Here is some (late) feedback on new Wikistats 2 edits pages. First I'm glad to see new pages added.
- Top editors (a.k.a most prolific contributors)
See example for Italian wikipedia:
1a What is group bot vs name bot. I can't find explanation and I'm not familiar with this breakdown.
1b I can't navigate to previous month, right? (Wikistats 1 couldn't either, for many metrics), expect via Wayback Machine (with irregular intervals)
1c presenting name 'Anonymous user' on breakdown for top editors filtered for 'Anonymous' makes this list not so meaningful, right?
1d1 Filter by page type, 'content' vs 'non content' . I assume content is articles and non content is all else (talk pages, help, category etc). May not be obvious for user, and I can't find explanation.
1d2 Does it follow API list which contains 'countable namespaces' per wiki?
1e A nice (minor) addition could be direct link to UC = user contributions for any given user name.
My hunch is this is what people want to see next. Knowing LauBot is most active in Oct with 127,298 edits get more meaning by a quick glance over https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/LauBot (user can do this via side menu, so adding UC is only an added convenience).
1f Top editors is a useful metric. Top article creators would be nearly as important. Could be an extra filter: Filter by create/update. Some bots add hundreds thousands new articles. Might be extra useful to patrol those once in a while. Wikistats 1 does make this distinction. Compare https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrixEdits.htm and https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrixCreates.htm
1g Button 'Table' doesn't do anything
- Top edited articles (pages with most edits, not most contributors):
Again, example for Italian wikipedia:
2a 'Top edited pages' seems to me a not so useful metric. Top scorer is Joe123 with https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utente:Joe123/Sandbox&action=history
So this person massively plays in the sandbox. Who cares? The next 30 or 40 are administrative pages edited by bots.
2b For comparison please look at ZeitGeist table: https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm#zeitgeist
This tells which subjects were hot in any given month. It doesn't count edits, but editors. Again I'm less interested in how many edits any user made to https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichai_Srivaddhanaprabha. I do find it interesting that no other topic got more traction in Oct 2018 on wp:it. That's comparable in a way to the top most viewed articles which Signpost publishes and analyzes in every issue. This ZeitGeist deserves a page of its own. It's the kind of stuff reporters find interesting as well. Keeping the 'pages with most edits' will do little harm except it dilutes the overall relevance of the stats page. (same can be said of columns in Wikistats 1 pages, some columns are on hindsight better omitted, for sake of brevity and conciseness).