Aengus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tuesday, January 16, 2007 5:55 AM [EDT], > Andreas Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Do crawlers and robots have any influence of the request report? If > >> so, how can I exclude the PIs crawler and robots produce? > > You can use HOSTEXCLUDE or BROWEXCLUDE (http://analog.cx/docs/include.html) > to exclude any robots/spiders that you identify. (There's an up to date list > of browser strings used by known Robots at > http://www.wadsack.com/robot-list.html)
START REPLY ANDREAS KUHN----------------- I will try this. Is there any possibility to exclude all robots identified by "includerobot"? END REPLY ANDREAS KUHN----------------- > > >> My problem is that I am using several reporttools. Comparing the > >> figures the analog-figures are about 50% higher than the others. Now > >> my question is, wether the crawler are producing this difference. > > They might be, but there are many reasons why different reporting methods > return different answers. Analog reports on the data in your web servers log > files, and you can be quite sure that it is extremely accurate. But its > reports depend on the parameters that it is told to use (include/exclude > certain hosts, ignore image requests, what counts as a page, etc). If you > use a different method that uses different parameters, you'll get a > different result. START REPLY ANDREAS KUHN----------------- Well you are right. And I am trying to compare Apple and oranges, (Serverlogs and 0-pixel-tracking). It is clear to me, that i wont get the same figures. I expect difference of about 10% more or less. My former experiences with analog were quit good, so I am about to believe analog. ;-)) But if analog gives me the correct figures the other system might have a failure; propably I am making a mistake .... Filtering I am starting with --snip-- #FILTER Fileexclude * Fileinclude *de2*html Fileinclude *en2*html Fileinclude *.pdf etc. --snap-- So I only should get 'html' files and pdf-files. END REPLY ANDREAS KUHN----------------- > > If you don't understand the paraemeters that your different reporting > methods are using, it's a waste of time comparing them. You can compare this > months Analog results to last months, and learn something useful from the > comparison, you won't learn anything useful by comparing an Analog report to > some other report unless you understand the assumptions that both reports > are based on. START REPLY ANDREAS KUHN----------------- I am just doing this comparison to know wether the new system works and gives me similar figures. I am not expecting exactly the same figures. END REPLY ANDREAS KUHN----------------- > > 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 > +------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 +------------------------------------------------------------------------
