Talk:Link transit: Difference between revisions
obvious display style, filters required
(i'll run this code when i have the time) |
(obvious display style, filters required) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
I wrote up a basic program to perform this kind of analysis on log files, but I'm not sure why you think it would be useful for either contributors or Bomis. It's certainly not a commonly requested feature. Wouldn't view count data be more useful than link transit data? This matters because I need to know what the output format should be, and I need to have some way to justify using server resources to generate such data. | I wrote up a basic program to perform this kind of analysis on log files, but I'm not sure why you think it would be useful for either contributors or Bomis. It's certainly not a commonly requested feature. Wouldn't view count data be more useful than link transit data? | ||
:Both are useful for the same reasons. And both are not available. "Server load" is a lousy excuse, when [[Wikimedia]] could raise all the money it needed for hardware with an [[independent board]]. | |||
This matters because I need to know what the output format should be, and I need to have some way to justify using server resources to generate such data. | |||
:A map of nodes/pages with the number of [[link transit]]s on each edge, such edges representing a link, is the obvious display. But that would be huge so one must be able to filter down to a very small number of pages and links that hold them together, typically the most heavily clustered / deeply connected to each other. [[Xerox PARC]] did some research on this about twenty years ago. | |||
Anyway, following is the result of a couple of hours of procrastination. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 11:26, 3 Sep 2004 (EEST) | Anyway, following is the result of a couple of hours of procrastination. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 11:26, 3 Sep 2004 (EEST) | ||