RE: Reporting site fields

From: Gilberto Vargas <gilberto_at_mediadefender.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:30:10 -0700

I will reply to Aaron about the comparison sheets.

Thank You,
Gilberto Vargas
MediaDefender, Inc.
Tel 310-956-3366

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Grodsky
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:21 PM
To: 'Aaron.Markham_at_nbcuni.com'; Gilberto Vargas
Cc: 'Andrew.Skinner_at_nbcuni.com'; Randy Saaf; Jay Mairs; Octavio Herrera
Subject: Re: Reporting site fields

Gilbert is looking into this and will get back to you shortly.

Aaron, we made several changes to the Active Load Comparison after that
conference call we had with you several weeks ago. All of the changes
were things you had asked for (as far as we understood them).

This is one of the reasons that the raw/unprocessed data from the new
marketing system Jay's team has been developing will be better for you.
You can process it as you like and extrapolate granular detail. And
because this new raw system is totally separate from our protection
system (as you know the Reporting system Gilbert manages piggy-backs our
protection system and therefore isn't as good for data collection),
that's really where any geographic trend analysis would be meaningful.
Also, we wouldn't be able to change the legacy reporting system without
it drastically and adversely affecting protection -- reporting and
protection are too closely interconnected.

You're talking about the site with the calendar that let's you change
the data data range, right?

-Ben

----- Original Message -----
From: Markham, Aaron (NBC Universal) <Aaron.Markham_at_nbcuni.com>
To: Gilberto Vargas
Cc: Skinner, Andrew (NBC Universal) <Andrew.Skinner_at_nbcuni.com>; Randy
Saaf; Jay Mairs; Ben Grodsky; Octavio Herrera
Sent: Wed Apr 11 16:48:08 2007
Subject: RE: Reporting site fields

We have a problem then. The active load comparison reports were
designed when our countermeasures model was based on capacity. We had a
capacity to handle 3MM requests per day. The active load comparison was
a weekly report to manage the load on the system. If we ran over an
average of 3MM requests per day then I had to remove a title or two to
make space.

 

The requests in each protocol column were defined as the average daily
requests for that week on that protocol. If you wanted the total
requests for that protocol then you'd have to either estimate by
multiplying the average by seven or pull the full report for daily
requests. Your definitions below completely contradict the way we've
always perceived this data. Also the averages reported in this new
column don't make any sense. Just look at the average numbers and you
can see that there's no way it could be an average of the per protocol
numbers. Not only that, but based on the model the system is supposed
to be reporting on the "total" IS AN AVERAGE.

 

I'm really pissed about this. Either you don't have an understanding of
the numbers, or I don't. Neither case is acceptable.

 

We're ramping up our countermeasures effectiveness studies and now we'll
have the full focus of Necip, our statistician. We will pick apart
these numbers. You need to be able to tell us what these numbers are
and also back them up and validate them.

 

I still like seeing summary reports where it shows all of the titles, so
we can sort by popularity based on relative daily demand. What we
really need to have is the daily demand numbers per project, so we can
trend the data with high granularity. Then we need to slice this data
by country, and trend the daily demand by country. This is super high
priority. Get back to me ASAP about this reporting definition
discrepancy and when I can see the reports I need. These reports are
critical to progress of a conversion project.

 

________________________________

From: Gilberto Vargas [mailto:gilberto_at_mediadefender.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:48 AM
To: Skinner, Andrew (NBC Universal); Ben Grodsky
Cc: Jay Mairs; Markham, Aaron (NBC Universal)
Subject: RE: Reporting site fields

 

Hi Andrew,

 

FastTrack eDonkey Gnutella WinMX DirectConnect Ares - Are total requests
for those each networks for the selected time period.

 

Total - Total requests for the selected time period... this project used
to be requests only project so the word "total" was not changed it used
to be associated to requests.

Average - this is the average requests for the selected time period.

Supply - Supply is the average supply for the selected time period

Spoofs - The average spoofs sent out during the selected time period.

Decoys - The average decoys sent out during the selected time period.

 

Would you like us to change the naming convention to something else,
maybe switch "total" to "total requests" and "average" to "average
requests"?

 

 

Thank You,

Gilberto Vargas

MediaDefender, Inc.

Tel 310-956-3366

________________________________

From: Skinner, Andrew (NBC Universal) [mailto:Andrew.Skinner_at_nbcuni.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:16 AM
To: Ben Grodsky; Gilberto Vargas
Cc: Jay Mairs; Markham, Aaron (NBC Universal)
Subject: Reporting site fields

 

Hey Guys,

 

Can you clarify what each of the columns represents on the reporting
site? There are some inconsistencies in the demand data from last month
to this month and I'm trying to figure out what is correct.

 

 

Do the following fields contain the total requests for the reporting
period, or the daily average?

FastTrack eDonkey Gnutella WinMX DirectConnect Ares

 

 

Total: Total what?

 

Average: This appears to be the total divided by the number of days in
the reporting period. Is this correct?

 

Supply : Is this total supply for the reporting period, or the daily
average?

 

Spoofs : Total, or daily average? How is this measured?

 

Decoys: Total, or daily average? How is this measured?

 

 

Thanks,

Andrew

 

 
Received on Fri Sep 14 2007 - 10:56:04 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Sep 16 2007 - 22:19:48 BST