[thelist] hits vs sessions

Fri Dec 8 06:42:32 CST 2000

yeah i know what you mean,
i hear a lot of people talk about hits, but hits really miss the point. I
have a page that generates 75 hits each time it gets called.
So if i have 30 visitors a day (not a high traffic website) my homepage
generates 2250 hits a day.
I prefer to use unique visitors to messure the traffic on my website. I'm
developping a php system that uses the Log files in apache to track down
every unique visitor. A unique visitor is a visitor that hasn't visited the
website in 30 minutes.

Joris Kluivers

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herzog, Ari" <Ari_Herzog at Instron.com>
To: <thelist at lists.evolt.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 PM
Subject: [thelist] hits vs sessions

> I love when people talk about hits.
> It means nothing, really.
> It's the visitor sessions which speak volumes.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jeff [mailto:jeff at members.evolt.org]
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 8:53 AM
> To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: RE: [thelist] Netscape 6 loads page twice
>
>
> jake,
>
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : From: Jacob Stetser
> :
> : I don't believe Netscape deserves a horrible death;
> : while I may prefer IE as my main browser (and
> : Macintosh as my main OS ;) that doesn't mean that
> : Netscape is itself a bad browser. Considering the
> : number of people using Netscape is still significant
> : and eventually many will upgrade, it's a fair bet you
> : do want to fix things.
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> according to thecounter.com they logged a total of 554,519,878 hits for
the
> month of october.  approximately 13% of those hits were from nn4 users.
an
> amazing 81% of the hits came from ie4/ie5.  i'm not sure that less than
15%
> of an audience could be considered significant.  i'd rate that as a
portion
> of your audience that you're you want the site to be usable for, but not
> enough to warrant the additional development time necessary to make all
the
> bells and whistles work for.
>
> on top of that, nn6 users accounted for less than 0.05% of the total hits.
> not only that, but i don't expect those numbers to change very much any
time
> soon.  i think the damage to netscape has been done and it's too much to
> recover from.
>
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : As someone once said here: AOL owns Netscape
> : now.  What would happen to your site if the internal
> : AOL browser used Netscape instead of IE?
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> what does aol honestly have to gain by bundling their software with
netscape
> as the browser?  if they skip on their licensing agreement with microsoft
> then they lose the portion of that agreement that places their icon on the
> desktop of all new pc's.  not only that, but they run the risk of losing
> placement on new pc's entirely.  that's not a smart business move on their
> part.  furthermore, why would they switch their customers away from a
> browser that has such a large market penetration to something that has
next
> to zero market penetration, potentially inflicting unnecessary errors, as
> the ill-web-educated aol user will see them (but you and i know are
related
> to a site not being w3 compliant), upon their users?  (deep breath).
>
> i think the thing we're all forgetting is that to the casual user there's
no
> reason to upgrade to nn6 or switch from ie4/ie5/opera/whatever.  it just
> doesn't make sense.  some will do it because they have a poweruser friend
> that says they should, but they use it a couple of times and will get
tired
> of sites that used to work no longer working properly and abandon it,
never
> to come back.
>
> personally, i used to be a die-hard fan of netscape and for good reason.
in
> the days of nn2 and nn3 what other options were there?  ie3 was laughable
at
> best.  however, i am now quite content to develop exclusively for ie4+
> (preferably ie5.0).  while i applaud netscape for their efforts i think it
> should have been started long ago and should have  been finished long ago.
> i think that in waiting so long they've introduced yet another thorn into
> the side of all developers.  now we not only have to develop for all the
> quirks of the current mix of browsers we're committed to supporting, but
we
> also have to code to nn6 as well.  either that or we have to decide to
code
> completely to standards, building a site that will work in a browser that
> 0.05% of our audience uses and grin and bear it for the other 99.95% of
our
> users who will experience problems.  it just doesn't make sense.
>
> bottom line - you should be coding to standards, but don't do it for the
nn6
> users cause they're not likely to be around terribly long.  do it for the
> future of your work, but don't do it to the point of giving yourself
ulcers.
>
> just my 2c,
>
> .jeff
>
> name://jeff.howden
> game://web.development
> http://www.evolt.org/
> mailto:jeff at members.evolt.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> For unsubscribe and other options, including
> the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
> http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !
>
> ---------------------------------------
> For unsubscribe and other options, including
> the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
> http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !