|
|
Posted by mbstevens on 07/07/06 23:45
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:56:30 +0000, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
> We are talking unique hits with JS disabled as being less than 1%, not
> repeat hits.
Unique hits as opposed to repeat hits are susceptible to A.F.'s
criticism about people not coming back. You _need_ to be able to
determine whether hits are unique to overcome the criticism.
And there is _no_ _way_ for a server log to determine accurately
whether a particular visitor is returning, unless you're also claiming:
to have set cookies
_and_
the visitors all allow cookies
_and_
the cookie uniquely identifies the visitor.
The content of the cookie your site set on my browser was 'y'.
Is that supposed to uniquely identify me? What happens if I
clear my cookies before the next visit? What happens if I have
my cookies set to only last for the session? How do you
quantify the visitors who do not allow cookies?
Doesn't it seem
likely that anyone with JavaScript turned off would also be the kind of
person that might turn off cookies?
>
>> Site an actual study.. Your 'other' 'very respected' programmers'
>> opinions do not a reasonable statistic make. I have never seen a study
>> that says that.
>
> It wouldn't be appropriate to name other people here as they may not
> want to be, but they are high up.
I didn't ask for endorsements, especially second hand ones without a name.
I asked for real statistics as opposed to just numbers. If you can't give
us that, you shouldn't be using hard numbers. You should learn to modify
your writing habits until you understand what statistics really are.
> That aside, our own statistics are
> enough as they back up what they said.
Let's get the above sentence straight, because it really amazes me: Are
you claiming that your statistics are right because they back up what
you've said??? That's certainly what the sentence seems to be saying.
>> That's the kind
>> of mistake you're making. You keep throwing out numbers as if they are
>> actually meaningful and important. What is important is whether the
>> same
>
> What is important is that over 99% of people visiting our site -- the
> site in question -- have JS enabled. We therefore think it reasonable
> to make the site rely on JS, rather than provide a lesser experience for
> the 99% just because the <1% want to spoil it.
We had moved to another of your claims by this point.
Your 80% claim was about people thinking your site design was a good idea.
We were not still on JavaScript visitor percentages.
Are you now saying that your claim about JavaScript was so
important that we should just let the other claim slide right
by us?
It is safe for politicians and the commentators on the evening news
to just throw out bad statistics, but here you have to be responsible for
your statistical claims, or someone is going to challenge them.
That's usenet. That's just the way it is. No one is bullying you, as
you seem to have been claiming a couple of posts ago. We're just pointing
out lapses in your logic.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|