Last modified: 2008-09-21 00:13:34 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 13585 - Maintain active user count for Special:Statistics
Maintain active user count for Special:Statistics
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Special pages (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Aaron Schulz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:...
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-04-01 23:15 UTC by Brion Vibber
Modified: 2008-09-21 00:13 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Brion Vibber 2008-04-01 23:15:25 UTC
On many open wikis, a lot more accounts are registered than are actually used. This can lead to a very large user count on Special:Statistics, which can be confusing or misleading to the casual visitor.

For instance, English Wikipedia currently reports 6,794,875 registered user accounts. While reasonably accurate for what it records, this number is *vastly* inflated compared to the number of *active* user accounts, yet it's the number likely to be found and cited as the "number of Wikipedia users" by bloggers or journalists or curious individuals.

It would be helpful to maintain a running count of "active users", and present this in a more prominent place.

A suggested criterion is edit count; Erik's wikistats apparently provide figures for >5 and >100 edits in a given month.

We can either use a similar running count, or a since-the-beginning total count (which would be easier to maintain, since there's no need to decrement the count if a user has become inactive).

(As recommended by David Gerard on wikitech-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2008-April/037225.html )
Comment 1 Brion Vibber 2008-08-14 21:15:06 UTC
Assigning count tweaks to Aaron.
Comment 2 Aaron Schulz 2008-08-28 22:36:27 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Assigning count tweaks to Aaron.
> 

So are we going with an edit threshold or current activity?
Comment 3 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2008-08-29 00:22:19 UTC
How many edits a user has *ever* made doesn't have to do with whether they're *currently* active, which I think is the more interesting figure.  Part of the use of this statistic would be to watch trends in activity, which is spoiled if it doesn't reflect old contributors becoming inactive.
Comment 4 Aaron Schulz 2008-08-29 00:33:24 UTC
So then the "We can either use a similar running count, or a since-the-beginning total count" could be ignored.

I guess this will be another cached query. Probably should add a stats column.
Comment 5 Aaron Schulz 2008-08-31 19:29:52 UTC
Done in r40279
Comment 6 Melancholie 2008-09-06 19:23:43 UTC
Although number is shown by using $6, no value seems given for raw output, see http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Statistik&action=raw
Comment 7 Melancholie 2008-09-06 20:00:55 UTC
P.s.: $4 shows the percentage of sysops, could $7 show percentage of active users?

A workaround is {{FORMATNUM:{{#expr:(100*$6/{{NUMBEROFUSERS:R}})round2}}}} (as long as $6 does not exceed 999)
Comment 8 Aaron Schulz 2008-09-06 21:48:58 UTC
This was fixed in r40360 already, still not synced
Comment 9 Melancholie 2008-09-21 00:13:34 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> A workaround is {{FORMATNUM:{{#expr:(100*$6/{{NUMBEROFUSERS:R}})round2}}}} (as
> long as $6 does not exceed 999)
> 

No longer possible, see bug 5619#c18

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links