maybe because of filtering? webtrends filters might not process certain log
entires that do get analyzed by analog.
William I. Martin
Senior Programmer
www.SPACE.com
Phone 212-703-5871
FAX 212-703-5900
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iain Hunneybell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 12:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [analog-help] Hosts vs Visitors
>
> I know and understand the hosts vs. visitors arguement well and the analog
> 'How the web works' document is excellent at explaining such issues to
> others keen for 'visitor counts', however...
>
> I've seen other discussion of analog vs. WebTrends and I've been doing
> some work to validate WT results with analog (I've even got close
> answers!). However, looking at the 'Distinct Hosts Served' figures vs. the
> equivalent WT 'Visits' and 'Unique Visitors' counts, I find analog gives a
> significantly (60%+) higher count than WT does for 'Unique Visitors'.
>
> This surprises me. I'd have thought that a strict 'Hosts count' - which I
> presume means unique IP - would give a _lower_ count than a WT 'visitors'
> count as WT might count as two or more 'visitors' the same IP if separated
> by a significant amount of time (like >30 mins).
>
> Anyone any ideas on why an analog 'Hosts count' should come out higher
> than a WT 'visitors' count?
>
> .../Iain
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
| This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
| mailing list, go to
| http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html
|
| List archives are available at
| http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
| http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/archives/
| http://www.tallylist.com/archives/index.cfm/mlist.7
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
