#32135: Write BridgeDB metrics parser and analyse existing data
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Reporter: phw | Owner: phw
Type: task | Status: needs_revision
Priority: Medium | Milestone:
Component: Metrics/Statistics | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: s30-o21a1 | Actual Points:
Parent ID: #31274 | Points: 2
Reviewer: | Sponsor:
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Comment (by phw):
Replying to [comment:9 karsten]:
> - The change from "transport" to "bridge type" is a tricky one. We're
using "transport" where you'd use "bridge type" for other graphs, like
[https://metrics.torproject.org/userstats-bridge-transport.html this one].
I guess part of the rationale was that even with the default OR protocol,
messages are being ''transported'' between client and bridge, just not
using one of the ''pluggable'' transports but using the built-in one. But
we're using this term for almost a decade now, so it's well possible that
it's merely the result of me convincing myself that it must be a good
idea. That being said, part of me would prefer keeping the "transport"
term here. However, if you think this is too confusing, let's consider
making this change. What do you prefer?
[[br]]
Using "transport" is fine – especially because we should be consistent
with the graphs that are already present.
[[br]]
> - "Distribution" vs. "distribution method" is another case like this.
We're not using this term on Tor Metrics yet. But we should be sure to
pick the term that is most common in the Tor universe. I vaguely recall
the term "distributor" from when I wrote the BridgeDB spec, but that term
might be too technical for this purpose. Anyway, what's the term you would
want us to use here?
[[br]]
I like "distributor" more than "distribution" because it's more specific
and suggests that there's a component that actively distributes bridges.
[[br]]
> - Regarding your suggestions to graph titles, keep in mind that short
titles work better on the website (and on graph images) than long ones. At
the same time they need to be meaningful in the context of all other
graphs/tables on the Metrics website.
[[br]]
Gotcha! Just to be clear: do you think that "BridgeDB requests for each
bridge type" and/or "BridgeDB requests for each distributor" is too long
or otherwise problematic?
[[br]]
> - You wrote in several places that "unsuccessful requests (e.g.,
invalid emails or incorrect CAPTCHAs) are not included in these numbers."
But is this true in your code and in mine? What would I have to do to
filter out these requests?
[[br]]
Oops, you're right. The two diagrams we want to include contain both
successful ''and'' unsuccessful requests. I think that's ok as long as we
mention it in the description, which I intend to do.
[[br]]
> - The "unbin" part is about the `-bin_size/2`, yes. I already made that
change in the code locally, and we should document it.
[[br]]
Ok, no problem.
[[br]]
> Would you want to provide your changes as a Git-formatted patch (or Git
branch) based on mine? That would make it a bit easier for me to include
your changes (and harder to miss out good suggestions).
[[br]]
Sure, no problem!
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/32135#comment:10>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online