| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:57 pm Post subject: What country, state, city are your visitors coming from? |
|
|
To keep our promise me made to you earlier this holiday season, we have upgraded the magnify stats with impressive geo-location stats. This is part of our on-going commitment to sustainably provide you with the best free site stats. For most visitors recorded in your log you are now able to zoom in on their location and see their latitude and longitude position plotted on a map! As well as find out what isp they are using and where in the world they are down to the country, state and city level!
http://www.statcounter.com/features/magnify.html
We love to provide you with the best statistics about your visitors! We are continually improving the stats we offer based on your feedback. However for a free service we are limited by the size of your visitor log that we can perform the analysis on.
We'd love to give all members an infinite log quota, but it simply isn't sustainable as part of a free service. However for a small monthly free we are able to boost that log quota up to what we wanted it to be all along.
For just $9 a month you can increase your log quota from 100 to 1,000! Or for just $10 more you can get a cool 10,000. If you have a really popular website then you should consider the massive log quota of 25,000! As you can imagine, log quotas like these put considerable more strain on the server so we are unable to offer them for free.
Bring on the email reports, advanced tracking and eCommerce tracking in 2004! We need your continued support to keep developing the service. Please keep checking your stats, recommending StatCounter to your friends and take advantage of the upgrades if you can afford it.
Happy New Year to you all! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dfnet
Joined: 10 Nov 2003 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:03 pm Post subject: Visitors' JavaScript disabled according to logs |
|
|
| I noticed that the magnified reports are claiming that JavaScript is disabled for all my visitors. That seems highly unlikely, as the majority of users would be expected to have JavaScript enabled by default. Any idea why the StatCounter reports are showing this:?: |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd suggest you don't break the StatCounter terms and conditions by changing the code and removing the essential javascript code to track that information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hippychixshop
Joined: 30 Dec 2003 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm waiting for the enhancement that'll use satellite telemetry to peek over the visitor's shoulder to watch them surf your site and to beam them the barely audible message, "BUY!".  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| that's due in the next release hippy chick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dfnet
Joined: 10 Nov 2003 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:44 pm Post subject: Bloated JavaScript code |
|
|
| webmaster wrote: | | I'd suggest you don't break the StatCounter terms and conditions by changing the code and removing the essential javascript code to track that information. |
Hi, Aodhán! You know, I probably wouldn't mind including your JavaScript on my pages, if only it were a bit more efficient (i.e. smaller in size).
For example, Bravenet furnishes essentially similar statistics (browser version, operating system, screen resolution, color depth, referrers, visitors, pageviews, etc.), but their JavaScript is less than 1/7th the size of yours. When considering total page weight that a user's browser must download, such considerations are a significant factor.
Specifically, the number of characters in Bravenet's script is 575, while yours is 4,251. Would it be possible for you to emulate their method? If you did, I would be pleased to reconsider adding the StatCounter script back into my SSI file -- rather than using only the <NOSCRIPT> portion.
(Incidentally, I don't believe that using only the <NOSCRIPT> portion violated any terms. The StatCounter site said it was my option, at the time I signed up.)
To illustrate my point regarding relative script sizes, I've included copies of both below:
***** begin Bravenet JavaScript (575 characters) *****
[edit]code removed[/edit]
***** end Bravenet JavaScript *****
***** begin StatCounter JavaScripts (4,251 characters) *****
[edit]code removed[/edit]
***** end StatCounter JavaScript *****
[edit]no need to post the code and make the topic unreadable[/edit] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oldzbutgoodies
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 134 Location: woods of Oregon USA
|
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:56 pm Post subject: OMG |
|
|
jmho there is NO COMPARISON between "bravenet" & statcounter..
like comparing kindergarten to COLLEGE PROFESSORS
bravenet's free offerings oftentimes have so many popups and ads goodies to your puter... lots of complaints about this..
the simple stats,,that i used to have with bravenet were nothing compared to here..also with no notice they changed it to much less info and SLAPPED A BIG BOX ON MY SITES.that said
CHANGE CODE
yes i changed it really quick...
to statcounter..
THANKS STATCOUNTER..LOVE YOUR SERVICE & appreciate all the extras so very much!! Happy New Year & THANKS AGAIN |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great to see you back oldz. Many thx for your continued support.
dfnet - changing the code in anywhere violates the terms and conditions. I do take your point about the counter code being overly long. There is no need for it at all. We'll see what we can do about optimising it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Right changing that javascript to be the smallest is easy but nobody every brought it up as a problem before. And it will be quite annoying to change and maintain. Is it such a huge problem for all members? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bulldog
Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:51 am Post subject: New Location Feature |
|
|
The new feature is cool and really looks great. I am sure it has taken a lot of time to create and it will probably consume even more time in the future. I have played with the new feature and discovered it is a good feature but it records wrong loactions. If your ISP links to a server in another state, the location for your visitor looks like it is coming from a location other than realistic/actual. My IIP for example is reflecting Virginia and I am located in SC. I checked the IIP of a few of my friends and they have mapping locations in NC, GA, FL, VA, and TN - all of the IIP's I checked are here with me in SC.
It is not the program or the programmers fault that locations are not reflected correctly, it is the IIP assignments and the ISP location that directs the paths. Eventually, I would expect to see more control over ISP's, just like the phone companies. _________________ Bulldog |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
yeah it isn't 100% accurate - it couldn't be.
But it does get a very large percentage right - the biggest upset is the entire AOL userbase who all often seem to use the same web proxy that changes. it's almost impossible to geo-locate aol users. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
peterr
Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:17 am Post subject: good job! |
|
|
4,251 is not a whole lot of bytes, rather small...regarding previous java script comment. I can't see how such a small amount of bytes could affect the page speed in loading.
Your geo locator is great, and if the isp like someone else said is off because of a registry location it's not that big a deal, the vicinity is reflective. The map is great. The details are great to know in terms of os and screen dimensions.
Thanks for providing this service, I will be sharing your site with people.
Thank you for your site.
Regards,
Peter  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oldzbutgoodies
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 134 Location: woods of Oregon USA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:49 am Post subject: super |
|
|
super love all the new goodies!
the amt of code doesn't bother me
hopefully save your time for the new features
mine was off a bit on location too but it is general and it is neat!
thank you again & again |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SparklyArt
Joined: 12 Dec 2003 Posts: 3 Location: London, England
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 9:31 am Post subject: WOW!!!!! |
|
|
Great feature - love it to bits!
(And, your code is just fine)
Many thanks
and
Happy New Year
SparklyArt[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dfnet
Joined: 10 Nov 2003 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:16 pm Post subject: Great new stats; comments on JavaScripts |
|
|
| peterr wrote: | | 4,251 is not a whole lot of bytes, rather small...regarding previous java script comment. I can't see how such a small amount of bytes could affect the page speed in loading. |
Any individual string of text, when taken by itself, may seem insignificant in terms of page download. In point of fact, it is the cumulative effect of all the text and graphics which can bloat a page and choke a dial-up user's download. Any responsible webmaster, out of consideration to his/her audience, must be heedful of this cumulative effect. Therefore, every single piece which is used to construct a page must pass muster for its efficiency.
Just this past week, for example, I was downloading "virtual storefronts" from the affiliate pages at Art.com, and discovered that their use of nested tables was so bloated -- I was actually able to trim more than 70% of the code while maintaining exactly the same content and appearance. Although some work was involved in "trimming the fat", I was quite pleased at the result. Clean code is my mantra, I'm not ashamed to admit.
Many readers may recall when Aodhán made the following announcement on August 3, 2003:
| webmaster wrote: | | Unfortunately our benchmarking led us to find one rather huge bottleneck remaining. These fancy artistic counter digits. They just use up far too much processing power. The rest of the counter script might take 0.001 of a second, but to render these artistic images is taking about 0.03 of a second. And when you multiply that by 1,500,000 counters a day, it's a big bottleneck. |
As it turns out, the file sizes of those graphical counter digits amounted to less bandwidth than the bloat of the JavaScript in question. Did anyone quibble at the rationale for cutting back on the counter digits' size?
By extension, reducing the JavaScript by 3,676 bytes would save approximately 5,514,000,000 bytes (5.5 Gigabytes) of daily transfer from the server. This potential savings is something which I suspect Aodhán would find attractive.
On Tue Dec 30, 2003, webmaster said:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Quote: | | I do take your point about the counter code being overly long. There is no need for it at all. We'll see what we can do about optimising it now. Right, changing that javascript to be the smallest is easy.... |
I applaud all of Aodhán's efforts to create wonderful metrics resources for webmasters everywhere. I agree wholeheartedly with oldzbutgoodies that some other services (O.K., I really mean Bravenet!) have been assaulting webmasters with intrusive pop-up ads when they try to retrieve their stats. By contrast, StatCounter has not stooped to such measures -- and it is my hope they can afford to continue that trend indefinitely!
Certainly it seems that the only way StatCounter can remain free of obnoxious in-your-face ads and remain financially solvent, is if it receives financial support from webmasters (like us) who appreciate the service, who wish to subscribe to larger logs, etc. I also believe that it will tend to be the more serious and committed webmasters who are willing to shell out dough for such services. These very same webmasters are likely to be the ones who approach bandwidth issues with an eye toward lean, clean, efficient code and resources (including JavaScripts).
Although it puzzled me somewhat, webmaster also said (in nearly the same breath):
| Quote: | | ...nobody every brought it up as a problem before. And it will be quite annoying to change and maintain. Is it such a huge problem for all members? |
I'm willing to wager that a significant number -- if not the majority -- of StatCounter users did not examine the linked JavaScript document itself (http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter.js). Given that the JavaScript snippet (which webmasters place on their own page) is relatively small, few would have suspected how much code lies "behind the scenes" -- excessive by even the webmaster's own admission.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that few would report it as a problem. In fact, I know that a frequent poster to these forums had a home page with nearly half-a-megabyte's worth of images and text (on just one page!) when we shared a discussion in November about bandwidth. It seems safe to say that no one with that utter disregard for dial-up users' download times would ever care about a measly 4,251 bytes of transfer!
Some of StatCounter's webmasters may even be using their counters on web pages served by "free" hosts. Many of our readers have probably visited such sites and witnessed -- on more than a few occasions -- that the sites were temporarily taken down by the host, displaying only a page which says, "Sorry, this web site has exceeded its bandwidth and is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later."
I will admit that during part of this year, I've been accessing the Internet with a dial-up connection myself -- so perhaps I seem overly sensitized to the issue. Nonetheless, even when I was happily cruising on high-speed broadband access, I was still in tune with the 67% of my visitors whose only access is through a telephone modem.
Sorry, I can't quite understand what could be so "annoying to change and maintain" about a leaner JavaScript comparable to Bravenet's. If it is as "easy" as webmaster says -- it shouldn't take much maintenance once it's in place.
Much as I appreciate the "bells and whistles" which have been introduced during the past several months at StatCounter, not all of my clients are really that interested in knowing visitors' browser version, color depth, operating system, or screen resolution. Most of them just want to know about the number of pageviews their ads are receiving. For that particular purpose, I'm sorry to say that Bravenet's leaner script works out to be the better solution in logging such information, while maintaining a small bandwidth "footprint". Unfortunately, webmaster has steadfastly insisted that using only the <NOSCRIPT> portion of the StatCounter code constitutes a violation of StatCounter's terms and conditions -- even though that option was offered to users on the StatCounter site earlier this year.
From the perspective of a business model which is trying to attract paid subscribers in order to remain solvent and to grow the system, it would seem prudent to consider responding to the needs of serious webmasters regarding both bandwidth and flexibility in choosing which stats one can subscribe to -- even if it means modifying a current JavaScript to exclude unwanted stats.
Once StatCounter can respond effectively to the issues raised here, I for one would be entirely pleased to dump other providers and migrate all my counters to the same service. At that point, I would definitely be inclined to participate with financial support -- as I positively hate pop-ups!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
if you just want to know about your pageloads/unique visitors/returning visitors and basic info we already have a very lean option.
tick the "HTML Only Counter" option when you are generating your code.
I take your point dfnet we will look to reduce the javascript size into the future.
(the fancy counter styles as I said before was a CPU issue not a bandwith issue) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Annied
Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 64 Location: England
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great new feature and totally addictive! I'm so pleased I found Statcounter.
Thanks _________________ Ann
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dfnet
Joined: 10 Nov 2003 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:43 am Post subject: Orphaned </noscript> tag |
|
|
| webmaster wrote: | | if you just want to know about your pageloads/unique visitors/returning visitors and basic info we already have a very lean option. Tick the "HTML Only Counter" option when you are generating your code. |
Thank you, webmaster, for your suggestion. This evening, I did as you advised and started a new project while checking the "HTML Only Counter" option.
Interestingly, I note that the resulting code is essentially equivalent to the <NOSCRIPT> portion I had used previously, which caused all the controversy about "violating terms and conditions".
The generated code even includes an orphaned </noscript> tag which doesn't belong there. Since such a tag would show up as an error in any HTML validation check, may I assume there is no problem with violating terms and conditions by removing it?
For your reference, the following is a copy of the code generated this evening by StatCounter:
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<a href="http://www.statcounter.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://c1.statcounter.com/counter.php?sc_project=xxxxxx&java=0" alt="marketing tool" border="0"></a> </noscript>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code -->
(I have substituted the project number with "xxxxxx" for the purposes of this forum)
Although it doesn't seem to cause an error in the counter's display (at least not in my MSIE browser), you might want to look at the double ampersand tags which show up in generated code. They look slightly different in this forum because it converts them to a single tag.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
many thx - noscript tag removed.
I think the rest of the code is correct however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
henrywest
Joined: 01 Jan 2004 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 10:17 am Post subject: Ip lookup |
|
|
This is one of the features I have been waiting for and it's great!
However, a couple of problems, I think.
1. I got 4 hits from sources on AOL with 3 different IP addresses. In the summary they were listed as 2 hits only.
2. This morning I got a couple of hits from a referral via a link from my own personal site. This was listed as from Seattle, Washington, USA where the IP is traced back to BTopenworld (81.129.9.17) in UK. My website host is 217.206.220.136 - in the UK! _________________ Cy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webwey
Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 39 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 5:25 pm Post subject: GeoLocation is brill |
|
|
Many thanks for the Geo Location information - it is brilliant, except for a few minor things.
My own entry traced back to Manchester, UK but I am at the other end of the country to there. However, it appears that OneTel uses central servers for the entire UK.
Regarding AOL: I have in the past traced AOL IP addresses and they are served by regional servers (given a specific number), even in the UK. Ok, so some of them may go via Amsterdam, but can still be traced to an area of the UK. A little way back in history, they did all appear to trace to Virginia USA and someplace else, but not now.
Mention was made of a BT Openworld tracing to the US - I too found this to occur recently, though it never used to, but I believe BT have recently acquired servers in the US (for Broadband?).
When tracing IP addresses I use Visualware. Using their Demo service you can input the ip address online and it will trace it showing all the hops it makes. They have servers around the world so just select the one nearest to you. You will have to sign up with an email address to access it on a regular basis though, but it is well worth it.
http://www.visualware.com/personal/demo/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
henrywest
Joined: 01 Jan 2004 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 8:01 pm Post subject: IP Lookup |
|
|
Thanks Webway for the comments.
I realise that one often cannot trace back further that the provider's server, like BT or in my case NTL, and that will distort the geographic information. I hadn't realised that BT might have located one of their servers in the US.
I have Neo Trace with which I can do a trace and that will give some useful information. As to locating the actual city I found http://www.ip2location.com/ helpful. They will allow you to enter up to 20 addresses per day for free and it seems pretty accurate.
All this still leaves some questions in relation to my original posting unanswered. _________________ Cy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webwey
Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 39 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
I found that Neo Trace didn't trace far enough - at least not as far as the Visualware server did.
BT used to have regional servers, although each one served a large area of the country, but am not sure if they still do. NTL does or did too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
booksprite
Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 12 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2004 3:00 pm Post subject: Geo-location & Country Stats |
|
|
The geo-location stats are great and quite addictive - many thanks for making them available. I'm also interested in the return of the country stats which show the number of visitors from each country. This seemed to work very well before. Are they likely to be reappearing soon?
booksprite |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the upgrade of the database server didn't give the increase in efficiency in reporting the country stats that we hoped for. we are looking into this more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webwey
Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 39 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:56 pm Post subject: This is what I meant about AOL |
|
|
Thought I would put this in here as an example of how AOL can be traced (as I said in a previous post). This entry from my stats of today:
3 Jan 17:23:33 MSIE 5.5 Windows 98 800x600 United States cache-loh-aa08.proxy.aol.com (195.93.32.14)
As soon as I saw the loh part of the hostname, I knew it was London, England. A trace using the VisualServer gave the following details:
ae-0-16.gar2.London1.Level3.net London Uk 2nd London1 Gateway infrastructure
pop2-loh-P6-0.atdn.net London UK AOL Transit Data Network ATDN
195.93.32.14 cache-loh-aa08.proxy.aol.com London UK AOL Inc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
henrywest
Joined: 01 Jan 2004 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:48 pm Post subject: Geo location |
|
|
I am happier now that webmaster has acknowledged that there is a problem and that you are looking into it. As I said before the Geolocation where possible down to city is great.
Thanks, Webway for your comments about AOL and the greater accuracy of VisualServer. I will follow that up. _________________ Cy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scanner
Joined: 13 Dec 2003 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the whole service is great. I haven't found anywhere that produces as much information, as many choices of counter including invisible and such a rock solid counter. If there were somewhere else, I don't even want to hear about it now, I'm well happy with what I get for an outlay of er, nowt!
Brilliant keep it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thx Scanner - comments like yours make it all worthwhile.
btw we're after getting our 5th dedicated server now to cope with the increasing demand and we've upgraded the database servers with DUAL Xeon processors and more ram.
I wonder if people realise how much it takes to keep this service running as fast as it does ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webwey
Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 39 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with you Scanner It is a brilliant service.
No, Mr Webmaster, I doubt any of us using Statcounter realise just how much work goes into everything you do for us.......but do you realise just how much we all appreciate the excellent service you provide?  _________________ Live each day as though it were your last, as one day it will be |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
webmaster StatCounter Team
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 2308 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know some of you really appreciate it and I love giving you the best stats about your visitors.
I do wonder how many dedicated servers StatCounter will have in 2 years time. Just 6 months ago it only had one! Now it has five! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bflag
Joined: 06 Jan 2004 Posts: 5 Location: Parish NY
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:55 pm Post subject: Suggestion |
|
|
For the record, the size of the java code is not an issue for me. It does not add significant weight considering it's plain text.
Suggestion: The Geo thing is awsome and exactly what I came here looking for. However, for me the most important thing is cities of origin as opposed to country of origin. Can you add a collumn for cities? OR replace the country collumn with cities. It is not practical to have to click on each visitor to see which city they came from.
This service is great and I certainly plan to upgrade my account. You guys supply me with almost as much data as WebTrends (log analyzer) which is $500+
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DavidRehm
Joined: 04 Jan 2004 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great service, keep up the good work.
I second the request to streamline counter.js -- poking through it myself w/ merely average javascript knowledge (I'm much more at home in C++) I saw how you could easily cut at least half a kilobyte, and I'm sure those w/ much more experience than I could do far greater.
I also think that fixing the bug where Win2k shows up as WinNT should be added to the priority list.
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|