NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> web tracking
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> web tracking
Brady Chatfield (bchatfie_at_pcshs.com)
Mon, 21 Oct 96 16:46:43 -0700
Kim Brooks <kbrooks_at_cortland.com> wrote:
>The path is assumed by the sequence of requests logged by an IP address
>within one visit. For example:
> OCT 18 1996 10:00 196.54.234 home.htm
> OCT 18 1996 10:03 196.54.234 news.htm
> OCT 18 1996 10:06 196.54.234 story1.htm
>Would tell you that the visitor from 196.54.234 first went to home, then to
>the new menu, then to story #1. More or less. Yes, it could in theory be
>multiple visitors from one domain. But really, we are looking for an
>ESTIMATE of patterns over time, and with 100,000 visitors aggregated per
>week, it gives you a good general idea.
Again, why estimate when you can know EXACTLY?
>Again, I realize that there are inaccuracies in logging. But again, we are
>looking for general patterns and trends...So >hopefully, alot of the bleed
balances out and the numbers are useful within a range.
>
The patterns obtained from bad data are, well, bad. Just because someone
has a lot of data on hand, it cannot be inferred that the analysis of
the bad data will produce results with any reasonble reliability. Remember the
famous saying - GIGO - "Garbage In, Garbage Out".
>Lastly, there were some interesting comments about how cookies and/or sample
>surveys are the only REAL marketing information out there. Personally, I
>say that's true statistically, but both solutions are invasive and may not
>give you any more of any accurate sample than logging. We definitely use
>surveys to complement our logs -- we have an on-going registration system
>with demo questions - but the response to surveys is low enough that I
>wouldn't want to rely just on those. Cookies won't tell you any more than
>logs unless you get the user to surrender that information, and we all know
>what a debate personal information stirs up.
>
This is flat out *wrong*. A cookie can tell you with absolute certainty
about the rate of recurring visits by a given person (browser), while
standard logs cannot do this with any hopeful accuracy (if at all,
practically). I don't believe Interse', I-PRO, or anyone currently in
the web stats market can inform that "John Smith first came to this web
site on a particular day.... he has visited this site 7 times this
month, each visit averaging 7.9 minutes." That's an extremely useful
statistic. And it can only be done *transparently* using cookies. The user
doesn't have to surrender anything at all.
And Drazen Kacar <dave_at_fly.cc.fer.hr> adds:
>You don't do geographical resolution based on domain name. You do it on
>IP address. If you can find registry for all of them.
That's an awfully big IF, since there is no such animal. The closest thing to a
Internet registry is the "whois" database managed by Internic. Again, if I get a
hit from "intel.com", whois tells me Intel is in Santa Clara, California. As
such, any hit registered from the intel.com domain can do no better that
resolve to Santa Clara, when in fact these visits are coming from Arizona, New
Mexico, (and the list goes on), and of course from Santa Clara as well.
OK, FOLKS --> Let's end the debate on this thing. As I have stated in previous
posts:
1) Cookies are not perfect; like anything, they have limitations.
2) That said, they are the ONLY way to get repeat visitor information; and
3) They are the most transparent, accurate thing out there for tracking.
END OF STORY - If you still want to debate finer points, I'm at:
bchatfie_at_pcshs.com
Brady Chatfield
