|
|
Posted by rf on 07/15/07 14:04
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4Lmdnax6xKkAvwfbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Hadron wrote:
>>> Why show a questionable "information" that is of absolutely no use for
>>> the visitor? Just to show how cool and active the "community" is? If you
>>> want that you can use rand() - it's much easier than all others
>>> methods.
>>
>> As I said - you are clueless.
>>
>
> Yep, you are totally clueless. You have absolutely no idea how this
> works, and think you can pull the wool over experienced programmers' eyes.
>
> You can do it to clueless clients. But you can't do it here.
>
> And I pity those clients.
You will never convice these sort of people. They, without a clear
understanding of how the protocol actually works, will continually insist
that you can tally "current viewers". I've seen it time and time again. I've
even explained to some of them that they will completely miss the viewer
that has obtained a copy of their page from a corporate proxy (with of
course no access at all to their server), to no avail. They simply will not
understand. It's right up there with "N people have visited this site
since..." :-)
Just let them put their meaningless counters on their web sites. It does no
harm, providing, as you say, they are not telling their "clients" that it
has meaning.
--
Richard
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|