Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

At 19:08 +0100 8/4/07, James Cridland wrote: On 4/8/07, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OpenBSD 1 visit Does that mean the user never came back!!?!??!?! It means that user never came back that month, yes. Possibly they visited on March 31st, and have b

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 4/8/07, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OpenBSD 1 visit Does that mean the user never came back!!?!??!?! It means that user never came back that month, yes. Possibly they visited on March 31st, and have been visiting every day since! ;) -- http://james.cridland.net/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

At 20:36 +0100 6/4/07, James Cridland wrote: I'm coming late to this discussion, as always, but if you're interested, here's the information from virginradio.co.uk (sitewide). Visits by operating system in March 2007 (compared with November 2005) Windows: 96.39% (was

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

I'm coming late to this discussion, as always, but if you're interested, here's the information from virginradio.co.uk (sitewide). Visits by operating system in March 2007 (compared with November 2005) Windows: 96.39% (was 97.45%) Macintosh: 2.87% (was 1.75%) Linux: 0.48% (was 0.55%) Unknown: 0.2

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

Return Receipt Your RE: [backstage] Browser Stats document

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

> It's certainly doesn't work as an argument against > misrepresenting statistics, but as they only person I know > who did double-maths-with-statistics for A-level, I guess I > am uniquely injured! It takes a certain kind of sadist to do that. It takes another to then take it to university le

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Bowyer > Sent: 31 March 2007 19:38 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats > > On 31/03/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 31/03/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 31/03/07, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 31/03/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Then maybe there is something to your conspiracy theory. Seem as the > > BBC's stats disagree with the BBC news articles. Something i

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 31/03/07, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 31/03/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then maybe there is something to your conspiracy theory. Seem as the > BBC's stats disagree with the BBC news articles. Something is not > quite right wouldn't you agree? > Either: > 1. Browser

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 31/03/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Then maybe there is something to your conspiracy theory. Seem as the BBC's stats disagree with the BBC news articles. Something is not quite right wouldn't you agree? Either: 1. Browser stats are inaccurate 2. BBC news article is wrong 3. The BBC is a

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 30/03/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The next "round number" above 0.4% is 0.5%. Yes, but I was stating what I would have expected the value to be, not stating the value presented with some rounding. On a sample of "visitors to BBC home page" - an inflation of over 1000% (

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

Windows for uch a long time, there are many small things which REALLY annoy me about using OSX - to the point where I can consciously feel my productivity worsening as a result. That hacks me off. > -Original Message- > From: Matthew Lamont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 30 Ma

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

Matthew Lamont wrote: I think that it depends on what your demographic is. If you are talking about people who barely know how to switch on a computer, then you are going to get windows users. For people who actually use a computer for what it is intended, then, for instance in the scientific

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

Oh and before I go you used the term "significant portion", how many would be considered significant? No, I didn't. I used the phrase "significant PROportion". I believe "Significant Portion" is either a pub rock band from Kings Lynn, or some kind of euphemism. Less frivolously, you stated

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 3/30/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 29/03/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Even 10% is significantly higher than 0.4% I was using 10% as an upper limit. If the true value was over 5% I would not be surprised. The next round number above 5% is 10% and over that would s

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 29/03/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Even 10% is significantly higher than 0.4% I was using 10% as an upper limit. If the true value was over 5% I would not be surprised. The next round number above 5% is 10% and over that would surprise me. No - this is not evidence. You

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

At 10:00 +0100 30/3/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: > > > bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX > Where? Hm, my mistake it was on a BBC site but not under the bbc.co.uk domain, I could look for other examples on bbc.co.uk but for now this will suffice. http://www.bbcworld.com/content/clickonline_archive_PC.asp

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

> I think that it depends on what your demographic is. If you > are talking about people who barely know how to switch on a > computer, then you are going to get windows users. For > people who actually use a computer for what it is intended, > then, for instance in the scientific community,

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

> For > people who actually use a computer for what it is intended, Wow. That's quite some statement. I'd compose an elegant riposte if I didn't have to go off to IKEA post haste, because I've just noticed on their website that the chair and desk I want to set up my desktop PC is in, and I hav

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

I think that it depends on what your demographic is. If you are talking about people who barely know how to switch on a computer, then you are going to get windows users. For people who actually use a computer for what it is intended, then, for instance in the scientific community, 50% of

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

Andy wrote: I can see how it got Netscape, FireFox is derived from the Netscape code base, but how it got from the word "Linux" into the word Mac I don't know. And this was for a user agent that was stating it's OS as Linux. Simple - Not Windows probably means Mac OS. In a tiny amount of cases

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

> > > bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX > > Where? > Hm, my mistake it was on a BBC site but not under the bbc.co.uk domain, I could look for other examples on bbc.co.uk but for now this will suffice. http://www.bbcworld.com/content/clickonline_archive_PC.asp?pageid=666&co _pageid=1 This site now appears to b

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

At 14:17 +0100 29/3/07, Brian Butterworth wrote: To summarise: Linux is truly "intelligent design" but no-one uses it as a desktop OS, or if they do they are too ashamed to connect to the internet and if they do they fake it as a Windows machine? Brian Butterworth Sorry, off topic. Gordo

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood > Sent: 29 March 2007 12:47 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats > > > Richard Lockwood said: > > > Andy - ordinary people do not generally use Linux as a desktop OS. > > >

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

Richard Lockwood said: > Andy - ordinary people do not generally use Linux as a desktop OS. Is there such a thing as an ordinary person? Any way my point was that the true figure may not be quite as low as stated. I did not say it would be greatly higher, certainly not higher than WindowsXP (by a

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

Frank Wales said: Admittedly, I've only met Jem a few times, but I feel I ought to defend his honour here by pointing out that I don't believe he's the misleading type. I apologise, I did not mean it as a personal attack. Sorry. I can't recall the last time I was blocked from content on bbc.c

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

What is more likely is: 0.4% of users WHERE DETECTED AS using a Linux operating system AT THE TIME THEY VISITED THE BBC SITE. Cam we assume that global stats (of random websites) show a higher number of Linux web clients that this, such as "wget" and "telnet www.example.com 80"? YMMV, Gor

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

> Is it possible that these stats could be provided > automatically, say on a daily basis so it can be used to > track the use of browsers and platforms. No. Slightly longer answer - the stats system is problematic, and doesn't provide easy ways to route this kind of thing externally. It's unde

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/jasoncartwright/377686574/> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 28 March 2007 12:35 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats On 28/03/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 28/03/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I suspect you already know this, and perhaps your question is rhetorical. I'll answer it anyhow :-). Some browsers had different interpretations of the standards and render pages radically differently from each other. Testing to the stand

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

you could not add the users of Eastenders to the users of Radio 1 because the total would double count any users that had used both sites. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy > Sent: 27 March 2007 17:19 > To: backstag

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

ase email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kim Plowright > Sent: 28 March 2007 11:04 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: RE: [backstage] Brows

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

the total would double count any users that had used both sites. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy > Sent: 27 March 2007 17:19 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats > > On 26/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

r designers) everything would be right with the world :-) J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Sent: 27 March 2007 17:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats On 26/03/07, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

> > 1) the BBC stats are biased, the site is target at Windows > > users and > > on certain pages blocks users of other OSes > That's not my experience of it; my usual browser is Firefox > on Gentoo Linux, and I can't recall the last time I was > blocked from content on bbc.co.uk. Ubuntu user

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

design. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Sent: 27 March 2007 17:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats On 26/03/07, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 0.4% of users at the time used a Li

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 3/27/07, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 26/03/07, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 0.4% of users at the time used a Linux operating system ;) That's not entirely true is it? Please do not try to mislead people. What is more likely is: 0.4% of users WHERE DETECTED AS using a Lin

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

Andy wrote: On 26/03/07, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 0.4% of users at the time used a Linux operating system ;) That's not entirely true is it? Please do not try to mislead people. Admittedly, I've only met Jem a few times, but I feel I ought to defend his honour here by pointin

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 26/03/07, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 0.4% of users at the time used a Linux operating system ;) That's not entirely true is it? Please do not try to mislead people. What is more likely is: 0.4% of users WHERE DETECTED AS using a Linux operating system AT THE TIME THEY VISITED

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

Hey, we just *did* publish it! :) I'll try and remember to send an update out every month or so, when I'm noodling through our stats system. > Thank you very much to everyone for sharing this data - it > really is very interesting. And I second the request for the > BBC to publish this data (ju

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

Hello all, Fantastic information - this is very interesting indeed. Thanks to Kim for the bbc.co.uk information, Richard and Brain for their information and James for the virginradio.co.uk and the other sites. I think this allows us all to build up quite a clear picture of what the 'avera

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

h 2007 14:06 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats Thanks Kim These are fab. Would be great if the BBC had somewhere where it published this information on a regular basis? While we're on the subject of browser testing, is anyone else using Yahoo's Graded B

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

Thanks Kim These are fab. Would be great if the BBC had somewhere where it published this information on a regular basis? While we're on the subject of browser testing, is anyone else using Yahoo's Graded Browser Support method? G On 26/03/07, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just for

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

Just for fun: the february data reworked to show the different flavours of IE at their appropriate % point. There's not much difference between Safari (all versions) and IE5.5 share. Again, I can't break out the different flavours of FF and Safari. Bear in mind this is % of PIs, not of users, so he

[backstage] Browser Stats

Here's a chunk of stats. This is based on Page views. Anything below about 100k page views is registering as Zero percent, FYI, although each browser listed is showing *some* page impressions. 3 page views were in IE1.5! How sweet. I've stripped out the PI numbers, sorry, as I think that might be