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

A question about when large portals report their uniques?

Expand Messages
  • nicolerawski
    When large portals report that they have XYZ# of uniques. Are they referring to unique visits to the site or unique visitors to the site? The two numbers are
    Message 1 of 15 , Apr 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      When large portals report that they have XYZ# of uniques. Are they referring to
      unique visits to the site or unique visitors to the site?

      The two numbers are very different and I understand the difference, but
      would like to know what the industry standard is when some refers to
      their "uniques."

      Thank you,

      Nicole
    • nicolerawski
      Now I m confused. When I pull the absolute number of unique visitors, I am getting a number that is about 1/3 of our actual visits. ... referring to ... but
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 30, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Now I'm confused. When I pull the absolute number of unique visitors, I
        am getting a number that is about 1/3 of our actual visits.

        --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "nicolerawski" <Nicole@...> wrote:
        >
        > When large portals report that they have XYZ# of uniques. Are they
        referring to
        > unique visits to the site or unique visitors to the site?
        >
        > The two numbers are very different and I understand the difference,
        but
        > would like to know what the industry standard is when some refers to
        > their "uniques."
        >
        > Thank you,
        >
        > Nicole
        >
      • MM
        Nicole- In the Analytics world and on a day to day lingo it is implicit that Uniques refer to Unique Visitors. Personally, I don t know if Unique Visits
        Message 3 of 15 , Apr 30, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Nicole-

          In the Analytics world and on a day to day lingo it is implicit that Uniques
          refer to Unique Visitors. Personally, I don't know if Unique Visits provides
          you with any additional information other than Unique Visitors, (One might
          change the way a visit cookie is defined), other than that using Unique
          Visits as a metric might just confuse things.
          Can you provide some context on the numbers. Perhaps we could provide you
          with better insights?

          Best,

          Kanishka


          On 4/30/07, nicolerawski <Nicole@...> wrote:
          >
          > When large portals report that they have XYZ# of uniques. Are they
          > referring to
          > unique visits to the site or unique visitors to the site?
          >
          > The two numbers are very different and I understand the difference, but
          > would like to know what the industry standard is when some refers to
          > their "uniques."
          >
          > Thank you,
          >
          > Nicole
          >
          >
          >



          --
          Thanks,

          KS


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Shorful Islam
          We refer to Unique visitors, it demonstrates our reach regards Shorful ... From: nicolerawski To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007
          Message 4 of 15 , Apr 30, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            We refer to Unique visitors, it demonstrates our reach

            regards

            Shorful


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: nicolerawski
            To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 5:23 PM
            Subject: [webanalytics] A question about when large portals report their uniques?


            When large portals report that they have XYZ# of uniques. Are they referring to
            unique visits to the site or unique visitors to the site?

            The two numbers are very different and I understand the difference, but
            would like to know what the industry standard is when some refers to
            their "uniques."

            Thank you,

            Nicole





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • nicolerawski
            This makes sense. Thank you all for your help! ... that Uniques ... provides ... (One might ... Unique ... provide you ... they ... difference, but ... to
            Message 5 of 15 , Apr 30, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              This makes sense. Thank you all for your help!

              --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, MM <bristolnational@...> wrote:
              >
              > Nicole-
              >
              > In the Analytics world and on a day to day lingo it is implicit
              that Uniques
              > refer to Unique Visitors. Personally, I don't know if Unique Visits
              provides
              > you with any additional information other than Unique Visitors,
              (One might
              > change the way a visit cookie is defined), other than that using
              Unique
              > Visits as a metric might just confuse things.
              > Can you provide some context on the numbers. Perhaps we could
              provide you
              > with better insights?
              >
              > Best,
              >
              > Kanishka
              >
              >
              > On 4/30/07, nicolerawski <Nicole@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > When large portals report that they have XYZ# of uniques. Are
              they
              > > referring to
              > > unique visits to the site or unique visitors to the site?
              > >
              > > The two numbers are very different and I understand the
              difference, but
              > > would like to know what the industry standard is when some refers
              to
              > > their "uniques."
              > >
              > > Thank you,
              > >
              > > Nicole
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > --
              > Thanks,
              >
              > KS
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Josh Chasin
              Since Unique Visitors is a way to get at reach, how do folks here think that Unique Visitors translates into unique persons, given the recent
              Message 6 of 15 , Apr 30, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Since Unique Visitors is a way to get at reach, how do folks here think that Unique Visitors translates into unique persons, given the recent IAB/comScore/NetRatings hubbub? E.g., cookie deletion, individual persons using multiple computers, etc.

                --josh--
                (New here)

                Joshua Chasin
                Principal
                Warp Speed Marketing, Inc.
                345 East 81st Street 14K
                New York, NY 10028
                jchasin@...
                office: 212.517.8917
                cell: 646,623.1201
                Yahoo IM: joshchasin


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Shorful Islam
                To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 5:08 PM
                Subject: Re: [webanalytics] A question about when large portals report their uniques?


                We refer to Unique visitors, it demonstrates our reach

                regards

                Shorful

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: nicolerawski
                To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 5:23 PM
                Subject: [webanalytics] A question about when large portals report their uniques?

                When large portals report that they have XYZ# of uniques. Are they referring to
                unique visits to the site or unique visitors to the site?

                The two numbers are very different and I understand the difference, but
                would like to know what the industry standard is when some refers to
                their "uniques."

                Thank you,

                Nicole

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Narong, Jon
                Josh, I think there are a lot of variables, depending on your particular audience segment profiles, which could skew these results. For instance, are there a
                Message 7 of 15 , May 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Josh,

                  I think there are a lot of variables, depending on your particular
                  audience segment profiles, which could skew these results. For instance,
                  are there a lot of students that could be logging in from a shared
                  library computer? On the other side of the spectrum, if you have a more
                  mature demographic (60+), odds are that visitors are not logging in from
                  multiple computers.

                  I don't think there's a general rule to calculate unique eyeballs from
                  unique visitors.

                  Jon

                  ________________________________

                  From: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:webanalytics@yahoogroups.com]
                  On Behalf Of Josh Chasin
                  Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 5:28 PM
                  To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [webanalytics] A question about when large portals report
                  their uniques?



                  Since Unique Visitors is a way to get at reach, how do folks here think
                  that Unique Visitors translates into unique persons, given the recent
                  IAB/comScore/NetRatings hubbub? E.g., cookie deletion, individual
                  persons using multiple computers, etc.

                  --josh--
                  (New here)

                  Joshua Chasin
                  Principal
                  Warp Speed Marketing, Inc.
                  345 East 81st Street 14K
                  New York, NY 10028
                  jchasin@... <mailto:jchasin%40nyc.rr.com>
                  office: 212.517.8917
                  cell: 646,623.1201
                  Yahoo IM: joshchasin

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Shorful Islam
                  To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com <mailto:webanalytics%40yahoogroups.com>

                  Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 5:08 PM
                  Subject: Re: [webanalytics] A question about when large portals report
                  their uniques?

                  We refer to Unique visitors, it demonstrates our reach

                  regards

                  Shorful

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: nicolerawski
                  To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com <mailto:webanalytics%40yahoogroups.com>

                  Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 5:23 PM
                  Subject: [webanalytics] A question about when large portals report their
                  uniques?

                  When large portals report that they have XYZ# of uniques. Are they
                  referring to
                  unique visits to the site or unique visitors to the site?

                  The two numbers are very different and I understand the difference, but
                  would like to know what the industry standard is when some refers to
                  their "uniques."

                  Thank you,

                  Nicole

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Jon Whitehead
                  Hi all does anyone have any recommendations on content being archived/deleted based on a minimum usage, say for example only 100 unique visitors to a section
                  Message 8 of 15 , May 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi all

                    does anyone have any recommendations on content being
                    archived/deleted
                    based on a minimum usage, say for example only 100 unique visitors to
                    a section over 6 months, where the overall site has recieved over
                    100,000 uniques in that time?

                    Obviously when content has not been accessed at all over a period
                    then it should be discarded/rewritten/rethought, but I'm not sure
                    where to draw a line when the content is visited but at a low level.

                    cheers

                    Jon Whitehead
                  • Steve
                    It s been a while with no (apparent?) answer, so I ll have a shot at it for you. ... As with everything there is a balance. * Cost of maintaining old data -
                    Message 9 of 15 , May 6, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It's been a while with no (apparent?) answer, so I'll have a shot at it for you.

                      On 5/3/07, Jon Whitehead <jonnywhitehead@...> wrote:
                      > does anyone have any recommendations on content being
                      > archived/deleted
                      > based on a minimum usage, say for example only 100 unique visitors to
                      > a section over 6 months, where the overall site has recieved over
                      > 100,000 uniques in that time?
                      >
                      > Obviously when content has not been accessed at all over a period
                      > then it should be discarded/rewritten/rethought, but I'm not sure
                      > where to draw a line when the content is visited but at a low level.


                      As with everything there is a balance.
                      * Cost of maintaining old data - ranges from significant to beyond
                      trivial. Is generally higher than most people realise tho.
                      * Relevance of old data
                      * Archive vs Delete (as you mention)
                      * Value of old data. Is it complimentary to the rest of the site, or
                      jarring; to hit the extremes.
                      * Is the info duplicated elsewhere?
                      * Transient in nature (eg news)
                      * Incoming links?
                      * Search Engine Results?
                      * You mention a ratio of 0.1%. Are they "High Value" users? If so,
                      perhaps the data should be updated and given greater relevance to the
                      rest of the site?


                      The summary point being that visitor numbers, IMHO, alone shouldn't be
                      the sole determinate in what should/shouldn't go.

                      To give a live example, the content team at work semi automatically
                      delete old news items quite regularly. They are effectively archived
                      into the database, but are no longer active. No Analytics numbers are
                      checked to make this call.

                      Old pages are either merged with more relevant ones, or eventually
                      archived. This is done without any reference to Analytics in the first
                      instance. We prefer to operate reactively on that - if we see largish
                      numbers hit the old page we'll put in a redirect as/to appropriate. I
                      don't think I've ever seen more than 100 users over a week hit a
                      dumped page. Which for us, is a beyond trivial number. Ergo we don't
                      expend precious resources fixing problems that don't exist.


                      HTH?

                      Cheers!

                      - Steve
                    • Debbie Pascoe
                      Tagging onto Steve s comments, you may have pages that are getting NO traffic - those pages would be ideal candidates for decommissioning and archiving, as
                      Message 10 of 15 , May 7, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tagging onto Steve's comments, you may have pages that are getting NO
                        traffic - those pages would be ideal candidates for decommissioning
                        and archiving, as they are costing $$ while delivering no value in
                        return.

                        Debbie Pascoe
                        MAXAMINE, Inc.

                        > As with everything there is a balance.
                        > * Cost of maintaining old data - ranges from significant to beyond
                        > trivial. Is generally higher than most people realise tho.
                        > * Relevance of old data
                        > * Archive vs Delete (as you mention)
                        > * Value of old data. Is it complimentary to the rest of the site, or
                        > jarring; to hit the extremes.
                        > * Is the info duplicated elsewhere?
                        > * Transient in nature (eg news)
                        > * Incoming links?
                        > * Search Engine Results?
                        > * You mention a ratio of 0.1%. Are they "High Value" users? If so,
                        > perhaps the data should be updated and given greater relevance to the
                        > rest of the site?
                        >
                        >
                        > The summary point being that visitor numbers, IMHO, alone shouldn't
                        be the sole determinate in what should/shouldn't go....
                      • Paul Holstein
                        Debbie, That s a great point. Do you know of a way to get a report of pages with no traffic? As far as I can tell, Omniture doesn t do it. The only way I
                        Message 11 of 15 , May 8, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Debbie,

                          That's a great point. Do you know of a way to get a report of pages
                          with no traffic? As far as I can tell, Omniture doesn't do it.

                          The only way I would think to do it would be to export a list of all
                          my URLs (from my own crawl) and then compare it to a list of all
                          trafficked URLs. The difficult part may be to parse out the URLs to
                          de-dupe them (because of tracking codes and system parameters).
                          Anyone have any other ideas?

                          -- Paul


                          --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "Debbie Pascoe" <dpascoe@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Tagging onto Steve's comments, you may have pages that are getting NO
                          > traffic - those pages would be ideal candidates for decommissioning
                          > and archiving, as they are costing $$ while delivering no value in
                          > return.
                          >
                          > Debbie Pascoe
                          > MAXAMINE, Inc.
                          >
                          > > As with everything there is a balance.
                          > > * Cost of maintaining old data - ranges from significant to beyond
                          > > trivial. Is generally higher than most people realise tho.
                          > > * Relevance of old data
                          > > * Archive vs Delete (as you mention)
                          > > * Value of old data. Is it complimentary to the rest of the site, or
                          > > jarring; to hit the extremes.
                          > > * Is the info duplicated elsewhere?
                          > > * Transient in nature (eg news)
                          > > * Incoming links?
                          > > * Search Engine Results?
                          > > * You mention a ratio of 0.1%. Are they "High Value" users? If so,
                          > > perhaps the data should be updated and given greater relevance to the
                          > > rest of the site?
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > The summary point being that visitor numbers, IMHO, alone shouldn't
                          > be the sole determinate in what should/shouldn't go....
                          >
                        • Tim Wilson
                          I have a sneaking suspicion that MAXAMINE offers something that will help with this... ;-) Regards, Tim ________________________________ From:
                          Message 12 of 15 , May 8, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I have a sneaking suspicion that MAXAMINE offers something that will
                            help with this... ;-)



                            Regards,

                            Tim



                            ________________________________

                            From: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:webanalytics@yahoogroups.com]
                            On Behalf Of Paul Holstein
                            Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:09 AM
                            To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [webanalytics] Re: minimum usage



                            Debbie,

                            That's a great point. Do you know of a way to get a report of pages
                            with no traffic? As far as I can tell, Omniture doesn't do it.

                            The only way I would think to do it would be to export a list of all
                            my URLs (from my own crawl) and then compare it to a list of all
                            trafficked URLs. The difficult part may be to parse out the URLs to
                            de-dupe them (because of tracking codes and system parameters).
                            Anyone have any other ideas?

                            -- Paul

                            --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
                            <mailto:webanalytics%40yahoogroups.com> , "Debbie Pascoe" <dpascoe@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > Tagging onto Steve's comments, you may have pages that are getting NO
                            > traffic - those pages would be ideal candidates for decommissioning
                            > and archiving, as they are costing $$ while delivering no value in
                            > return.
                            >
                            > Debbie Pascoe
                            > MAXAMINE, Inc.
                            >
                            > > As with everything there is a balance.
                            > > * Cost of maintaining old data - ranges from significant to beyond
                            > > trivial. Is generally higher than most people realise tho.
                            > > * Relevance of old data
                            > > * Archive vs Delete (as you mention)
                            > > * Value of old data. Is it complimentary to the rest of the site, or
                            > > jarring; to hit the extremes.
                            > > * Is the info duplicated elsewhere?
                            > > * Transient in nature (eg news)
                            > > * Incoming links?
                            > > * Search Engine Results?
                            > > * You mention a ratio of 0.1%. Are they "High Value" users? If so,
                            > > perhaps the data should be updated and given greater relevance to
                            the
                            > > rest of the site?
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > The summary point being that visitor numbers, IMHO, alone shouldn't
                            > be the sole determinate in what should/shouldn't go....
                            >





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Steve
                            It s moderately tricky and typically very system specific to discover *all* pages on a site. eg. Crawling assumes all your pages are even accessible via a
                            Message 13 of 15 , May 8, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              It's moderately tricky and typically very system specific to discover
                              *all* pages on a site.
                              eg. Crawling assumes all your pages are even accessible via a crawl.
                              Is dead easy to make pages that are inaccessible.
                              So you *may* need to be able to access the raw database and infer. In
                              some cases.
                              This is why I prefer using Search Engine crawls as a baseline to infer
                              unseen/unused pages. They "remember" pages that are no longer
                              accessible via crawls and hence to the average punter.


                              There was a discussion in Nov last year related to this.
                              http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/webanalytics/message/8576?l=1

                              The bonus is this is the sort of technically challenging question that
                              if phrased appropriately can get your IT folk falling all over
                              themselves to answer correctly. :-)


                              HTH?
                              Cheers!

                              - Steve

                              On 5/9/07, Paul Holstein <paul@...> wrote:
                              > Debbie,
                              >
                              > That's a great point. Do you know of a way to get a report of pages
                              > with no traffic? As far as I can tell, Omniture doesn't do it.
                              >
                              > The only way I would think to do it would be to export a list of all
                              > my URLs (from my own crawl) and then compare it to a list of all
                              > trafficked URLs. The difficult part may be to parse out the URLs to
                              > de-dupe them (because of tracking codes and system parameters).
                              > Anyone have any other ideas?
                            • Debbie Pascoe
                              Hi Paul, The way to do it is to have an inventory of your pages, then compare your inventory with pages that have traffic to them - this comparison/gap
                              Message 14 of 15 , May 8, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Paul,
                                The way to do it is to have an inventory of your pages, then compare
                                your inventory with pages that have traffic to them - this
                                comparison/gap analysis will give you the list of pages that had no
                                traffic - your "hit list" of candidates for retirement.

                                The key is to have the page inventory in the first place, so you're on
                                the right track re: doing a crawl; it sounds like the methodology
                                you're using is much harder than it has to be (de-duping, etc). And
                                while you might have the skills to create your own page collection
                                method, other organizations may not have that skill in-house, and
                                their efforts - if they attempt to tackle it inhouse - may be
                                complicated by the development techniques used to create the site.

                                Advanced web design techniques such as complex Java Scripting used for
                                menu creation, page tagging, client-side functionality, server side
                                scripting methods for page creation, catalog sites, transactional
                                sites, navigation links buried in flash, personalization via cookies
                                and password-protected areas all present complexities WRT creating a
                                scanning engine to collect a page inventory.

                                That commercial where the doctor is advising the patient about how to
                                conduct an abdominal incision with a kitchen knife comes to mind :-O

                                I can help with an accurate, complete coherent page inventory -
                                contact me off-line if you want to know more.

                                While I'm thinking about it, does anyone here have any current
                                cost-per-page figures WRT page maintenance?

                                Debbie Pascoe
                                MAXAMINE, Inc.



                                --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Holstein" <paul@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Debbie,
                                >
                                > That's a great point. Do you know of a way to get a report of pages
                                > with no traffic? As far as I can tell, Omniture doesn't do it.
                                >
                                > The only way I would think to do it would be to export a list of all
                                > my URLs (from my own crawl) and then compare it to a list of all
                                > trafficked URLs. The difficult part may be to parse out the URLs to
                                > de-dupe them (because of tracking codes and system parameters).
                                > Anyone have any other ideas?
                                >
                                > -- Paul

                                >
                              • metronomelabs
                                Passive Data Capture sees all traffic in both directction at the HTTP/S, HTML, TCP/IP levels. It cleans, filters an dsessionizes in real-time an dcan emulate
                                Message 15 of 15 , May 11, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Passive Data Capture sees all traffic in both directction at the
                                  HTTP/S, HTML, TCP/IP levels. It cleans, filters an dsessionizes in
                                  real-time an dcan emulate any log file format with any data you want
                                  including emulating tagging server logs.

                                  www.metronomelabs.com

                                  --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Holstein" <paul@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Debbie,
                                  >
                                  > That's a great point. Do you know of a way to get a report of
                                  pages
                                  > with no traffic? As far as I can tell, Omniture doesn't do it.
                                  >
                                  > The only way I would think to do it would be to export a list of
                                  all
                                  > my URLs (from my own crawl) and then compare it to a list of all
                                  > trafficked URLs. The difficult part may be to parse out the URLs
                                  to
                                  > de-dupe them (because of tracking codes and system parameters).
                                  > Anyone have any other ideas?
                                  >
                                  > -- Paul
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "Debbie Pascoe" <dpascoe@>
                                  wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Tagging onto Steve's comments, you may have pages that are
                                  getting NO
                                  > > traffic - those pages would be ideal candidates for
                                  decommissioning
                                  > > and archiving, as they are costing $$ while delivering no value
                                  in
                                  > > return.
                                  > >
                                  > > Debbie Pascoe
                                  > > MAXAMINE, Inc.
                                  > >
                                  > > > As with everything there is a balance.
                                  > > > * Cost of maintaining old data - ranges from significant to
                                  beyond
                                  > > > trivial. Is generally higher than most people realise tho.
                                  > > > * Relevance of old data
                                  > > > * Archive vs Delete (as you mention)
                                  > > > * Value of old data. Is it complimentary to the rest of the
                                  site, or
                                  > > > jarring; to hit the extremes.
                                  > > > * Is the info duplicated elsewhere?
                                  > > > * Transient in nature (eg news)
                                  > > > * Incoming links?
                                  > > > * Search Engine Results?
                                  > > > * You mention a ratio of 0.1%. Are they "High Value" users? If
                                  so,
                                  > > > perhaps the data should be updated and given greater relevance
                                  to the
                                  > > > rest of the site?
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > The summary point being that visitor numbers, IMHO, alone
                                  shouldn't
                                  > > be the sole determinate in what should/shouldn't go....
                                  > >
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.