20488Re: Need feedback on sawmill.net
- Dec 10, 2008Yes, you got it right - The current version (7.x) only shows hits per
referrer. Hopefully, version 8 will correct this huge problem but I
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "amitonebit" <amit.ohayon@...> wrote:
> I'm not sure i got it all :)
> So...what they mean is that you can't see how many
> visits (sessions) made from a certain referrer
> or in other words you can't see any other dimension
> like visitor systems (and how many visits each generated)
> or geo location (and visits each location generated)
> Did i get it right?
> Thanks for your help.
> --- In email@example.com, "David Culbertson"
> <davidsculbertson@> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am independent web marketing consultant and I use sawmill for a
> > couple of clients. It has many nice features and seems to be fairly
> > accurate (when compared with other log file analyzers) but the
> > version (7.x) does have a BIG issue: It doesn't provide referrer
> > information for visits / sessions. Here's a reply that I got
> > from Sawmill on this issue in August of 2007:
> > ====================
> > There indeed to separate concepts here:
> > 1. Sessions (sometimes called "visits")
> > 2. Visitors (sometimes called "unique visitors")
> > Sawmill uses "sessions" and "visitors" to refer to these two.
> > we should use "unique visitors" instead of "visitors" is up in the
> > air; the question is whether "visitor" implies uniqueness strongly
> > enough that it can be used alone, or whether the uniqueness
> > implication is weak enough that it must be explicitly added with the
> > word "unique." WebTrends originally used "visitors" for this, as did
> > many other of the original analytics packages (including Sawmill,
> > which first shipped in 1996). Newer packages tend to call them
> > visitors"; I would call it a the style of the day. But I prefer
> > "visitors" alone, because I think the implication is that they are
> > unique, and it makes the tables look nicer when you use shorter
> > As for why we don't include Sessions in the Referrers table as a
> > separate column, well, cough, it's because we can't. Sawmill's
> > internal infrastructure keeps session information in a separate
> > which pretty well segregates session fields from non-session fields,
> > to the point that it's impossible to add a non-session field to a
> > session report (e.g., "bytes transferred" in the "session users"
> > report), or to add a session field to a non-session report (e.g.,
> > "sessions" to the "referrers" report). Sawmill computes session
> > information on-the-fly as the report is being generated, but
> > other fields during log processing. This is a very good choice in
> > ways (in particular, the log data does not have to be in
> > order), but it means that we can't compute sessions like we compute
> > other fields. The practical effect of this policy is the "session
> > fields and non-session fields don't mix" limitation. This is a basic
> > limitation of Sawmill 7, and there is not really any way around it.
> > However, in Sawmill 8, we have done the huge amount of work required
> > to fundamentally change our reporting and database infrastructure to
> > make session fields analogous to non-session fields. In Sawmill 8,
> > will be able to see "sessions" in the Referrers report, and it will
> > there by default. Sawmill 8 will ship later this year.
> > =========================
> > Sawmill 8 is currently in Alpha. I have not tried it so I don't know
> > if they actually fixed this issue as promised.
> > - Dave Culbertson
> > www.lightbulbinteractive.com
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "amitonebit" <amit.ohayon@>
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > We are looking to use some log file analysis tools,
> > > A one that is a real option other than web trends
> > > is sawmill. Any feedbacks on how customizable is it?
> > > how stable and accurate and such..?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>