Readership stats

[David Hoffman]

Hi. Do we have a way to generate stats on the readership of any given page?

I'm curious about how many people visit the articles I'm working on, even if they don't comment/edit. Perhaps we could also differentiate CZ User from general public? This question could also help us analyze which CZ pages are working for internal use and which are neglected.

For CZ in general, I'd also like to know which pages are visited the most and where readers come from (e.g., google search, existing links to CZ, etc).

[Fredrik Johansson]

Each page used to list the number of views, but that feature seems to have been disabled.

For more detail, it would be nice to have wikistats.

[a.a.s.]

The readership stats could be interesting. See here for what is known for Wikipedia.

To generate it, as far as I can imagine, some logs of our servers are necessary. If I knew the format of the log file, I hope I could write an analyzing script in python. Well, I guess the logs are confident, at least as far as the privacy issues are concerned. So the script could be run by CZ technical stuff once a week(month?), say, on a server. As long as we have a few thousand pages in the mainspace, we can do the full editcount (probably later we should restrict ourselves to most popular pages only).
Another interesting report could be constructed from what is inserted in the "searchbox" ("what do readers want?"). I imagine that there is a log file that keeps track of it.

BTW, concerning wikistats (citistats?), as number of authors, active authors, new authors, new pages, edits in the database etc., something has just been published, see the Citizendium-L  mailing list archives.

[Robert Winmill]

The readership stats could be interesting. See here for what is known for Wikipedia.
...
BTW, concerning wikistats (citistats?), as number of authors, active authors, new authors, new pages, edits in the database etc., something has just been published, see the Citizendium-L  mailing list archives.

Alex ,I like what you (I think) wrote in the above link:
"That  said, I do not think that making CZ-WP comparison in terms of quantity is very relevant at least at the present stage. Clearly, CZ encourages different working style and priorities that do not  easily translate into stats or make "counters" turn more slowly (e.g. accent on quality/reliability, narrative/introductory style, not creating stubs without clear intent to develop them etc.). I guess CZ will always be different.

I love stats.  More, l love the meanings of the stats.  How they are generated and how they are then misused and used to confuse.  But, you first need the stats.