Jeremy Wadsack wrote:
>Jim Sander wrote:
>
>> If you're going to commit to a "fudge factor" then why not simply use
>> that factor against some concrete metric- a ratio of requests for
>> pages to unique IP addresses during your site's busiest 15 minutes
>> maybe? I'd say that number would be at least as valid a measure of
>> "stickiness" as anything else and is a TON less intensive
>> computationally.
>
>I find this a much more helpful response then the Random Number Generator
>(sorry, Aengus).
Fair' nuff - I wasn't entirely serious. I still think my way gives the
best "bang for the buck"!, though :-)
But even Jims suggestion only gives you a site specific metric. Some
sites are far more likely to be visited by AOL users than others, for
example, and the ratio for a site with a lot of AOL users will be
severely skewed by AOLs proxy configuration. And that's the whole point
- there is no way to express this in a general fashion.
And I recognize that there can be value in such metrics. But a measure
such as ROI is only valuable as a "rule of thumb" metric because it's
based on very solid data. Log files just don't contain accurate
information on the things that your are proposing to measure. I can be
reasonably sure that a site that records 100,000 page requests a day
gets more traffic than one that gets 10,000, but I can't reasonably make
the same judgement about a site that records 12,000 requests, without
digging in a lot deeper.
Aengus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
