Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Gordon Joly]

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 been visiting every 
day since! ;)





BSD dudes... so fickle.

Gordo


--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[James Cridland]

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

[Gordon Joly]

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 97.45%)
Macintosh: 2.87% (was 1.75%)
Linux: 0.48% (was 0.55%)
Unknown: 0.25% (was 0.21%)
SunOS: 0.01% (was 0.03%)
FreeBSD: 34 visits
OS/2: 5 visits
OpenBSD 1 visit

We used to use Saga Analytics, like the BBC does, but I found it 
quite poor and unsuitable for our needs; so we switched to Urchin, 
and paid for a while before it suddenly became a free service 
branded Google Analytics. Suits my budget line!


Two interesting headline figures: our Linux share seems similar, if 
slightly larger, than the BBC's but it doesn't appear to be growing; 
and there has been a clear rise in users of the Macintosh platform 
over the past year.


Points to note: Virgin Radio's website is designed without any 
Windows-specific stuff, and works perfectly with Ubuntu (including 
our live audio which defaults, on that platform, to a Flash-based 
MP3 player); Google Analytics will only measure JavaScript-enabled 
browsers (Ubuntu, at least, has JavaScript switched on by default 
just like every other system); and naturally GA will only measure 
systems that aren't lying about who they are (one reason why Opera 
has done badly in internet stats, to my understanding).


Hope this is intersting to everyone. Keep up the good work chaps.

--
http://james.cridland.net/




 OpenBSD 1 visit


Does that mean the user never came back!!?!??!?!

Gordo


--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[James Cridland]

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: 0.25% (was 0.21%)
SunOS: 0.01% (was 0.03%)
FreeBSD: 34 visits
OS/2: 5 visits
OpenBSD 1 visit

We used to use Saga Analytics, like the BBC does, but I found it quite poor
and unsuitable for our needs; so we switched to Urchin, and paid for a while
before it suddenly became a free service branded Google Analytics. Suits my
budget line!

Two interesting headline figures: our Linux share seems similar, if slightly
larger, than the BBC's but it doesn't appear to be growing; and there has
been a clear rise in users of the Macintosh platform over the past year.

Points to note: Virgin Radio's website is designed without any
Windows-specific stuff, and works perfectly with Ubuntu (including our live
audio which defaults, on that platform, to a Flash-based MP3 player); Google
Analytics will only measure JavaScript-enabled browsers (Ubuntu, at least,
has JavaScript switched on by default just like every other system); and
naturally GA will only measure systems that aren't lying about who they are
(one reason why Opera has done badly in internet stats, to my
understanding).

Hope this is intersting to everyone. Keep up the good work chaps.

--
http://james.cridland.net/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Andre . Berthold]

Return Receipt
   
   Your   RE: [backstage] Browser Stats
   document:   
   
   wasAndré Berthold/IN/BA/SWR/DE  
   received
   by: 
   
   at:02.04.2007 14:50:07  
   





-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Andrew Bowden]

> 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 level...  

On the other hand, at university, we got to use R.  With for those that
don't know, is a bit like S.
http://www.r-project.org/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Brian Butterworth]

> -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]> 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 is 
> > > > not quite right wouldn't you agree?
> > > > Either:
> > > > 1. Browser stats are inaccurate
> > > > 2. BBC news article is wrong
> > > > 3. The BBC is attracting less of the Linux users to it's site 
> > > > (something that should be looked at seriously as this 
> could be an 
> > > > indication the BBC is interfering with commercial markets).
> > > >
> > > > Pick one. (or add another).
> > >
> > > 4. Only you care enough to waste time with this argument?
> >
> > 5. I like using redundant and grammatically incorrect 
> question marks?
> 
> You can always tell when a discussion has come to its logical 
> end - someone resorts to criticising spelling or grammar.

Yeah, it's like comparing someone or something to Hitler or the Nazi's (as
in "Hitler was a vegetarian")...

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!


> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Peter Bowyer
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To 
> unsubscribe, please visit 
> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
>   Unofficial list archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release 
> Date: 30/03/2007 13:15
>  
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.24/742 - Release Date: 01/04/2007
20:49
 

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Peter Bowyer]

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 is not
> > quite right wouldn't you agree?
> > Either:
> > 1. Browser stats are inaccurate
> > 2. BBC news article is wrong
> > 3. The BBC is attracting less of the Linux users to it's site
> > (something that should be looked at seriously as this could be an
> > indication the BBC is interfering with commercial markets).
> >
> > Pick one. (or add another).
>
> 4. Only you care enough to waste time with this argument?

5. I like using redundant and grammatically incorrect question marks?


You can always tell when a discussion has come to its logical end -
someone resorts to criticising spelling or grammar.




--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[vijay chopra]

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 stats are inaccurate
> 2. BBC news article is wrong
> 3. The BBC is attracting less of the Linux users to it's site
> (something that should be looked at seriously as this could be an
> indication the BBC is interfering with commercial markets).
>
> Pick one. (or add another).

4. Only you care enough to waste time with this argument?



5. I like using redundant and grammatically incorrect question marks?

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Peter Bowyer]

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 attracting less of the Linux users to it's site
(something that should be looked at seriously as this could be an
indication the BBC is interfering with commercial markets).

Pick one. (or add another).


4. Only you care enough to waste time with this argument?

--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Andy]

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% (as you are suggesting now - 0.4% to 5%) is, frankly, unlikely.


Odd then that an official BBC news article claims that the value is
closer to 6% isn't it?
Quote:

However, analysts believe that approximately 6% of computers users run Linux

Link:

(Incidentally Thursday's most popular story)



If you'd argued that Linux use was more likely to be 0.5% than 0.4% you'd:
a) Possibly have a point
b) Have been wasting everyone's time.


I am (or was) arguing that it was likely to be closer to the 5% mark
than the 0.4% mark (approximately one order of magnitude out).


However, in your
previous posts, you state that as the BBC stats "suggest" that Linux
use is only 0.4%


Indeed, what do you think they suggest?


, they are obviously wrong due to a conspiracy, and
that Linux use is, in 'fact' (with no evidence), over 1000% higher
than that.


I don't _remember_ using the word conspiracy.

The chances of them being completely accurate is extremely remote.
Hitting such a small target (the true value) without taking account of
inaccuracies would be more to do with luck than actual statistics.

a 1000% difference isn't unrealistic considering we are dealing with
the low end of the percentages. And the fact one of the things that
was not accounted for is the traffic generated by spam robots. In
email traffic spammers contribute to 90% (rounded down figure from the
Guardian) of the traffic. I.e. Only 1 in 10 messages are genuine. Why
are you assuming that they would not be generating similar traffic
over HTTP? In fact it would make sense for it to be higher. (Harder to
filter out hacked home boxes over HTTP than email, no dynamic IP
should ever be passing on mail, in HTTP you would expect connections
from dynamic addresses).


"Possible inaccuracies" do not cover that kind of imagined
error margin.


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 attracting less of the Linux users to it's site
(something that should be looked at seriously as this could be an
indication the BBC is interfering with commercial markets).

Pick one. (or add another).

Andy


--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Christopher Woods]

I'd take issue with that sweeping stateent - pretty much all of my student
friends have laptops, some have both. I live in a house with five other
people - in total there's three mac users and three windows users. Me, I'm a
Windows expert, one of my housemates is a Mac expert. The other three are
more 'users' than 'power users' - but whenever there's a problem with one of
the Macs, they usually end up coming to me for help (and I can usually sort
the problem out even though I hate macs and osx). The mac users can't make
head nor tail of how the OS works - they just don't "understand" it. It's
like watching my mum use a computer - she uses it by rote, she doesn't
understand 'how' it works or how it achieves what it does.

Inded, MANY of the more technically-minded people on my course either use
Windows or ave both a pc and a mac - and I only use a mac because I have to
(music tech and production course, we do lotsof work with DAWs and protools
et al, and that's always traditionally been a mac-led industry). I often
find that people I speak to who have PCs understand how they work better
than the people with Macs - they're much more newbie users.

Of course, there's many MANY expert Mac users out there, but to me it seems
that age range of people I hang around with seem to buy macs much more for
the style impact, because they look pretty, than for what they offer
technology-wise. 

It depresses me, we need some kind of intelligence test which will bar a
machine from starting up if they get it wrong, that'll weed out the people
who are clueless users fast enough (and solve problems like phishing and
botnets - which would then indirectly lessen the problem of spam - imho,
because only people who don't know how to secure their machines fall prey to
those kinds of social engineering).




Personaly I always prefer to remain platform-agnostic, and it really annoys
me when I have to stay locked in to any one platform, whether it's windows
OR mac. After using 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 March 2007 15:03
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: 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 people 
> use Macs because of the UNIX base, then 30% are Linux users 
> and the rest use Windows.
> 
> Cheers,
> Matt
> 
> Thank you to those who donated to my rowing challenge.  We 
> managed to raise over £3000 ($6000) for Teesside Hospice.
> 
> England expects that every man will do his duty - Admiral 
> Horatio Lord Nelson, 21st October 1805
> 
> --
> --
> 
> Matthew A. C. Lamont 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WNSL - West, Room 309phone: (203) 432 5834
> Physics Department, Yale University   fax:   (203) 432 8926
> P.O. Box 208124
> 272 Whitney Avenue
> New Haven, CT 06520-8124, USA
> --
> --
> -
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 Mar 2007, at 08:11, Kirk Northrop wrote:
> 
> > 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 
> > it means Linux, or DOS or OS/2 etc, but even this is a tiny 
> percentage 
> > compared to Mac OS, and anyone using such an OS is likely 
> to be tech 
> > minded.
> >
> > --
> > From the North, this is Kirk
> > -
> > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, 
> > please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/
> > mailing_list.html.  Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- 
> > archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
> 
> 
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To 
> unsubscribe, please visit 
> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
>   Unofficial list archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Kirk Northrop]

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 community, 50% 
of people use Macs because of the UNIX base, then 30% are Linux users 
and the rest use Windows.


Oh yes, of course. But over the wider population it's all Windows and 
occasional Macs.


--
From the North, this is Kirk
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Richard Lockwood]

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 that you believe that 10% of people
visiting the BBC website would be using Linux (later back-pedalled to
maybe 5%).  I'd say for an operating system, yes, 5% is significant*.

Rich.

* I'm not using the word "significant" in its statistical sense - this
is my opinion.  My A level was "Further Maths with Mechanics" - not
stats.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Richard Lockwood]

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 surprise me.


The next "round number" above 0.4% is 0.5%.

On a sample of "visitors to BBC home page" - an inflation of over
1000% (as you are suggesting now - 0.4% to 5%) is, frankly, unlikely.

If you'd argued that Linux use was more likely to be 0.5% than 0.4% you'd:
a) Possibly have a point
b) Have been wasting everyone's time.



> No - this is not evidence.  You're coming up with a series of
> hypotheses to fit your scenario - that a significant proportion of
> people use Linux as a desktop OS.  This is the same arguing technique
> that proponants of Intelligent Design use.  "You can't prove
> otherwise, so it must be true."

Maybe I should have phrased what a said differently? Will you allow me
to do so now?

There are possible inaccuracies associated with this metric for
judging Operating System usage. This may cause the number to be
inaccurate so can not be relied on as 'proof' as that would require an
element of certainty. It can been seen as to suggest certain things
however.



Certainly, and you are of course quite right.  However, in your
previous posts, you state that as the BBC stats "suggest" that Linux
use is only 0.4%, they are obviously wrong due to a conspiracy, and
that Linux use is, in 'fact' (with no evidence), over 1000% higher
than that.  "Possible inaccuracies" do not cover that kind of imagined
error margin.  You're going to need to backpedal a lot more than that
to get out of this one.

Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Andy]

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 coming up with a series of
hypotheses to fit your scenario - that a significant proportion of
people use Linux as a desktop OS.  This is the same arguing technique
that proponants of Intelligent Design use.  "You can't prove
otherwise, so it must be true."


Maybe I should have phrased what a said differently? Will you allow me
to do so now?

There are possible inaccuracies associated with this metric for
judging Operating System usage. This may cause the number to be
inaccurate so can not be relied on as 'proof' as that would require an
element of certainty. It can been seen as to suggest certain things
however.


There was a very interesting (and to my mind, fairly written) article
in The Register yesterday about installing Linux:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/28/desktop_linux/  (cue
Linux-heads bleating about how he should've used a different distro


Thanks for the cue ;)

PCLinuxOS is experimental, see it's download page. Experimental
technology is not going to work properly. Please use a more stable
system if you want to actually have any kind of meaningful comparison.

In summary, you should not claim statistics as "proof" of something
unless it can be shown that all possible failings in the metric where
accounted for. You have not shown this.

It suggests that the usage of Linux is very low at the time, it does
not _prove_ it categorically.

And I don't need to prove it to be wrong to prove it doesn't prove something.
Remember not being able to prove "A" does not prove "not A"

The truth is probably that know one knows for certain what the usage
of any operating system is.

Incidentally the BBC itself had a story that suggested a figure of 6%.
(lost the link, it was about Dell planing to offer Linux boxes, was on
the front page of the technology news, I will find the link if you
want it)

Oh and before I go you used the term "significant portion", how many
would be considered significant?


Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Gordon Joly]

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?pageid=666&co
_pageid=1
This site now appears to be dead.

bbcworld.com is run by BBC Worldwide, a commerical organisation with
entirely different aims to the public service publishers of bbc.co.uk.

J




BBC Worldwide is wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC (a corporation 
established by Charter). I believe that there is a complex set of 
relationships, and that these are laid down for all BBC staff to 
follow. For example, the BBC can advertise BBC Worldwide merchandise, 
but not beyond a certain level.


Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Brian Butterworth]

> 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 people 
> use Macs because of the UNIX base, then 30% are Linux users 
> and the rest use Windows.

Wow... It takes you back to the old days where the great divided UNIX armies
were BSD and System V ... 

.. Oh right, Mac OS/X is BSD ... Linux a rewrite of Sys V...  

La plus ca change la plus la difference.

As for "for what it is intended" can I refer sir to the History Of The
Internet please, because at the epoch, UNIX begat TCP/IP...



> 
> Cheers,
> Matt
> 
> Thank you to those who donated to my rowing challenge.  We 
> managed to raise over £3000 ($6000) for Teesside Hospice.
> 
> England expects that every man will do his duty - Admiral 
> Horatio Lord Nelson, 21st October 1805
> 
> --
> --
> 
> Matthew A. C. Lamont 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WNSL - West, Room 309phone: (203) 432 5834
> Physics Department, Yale University   fax:   (203) 432 8926
> P.O. Box 208124
> 272 Whitney Avenue
> New Haven, CT 06520-8124, USA
> --
> --
> -
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 Mar 2007, at 08:11, Kirk Northrop wrote:
> 
> > 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 
> > it means Linux, or DOS or OS/2 etc, but even this is a tiny 
> percentage 
> > compared to Mac OS, and anyone using such an OS is likely 
> to be tech 
> > minded.
> >
> > --
> > From the North, this is Kirk
> > -
> > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, 
> > please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/
> > mailing_list.html.  Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- 
> > archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
> 
> 
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To 
> unsubscribe, please visit 
> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
>   Unofficial list archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.22/739 - Release 
> Date: 29/03/2007 13:36
>  
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.22/739 - Release Date: 29/03/2007
13:36
 


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Kim Plowright]

> 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 haven't played Warcraft
in a month because the ergonomics on the sofa are all wrong. It means
I'll be able to stream my music to the living room too, finally, and get
round to editing that video of my mum making omlette and pop it up on
youtube.

:)

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Matthew Lamont]

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 people use Macs because of the UNIX  
base, then 30% are Linux users and the rest use Windows.


Cheers,
Matt

Thank you to those who donated to my rowing challenge.  We managed to  
raise over £3000 ($6000) for Teesside Hospice.


England expects that every man will do his duty - Admiral Horatio  
Lord Nelson, 21st October 1805


 


Matthew A. C. Lamont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WNSL - West, Room 309phone: (203) 432 5834
Physics Department, Yale University   fax:   (203) 432 8926
P.O. Box 208124
272 Whitney Avenue
New Haven, CT 06520-8124, USA
 
-




On 30 Mar 2007, at 08:11, Kirk Northrop wrote:


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 it means Linux, or DOS or OS/2 etc, but even this is a tiny  
percentage compared to Mac OS, and anyone using such an OS is  
likely to be tech minded.


--
From the North, this is Kirk
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,  
please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ 
mailing_list.html.  Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- 
archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/



-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Kirk Northrop]

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 it 
means Linux, or DOS or OS/2 etc, but even this is a tiny percentage 
compared to Mac OS, and anyone using such an OS is likely to be tech minded.


--
From the North, this is Kirk
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Jason Cartwright]

> > > 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 be dead.

bbcworld.com is run by BBC Worldwide, a commerical organisation with
entirely different aims to the public service publishers of bbc.co.uk.

J

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Gordon Joly]

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


--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Brian Butterworth]

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


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [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.
> >
> > 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 long way).
> >
> > I would be quite surprised if it was more than 10%.
> 
> Even 10% is significantly higher than 0.4%
> 
> >
> > Richard also said:
> 
> > > Here, for example, you find a figure you wish was a lot 
> higher, and 
> > > then come up with a load of reasons why it might be inaccurate, 
> > > without providing any evidence for a single one of them.
> >
> > I would have thought they where all self explanatory, evidently not.
> >
> > Many studies have shown that Junk email makes up 90% of all email.
> > Why are you assuming that the same people are not using websites to 
> > launch attacks?
> > Have you never heard the phrase "comment spam", have you 
> never seen a 
> > "captcha", they're not there to look good.
> > Stick your email address on a public website, wait a bit and see if 
> > you get spam. How do you think they knew that was your 
> email address?
> > Because robots do trawl the Internet looking for email 
> addresses. The 
> > BBC site is more likely to be hit by these as lots of places link 
> > there so it's easy to find.
> 
> No - this is not evidence.  You're coming up with a series of 
> hypotheses to fit your scenario - that a significant 
> proportion of people use Linux as a desktop OS.  This is the 
> same arguing technique that proponants of Intelligent Design 
> use.  "You can't prove otherwise, so it must be true."
> 
> >
> > Jason Cartwright wrote:
> > > but add that these numbers are
> > > probably generated by some pretty sophisticated 3rd part software 
> > > that the BBC employs.
> >
> > But we don't know that do we?
> > Have you ever seem how bad user agent sniffing is?
> >
> > I was using a PC running FireFox on Linux that transmitted the word 
> > "Linux" in its user agent. I was told by a major website that I was 
> > running "Netscape" on "Mac OS".
> 
> Again - just because the BBC's technique *might* be 
> inaccurate doesn't mean it *is* inaccurate.  Likewise, 
> because you want to believe that Linux is massively popular 
> doesn't mean it is.
> 
> There was a very interesting (and to my mind, fairly written) 
> article in The Register yesterday about installing Linux:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/28/desktop_linux/  (cue 
> Linux-heads bleating about how he should've used a different 
> distro, or how the author must be brain dead not to be able 
> to get it right first time...)  I care not one way or the 
> other, but it goes to show why Linux still isn't ready for 
> everyman to go installing it on his expensive PC when it came 
> with a 
> perfectly-good-operating-system-why-would-I-want-to-change-it-anyway.
> 
> Rich.
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To 
> unsubscribe, please visit 
> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
>   Unofficial list archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release 
> Date: 28/03/2007 16:23
>  
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 28/03/2007
16:23
 

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Richard Lockwood]

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 long way).

I would be quite surprised if it was more than 10%.


Even 10% is significantly higher than 0.4%



Richard also said:



> Here, for example, you find a figure
> you wish was a lot higher, and then come up with a load of reasons why
> it might be inaccurate, without providing any evidence for a single
> one of them.

I would have thought they where all self explanatory, evidently not.

Many studies have shown that Junk email makes up 90% of all email.
Why are you assuming that the same people are not using websites to
launch attacks?
Have you never heard the phrase "comment spam", have you never seen a
"captcha", they're not there to look good.
Stick your email address on a public website, wait a bit and see if
you get spam. How do you think they knew that was your email address?
Because robots do trawl the Internet looking for email addresses. The
BBC site is more likely to be hit by these as lots of places link
there so it's easy to find.


No - this is not evidence.  You're coming up with a series of
hypotheses to fit your scenario - that a significant proportion of
people use Linux as a desktop OS.  This is the same arguing technique
that proponants of Intelligent Design use.  "You can't prove
otherwise, so it must be true."



Jason Cartwright wrote:
> but add that these numbers are
> probably generated by some pretty sophisticated 3rd part software that
> the BBC employs.

But we don't know that do we?
Have you ever seem how bad user agent sniffing is?

I was using a PC running FireFox on Linux that transmitted the word
"Linux" in its user agent. I was told by a major website that I was
running "Netscape" on "Mac OS".


Again - just because the BBC's technique *might* be inaccurate doesn't
mean it *is* inaccurate.  Likewise, because you want to believe that
Linux is massively popular doesn't mean it is.

There was a very interesting (and to my mind, fairly written) article
in The Register yesterday about installing Linux:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/28/desktop_linux/  (cue
Linux-heads bleating about how he should've used a different distro,
or how the author must be brain dead not to be able to get it right
first time...)  I care not one way or the other, but it goes to show
why Linux still isn't ready for everyman to go installing it on his
expensive PC when it came with a
perfectly-good-operating-system-why-would-I-want-to-change-it-anyway.

Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Andy]

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.co.uk.

I can, it was when a page required me to have ActiveX to view a video.
And yes I did inform the BBC about it, they ignored it until I sent on
official complaint.
There official response to this complaint was download ActiveX and shut up.


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 long way).

I would be quite surprised if it was more than 10%.

Richard also said:

No - you really dislike statistics when they prove something that
doesn't meet with your approval.


Well that statement that statistics prove anything is inaccurate.
Statistics can be flawed, especially depending on how they where conducted.



Here, for example, you find a figure
you wish was a lot higher, and then come up with a load of reasons why
it might be inaccurate, without providing any evidence for a single
one of them.


I would have thought they where all self explanatory, evidently not.

Many studies have shown that Junk email makes up 90% of all email.
Why are you assuming that the same people are not using websites to
launch attacks?
Have you never heard the phrase "comment spam", have you never seen a
"captcha", they're not there to look good.
Stick your email address on a public website, wait a bit and see if
you get spam. How do you think they knew that was your email address?
Because robots do trawl the Internet looking for email addresses. The
BBC site is more likely to be hit by these as lots of places link
there so it's easy to find.

Jason Cartwright wrote:

but add that these numbers are
probably generated by some pretty sophisticated 3rd part software that
the BBC employs.


But we don't know that do we?
Have you ever seem how bad user agent sniffing is?

I was using a PC running FireFox on Linux that transmitted the word
"Linux" in its user agent. I was told by a major website that I was
running "Netscape" on "Mac OS".
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. If major Internet companies have problems with recognizing the
word Linux I doubt they could recognize the different distributions
either.

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?pageid=666&co_pageid=1
This site now appears to be dead.

On 28/03/07, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

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"?


What has telnet got to do with this? Seems analysis is via User Agent
header it would require the telnet user to actually add a user agent
string by hand, I have never bothered with that as it's extra typing
and isn't required for a valid request. (Admittedly I rarely use
telnet for http connections, the last time was when a FireFox claimed
a site was redirecting badly, turned out the server was 302ing to
itself).

Also telnet is not only a Linux client. Telnet exists on Windows, it's
just most Windows users haven't figured out its there.




Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Gordon Joly]

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,

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Kim Plowright]

> 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 under
strain from the ammount of data it has to process already, and it's
supported by a hugely overworked bloke called Danny. I could ask him,
but he'd give me a look like I'd strangled his puppy. I don't like
making Danny sad.

I'll try and remember to send browser / OS updates once a month when I
prepare (lovingly, by hand, at great personal pain and grief) our
internal stats reports.

Not really the kind of thing I can divert resource to automating, even
to make my life easier, sorry :(

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Jason Cartwright]

They are working on it...
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx (last 3 paras).
 
Molly (a visitor around here every so often [1]) is on the case from the
inside...
http://weblogs.asp.net/molly/
 
J
 
[1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasoncartwright/tags/molly/
<http://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 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 standards is pointless, and will
result
in thousands of emails asking why IE, and it's box model, has
messed up 
the pretty design.

J

 
Actually as far as I can tell, everyone execpt MSIE is aiming to meet
the ACID 2 test: http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/ Admittedly
firefox isn't there yet, but has it as a milestone; but IIRC Opera,
Safri and Konquer all meet the test. So it's no "some browsers" it's "a
browser". Unfortunately, that browser just happens to be the most widely
used one, so it has to be "supported". 

 

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[vijay chopra]

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 standards is pointless, and will result
in thousands of emails asking why IE, and it's box model, has messed up
the pretty design.

J



Actually as far as I can tell, everyone execpt MSIE is aiming to meet the
ACID 2 test: http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/ Admittedly firefox
isn't there yet, but has it as a milestone; but IIRC Opera, Safri and
Konquer all meet the test. So it's no "some browsers" it's "a browser".
Unfortunately, that browser just happens to be the most widely used one, so
it has to be "supported".

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Martin Belam]

* Users are not "people". Cookies attach to browsers, to user logins or 
possibly to a combination of these. If 2 people share the same machine and the same user 
login they would share the same BBCUID and appear as the same person. Equally if the same 
person were to use two different machines then they would be counted as two users.
* Some browsers do not accept cookies. When this happens a new cookie will 
be sent out for every request that browser makes. If we counted these cookies 
as users it would push the number of users up. So we don't count cookies we 
send out, only those that we get back.
* There may be a number of situations where cookies, including the BBCUID, 
will get deleted from a computer. Some companies wipe cookies from machines at 
regular intervals. In some environments, e.g. internet café's or schools, 
computers will destroy cookies when a person logs off from a session. Many 
browsers offer options to easily delete cookies. In any case where the BBCUID 
cookie is deleted then the next time a request is made from that machine or 
user a new cookie will be issued and will appear as a new user.
* Unique user figures should never be added (or subtracted) in case the 
same BBCUIDs are included in the numbers in the calculation. E.g. 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: 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 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 THE BBC SITE.
>
> This number can be wrong for a multitude of reasons.
>
> 1) the BBC stats are biased, the site is target at Windows
> users and on certain pages blocks users of other OSes
> (bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX for instance)
>
> 2) Detection software may not have been as tuned to recognize
> a Linux OS, after all many distros don't call them selves
> 'Linux', it may not be in the user agent string. (simply
> looking for the word Linux is not good enough).
>
> 3) A Linux user may have been misreporting the Operating
> System (commonly used to cater for sites that do user agent
> sniffing badly, also used to blend in with the crowd for anonymity).
>
> 4) Someone may have a dual boot (or triple or more), and may
> only be using Windows to view bbc.co.ku, possibly due to
> being locked out by previously mentioned technological
> practices of the BBC.
>
> 5) Some 'users' may not be real people, they may be robots
> spoofing there user agent. 90% of email is spam. How have you
> accounted for web robots browsing your site looking for email
> addresses or trying to post spam comments (they would not hit
> robots.txt or say robot in the user agent, that would give
> them away)? I am thinking most spam bots would impersonate IE
> on Windows as it probably has the highest market share so
> much harder o filter. (by how high we are unsure).
>
> Additionally you could argue you would get the less
> knowledgable users in this sampling, I rarely hit the BBC
> home page, why bother? I know where I want to go and I get
> the news feeds in a handy RSS so I probably don't hit
> news.bbc.co.uk's homepage either.
> I have the pages I need on bookmarks, (Favourites for you IE users).
>
> This is the great thing about statistics people like you
> claim they show something and try to cover up the failings of
> how the sampling was done.
>
> It shows only as much as it records. The number of recognized
> User Agent strings for hits on the BBC website.
>
> (Quick question, is this per IP or per page hit? page hit
> would be bad as it would allow robots to skew the results
> badly as they would hit far more pages).
>
> I really do dislike statistics, especially when people try to
> claim that they prove something without accounting for the
> method of gathering.
>
> And now a quote:
> > There are three kinds of commonly recognised untruths:
> >
> >  Lies, damn lies and statistics.
> >  - Mark Twain
> >
> > This quote from Mark Twain is accurate; statistics are
> often used to
> > lie to the public because most people do not understand how
> statistics work.
>
> And this quote is from where you ask? Why it is from the BBC
> of course! (well I had to use the BBC quote didn't I?
> especi

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Brian Butterworth]

These stats are very interesting (especially BlackBerry 0.43%), and the use
of a cookie (with the provisos listed at the bottom of the page) to track
'users' provides a good insight.

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.

The BBC, as a public service, would be doing a great service for the rest of
the industry to have these stats available as a 'live page', perhaps with
some nice graphs and things.

Having it a resource would, IMHO, help UK web developers.

Please 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] Browser Stats
> 
> If you read Martin Belam (hello Martin!) on the methods he 
> used to derive these figures, you'll note that he's extremely 
> thorough in his data analysis. 
> http://www.currybet.net/articles/user_agents/index.php I 
> think you should read a little levity in to Jem's use of a 
> grin after the Linux comment!
> 
> Below are the stats, taken from our Sage Analyst system 
> (http://www.sagemetrics.com/content/sageanalyst/overview.html 
> - about the system, currently very slow!), from the 24th of 
> march - the most recent 24h period available. We tend to run 
> a bit late, as, IIRC, the daily server logs run to around 
> 5gigabytes of data, which needs to be warehoused and processed.
> 
> These figures are for all visits, to all pages of the whole 
> of bbc.co.uk, not just the homepage.
> 
> Automated requests (from bots, spiders etc) are stripped from 
> our data; as far as I know we comply with JICWEBS and IFABC  
> standards that require this. This is done using browser 
> string filtering, against an industry standard set of strings 
> supplied by IFABC.
> 
> I provide these OS breakdowns both as % of Total Page Views, 
> and % of users. Unique users are deduplicated, based on 
> Cookie data - so you should caveat that with the usual cookie 
> churn stuff*. However, as we're looking at percentage shares 
> in a very large (6.5million+) user sample, I think it should 
> be considered a good indicative slice. 
> 
> 
> By Page Impression
> Operating Systems for Mar 24, 2007 for Entire Site from Entire World  
> OS Type   % of Total Page Views  
> Windows   88.37
> Macintosh 4.51
> Liberate  3.32
> Nokia 1.09
> SonyEricsson  0.67
> BlackBerry0.43
> Motorola  0.36
> Samsung   0.23
> LG0.17
> NEC   0.08
> Orange0.04
> Sagem 0.03
> O20.02
> TMobile   0.01
> Sharp 0.01
> Linux 0.01
> DOS   0
> Panasonic 0
> BenQ  0
> Sprint0
> ZTE   0
> Philips   0
> Unix  0
> VK0
> Siemens   0
> Toshiba   0
> Sun   0
> Sanyo 0
> IRIX  0
> OSF1  0
> Unidentified  0.65
> 
> By User
> Operating Systems for Mar 24, 2007 for Entire Site from Entire World  
> OS Type   % of Total Users 
> Windows   85.39
> Macintosh 6.51
> Nokia 2.26
> Liberate  1.66
> SonyEricsson  1.5
> Motorola  0.84
> BlackBerry0.76
> Samsung   0.55
> LG0.18
> Sagem 0.08
> Orange0.06
> Sharp 0.04
> O20.03
> TMobile   0.03
> Linux 0.02
> Panasonic 0.02
> NEC   0.02
> BenQ  0.01
> DOS   0.01
> Philips   0.01
> ZTE   0
> Sprint0
> Toshiba   0
> VK0
> Unix  0
> Siemens   0
> Sanyo 0
> Sun   0
> IRIX  0
> OSF1  0
> 
> - - - 
> 
> Breakdown of WINDOWS operating systems
> Operating Systems for Mar 24, 2007 for Entire Site from Entire World  
> OS Type % of Total 
> Page Views  
> Windows XP53.71
> Windows XP SP231.96
> Windows 2000  6.94
> Windows NT2.65
> Windows Vista 2.25
> Windows 981.23
> Windows ME0.72
> Windows CE0.35
> Windows 320.13
> Windows 950.06
> Windows 640.01
> Windows 310
> 
> Breakdown of MAC os'es
> Operating Systems  for  Mar 24, 2007 for Entire Site from 
> Entire World  
> OS Type   % of Total Page Views  
> Macintosh X   97.21
> Macintosh PowerPC 2.53
> Macintosh 0.26
> Macintosh OS8 0
>   
> Breakdown of LINUX oses   
> Operating Systems for Mar 24, 2007 for Entire Site from Entire World  
> OS Type   % of Total Page Views  
> Linux 24  43.17
> Linux 22  36.4
> Linux 20  20.43
> 
> *From our guidance notes, internally:

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Kim Plowright]

he BBCUID, 
will get deleted from a computer. Some companies wipe cookies from machines at 
regular intervals. In some environments, e.g. internet café's or schools, 
computers will destroy cookies when a person logs off from a session. Many 
browsers offer options to easily delete cookies. In any case where the BBCUID 
cookie is deleted then the next time a request is made from that machine or 
user a new cookie will be issued and will appear as a new user.
* Unique user figures should never be added (or subtracted) in case the 
same BBCUIDs are included in the numbers in the calculation. E.g. 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: 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 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 THE BBC SITE.
> 
> This number can be wrong for a multitude of reasons.
> 
> 1) the BBC stats are biased, the site is target at Windows 
> users and on certain pages blocks users of other OSes 
> (bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX for instance)
> 
> 2) Detection software may not have been as tuned to recognize 
> a Linux OS, after all many distros don't call them selves 
> 'Linux', it may not be in the user agent string. (simply 
> looking for the word Linux is not good enough).
> 
> 3) A Linux user may have been misreporting the Operating 
> System (commonly used to cater for sites that do user agent 
> sniffing badly, also used to blend in with the crowd for anonymity).
> 
> 4) Someone may have a dual boot (or triple or more), and may 
> only be using Windows to view bbc.co.ku, possibly due to 
> being locked out by previously mentioned technological 
> practices of the BBC.
> 
> 5) Some 'users' may not be real people, they may be robots 
> spoofing there user agent. 90% of email is spam. How have you 
> accounted for web robots browsing your site looking for email 
> addresses or trying to post spam comments (they would not hit 
> robots.txt or say robot in the user agent, that would give 
> them away)? I am thinking most spam bots would impersonate IE 
> on Windows as it probably has the highest market share so 
> much harder o filter. (by how high we are unsure).
> 
> Additionally you could argue you would get the less 
> knowledgable users in this sampling, I rarely hit the BBC 
> home page, why bother? I know where I want to go and I get 
> the news feeds in a handy RSS so I probably don't hit 
> news.bbc.co.uk's homepage either.
> I have the pages I need on bookmarks, (Favourites for you IE users).
> 
> This is the great thing about statistics people like you 
> claim they show something and try to cover up the failings of 
> how the sampling was done.
> 
> It shows only as much as it records. The number of recognized 
> User Agent strings for hits on the BBC website.
> 
> (Quick question, is this per IP or per page hit? page hit 
> would be bad as it would allow robots to skew the results 
> badly as they would hit far more pages).
> 
> I really do dislike statistics, especially when people try to 
> claim that they prove something without accounting for the 
> method of gathering.
> 
> And now a quote:
> > There are three kinds of commonly recognised untruths:
> >
> >  Lies, damn lies and statistics.
> >  - Mark Twain
> >
> > This quote from Mark Twain is accurate; statistics are 
> often used to 
> > lie to the public because most people do not understand how 
> statistics work.
> 
> And this quote is from where you ask? Why it is from the BBC 
> of course! (well I had to use the BBC quote didn't I? 
> especially it is the first result on Google for: lies damn 
> lies statistics)
> 
> Maybe you should improve your stats?
> 1.Group each unique header together and have a Skilled Human 
> with knowledge of all operating system classify them according to OS.
> 2. Make each visitor pass a Turing Test prior to using there 
> User Agent.
> 3. Verify details of OS using other methods, i.e. Javascript 
> could check, or use OS fingerprinting (hopefully it wouldn't 
> hit NAT routers, otherwise you'd probably get the OS of a 
> router,. which although interesting is not what we are 
> looking 

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[gareth rushgrove]

On 28/03/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 and will result
in thousands of emails asking why IE, and it's box model, has messed up
the pretty design.



I wish this happened were I work! If only users would blame the IE
rendering engine (rather than the site or 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]> 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 THE BBC SITE.

This number can be wrong for a multitude of reasons.

1) the BBC stats are biased, the site is target at Windows users and on
certain pages blocks users of other OSes (bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX for
instance)

2) Detection software may not have been as tuned to recognize a Linux
OS, after all many distros don't call them selves 'Linux', it may not be
in the user agent string. (simply looking for the word Linux is not good
enough).

3) A Linux user may have been misreporting the Operating System
(commonly used to cater for sites that do user agent sniffing badly,
also used to blend in with the crowd for anonymity).

4) Someone may have a dual boot (or triple or more), and may only be
using Windows to view bbc.co.ku, possibly due to being locked out by
previously mentioned technological practices of the BBC.

5) Some 'users' may not be real people, they may be robots spoofing
there user agent. 90% of email is spam. How have you accounted for web
robots browsing your site looking for email addresses or trying to post
spam comments (they would not hit robots.txt or say robot in the user
agent, that would give them away)? I am thinking most spam bots would
impersonate IE on Windows as it probably has the highest market share so
much harder o filter. (by how high we are unsure).

Additionally you could argue you would get the less knowledgable users
in this sampling, I rarely hit the BBC home page, why bother? I know
where I want to go and I get the news feeds in a handy RSS so I probably
don't hit news.bbc.co.uk's homepage either.
I have the pages I need on bookmarks, (Favourites for you IE users).

This is the great thing about statistics people like you claim they show
something and try to cover up the failings of how the sampling was done.

It shows only as much as it records. The number of recognized User Agent
strings for hits on the BBC website.

(Quick question, is this per IP or per page hit? page hit would be bad
as it would allow robots to skew the results badly as they would hit far
more pages).

I really do dislike statistics, especially when people try to claim that
they prove something without accounting for the method of gathering.

And now a quote:
> There are three kinds of commonly recognised untruths:
>
>  Lies, damn lies and statistics.
>  - Mark Twain
>
> This quote from Mark Twain is accurate; statistics are often used to
> lie to the public because most people do not understand how statistics
work.

And this quote is from where you ask? Why it is from the BBC of course!
(well I had to use the BBC quote didn't I? especially it is the first
result on Google for: lies damn lies statistics)

Maybe you should improve your stats?
1.Group each unique header together and have a Skilled Human with
knowledge of all operating system classify them according to OS.
2. Make each visitor pass a Turing Test prior to using there User Agent.
3. Verify details of OS using other methods, i.e. Javascript could
check, or use OS fingerprinting (hopefully it wouldn't hit NAT routers,
otherwise you'd probably get the OS of a router,. which although
interesting is not what we are looking for is it?).

On the subject of whether to support IE 5, is it supported by Microsoft
or has it been end of lifed? If it's been end of lifed then maybe you
don't need to support it.

Why do you need to 'support' specific browsers anyway? This is what
standards are ofr, I don't need to check the compatibility with every
piece of software on every switch between here and my destination node,
they are using a standard I just make sure I follow that standard. Why
should the HTML content be any different?

The underlying TCP/IP and HTTP system seem to work much more compatibly
than all these websites, many of which display poorly if you stray so
slightly of the most common browser and settings, does this not show
that standards work better?

Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk 

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Andrew Bowden]

> > 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 with Firefox&Opera at home - can't remember the last time I
had to spoof for any site.  About five years ago I abandoned one bank
because they didn't support Linux, but since then I haven't had one
problem.

And of course, spoofing (or lack of!) is not just a Linux thing :)

I do recall in the past browser spoofing to be rather unreliable - one
electricity supplier site I used years ago was determined that I had
Mozilla despite what I tried to do to persuade it otherwise. 


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Jason Cartwright]

I'll ignore your rant about the stats - but add that these numbers are
probably generated by some pretty sophisticated 3rd part software that
the BBC employs. I highly doubt they just look for "Linux" in the UA
string. I'm sure Jem will be replying.

> the site is target at Windows users
Completely incorrect. We target certain browsers when testing, sure, but
why would we ever target the OS?

> bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX
Where?

> On the subject of whether to support IE 5, is it supported by
Microsoft or has it been end of lifed? If it's been end of lifed then
maybe you don't need to support it.

I'd argue that it doesn't matter if MS support it or not. Choices of
browser support should be based on if the users are using it.

> Why do you need to 'support' specific browsers anyway? This is what
standards are ofr, I don't need to check the compatibility with every
piece of software on every switch between here and my destination node,
they are using a standard I just make sure I follow that standard. Why
should the HTML content be any different?

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 standards is pointless, and will result
in thousands of emails asking why IE, and it's box model, has messed up
the pretty 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 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 THE BBC SITE.

This number can be wrong for a multitude of reasons.

1) the BBC stats are biased, the site is target at Windows users and on
certain pages blocks users of other OSes (bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX for
instance)

2) Detection software may not have been as tuned to recognize a Linux
OS, after all many distros don't call them selves 'Linux', it may not be
in the user agent string. (simply looking for the word Linux is not good
enough).

3) A Linux user may have been misreporting the Operating System
(commonly used to cater for sites that do user agent sniffing badly,
also used to blend in with the crowd for anonymity).

4) Someone may have a dual boot (or triple or more), and may only be
using Windows to view bbc.co.ku, possibly due to being locked out by
previously mentioned technological practices of the BBC.

5) Some 'users' may not be real people, they may be robots spoofing
there user agent. 90% of email is spam. How have you accounted for web
robots browsing your site looking for email addresses or trying to post
spam comments (they would not hit robots.txt or say robot in the user
agent, that would give them away)? I am thinking most spam bots would
impersonate IE on Windows as it probably has the highest market share so
much harder o filter. (by how high we are unsure).

Additionally you could argue you would get the less knowledgable users
in this sampling, I rarely hit the BBC home page, why bother? I know
where I want to go and I get the news feeds in a handy RSS so I probably
don't hit news.bbc.co.uk's homepage either.
I have the pages I need on bookmarks, (Favourites for you IE users).

This is the great thing about statistics people like you claim they show
something and try to cover up the failings of how the sampling was done.

It shows only as much as it records. The number of recognized User Agent
strings for hits on the BBC website.

(Quick question, is this per IP or per page hit? page hit would be bad
as it would allow robots to skew the results badly as they would hit far
more pages).

I really do dislike statistics, especially when people try to claim that
they prove something without accounting for the method of gathering.

And now a quote:
> There are three kinds of commonly recognised untruths:
>
>  Lies, damn lies and statistics.
>  - Mark Twain
>
> This quote from Mark Twain is accurate; statistics are often used to 
> lie to the public because most people do not understand how statistics
work.

And this quote is from where you ask? Why it is from the BBC of course!
(well I had to use the BBC quote didn't I? especially it is the first
result on Google for: lies damn lies statistics)

Maybe you should improve your stats?
1.Group each unique header together and have a Skilled Human with
knowledge of all operating system classify them according to OS.
2. Make each visitor pass a Turing Test prior to using there User Agent.
3. Verify detai

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Richard Lockwood]

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 Linux operating system AT THE
TIME THEY VISITED THE BBC SITE.

This number can be wrong for a multitude of reasons.

1) the BBC stats are biased, the site is target at Windows users and
on certain pages blocks users of other OSes (bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX
for instance)


* Snips most of foaming-at-the-mouth-conspiricy-theory-style-rant
trying to claim that Linux distros account for a vast percentage of
desktop users and the BBC is complicit in covering this up. *

Andy - ordinary people do not generally use Linux as a desktop OS.
I'm not going to argue the toss about whether this is a good thing or
a bad thing, but it's fact.


I really do dislike statistics, especially when people try to claim
that they prove something without accounting for the method of
gathering.



No - you really dislike statistics when they prove something that
doesn't meet with your approval.  Here, for example, you find a figure
you wish was a lot higher, and then come up with a load of reasons why
it might be inaccurate, without providing any evidence for a single
one of them.  I'm not going to say that they're all *wrong*, but on
such an large size sample, none of your possible reasons is going to
account for a significant difference.

Now, put the gun down, and step away...

Cheers,

Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Frank Wales]

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 pointing out that I
don't believe he's the misleading type.


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.


Well, we are talking about stats based on visits to the
bbc.co.uk home page, so I kind of took that as implicit.


This number can be wrong for a multitude of reasons.


Indeed. But for all you know, it's also right.


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.


This is the great thing about statistics people like you claim they
show something and try to cover up the failings of how the sampling
was done.


"People like you", eh?  I trust you have the data to support
such a generalized denigration.


I really do dislike statistics, especially when people try to claim
that they prove something without accounting for the method of
gathering.


I suspect that you dislike abuse of statistics, as I do;
statistics themselves are tremendously useful, and I find
them really quite hard to dislike by themselves.


Maybe you should improve your stats?
1.Group each unique header together and have a Skilled Human with
knowledge of all operating system classify them according to OS.


Not exactly scalable.


2. Make each visitor pass a Turing Test prior to using there User Agent.


Not exactly possible.

It would probably be easier and cheaper to just add
'Browsing platform' as a question in the next census.
Then we'd have the data for a whole decade of quibbling.


3. Verify details of OS using other methods, i.e. Javascript could
check, 


An interesting suggestion, given your other comments about just using
what's standard, and given how uniformly available and consistent
Javascript isn't.


Why do you need to 'support' specific browsers anyway? This is what
standards are ofr, [...] Why should the HTML content be any different?


Because an ounce of facts beats a ton of wishful thinking.

Just because Microsoft, Mozilla and others ought to implement
standards-compatible software doesn't mean they actually do,
and any serious web developer is mindful of the technologies that
people actually have, not those that she would rather they had.


The underlying TCP/IP and HTTP system seem to work much more
compatibly than all these websites, [...] does this not show 

> that standards work better?

Not a relevant comparison, in my opinion.  Standards such as
TCP/IP and HTTP are often substantially easier to implement
correctly than client-side web standards.  Morever, the Internet
Protocols were never used as strategic weapons in a struggle for
the desktop, so had no reason to break out in ugly rashes of
vendor-specific quirks.

Like it or not, any competent, non-trivial web site today simply
has to take account of differences at the client, both in implementation
and in customization, and this isn't a situation that's going to go
away any time soon, especially with the burgeoning of Ajax-like
interactivity and the use of mobile devices as browsers.
--
Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Andy]

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 THE BBC SITE.

This number can be wrong for a multitude of reasons.

1) the BBC stats are biased, the site is target at Windows users and
on certain pages blocks users of other OSes (bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX
for instance)

2) Detection software may not have been as tuned to recognize a Linux
OS, after all many distros don't call them selves 'Linux', it may not
be in the user agent string. (simply looking for the word Linux is not
good enough).

3) A Linux user may have been misreporting the Operating System
(commonly used to cater for sites that do user agent sniffing badly,
also used to blend in with the crowd for anonymity).

4) Someone may have a dual boot (or triple or more), and may only be
using Windows to view bbc.co.ku, possibly due to being locked out by
previously mentioned technological practices of the BBC.

5) Some 'users' may not be real people, they may be robots spoofing
there user agent. 90% of email is spam. How have you accounted for web
robots browsing your site looking for email addresses or trying to
post spam comments (they would not hit robots.txt or say robot in the
user agent, that would give them away)? I am thinking most spam bots
would impersonate IE on Windows as it probably has the highest market
share so much harder o filter. (by how high we are unsure).

Additionally you could argue you would get the less knowledgable users
in this sampling, I rarely hit the BBC home page, why bother? I know
where I want to go and I get the news feeds in a handy RSS so I
probably don't hit news.bbc.co.uk's homepage either.
I have the pages I need on bookmarks, (Favourites for you IE users).

This is the great thing about statistics people like you claim they
show something and try to cover up the failings of how the sampling
was done.

It shows only as much as it records. The number of recognized User
Agent strings for hits on the BBC website.

(Quick question, is this per IP or per page hit? page hit would be bad
as it would allow robots to skew the results badly as they would hit
far more pages).

I really do dislike statistics, especially when people try to claim
that they prove something without accounting for the method of
gathering.

And now a quote:

There are three kinds of commonly recognised untruths:

 Lies, damn lies and statistics.
 - Mark Twain

This quote from Mark Twain is accurate; statistics are often used to lie to the 
public
because most people do not understand how statistics work.


And this quote is from where you ask? Why it is from the BBC of
course! (well I had to use the BBC quote didn't I? especially it is
the first result on Google for: lies damn lies statistics)

Maybe you should improve your stats?
1.Group each unique header together and have a Skilled Human with
knowledge of all operating system classify them according to OS.
2. Make each visitor pass a Turing Test prior to using there User Agent.
3. Verify details of OS using other methods, i.e. Javascript could
check, or use OS fingerprinting (hopefully it wouldn't hit NAT
routers, otherwise you'd probably get the OS of a router,. which
although interesting is not what we are looking for is it?).

On the subject of whether to support IE 5, is it supported by
Microsoft or has it been end of lifed? If it's been end of lifed then
maybe you don't need to support it.

Why do you need to 'support' specific browsers anyway? This is what
standards are ofr, I don't need to check the compatibility with every
piece of software on every switch between here and my destination
node, they are using a standard I just make sure I follow that
standard. Why should the HTML content be any different?

The underlying TCP/IP and HTTP system seem to work much more
compatibly than all these websites, many of which display poorly if
you stray so slightly of the most common browser and settings, does
this not show that standards work better?

Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Kim Plowright]

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 (just as it is below), which would 
> be a really good guide for what range of browsers the average 
> person uses.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Allan Jardine]

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 'average' user will surf with.


From the bbc.co.uk data, if IE5.5 is more or less on a par with  
Safari, there are two ways of looking at it
- Since the number of users are similar, if you support Safari you  
should support IE5.5
- Alternatively since IE5.5 will be harder work to support, and it's  
border line anyway, drop support


For a site which is looking to support as wide a range of users as  
possible, it looks like IE5.5 should still be supported (if the  
target audience is as wide as the BBC's) - although James' statistics  
did show what appears to be a base line of IE5.x users - while IE5.0  
should be dropped (in a graded way). I really like how the BBC does  
it's browser support - very nice work!


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 (just as it is below), which would be a really good guide  
for what range of browsers the average person uses.


Many thanks
Allan



On 26 Mar 2007, at 12:15, Kim Plowright wrote:

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 heavy consumption would skew these shares, and I'm  
willing
to bet that FF users eat more internets than IE 6 / 7 users, on  
average.


Browser % share of PIs
IE 6.0  48.29
IE 7.0  25.15
Mozilla-Firefox 11.59
Unidentified5.17
Safari  2.87
IE 5.5  2.55
Cable   1.5
Netscape0.95
IE 5.0  0.50
Opera   0.37
IE 4.0  0.29
Pocket_PC   0.28
KDDI-EZweb  0.28
IE 5.2  0.08
IE 5.1  0.05
AOL 0.05
Lynx0.02
IE 3.0  0.01

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,  
please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ 
mailing_list.html.  Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- 
archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/


-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Jeremy Stone]

Martin (who might be on here later) put this article together which
could also be of interest.
http://www.currybet.net/articles/user_agents/index.php
"before I knew it I was involved in a lengthy statistical analysis of
the browsers and operating systems that request the BBC homepage at
http://www.bbc.co.uk.";

It's a year or so old now but has the usual excellent insight/analysis
from MB.

0.4% of users at the time used a Linux operating system  ;)

Jem
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gareth rushgrove
Sent: 26 March 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 Browser Support method?

G

On 26/03/07, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 heavy consumption would skew these 
> shares, and I'm willing to bet that FF users eat more internets than
IE 6 / 7 users, on average.
>
> Browser % share of PIs
> IE 6.0  48.29
> IE 7.0  25.15
> Mozilla-Firefox 11.59
> Unidentified5.17
> Safari  2.87
> IE 5.5  2.55
> Cable   1.5
> Netscape0.95
> IE 5.0  0.50
> Opera   0.37
> IE 4.0  0.29
> Pocket_PC   0.28
> KDDI-EZweb  0.28
> IE 5.2  0.08
> IE 5.1  0.05
> AOL 0.05
> Lynx0.02
> IE 3.0  0.01
>
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, 
> please visit 
> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
> Unofficial list archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>


--
Gareth Rushgrove
morethanseven.net
webdesignbookshelf.com
refreshnewcastle.org
frontendarchitecture.com
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
please visit
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

[gareth rushgrove]

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 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 heavy consumption would skew these shares, and I'm willing
to bet that FF users eat more internets than IE 6 / 7 users, on average.

Browser % share of PIs
IE 6.0  48.29
IE 7.0  25.15
Mozilla-Firefox 11.59
Unidentified5.17
Safari  2.87
IE 5.5  2.55
Cable   1.5
Netscape0.95
IE 5.0  0.50
Opera   0.37
IE 4.0  0.29
Pocket_PC   0.28
KDDI-EZweb  0.28
IE 5.2  0.08
IE 5.1  0.05
AOL 0.05
Lynx0.02
IE 3.0  0.01

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/




--
Gareth Rushgrove
morethanseven.net
webdesignbookshelf.com
refreshnewcastle.org
frontendarchitecture.com
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Kim Plowright]

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 heavy consumption would skew these shares, and I'm willing
to bet that FF users eat more internets than IE 6 / 7 users, on average.

Browser % share of PIs
IE 6.0  48.29
IE 7.0  25.15
Mozilla-Firefox 11.59
Unidentified5.17
Safari  2.87
IE 5.5  2.55
Cable   1.5
Netscape0.95
IE 5.0  0.50
Opera   0.37
IE 4.0  0.29
Pocket_PC   0.28
KDDI-EZweb  0.28
IE 5.2  0.08
IE 5.1  0.05
AOL 0.05
Lynx0.02
IE 3.0  0.01

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/