that in those cases the stats count went somewhere else? BTW sorry for missing the previouds response - too busy with elections I suppose :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

1 day missing in the great pageviews statistics tool

Hi Henrik,

Your pageviews statistics tool is great, and I periodically check it in the "Southamerica Life Quality Rankings" article I created. It worked perfect until almost 1 month ago, then somehow it stopped providing daily statistics, then it went back, but now it seems that 1 day is missing, overlapped or something else, not knowing if it’s the last day or some previous one.

The way to check what I say is opening the 30 continuous days original graph, which supposedly shows statistics until yesterday (September 20 in today’s case), but then when you check the current month statistics graph (201109 and "Go") the data exist only until September 19, which value is the same value the first graph shows for September 20, and where September 1 value is the one showed as September 2 value in the first graph. So far as I understand, correct August 31 value is indeed 178 in this article case and one September value is missing.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The monthly figures appear to be one day off. Compare this with this. The view counts are the same in both graphs, but displaced by a day. See also this post above. —Bruce1eetalk 14:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a couple of minutes ago and now both graphs are displaced by 2 days. Southamerica2010 (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I don't know what's going on now. Henrik hasn't been active here since March this year and a few of us have been trying to contact him, but we have to remember that this is a personal project of his that he has kindly made public. —Bruce1eetalk 05:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An additional detail about the displacement: the WP article about the order op operations, a school topic, should receive less page views on saturdays and sundays. But in this graph the minimum is displaced to Friday and Saturday, and in this graphit is displaced to Sunday and Monday. Ceinturion (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today I tried the stats programme on articles in several WPs, but the search always resulted in a total blank. What is happening? -- 79.168.88.85 (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which articles and which WPs are you looking at? —Bruce1eetalk 14:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Southamerica and to Bruce Lee for this information. I noticed myself a couple of weeks ago that the stats looked "funny". However, someone gave it a nudge and the system worked OK for a few days, but now we are back to a situation where the bars are not updating, but simply sliding forward to make it look like the tool is working, when in fact it is not. Yes, Henrik did a fantastic job, but isn't it time for Wikipedia to start officially supporting this wonderful tool? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Wikipedia should lend a hand here. —Bruce1eetalk 05:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a speculation - and I sure hope I am wrong: it appears that the readership of Wikipedia is trending down. At least that of the Main page is:
Main_Page has been viewed
2,193,142,791 times in 2008.
1,869,746,634 times in 2009
1,615,820,740 times in 2010 Ottawahitech (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a third to the view that Wikipedia should support the tool that gives us the daily and monthly count of readers. It certainly inspires me to know that somebody, somewhere is reading articles to which I have contributed. Smallchief (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that everything is back to normal again. Compare this with this. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid not. The last statistics now available are from Oct 7 - we are now almost a week behind. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see that, it looks like the tool is offline again. —Bruce1eetalk 05:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stats not updating

Hi Henrik,Article traffic statistics not updated?There doesn't seem to be any article traffic statistics since September 20 Dgolitis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.72.228 (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Stats out of order

Stats out of order ! Please give us some explanations. Best regards !

IP, 24 September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.14.91.177 (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
The creation of the statistics tool in wikipedia is really motivating. Thanks! Georgy90 (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

traffic statistics

Hello Henrik. I think there is a gap of one day between the real traffic and the statistics (at least in wp.fr), can you check it ? Best regards.Lylvic (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know there is more discussion about this at User_talk:Henrik#1_day_missing_in_the_great_pageviews_statistics_tool Ottawahitech (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


page view stats

This is just a message to say that I find the beta page view stats both useful and interesting. 81.132.156.18 (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page view statistics

Dear Henrik,

I was delighted to discover your pageview stats interface. I had no idea so many people were looking at my humble articles, and now I know. I hope it will not, as the warning at the bottom of the page suggests, just disappear one day.

All the best,

Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackpickard1985 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page view stats not working

For example at http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Michael_Jackson , there were no hits after 28th of September. Thue | talk 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, the stats is down again.Lihaas (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the statistics page down...

It is now up and running. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.117.40 (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a Ph.D. student who is interested in Domas Mituzas's Wikipedia traffic statistics. I have been regularly accessing the URL: http://dammit.lt/wikistats/ to retrieve the most recent statistics. It seems that it is down at the moment for a few days. Is it really down? If it is down, when will it be back up and running?

Sincerely, 128.220.117.40 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top articles by rank

I was viewing the stats for the Brett Favre page and it indicated that it was ranked #505 in views. It would be cool if I could then click on a link to take me to a list of the top 'x' number of viewed pages. Let me know your thoughts. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article traffic statistics not updated

I saw the article only Kastoria- Greece. There doesn't seem to be any article traffic statistics since 4 October Dgolitsis 15:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

September 30

Hi Henrik-

Thanks so much for your Wikipedia traffic stats. I love to keep track of traffic to sites I have edited. I noticed that there are no traffic stats for Sept 30. Is that data lost forever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenebee (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Henrik, for maintaining the stats counters--very useful and important! Greenebee is correct. +I have further discovered that when looking at the "last 30 days" (/en/latest/----) the numbers are shifted by two days from viewing the month of September (en/201109/----). Possible array indexing bug(?) Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article traffic statistics tool is an excellent tool

It helped me a lot. Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cangaran (talk • contribs) 14:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For creating this so motivating Statistics tool Georgy90 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Anomalous page view stats

The page Mathematical_descriptions_of_opacity, an article rated low importance in Wikiproject physics, is credited with the most views of any physics article—by a factor of 10. That doesn't make any sense. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love your "Page View Statistics" report

But it does not seem to be updated much any more. The figures have been the same since last Friday on articles I've worked on such as Equal opportunity. Do you have to program the Page View Statistics tool manually? Is there anything I can do to help (I'm not much of a programmer). I would love for the feature to display the daily page view statistics somewhere on the article's face (so, I didn't have to click "History", then "Page View statistics") or if there was some other way in which I could automatically check readership levels of the articles I've worked on. Again, thanks for making this tool!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dammit.lt/wikistats down again

Hi, it seems the dammit.lt/wikistats page went down again at least for two days. Could you please check it? Thanks! 128.220.117.40 (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid page view statistics

As Henrik hasn't been around since march 2011. I just want to make others to be aware of that the diagrams for the "latest" views displays inaccurate data. As an example the /latest/ shows 929 views 11 oct, and 1100 views 12 oct. But /201110/ shows 929 views 6 oct, and 1100 views 7 oct. So:

  1. There has been no data collection since 2011-10-07
  2. The /latest/ view lacks data validation

Electron9 (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the same thing too. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me three. Noticed same thing. No data for past 6-7 days. Does anyone else besides Henrik have access to the programming behind the Page View stats tool?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure. This glitch though has brought DYK stats to a complete halt. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking thru Henrik's FAQs, I found another way to get pageview stats but it is not as easy-to-read: alternate pageview tool. Right now it's programmed to do stats for Equal opportunity but other articles could presumably be checked. Rather interesting project this "Wiki-Watch", with mathematical algorithms to guess at Wikipedia contributor's "reputation" by looking at how long contributions stay, and assigning a reputation score on that basis.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. At least it is an alternative. Thank you for pointing it out. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. What I've been doing is taking the monthly totals, and averaging them to get a count of average page views per day. I think it is an important statistic which is underused. I'd love it to be more prominent, so anybody reading an article could get a sense of how many other people are looking at it that day. Articles with heavy readership tend to be (in my view) more accurate, better written, more informative. I'd also love some kind of tool which helped us contributors learn how many people (in total, by article, by month, by year possibly) had read our writings. So, I could say, hey guess what, 20 million people have read my stuff. That sort of thing. Even the knowledge of that I would find motivating.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to make a site like Henrik:s, BUT it also take some fat internet pipe, fast cpu, big disk etc.. = money for little gain.Electron9 (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool that you have that capability. I wonder if Wikimedia could help encourage development along these lines, or possibly even advance funding.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several requests on this page (eg. here and here) for Wikimedia to help out. —Bruce1eetalk 05:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist sehr schade, dass die Zählung nicht mehr funktioniert. Ich habe mich gern und regelmäßig über die Zugriffe auf bestimmte Seiten informiert. Vielleicht kommt es irgendwann doch wieder in Gang? Ich würde mich freuen. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(rough translation of above comment from Spurzen courtesy Google translate: It is a pity that the count does not work anymore. I gladly and regularly informed about access to certain pages. Maybe someday but it comes again? I would be happy.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stats R dead

http://stats.grok.se/pt/201110/Mulher_na_hist%C3%B3ria <> No stats here for long time!!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Henrik&oldid=455501791"