User talk:Erik Zachte
Indeed, very insightful :-) Ant
Thanks for the tip. I hadn't realised I was doing that. Angela 18:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Huhsunqu. All right, I'm in, but i'm needing learning more about code and proyect. Help me learning and I help you any way that I can . Saa you. --Huhsunqu 9 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)
stats on bgwiki
Hello Erik, I would like to report that the statistics on bgwiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaBG.htm) are very outdated. Is it possible to update them for us, please? Regards, DCLXVI 9 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)
- All stats are outdated. The database format changed since Mediawiki 1.5 again. There will be a new database dump format (xml) some time, don't know when, also don't know when I have time to revise the stats scripts again, probably after Wikimania. Erik Zachte July 9, 2005 12:51 (UTC)
GUT and Timelineoptimizer
Hello Erik, I answered your message on my talk page, and it brought me back to Easytimeline. Today i whipped up a small script which tries to optimally distribute overlaping event bars in as few rows as possible. I tested it on a timeline of wars in the 20th century. The content is extracted using a script from some Wikipedia-Lists. I colorcoded them by hand (preliminary). --Dschwen 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Help with new wikistat script
I'm longing for new statistics. Can I help you in any way with porting your scripts to the new XML dump format? --Langec 18:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your offer but update is nearly ready.
Cool, thanks :-) --Langec 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Surveys, et al
Hi Erik, well I *always* enjoy talking with you :-). On those stats - thanks for doing that - I hope that's not completely wasted effort(?). I'm obviously delighted that Wikiversity now exists as an independent project. The only thing that frustrates me now is that I have a dissertation to work on to be handed in in two weeks so i'm just incapable of putting the time into getting something interesting going there (such as research, which we discussed at Wikimania). I really want to bring those ideas forward, and I apologise for not replying to your research-l messages - I promise I'll be back to wiki-business as usual in a month. In the meantime, hope to see you at the Special projects committee open meeting(s) (see Talk:Special_projects_committee#Public_meetings). All the best, Erik. Cormaggio @ 07:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Fork from EasyTimeline to make an EasyMap ?
Hello Erik. As the creator of the great EasyTimeline extension, could you please take a look at bug7849 ? I would like to make it possible to put wikilinks on maps. Thanks for you help :) guillom 08:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Guillom, very impressive maps! I did not know this was even possible with html. It would certainly be useful to have a more intuitive syntax for positioning the elements. Not a trivial matter though. Perhaps it could help to feed the map size to a script and data points in relative terms, say
ImageSize=width:600 height:400 PlotData= textcolor:blue at:20%,55% text:"New York" at:21%,60% text:"Washington"
meaning 22% of image width counting from the left, 55% of image height counting from the bottom (0%,0% = bottom left like with cartesian coordinates)
Another possibility would be to specify coordinates in longitude,latitude notation. For many situations these can be easily found or even measured in google earth. The map itself would need to be positioned onto the globe, by stating longitude and latitude for bottomleft and topright corner. A EasyMap script could than translate longitude,latitude into percentage notation as above. It might be useful to allow several variant notations
ImageSize=width:600 height:400 PlotArea=left:72.5W top:39.4N right:76.5W bottom:42.6N PlotData= textcolor:blue at:40°42'N,74°00'W text:"[[New York]]" at:40.42.05N,74.00.20W text:"[[New York]]" at:N(40.42),W(74.00) text:"[[New York]]"
and to have syntax that defines where to position the text relative to the symbol (say align, anchor and shift parameters) Erik Zachte 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, the main index page of stats.wikimedia.org don't have a link to the Wikisource language index (neither to Wikiversity language sites, but I have found the reasons here :) ). And to avoid confusion IMHO is a good idea to rename the sources from Wikispecial index to the current interwiki prefix for that wiki: oldwikisource:. 555 19:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Both done. Latter will be visible after next run. Cheers, Erik Zachte 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This image has no source information. This means that it has an unknown copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided and a source is given, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Cheers--Nick1915 - all you want 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Stats and Wikisource
Gday Erik. Been looking at the stats as produced at http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm and was reflecting with another person that the stats for editing do not reflect the prolific work undertaken in our Page: namespace. On many of the WS projects we now do much of our editing in that namespace, and then transclude the results of the pages to the main namespace, and that for each transclusion there is likely to be multiple pages in the Page namespace. I wondered whether there may be the opportunity to reflect that other editing into the produced statistics. Thanks. billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually more relevant pages that reflect the edit patterns may be http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/EditsRevertsEN.htm and http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Fix naar redirect
Romanian Wikipedia stats
Hello Erik, I'm a user at ro.wikipedia.org, and I want to do some research on the visitors that access the Romanian Wikipedia. Please, can you provide me some stats on the browser language used by users who visit ro.wikipedia.org (based on pageviews or unique users or whatsoever)? Something similar to those provided by you at Commons. If it is possible, it would be also interesting to see language stats for contributions (if you have time for that too). Thanks. --Danutz 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Query and a few suggestions
Hi Erik, I like many things about your Report card; this is a valuable resource for the movement. However, will you please consider a few suggestions?
- Increasing the Y–X ratio. The logarithmic scale seems to be essential; but the lines do tend to be very horizontalised—so flat that in many places it's hard to perceive the structure. This is even more apparent in the double-click close-up graphs you get from highlighting a portion of a graph; these are potentially a great idea that doesn't yet work because of this scaling problem. Would it be possible to make the graphs more vertical while retaining the logarithmic scale? I'm thinking of at least twice as vertical, or even three times as vertical, for the logarithmic graphs (perhaps a marginal increase, or none, for the first graph, Reach by region, which isn't logarithmic and has the bumpiness I thirst for in the other graphs). Another advantage would be our ability to distinguish the lines when they hug each other. Would people mind having to scroll down more from this greater verticality? I doubt it, even on a small mobile device, if the trade-off is easier comprehension of structure.
- Numbering. Could each graph be numbered?
- Links to add value, engage community. Could there be a link from the page to the spreadsheet from which the graphs are constructed? And I wonder whether there might be a talk page for each graph, perhaps on Meta? There's potential for community input about the data. Eventually, I guess there's scope for expanding the comments you've made beneath a few of the graphs, to explain interesting features
On another issue, could you confirm that columns F, I–K, and M–R on the main stats spreadsheets for the WPs have been permanently discontinued? We've exchanged several messages over the past two years, and I'm starting to think we won't see them again. It would be handy to know whether they should be dropped from my radar. Tony (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Account on wikimediafoundation.org
Hi. I saw your note at Foundation wiki feedback. If you leave a request at WMFACCOUNT, I'd be happy to make you an account on wikimediafoundation.org. wikimediafoundation.org could use plenty of love. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikistats: views per speaker
Hi, Erik! First of of, thank you so much for building the Wikistats website, it's massive!
I wanted to suggest you a new statistic: views per speaker. It would be interesting to discuss how many pages does each person read in average, depending on their language. I did a quick table of the February 2013 results for some Wikipedia editions:
per 1000 speakers
Of course, Nordic languages are at the top. :) It would be cool to have such a fact everywhere. No, just kidding. But I'd love a quick number, I guess views per speaker per month, in the summaries. Can you do that? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, you have already added that statistic per country here! Thanks again, you are the boss :) --NaBUru38 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Queries for the Signpost
I'm preparing the first of what may be an occasional series covering interesting aspects of the WMF report card.
On the Page views per country report, does "Portal" mean all WPs minus the WPs specified above? (If so, could I suggest that next time there be a note saying that "Portal = all other WPs"? I will need to explain this to Signpost readers.) Or does it mean the proportion of people who entered any WP via the portal instead of directly? The US, I see, has a very large Portal proportion of 8.2%. I'm a bit confused. Malaysia has 9.2%. All other countries seem to be 1–3%. I wonder why.
Does "Other" mean all other WMF sites minus the other categories given (e.g. Commons, Wikisource)?
Hi Tony1, portal means 'www.wikipedia.org'. If there is better term for this central landing page I'd be happy to hear. 8.2% of page views from US are to that portal. So this is not percentage of people in any form, just percentage of views to that page out of total pages viewed, from a certain country. I agree 8.2% views to portal page from US and even more from Malaysia is remarkable. It would be worth digging a little deeper, but unfortunately I can't do that right now. Erik Zachte (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. other is other Wikipedias only. Sister projects are not included. Erik Zachte (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Erik. I've dug up some surprising findings (that you probably already know about). Syria has a gigantic portal percentage that renders the en.WP and ar.WP proportions of views unusable, I think. I'll use that information about the "Other" category in the Signpost report. Tony (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)