Natalia Lis <natalialis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The site has dozens of millions requests per day so I think the
>> floor of 20 is good. Also, the graphs that we share are embedded
>> images; they are displayed on other sites, but are hosted on our
>> websites. Based on what you wrote, I'm not surprised that the
>> Referrer report only lists referrers for about 5% of all requests.
If you've got millions of requests per day, I'd find it amazing if only 5% of them have referrers. I would consider that to be a very unusual outcome, and I would take a much closer look at the data to see if I have missed something important. It would be much more likely that 95% of the successful requests had referrers than that only 5% of them did.
>> The site is very busy with graphics and I suppose that most users
>> have it bookmarked.
People don't usually bookmark graphs, they bookmark the pages that the graphs are embedded in. The request for the page itself won't have a referrer, but the request for the image will have the page itself listed as the referrer.
You need to look again at your referrer figures - they are so far out of the ordinary that they indicate that something is wrong somewhere.
>> The difference between a referrer report and a referring site report
>> is that the former lists URLs while the latter lists websites? So if
>> a website shows our graphs on two different pages, the referrer
>> report will show 2 urls, while the referring site report will show
>> one website address?
Yes. It will essentially aggregate the referrer number by site.
>> "If you want not to count referrers to images, you can use the
>> command
>>
>> REQINCLUDE pages"
>>
>> This is interesting. So it will only count instances when another
>> website links to us and a person clicks on that link and actually
>> visits our site?
Yes. (With certain caveats - you could define your graphs as "pages", especially if they're dynamically generated). If the main purpose of your site is to host graphs for other peoples sites, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to exclude the requests for those graphs from your reports. On the other hand, if you want to be able to tell how much of your traffic is due to the graphs, and how much is people actually visiting your site directly, excluding the graphs may be useful.
>> Let's say we have a graph: www.oursite.com/graph and it is embedded
>> on another website in the following way: <A
>> HREF="http://www.oursite.com"><IMG
>> SRC="http://www.oursite.com/graph"></a>
>>
>> If I follow Stephen's recommendation, the report will only count
>> clicks on the graph, not just requests for an updated image?
Yes.
Aengus
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
| TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this list:
| http://lists.meer.net/mailman/listinfo/analog-help
|
| Analog Documentation: http://analog.cx/docs/Readme.html
| List archives: http://www.analog.cx/docs/mailing.html#listarchives
| Usenet version: news://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.analog.general
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The site has dozens of millions requests per day so I think the
>> floor of 20 is good. Also, the graphs that we share are embedded
>> images; they are displayed on other sites, but are hosted on our
>> websites. Based on what you wrote, I'm not surprised that the
>> Referrer report only lists referrers for about 5% of all requests.
If you've got millions of requests per day, I'd find it amazing if only 5% of them have referrers. I would consider that to be a very unusual outcome, and I would take a much closer look at the data to see if I have missed something important. It would be much more likely that 95% of the successful requests had referrers than that only 5% of them did.
>> The site is very busy with graphics and I suppose that most users
>> have it bookmarked.
People don't usually bookmark graphs, they bookmark the pages that the graphs are embedded in. The request for the page itself won't have a referrer, but the request for the image will have the page itself listed as the referrer.
You need to look again at your referrer figures - they are so far out of the ordinary that they indicate that something is wrong somewhere.
>> The difference between a referrer report and a referring site report
>> is that the former lists URLs while the latter lists websites? So if
>> a website shows our graphs on two different pages, the referrer
>> report will show 2 urls, while the referring site report will show
>> one website address?
Yes. It will essentially aggregate the referrer number by site.
>> "If you want not to count referrers to images, you can use the
>> command
>>
>> REQINCLUDE pages"
>>
>> This is interesting. So it will only count instances when another
>> website links to us and a person clicks on that link and actually
>> visits our site?
Yes. (With certain caveats - you could define your graphs as "pages", especially if they're dynamically generated). If the main purpose of your site is to host graphs for other peoples sites, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to exclude the requests for those graphs from your reports. On the other hand, if you want to be able to tell how much of your traffic is due to the graphs, and how much is people actually visiting your site directly, excluding the graphs may be useful.
>> Let's say we have a graph: www.oursite.com/graph and it is embedded
>> on another website in the following way: <A
>> HREF="http://www.oursite.com"><IMG
>> SRC="http://www.oursite.com/graph"></a>
>>
>> If I follow Stephen's recommendation, the report will only count
>> clicks on the graph, not just requests for an updated image?
Yes.
Aengus
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
| TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this list:
| http://lists.meer.net/mailman/listinfo/analog-help
|
| Analog Documentation: http://analog.cx/docs/Readme.html
| List archives: http://www.analog.cx/docs/mailing.html#listarchives
| Usenet version: news://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.analog.general
+------------------------------------------------------------------------