I don't want to get into some sort of 'WT is overly creative' flame war here
and waste everyone's time, so this will be my last post.
>If you have an example where WT has
>produced pure twoddle, please post.
Okay, maybe pure twoddle was a bit wide of the mark - let's say genetically
modified twoddle 8). It is better to be simpler and accurate than to be
fancy. At best, the WT reports below are wrong, at worst totally inaccurate
and misleading. If your client came back to you and asked you to explain the
logic (and ergo accuracy) behind these reports would you be totally at ease
telling them? I know I wouldn't and that's why I don't use the software.
pathways within site
entry page
exit page
visit length
page views per visitor session
first time users
etc etc
For an explanation of why these are inaccurate
http://www.analog.cx/docs/webworks.html - have you actually read this? I
would hope that you're not sending out reports without having done
so........
>By 'detailed' I mean presentation wise. In my experience, marketing
>departments want clear and precise graphs/trends/percentage differences
>and this is what WT is good at - the report e-mailed as a word document
>is particularly powerful. I have not used Report Magic but I imagine both
>have strength's and weakeness.
ReportMagic in conjunction with Analog makes it very easy to produce a word
document with the above.
>It really is 'try and see which is best
>for you'.
Absolutely - I'm all for the free market, but the original poster was asking
for cases to support his choice of Analog to his marketing people and I am
doing that.
regards to y'all
charl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
