Before we went to Google Analytics we tried using referrer in the logs to track paths through our site. Something like 40% of browser visits (i.e. excluding known robots) did not report referrer properly. It was random and therefore totally useless.
Interesting. I suppose it depends on how many pageviews your average visitor is making. I see anything from 1.8 pageviews on average for http://lyricslist.com/ to 5.4 pageviews on average at http://what-is-what.com/ and on the sites with higher page views, less than 10%-20% don't have referers. Both sites are currently running Google Analytics and a third stats tracker (Extremetracking) for confirmation.
We thought about that, but at that point we were doing the exact same thing Google Analytics does anyway. We figured why not just use them, which is way easier and more powerful.
Free (as in beer) web design and hosting was probably enough to buy them out.
Microsoft paid for the software, the programming, and even the hardware for the Library of Congress's network to convince them to use Silverlight. It worked.
This has far reaching implications for all browsers. If you can't track a huge portion of the pie using google/yahoo analytics then it makes no since using 3rd party tracking software. The user in me cheers, the site administrator in me cringes.
That's why I've gone back to parsing the Apache logs. It really contains 99% of what you need: the user agent and referer. As I design for 800-1680 width screens, the user screen size does not matter to me. I use the referer to know who's linking to me, what keywords they searched from, and to know if this is a new session or not. If there is no referer then I set a cookie to track session.
The apache logs are great, and really include most of the info one needs. Tip: if you can host non-html pages (css, js, images) on a subdomain then it makes the parsing a lot easier. You don't want to account for files that were included in another page.
Really? I'll take if from you if you insist, it's been over a decade and a half since I've played that game. Maybe I'll start looking for an emulator and a ROM for linux, I'd really like to play it again.
Until you get the next time where someone has a genius idea with a subtle flaw that doesn't get caught until it goes through the 3rd level of red tape. When you are talking about a big enough organization, any amount of bureaucracy and layers will pay for itself if it prevents a single huge mistake every couple years.
Quite the opposite. Each layer can then try to blame the one above / below it. When there are only 2 / 3 layers of bureaucracy, each takes on more responsibility.
The same people who install browser tool bars that crash their system, waste 3 of your hours having you read the HP laserjet manual because they can't get their favorite font to print in order to impress a big-wig, etc. Bad users often want the freedom to make a mess, but don't want to pay for the clean-up.
There needs to be better priority allocation such that those who abuse IT services stop getting a free ride.
There needs to be better priority allocation such that those who abuse IT services stop getting a free ride.
There are those who would argue that the _purpose_ of an IT team is to help users who have installed a malicious toolbar or need to print a specific font.
Her IT department is layered, not flat. The fact that simple changes take 6 months shows that it's not 5000 doing anything useful, it's probably more like 2000 doing something useful, who have to ask the 1000 above them, who need signatures from the 500 above them, who need approval from the 200 above them, etc. They sheer number of them is hurting their performance, not helping.
Don't blame the Engineers. They are just following their orders or they can find a new employer. If they are cool perhaps we can find lithographed etcha sketches for clues.
1) TFA says that this system IS Apollo-based 2) In the test, it was not the 'chute that failed under design conditions, but rather the test was outside design bounds. In other words, just like the title of this page says, the mock-up was a failure, the parachute being mocked up did not fail. 3) The test was a success: data was learned from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Before we went to Google Analytics we tried using referrer in the logs to track paths through our site. Something like 40% of browser visits (i.e. excluding known robots) did not report referrer properly. It was random and therefore totally useless.
Interesting. I suppose it depends on how many pageviews your average visitor is making. I see anything from 1.8 pageviews on average for http://lyricslist.com/ to 5.4 pageviews on average at http://what-is-what.com/ and on the sites with higher page views, less than 10%-20% don't have referers. Both sites are currently running Google Analytics and a third stats tracker (Extremetracking) for confirmation.
We thought about that, but at that point we were doing the exact same thing Google Analytics does anyway. We figured why not just use them, which is way easier and more powerful.
I suppose that I suffer from NDH syndrome.
Does this work with lesbians? :)
I will definitely have to try!
Free (as in beer) web design and hosting was probably enough to buy them out.
Microsoft paid for the software, the programming, and even the hardware for the Library of Congress's network to convince them to use Silverlight. It worked.
You, my friend, have very low standards.
So would you if you were alone in deep space. Hole-and-a-heartbeat looks like high standards from there.
Seriously, are you just stupid or what?
Seriously, I am just stupid, you insensitive clod.
That's not third-party.
This has far reaching implications for all browsers. If you can't track a huge portion of the pie using google/yahoo analytics then it makes no since using 3rd party tracking software. The user in me cheers, the site administrator in me cringes.
That's why I've gone back to parsing the Apache logs. It really contains 99% of what you need: the user agent and referer. As I design for 800-1680 width screens, the user screen size does not matter to me. I use the referer to know who's linking to me, what keywords they searched from, and to know if this is a new session or not. If there is no referer then I set a cookie to track session.
The apache logs are great, and really include most of the info one needs. Tip: if you can host non-html pages (css, js, images) on a subdomain then it makes the parsing a lot easier. You don't want to account for files that were included in another page.
And shortly after inserted into the dreaded 'just friends' category.
Right, they will treat you like a girlfriend if you act like one.
You must be new here, we don't know any females. :(
Females? Aren't those the things on Google Images with funny privates?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Sbaitso
Try to keep up with the rest of the class.
Actually, according to the wikipedia article:
Its AI engine was likely based on something similar to the ELIZA algorithm.
So ELIZA was first, indeed, I remember ELIZA but have never heard of Dr. Sbaitso.
I didn't exactly suggest that it is the norm or anything!
Really? I'll take if from you if you insist, it's been over a decade and a half since I've played that game. Maybe I'll start looking for an emulator and a ROM for linux, I'd really like to play it again.
Only one B A is required....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami_Code
Not from my experience with Contra. Maybe in other Konami games, though.
Sigh, 7 replies later and I'm still getting this kind of one-liner replies. Maybe you people don't care about Linux on the desktop after all?
If I didn't, would I bother with this:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/linux_compatibility.php
Because cheats impress babes. left-right-left-right-a-b-start! left-right-left-right-a-b-start! I think I feel tingley.
Up up down down left right left right B A B A
Have you never played Contra?!?
But will it become an important player on the desktop?
According to TFS, 2038 will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.
Until you get the next time where someone has a genius idea with a subtle flaw that doesn't get caught until it goes through the 3rd level of red tape.
When you are talking about a big enough organization, any amount of bureaucracy and layers will pay for itself if it prevents a single huge mistake every couple years.
Quite the opposite. Each layer can then try to blame the one above / below it. When there are only 2 / 3 layers of bureaucracy, each takes on more responsibility.
The users and the business hate us.
The same people who install browser tool bars that crash their system, waste 3 of your hours having you read the HP laserjet manual because they can't get their favorite font to print in order to impress a big-wig, etc. Bad users often want the freedom to make a mess, but don't want to pay for the clean-up.
There needs to be better priority allocation such that those who abuse IT services stop getting a free ride.
There needs to be better priority allocation such that those who abuse IT services stop getting a free ride.
There are those who would argue that the _purpose_ of an IT team is to help users who have installed a malicious toolbar or need to print a specific font.
Links are redirects to Youtube Rickroll video
Er, no, they are not. Mod AC idiot.
Her IT department is layered, not flat. The fact that simple changes take 6 months shows that it's not 5000 doing anything useful, it's probably more like 2000 doing something useful, who have to ask the 1000 above them, who need signatures from the 500 above them, who need approval from the 200 above them, etc. They sheer number of them is hurting their performance, not helping.
He asked for ideas, not solutions!
Don't blame the Engineers. They are just following their orders or they can find a new employer. If they are cool perhaps we can find lithographed etcha sketches for clues.
Good point. In any case, be sure to write to the companies involved in any project that concerns you. This is how I do it:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/linux_compatibility.php
http://dotancohen.com/eng/firefox_compatibility.php
I was going to read it, then noticed that I'm on idle.~, so I stopped.
1) TFA says that this system IS Apollo-based
2) In the test, it was not the 'chute that failed under design conditions, but rather the test was outside design bounds. In other words, just like the title of this page says, the mock-up was a failure, the parachute being mocked up did not fail.
3) The test was a success: data was learned from it.
You mean two. Read up on the second strike capability.
Good point.