I'm a bit irritated by some of the stats for some of the beta sites. For example this from the IoT site stats. The last line says on pace for 0 users [3,000+ rep] at 90 days. Although the highest rep user has almost 2.9k and is steadily gaining. The second line seems to assume that at least one <2k user will make the 2k and the first line also assumes that some users get 200 rep since we got about ~40 of those currently.

150 users with 200+ rep (on pace for 75 users at 90 days)
10 users with 2,000+ rep (on pace for 3 users at 90 days)
5 users with 3,000+ rep (on pace for 0 users at 90 days)

The views seem also a bit off. Even though an IoT question hit the HNQ list and drew in over 700 views, yet the Area 51 visit number didn't move from 61 up.

Thus, the question is there a serious delay in those statistics or how should the interested users read those statistics? Are those just visits from outside the SE network?

share
    
Zero per 30 days is equivalent to zero per 90 days. One per 30 days is equivalent to three per 90 days. Assuming that trusted user bonus doesn't count and the 5 points were only updated recently, twenty-five per 30 days is equivalent to 75 per 90 days. So what delay are you talking about? – Nij Jan 6 at 5:26
    
iot.stackexchange.com/questions/593 has 782 views as of two minutes ago, all in two days. iot.stackexchange.com/questions/9 has 324 as of now, in a month. Only four other questions are above 200 views. Unless the HNQ from IoT wasn't Q# 593, you're just being impatient. The scripts for a majority of tasks only run once per day, and almost nothing is real-time (@ing and votes are the exceptions to my knowledge, even views has a lag). – Nij Jan 6 at 5:39
    
@Nij The numbers still don't add up, so there is either a delay of a few days or the numbers have different interpretations than one might thing (e.g. only external views without SE referrals) – Helmar Jan 7 at 19:27
    
The views are the only thing without an obvious and functional mechanism, yet they're given two sentences out of the twenty-plus. Perhaps you should explain how you know of 700+ views if the counter was on 61? – Nij Jan 7 at 21:11
    
@Nij iot.stackexchange.com/questions/593 had 700ish on the first day. We just went public we had an eye on that. – Helmar Jan 8 at 8:36
    
So if it was Q# 593 that got the 700+ views, and its now showing 780+ views, exactly where is the delay? And if it was another question that got them, but the views counter hasn't changed, how do you know it got 700+ views? – Nij Jan 8 at 8:57
    
@Nij I'm talking about the 61 (now 64) views in the stats section of Area51. – Helmar Jan 8 at 9:04
    
If you meant visits then you should make that clear. Views are a very different thing. – Nij Jan 8 at 9:11
    
@Nij I edit the question, sorry for the misunderstanding – Helmar Jan 8 at 9:13
    
Never mind it, the wording and message is there now. So: views in a question are not tracked to unique viewers, while visits are tracked to unique visitors, as far as I know. One visitor can generate a dozen views if they check back every hour for a day which inflates numbers. And the other stats are worked out as an arithmetic mean across the beta period; if I'm right then the number of visitors on the day before that question was asked, would have been 40, give or take a couple. Do you have the data to check? – Nij Jan 8 at 9:22
    
@Nij No, it was already 61 the last day of private beta. – Helmar Jan 8 at 9:36
    
I can only suggest the inflation by existing visitors and deflation by the time already used, then. Perhaps a CM or DM will come along to explain. @RobertCartaino can you help? – Nij Jan 8 at 9:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .