# Reliability of extension stats
**URL:** https://discourse.slicer.org/t/reliability-of-extension-stats/32236
**Category:** Support
**Created:** [October 16, 2023, 3:37am UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/reliability-of-extension-stats/32236 "2023-10-16T03:37:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 8
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@muratmaga](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/muratmaga)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2023, 3:37am UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/reliability-of-extension-stats/32236/1 "2023-10-16T03:37:27Z")
@jcfr @Sam_Horvath
How reliable old download statistics? I just ran the extension download statistics, for all extensions, and why I sort them grand total, I am a little surprised with the some of the top results, such as SlicerXNAT, which I believe is not even maintained.
Most of these packages very high download stats for version 4.10.2 (in the orders of 50-80K), which kind of looked a bit superfluous to me, particularly given their recent usage has been quite low.
---
### Author:  [@jcfr](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/jcfr)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2023, 6:46pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/reliability-of-extension-stats/32236/2 "2023-10-16T18:46:51Z")
Downloads for both the Slicer built-in extension manager or the corresponding web page loaded in a regular browser are accounted for.
We are not discriminating between both and we are not performing filtering like it has been implemented for the Slicer download packages.
Possible ways to improve this and tease apart the “source” of the download would be to either customize the user agent associated with Slicer built-in browser and/or append a new parameter.
---
### Author:  [@muratmaga](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/muratmaga)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2023, 7:00pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/reliability-of-extension-stats/32236/3 "2023-10-16T19:00:55Z")
> [@jcfr](#):
>
> Downloads for both the Slicer built-in extension manager or the corresponding web page loaded in a regular browser are accounted for.
Oh, I see if the source repo like [GitHub - MokaCreativeLLC/XNATSlicer: XNAT-Slicer Integration](https://github.com/MokaCreativeLLC/XNATSlicer) is accessed from a web browser, that still counts as a download?
---
### Author:  [@lassoan](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/lassoan)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2023, 8:56pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/reliability-of-extension-stats/32236/4 "2023-10-16T20:56:22Z")
I don’t think it is necessary to distinguish download count obtained from the web browser or from the extensions manager. When someone downloads a package via the web browser, the intent is most likely to install it in Slicer.
> [@muratmaga](#):
>
> Oh, I see if the source repo like [GitHub - MokaCreativeLLC/XNATSlicer: XNAT-Slicer Integration](https://github.com/MokaCreativeLLC/XNATSlicer) is accessed from a web browser, that still counts as a download?
This does not count as a download. Only extension package downloads are counted.
> [@muratmaga](#):
>
> How reliable old download statistics? I just ran the extension download statistics, for all extensions, and why I sort them grand total, I am a little surprised with the some of the top results, such as SlicerXNAT, which I believe is not even maintained.
The numbers look good to me, I don’t see any reason to doubt their accuracy.
Slicer has a long history, so if a more recently added extension needs to be compared with older ones then you may consider limiting your analysis range to releases from the past few years.
---
### Author:  [@lassoan](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/lassoan)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2023, 9:04pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/reliability-of-extension-stats/32236/5 "2023-10-16T21:04:48Z")
The main limitation of the download count that it does not reflect usage. For example, a completely useless extension may get larger download count if its name suggests that it could be useful.
We would need to collect usage statistics to more accurately measure impact or usefulness - see [Should we start collecting software usage data?](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/should-we-start-collecting-software-usage-data/30873)
---
### Author:  [@jamesobutler](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/jamesobutler)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2023, 10:44pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/reliability-of-extension-stats/32236/6 "2023-10-16T22:44:54Z")
> [@jcfr](#):
>
> Downloads for both the Slicer built-in extension manager or the corresponding web page loaded in a regular browser are accounted for.
@muratmaga What is meant by this is that both from within the Extensions Manager web browser inside the 3D Slicer application or from [https://extensions.slicer.org/catalog/All/31938/win](https://extensions.slicer.org/catalog/All/31938/win) which can be accessed by the instructions at [https://slicer.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user\_guide/extensions\_manager.html#download-extension-packages](https://slicer.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/extensions_manager.html#download-extension-packages).
---
### Author:  [@pieper](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/pieper)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2023, 11:10pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/reliability-of-extension-stats/32236/7 "2023-10-16T23:10:07Z")
@muratmaga you just spent a week with a bunch of users at the workshop, did you happen to get a sense of how they would feel about the question of sharing anonymous usage statistics? If not, could we reach out to them and ask?
I think most people would be okay with something along the lines of the RenderDoc example ([Should we start collecting software usage data? - #24 by jcfr](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/should-we-start-collecting-software-usage-data/30873/24)).
---
### Author:  [@muratmaga](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/muratmaga)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2023, 11:18pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/reliability-of-extension-stats/32236/8 "2023-10-16T23:18:02Z")
We did not discuss this (in hindsight would have been a good topic, but then we already have a good sense what modules Slicermorph users are interacting with).
I think most people would be ok with anonymous usage stats provided:
1. It is not intrusive and enabling the telemetry does not slow the work.
2. Clear indication of they would benefit from this.