# Consolidated Pageviews accuracy

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/consolidated-pageviews-accuracy/107193>\
**Category:** Data & reporting\
**Created:** [January 22, 2019, 4:51pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/consolidated-pageviews-accuracy/107193 "2019-01-22T16:51:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![j.jaffeux](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/j.jaffeux/32/60297_2.png) [@j.jaffeux](https://meta.discourse.org/u/j.jaffeux)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2019, 6:03pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/consolidated-pageviews-accuracy/107193/2 "2019-01-22T18:03:29Z")

</div>

It’s not related to the new report which is using the same data you can find in other reports for a long time.

Concerning other questions:

> [@L30110](#):
>
> The crawler count is similarly suspect

What’s your basis to consider it suspect?

> [@L30110](#):
>
> but I’m seeing the stats claim a lot of “anonymous user” page views on my site, which ONLY permits access by logged-in user

Even if only logged in, as you said some pages are still accessible as you said, especially /login. Can’t tell you exactly what’s going on with your instance with no data, but this is what I see on a similar instance:

 ![57](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/3X/a/1/a1a1aa3ad2bf594a8dc9c98e1cee53ec396d0097.png)

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/consolidated-pageviews-accuracy/107193)._