Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17478Re: Analtyics voor mobile phones.

Expand Messages
  • nethab1
    May 29, 2008
      No Analytics tool (log file or javascript or noscript based) is 100%
      accurate.

      As Avinash likes to say (paraphrase) "they all suck, just pick the
      tool that sucks less for you"

      --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "Brendan Butterworth"
      <brenbutterworth@...> wrote:
      >
      > Greets Craig,
      >
      > Take a quick re-read. I'm talking dictionary definition of
      > accuracy, which is to say "having determinate limitations; exactly or
      > sharply defined or stated; definite; exact; nice; not vague or
      > equivocal." I'm also very specific about the scope of log analysis -
      > it is exactly what happened on the web server, and is a tool that is
      > very effective for network administration, useful for threat
      > detection, capacity planning, and so on.
      >
      > I agree that there are efficient caches, and I did highlight that
      > JavaScript will generally allow you to circumvent these and "measure
      > page views even when the page wasn't requested from your server".
      >
      > I also pointed out that the numbers generated by a JavaScript
      > implementation will depend on various factors (I've snuck in one
      > more):
      >
      > - Presence or absence of noscript tag
      > - Location of the JavaScript tag on the page
      > - Client use of anti-tracking browser extensions, firewalls, proxies,
      > and HOSTS files
      >
      > Other members of the list may have more to add.
      >
      > All of these illustrate to me that the numbers generated by a
      > JavaScript implementation are not "exactly or sharply defined", that
      > they are vague to a certain, unmeasurable degree.
      >
      > Overall, I stand by my assertion that, when it comes down to it, web
      > analytics isn't about numbers, and therefore accuracy doesn't have to
      > play a front and center role. It's about trending, and when you're
      > trending, consistency is a great stand-in for accuracy.
      >
      > /brendan.
      >
      > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Craig Sullivan
      > <craig.sullivan@...> wrote:
      > > Brendan,
      > >
      > > The efficiency of caching systems means that javascript tagging is
      > > always going to be more accurate than log files.
      > >
      > > There are local caches maintained by the browser (IE is particularly
      > > aggressive) and many ISPs (e.g. AOL) operate large banks of
      intermediate
      > > proxy servers that also do caching between client and origin server.
      > > The net effect of losing cached page views will make a serious dent in
      > > the figures.
      > >
      > > Regards,
      > >
      > > <http://www.lovefilm.com/>
      > >
      > > Craig Sullivan
      > >
      > > Product Manager - Digital and Usability
      > > LOVEFiLM.com <http://www.lovefilm.com/>
      > >
      > > No.9 | 6 Portal Way | London | W3 6RU
      > > T: (020) 8896 8050 | M: (0)7711 657315 | F: 0208 896 8110
      > > craig.sullivan@...
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > >
      > > From: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:webanalytics@yahoogroups.com]
      > > On Behalf Of Brendan Butterworth
      > > Sent: 29 May 2008 10:20
      > > To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: Re: [webanalytics] Analtyics voor mobile phones.
      > >
      > > I have to jump in on the 'analyzing server log files are not so
      > > accurate as JavaScript tagging' comment.
      > >
      > > Web server log analysis gives you the best picture of what happened on
      > > the web server. It remains an excellent tool for understanding the
      > > actual use of the resources, a great way of detecting and analyzing
      > > attacks on servers - overall a solid tool for a network administrator.
      > >
      > > JavaScript tagging usually circumvents caches (allowing you to measure
      > > page views even when the page wasn't requested from your server). It
      > > will either include a noscript tag in order to track HTTP clients
      > > without JavaScript, or ignore non-JavaScript enabled browsers,
      > > depending on tool and implementation, which has a unique set of
      > > implications. This type of tracking can be blocked by certain browser
      > > plugins. JavaScript is generally easier to implement, since it
      > > doesn't care about physical web server location, and can be
      > > outsourced. Generally, JavaScript tagging is the method preferred by
      > > business and marketing types - especially since it's more often tied
      > > to recognizable brand names.
      > >
      > > Personally, I would say outright that JavaScript tagging is less
      > > accurate (in the dictionary sense of accurate) than log analysis.
      > > However, the business of web analytics isn't knowing you had exactly
      > > 107 page views - it's knowing that the number of visitors to the web
      > > site this month has increased in a statistically significant manner of
      > > the number of visitors last month. It's knowing that the tweaks made
      > > to the buying funnel have resulted in an increase in conversions.
      > > Most of the time it's not about numbers - it's about trends.
      > >
      > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 2:37 AM, emiel.kamzol <emiel.kamzol@...
      > > <mailto:emiel.kamzol%40gmail.com> > wrote:
      > >> Hi there,
      > >> I'm trying to find out how web analytics works for websites designed
      > >> for mobile phone's. I understand that its not working whit javascript
      > >> tagging and loading an 1x1 px image.
      > >>
      > >> Is it true that it only works whit analyzing local server log file?
      > >> ore is there also another way? Because I understand that analyzing
      > >> server log files are not so accurate as javascript tagging.
      > >>
      > >> Thanks in advance.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > > Click here
      > > <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==
      > > 7P4dbE+IChnN5l5+flwC7GlwbYQXZWrJQtKlpYdScFxEUA==> to report this email
      > > as spam.
      > >
      > > LOVEFiLM International Limited is a company registered in England
      and Wales.
      > > Registered Number: 04392195. Registered Office: No.9, 6 Portal
      Way, London
      > > W3 6RU, United Kingdom.
      > >
      > > This e-mail is confidential to the ordinary user of the e-mail
      address to
      > > which it was addressed. If you have received it in error, please
      delete it
      > > from your system and notify the sender immediately.
      > >
      > > This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl -
      > > www.blackspider.com
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic