nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exclude Rovo agent activity from Confluence Space Analytics

Laura Montagner

Rovo agent page reads and contributions are currently included in Confluence Space Analytics across all tabs (Overview, Content, and Users). In our case, the Rovo agent has generated hundreds of views and contributions in our space, significantly inflating our analytics.

We use Space Analytics to track adoption of our Professional Services Knowledge Base as part of a documentation migration initiative. With Rovo activity mixed into the data, our metrics are unreliable — we can't distinguish genuine human engagement from automated agent activity.

Request: Please either:

Exclude automated agent/bot activity from Space Analytics by default, or
Provide a filter option to toggle bot/agent views on and off

This would help teams that rely on analytics for measuring real user adoption and content effectiveness. So far the only workaround seems to download the excel extract from the Activity page, I do not see an entry for the Rovo Agent there but it forces us to redo the reporting somewhere else.

Comments

Martin Runge

Hi @Laura Montagner

Are the inflated numbers coming from the agent itself by automations, or from users reading pages the agent surfaced in chat or other sessions? The second case is genuine human engagement, and you probably want to keep it.

For the product ask, I would raise it as a suggestion on https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/CONFCLOUD so other customers can vote, and then link the ticket back in this thread.

I found two existing entries worth checking as:

CONFCLOUD-84850 Rovo agent page views do not resolve the Confluence user identity.
CONFCLOUD-84878 AI Rovo agent's interaction with page registers as 'anonymous user' in page analytics.

Cheers, Martin

Laura Montagner

Hello @Martin Runge

It seems to be a mix between the updates made to pages with Rovo's help and views facilitated by Rovo surfacing content or looking up pages. There are different entries for each individual user who performed these actions with Rovo. Being able to filter them in and out would be the best option so we can actually compare and measure work done manually and AI assisted work.

Rebekka Heilmann (viadee)

I agree with you, Laura.

Rovo views are especially a problem for open-by-default Confluence setups. Rovo may surface content that has the right keywords but is completely irrelevant. If that happens quite a lot, these pages seem to be active even though they may be a candidate for archiving.

Currently there is no way of telling Rovo that a source was not helpful for the question. That would be ideal to have and gain insights from those so archiving concepts could be based on that and not just pure numbers.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Quick Links

Find more posts tagged with

confluence

confluence-cloud

analytics