@ezachte Whenever you are ready to chat about this, let's do it. The data from Israel will be in only at the end of October. Before then, it's best to start scoping what this task and leave the actual running of the codes for early November. It would be great if we can have the analysis out at the same time, or earlier, than when we announce the results in the first half of December.

@Effeietsanders Erik and I have started scoping this task. One question that came up: how have we (the international team and/or the organizing bodies) managed disqualifying images that clearly don't qualify to be counted as part of the numbers in WLM reports in the past years?

@LilyOfTheWest Typically, disqualification is taken care of by national organisers. They should remove the WLM-template (and therefore the category) from the image.

I suggest that you use instead (or as well) a 'disqualified' category that you can run your pictures against, which should make life a bit easier for checking purposes.

And: we could also measure a bit website traffic perhaps, and traffic to our social media accounts (at least internationally). Reach. Maybe even eyeballs for the banners?

@Effeietsanders thanks for both. I added your suggestions in the latter to Description. While traffic to the international website is an important metric to report, I agree with you that banner counts may not be as useful in raw form (we won't know eye-balls since we don't have a notion of user at the banner level, though we may have that information at the device level).

Rethinking... the eyeballs may be relevant after all. Not by itself, but to see if there are outliers with regards to the eyeball/uploader ratio. Other ratios like that, may be interesting too, to figure out beest practices. Even clickthrough ratios may be interesting in the longer run. But maybe this falls outside the scope of the initial analysis - it would be good to have the raw data available for further analysis later though.