On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Iain Hunneybell wrote:
>
> Yeah I read the 'webworks' document and thought it an excellent explaination
> :-) I've passed it on to others with whom it's sometimes a struggle to
> explain these concepts. It's a very useful doc and I wasn't aware of the AOL
> behaviour, but...
>
> The issue I've got is the WT count is _less_ than the analog count and my
> expectation would be for it to be higher. If the issue was AOL user sessions
> coming through as a high number of different IPs (as explained in
> 'webworks') then I'd expect to see a much higher WT count as (say) 10 AOL
> users will generate (say) 200 different IPs (unique hosts)
Sorry, I misread your previous mail -- I'd imagined you'd said the opposite.
I agree, if it was just a hostcount with refinements, then WebTrends' figure
should be higher. But don't ask me to explain what WebTrends counts. I've
never met anyone who can figure it out for sure.
> > Of course, I can't say if that accounts for it all. You might like to test
> > them both with small invented logfiles to see if they're both
> > reporting what
> > you think they should be.
>
> What do you mean by inverted?? Reversed time sequence?
>
InveNted, not inverted. :)
--
Stephen Turner http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Statistical Laboratory, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WB, England
"Your account can only be used for a single internet session at any one
time and for no more than 24 hours in any one day." (NTL terms of use)
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
