We're not using Google analytics; that bug is outdated since the new site launched a few days ago. We are now using piwik webserver log analysis.
I don't know where those other estimates came from. It'll be unsurprising that my numbers sound the most reasonable to me. The stats site goes into detail on what exactly the estimates are of and how they're generated; you can compare that to the PETS and CENO techniques. I'll be interested to learn how they differ - could you report back if you find anything? I'd actually expect at least one of those to be the total number of unique identifiers observed over some period, which does not reflect network size as far as number of nodes regularly online. I'm not sure how accuracy might be improved. As mentioned in the explanation section of my stats page, weighting by the uptime percentage included with each probe identifier might help, but it's not especially clear what sort of weighting is appropriate. - Steve On Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 11:39 PM <salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com> wrote: > For Pete's sake don't run Google analytics on your site. I saw a ticket > for it on bug tracker. Piwik is an open source analytics system you can > try instead. > > Speaking of analytics, I am trying to learn the network size. Steve's > site reports 10K nodes, the 2014 PETS paper puts it around 60K nodes > after harvesting node information and CENO says theres 100K nodes. Which > do I believe and how can there be more accuracy? > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl@freenetproject.org > https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
