On Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:02 PM [EDT], Dolling, Adrian EDUC:EX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would not put these two tools into the same conceptual class at all. Based on the hour or so I spent with "Visitors" the other day, and the demo I saw of Clicktracks last year, I'd have to agree - comparing Clicktracks to Vistors is like comparing a Lexus to a bicycle. It's a pity that the developer of Visitors didn't start with Analog and add his "web trails" functionality to it - visitors can't even cope with flexible logformats. The "web trails" notion is certainly interesting, but I'm not sure how useful it really is (Chicken and egg - I'd need to run it against a set of logs for a server that I understood well, and see how the "web trails" report stacked up against my own understanding of the site, but none of the servers I'm working with have the type of traffic patterns that would really benefit from a webtrails type of report. And the lack of flexibility in Visitors makes it too hard to figure out what it's really doing) Aengus +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this list: | http://lists.meer.net/mailman/listinfo/analog-help | | Analog Documentation: http://analog.cx/docs/Readme.html | List archives: http://www.analog.cx/docs/mailing.html#listarchives | Usenet version: news://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.analog.general +------------------------------------------------------------------------
