Comments on: A metrics update

By: walt

walt — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:32:21 +0000

Seth: I thought about that, but decided that I’ve got better things to do. Also heard from someone who was using a different tracking mechanism that’s not log analysis, and they have much the same issues: the numbers are MUCH lower than they are in Urchin or other log-analysis programs. It may be the nature of the beast.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:39:38 +0000

Thanks for the experiment report. FYI, the caps and “br” errors probably didn’t matter, but the nested-list issue(s) might have been significant to parsing.

If you’re interested, one quick other test would be to move the Google analytics code from before the end-body tag to just at the start of the body tag (I don’t believe anything requires it be at the end). This would make it parse sooner, so any problems further down in the document wouldn’t affect it.

By: walt

walt — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:46:11 +0000

Stephen: Not so. I’m dropping the Google Analytics code and keeping Urchin active–and Urchin analyzes logs directly. Not that I’ve ever had reasons to look at IP addresses…or care.

By: Stephen Michael Kellat

Stephen Michael Kellat — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:35:48 +0000

So all I need to do to read your blog in a stealthy fashion is to use Lynx/Links/Elinks/W3M/LibCurl? Interesting…

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:52:19 +0000

Thanks for these reports, Walt. I’ve been thinking about looking into Google Analytics but perhaps I ought just learn to a) look at my Urchin stats more often and b) learn to make sense of them.