|
|
Posted by Chris Tomlinson on 07/08/06 00:05
"mbstevens" <NOXwebmasterX@XmbstevensX.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.07.23.46.47.342954@XmbstevensX.com...
> 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.
Yes, and as a backup it tracks the IP address. Come on, that's more than
good enough.
> 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?
IP.
> 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.
Have already given our stats in this thread. The only stats relevant to
this site are the stats from this site. Other users go for other things,
but we are targetting a niche and in that niche we get the stats reported.
>> 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.
Sorry for not running that through the grammar checker! What that means is
we don't need to back up the source of our statistics, as the source is
itself. The numbers are right there in front of us in other words, and
therefore that is enough. The fact other high end programmers have
concurred with the <1% figure only served to reassure us.
> 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?
Nope, just didn't understand that you had changed the subject. But we're
not hear to qualify confidential market research, we were here to learn
about image load order.
--
Thanks,
Me
Try Google Quik-e-searchT at www.Superhighstreet.com/home
....Finds anything or they buy it for you!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|