Why change Recent Visitor Activity format again??

[niemand]

Hi,

I remember how upset I was when you added [Label IP Address] to Recent Visitor Activity section. It still screws me up as I used your layout for years and had to make manual clean-up ever after (to remove that nasty piece of text).

Now I see you made another poor choice by replacing Host name with Network description on the same section. Why is that? It basically removes one useful piece of information without adding anything else (because Network description was always present on Visitor Paths anyway).

You know how annoying it is when you use something for ages and then, all of a sudden, it changes. Think of Microsoft products, for example. The same is here. I uderstand that experiments are the driving force behind any progress but standards or compatibility are of no less importance for the end users so can you please somehow think of them too? And not only as of guinea pigs.

Cheers

[niemand]

I notice that for some projects it is displayed properly but for the others is that new experimental format. So there must be a switch somewhere. Can you please enable it for the users so they can decide what they prefer?

[webado]

It's a different geo database, used for new SC4 project and the old ones that have been converted to SC4. This geo database returns that information rather than the older one.

[niemand]

Thanks but how do I opt out? I don't want any changes.

[webado]

You cannot opt out. That's the way it is and it will stay this way until Statcounter finds something even better.

[niemand]

I appreciate it's free etc. but such behaviour really is very much Microsoft's style: "We reduce functionality and leave you no choice to do what you've been doing for ages but if you feel even slightly bad about it we'll call it an imrovement and the only way to go forward for self-respecting modern people".
Do you agree?

[Arne]

I don't understand this, or am I getting that info from somewhere else?

As an example, I see this on Recent Visitor Activity

Location: San Rafael, California, United States
IP Address: Comcast Cable (24.5.94.247)

So I see the hosts (ISP) name and the IP address there, on the same line.

I must be missing something?

[niemand]

Hi,

Now:

Location: San Rafael, California, United States
IP Address: Comcast Cable (24.5.94.247)

Before:

Location: San Rafael, California, United States
Hostname: c-24-5-94-247.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (24.5.94.247)

The difference is highlighted.

While changing text "Hostname" to "IP Address" is no big deal, replacing the actual network host name (c-24-5-94-247.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) with its description (Comcast Cable) is essentially the same as removing this host information altogether. The network description was always shown on Visitor Paths anyway while the network host was only displayed on Recent Visitor Activity and now this information is completely missing.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by niemand

While changing text "Hostname" to "IP Address" is no big deal, replacing the actual network host name (c-24-5-94-247.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) with its description (Comcast Cable) is essentially the same as removing this host information altogether. The network description was always shown on Visitor Paths anyway while the network host was only displayed on Recent Visitor Activity and now this information is completely missing.

Yes, I see the difference. Had the "Before" so long ago, that I had forgot about it.

Anyway (if I remember correctly) there was a request "long" time ago to have it as it is now, people seemed to be more interested in the ISP's name than the network that not always display the ISP as clearly as in your example.

But as Christina said, it's a different geo database than before, and this was chosen because of a better and more accurate geo information. I guess we can't get it all.

[niemand]

You're trying to be political here (talking a lot politely without answering the questions)
I totally understand changing data providers etc. but the host info is available from most more or less advanced geo databases, I'm sure. So why removing it altogether?
I will agree if the users voted to replace this information on that particular section but I won't accept if you say these same users voted to completely remove it.
If you removed it from one section, why not put it on the other? Generally, I wouldn't mind that much if you'd just swap the places but removing something the users got used to - very bad.