User:Aaron Schulz/History analysis JS Definitions and FAQ: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:23, 25 May 2006

Latest revision as of 05:32, 28 September 2010

(47 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

'''Note:''' Please take the time to read this information about the contributions analysis script. It attempts to do as thorough an analysis as possible. However, as a consequence, some things are not exactly what you would expect. Please be sure to read the '''Definitions''' section.

==Definitions - some of the terms used in this script:==

===Minor edit===

This is any edit that is '''not''' a revert and is a)marked as minor, b)keyword identified as minor and '''not''' a revert, or c)any article edit with too short of a summary that does not have certain keywords. ForOne example,word a''article'' summaryedits ofthat "(addare link)"not (8recognized letters)key towords anfor articlesignificant edits will be countedcount as minor, thoughas awell. summaryFor ofarticles, "(expanded)"there (8are too)both will'''significant''' notand be'''superficial''' counted(see asbelow) minoredits. unlessThey itare wasa markedmutually byexclusive thesubset user asof '''minor.''' Not that "8" is not the cuttoff number. One wordedits, ''article'significant''' edits that are not"bigger" reckognizedand keymore wordscontent forrelated significantthan '''superficial''' edits will count as minor as well.

''When calculating edit summary usage or minor markage use, it only looks at how ''the user'' marked it (minor or not) and whether there was aan summaryedit or notsummary.''

Minor edits to talk pages are whatever the user marks as minor, minus reverts. Other, non-article edits pass keyword checks and may be counted as major. Articles edits pass word count, keyword, and character count checks; article edit summaries are analyized with the most vigor.

===Significant editsedit===

These are a subset of '''minor''' edits that apply only to articles, they are more significant and content related than '''superficial''' edits. They constitute things such as small content, information, and reference additions, along with copyedits.

===Superficial edit===

These are a subset of "minor" edits. Superficial edits are the most minor edits, generally spelling corrections, wikifying, grammar corrections and the like.

Edits marked as minor that have no summary will count as '''superficial'''.

''When calculating edit summary usage, it only looks at how ''the user'' marked it (minor or not) and whether there was a summary that describes a superficial edit or not.''

Edits not marked as minor that are identified as ''Superficial'' will has a green <span style='color:green'>'''(Superficial)'''</span> flag next to them.

===Notable article edits===

These are non-minor (see above), non revert edit to articles. Note that article edits are scanned quite thouroughly, so many edits not marked as minor may be counted as minor. Most significant edits include creation, expansion, rewrites, and the addition of several sources to a page. Copyedits marked as major will count as well.

''Don't feel bad because your number is low, most admins have a very low number do to an increased focus on non-editing (<1%). Non-admins tend to run about 21-42% (unless they are "vandal fighters", which gives them about the same percent as most admins).''

Due to the [[User:Erebus555|Erebus555]] case...I decided to have one pass that can change edits marked as minor to "significant". Such modest user's contribs page will have a bright blue <span style='color:blue'>'''(Significant!)'''</span> next to those edits, the count (# next to it) is still the same as any significant edit.

===Significant edits===

This number looks at all of the user edits across all namespaces. Articles edits are heavily scrutized so that only "notable" edits do not count as major. Talk page edits are not analyzed, so the edits will count however the user maked them. The other namespaces, like Project/Images/ect... will go through a simple keyword check to filter out minor edits (not as rigorous as article edits).

===Marked/Quick reverts===

This is an edit with a keyword that flags reverts in it. If a revert is performed with an explanation, but without explicitly saying "revert" (or anything similar), it will not count as a "quick revert". Content removal also counts as a revert as does the restoration of content.

There is no way to reckognize ''all'' reverts, though this catches most of them. Reverts that don't say "revert" (or anything similar) are not quick reverts. This is just a measure of how many reverts the user denoted as reverts. This edits do not count as minor except with regards to edit summary usage, in which case they count however the user marked them.

===Unmarked edits===

Line 22 ⟶ 37:

==FAQ==

===How does "Superficial article edits marked as minor" work?===

This takes (all '''superficial''' article edits) - (those not marked as minor) and divides it by (all '''superficial''' article edits) to get the percent.

===Why does it say NaN%?===

This can happen when dividing by zero. For example, if a user have no major edits, then ''major edit summary use'' would be 0/0 which returns NaN in javascript. Any % can give these; '''nothing''' else should ''ever'' do that though.

===Why is this edit showing up as minor?===

See "minor" above. Not all edits not marked as minor will be counted as major, such edits will say "minor" in green next to it, whereas non-reverts that were marked as minor will have "minor" in black next to it.

Line 32 ⟶ 53:

This tool also works on deleted page history (admin only). It ignores the "deletions" section as it should and highlights certain edits differently.

===Average edits per day only uses 200500 edits, but I have over 200500 on the page, why?===

200500 is the limit for counting average edits per day, I suppose it is arbitrary, but when you use to many edits, the number is more heavily based on the past, and hence becomes more outdated and perhaps unfair (for good or ill). If you have less that 200500 edits on the page you are looking at, it will get the average edits per day based on however many edits are shown.

===Edit summary usage only looks at 1000 (or less) edits even if I have more, why?===

The limit is 1000, see above section. 1000 overall edits are looked at. However many of the last 1000 edit were article edits will show for the number of article edits it looked at. For example, if a user has 453 article edits out of his/her last 1000 edits, the overall edit summary use will say "(last 1000 edits)" next to it, while the article edit summary use will say "(last 453 edits)" next to it.

The limit is 1000, see above section.

===Average edit number says "not available" or something, why?===

If you have an offset (like clicking "next 50" or "next 100", the most recent edit of the user will not be visablevisible, therefore it is somewhat illogical to get "average edits per day" for a time frame in the past for the user's average edits per day.

I may allow for that in the future, but the wording will change on the report to (for this time period) or something.

===I made a big edit and it says it is minor, what now?===

Line 47 ⟶ 68:

===Are there any updates planned?===

Enhancements to deleted page history.'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''^{[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WPWikipedia:EAEsperanza|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font>} 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Speed enhancements.'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''^{[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WPWikipedia:EAEsperanza|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font>} 06:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

===Where do I report bugs?===

Bugs can be reported at [[User talk:Voice of All/UsefulJS]] or on my user talk page.'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''^{[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WPWikipedia:EAEsperanza|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font>} 20:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

===How accurate is this thing?===

Well, when you run the tool, most types of edits are marked as that type and it keeps tally next to it for each edit of that type. For example, reverts have "(rv)" after them. You can then tell which ones were mistaken (which should only be a few at worst). In my experience it is very good at fishing out almost all reverts, and it does a very good job fishing out minor edits that were not marked as such.