Data Platform Engineering Bug Report or Data Problem Form.
Please fill out the following
Please ensure you set priority
What kind of problem are you reporting?
- Access related problem
- Service related problem
- Data related problem
For an access related problem
- What is the system you are using?
- What is the data or dashboard you are unable to access? Please include links and screenshots where applicable.
- What is your ldap user name? If you don’t know, please see the list https://ldap.toolforge.org/group/wmf. If you name is not on the list, use the following instructions to request an ldap account. In the form specify “wmf” as the ldap group name for staff as the ldap group name.or go through the nda process for external users. For Superset and Turnillo access, you do not need shell access, for Jupyter, Scripting and Hadoop you do.
For a service related problem:
- What is the nature of the issue?
- What are the steps to reproduce the issue? Please include links and screenshots where applicable.
- What happens?
- What should happen instead?
For a data related problem:
- Is this a data quality issue?
Yes
- What datasets and/or dashboards are affected?
Unique devices by family and web requests tables
- What are the observed vs expected results? Please include information such as location of data, any initial assessments, sql statements, screenshots.
Context from here: T373630#10165209
We identified significant spikes in unique device counts on certain days in July and August 2024, unlike any other month in the past year. These increases were observed exclusively in the "unique devices by project family" table and not in the "unique devices by domain" table, and they predominantly involved 'fresh sessions' (i.e., sessions where cookies were enabled but no cookie was found). Monthly unique device metrics use the unique devices by project family table. Notably, these spikes were also absent from the pageview_hourly data.
Upon reviewing the logic behind both tables, we found that the "unique devices by project family" table includes web requests flagged as either is_pageview or is_redirect_to_pageview (redirects counted as pseudo-pageviews for tracking purposes), whereas the "unique devices by domain" table only accounts for is_pageview requests.
Further analysis of the fresh sessions unique to the project family table, which consisted solely of redirects, revealed approximately 200 million unique devices linked to a small number of users. These users had unidentified device types and exhibited similar user_agent strings (for instance, certain actor_signatures were associated with up to 500k unique devices in a single day). These requests consistently targeted the same Wikipedia pages and were resolved with a 301 status code.
These actors were not flagged as automated traffic, as our detection heuristics are applied exclusively to pageviews, not redirects. This oversight explains the disproportionate increase in unique devices during July and August, despite no corresponding rise in actual pageviews. It appears that we should change the labelling logic applied to catch automated actors in our unique devices counts.
We recommend:
- Changing automated traffic detection heuristic to categorize these redirect requests as automated traffic
- Backfilling and correcting affected tables where possible.
- Aligning counting logic in "unique devices by project family" with the logic in "unique devices by domain"