Note: httpd server logs are available on people.apache.org under /x1/logarchive/eosnew/www/
Up until recently ooo-site.apache.org was the line prefix for www.openoffice.org, but I've reconfigured things so www.openoffice.org is the right line prefix for relevant logfile entries. HTH >________________________________ > From: drew <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 2:46 PM >Subject: Re: Google Analytics on download.openoffice.org > >On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 10:40 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > >> > On 2012-03-23, at 12:03 , Kay Schenk wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 03/21/2012 07:23 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> > >> I'd like to enable Google Analytics on our download page. >> > >> >> > >> This would allow us to collect some important data, such as the >> > >> geographical distribution of download requests. This information has >> > >> been sought for 3.4 mirror distribution planning. It can also provide >> > >> continuity of our download statistics which we would otherwise lose >> > >> when moving off of MirrorBrain. >> > >> >> > >> Of course, if some else is willing to implement an alternative way of >> > >> collecting this info, then I'd love it hear it. But I think GA is the >> > >> most direct method. >> > >> >> > >> Lazy consensus, 72 hours, etc. >> > >> >> > >> -Rob >> > > This sounds fine with me. Yes, we should state our privacy policy on >> > use, and at some point, if you do produce a public report, maybe nix IP >> > addresses if that's a concern. >> > >> > I think nixing IP addresses is a necessity, if one were to publish this >> > data, as is informing the downloader of the privacy issues. >> > >> > >> >> This part is really easy, since Google Analytics does not provide us with >> IP addresses. It is giving us aggregate information, not per-user >> information. >> >> FWIW, we used to use several means to track downloads of the binaries. None >> > was particularly great and none satisfied the desires of corporate >> > marketing. And all made some in the corporate hierarchy uncomfortable, if >> > only because a download of a binary is hardly the same as a contribution to >> > source. >> > >> > We used Google Analytics but also, as was then called, Omniture. Selected >> > data were published in graphical form to the services wiki. >> > >> > In addition, more or less from the start, I published spreadsheets of >> > downloads, and particularized it according to language but not region. (I >> > also listed OS of version downloaded.) There were many problems to these >> > spreadsheets, as I noted at http://stats.openoffice.org/, not least of >> > which was spurious duplication and misleading numeration. >> > >> > What I always desired was a mechanism by which a successful download could >> > "call home", thus supplying rather useful information. In the end, a >> > version of just this was indeed done, via update calls, extensions, etc. >> > However, there was no direct insertion of such a mechanism. If we were ever >> > to do that, I would argue that we do need then to inform any would-be >> > downloader of the privacy issues. >> > >> > -louis >> > >> > PS Roberto asked me about the old data and if it a) was extant and b) >> > reflected geolocation. Answers: It was not extant, and I didn't keep the >> > raw data. (I could probably find it stuffed into some archive, but why? As >> > I pointed out to Roberto, the ODF Alliance information regarding ODF uptake >> > is actually a better indicator, as most ODF implementations they track were >> > or are based on OOo.) >> > >> > > >Howdy Louis, Kay, Rob, et al > >I've certainly delayed this long enough, longer then my intent in fact. > >There is no real question that analytics are important, Google is likely >the fastest and easiest road to acquiring them, I suppose. > >I'm glad that Louis added some historic view to the subject, it might be >worth noting that in the case of the Omniture data gathering campaign >individual site users could opt out. > >The real real question is access IMO, Louis also broached the subject of >his employer when he uses the phrase, "the desires of corporate >marketing". Historically of course, SUN or Oracle, the analytics where >the purview of the corporate owner. With Apache OpenOffice there of >course is no corporate owner, analytics are then a resource of the >Apache Software Foundation and from this flows, I would say, to the >(P)PMC. > >This distinction I would submit means that the full analytics are not >available to any specific employer of someone volunteering their time to >the communal effort within AOO. > >However, another way to look at that would be that the analytics are >available to all PPMC members. Of course as Rob points out, with Google >this requires access to a specific account, so it would make sense that >individual PPMC would need to request full access. > >I just want to emphasize that whomever is maintaining the Google account >is doing so as a steward for the entire Apache OpenOffice (P)PMC, at >least this is how I see it. > >Otherwise, it would make sense with regards to public access to not look >much beyond what basic charting was available in the past, but to at >least shot for building a system to deliver that. > >So, it seems everyone is ok with this and I certainly don't want to >deter it anylonger - it's a +1 from me now. > >@Rob - if I can help with generating reports, let me know. > >//drew > > > > > > > >
