Understanding the difference....

Not open for further replies.
Hi guys,

Love Statcounter. It's becoming an obsession :)

Can you help me understand this -

My ISP (who are pretty cool) provide a webstat tool called webalizer. Now if I were to believe the stats this churns out (and I don't) it's like I get 1000's of hits and 100's of visits a month. So unrealistic because I've done hardly any work publising my site, my html needs bringing up to standard and I've only been up about 12 months.

Statcounter I trust. Much more reasonable figures, believable.

Why are they so different?

I want to email my ISP and explain how misleading these webalizer stats are, however, I don't understand (if they are) why they are.

What do you think?
Webalizer is based on server logs, so it counts file hits. A web page consists of one or serveral files of code and a number of image files. Thus in a stats program like Awstats and Webalizer, hits to all the files get counted seprately. One pageload may result in 20 hits being added to the overall number.

You'll never have the same resutls, because Statcounter specifically counts hits to the page that has the counter code on it, not everything else.

Server logs also contain spider and bot hits which generally Statcounter cannot detect (if they are image disabled as most bots are).
Hi Chris

No wonder they are so misleading.

My ISP http://www.godsweb.com have the option to incorporate webalizer as an add-on through your control panel. A recommended extra if you like. I'd really love to ask them to consider recommending statcounter instead. Would that be a reasonable thing to do, or would the 'powers that be' at SC have a problem with that?
It's not a question of instead. Webalizer is fine for what it is, though maybe lacking in proper detailing, for all of it being pretty. It doesn't rely on your coding ability to provide access infromation to your website. It also cannot be avoided by spiders and bots or any visitors who turn off images in their browser. It's not the same sort of animal, and it doesnt' measure the same things, that's all.

The Statcounter code we use now is a remotely hosted script. Thus it relies on you, the webmaster to use it, and use it properly on your web pages. If you have pages where you don't put it, then they'll never be shown even if accessed. If you put it wrong, it won't work or you end up logging multiple times by mistake.

Some future version of Statcounter may emerge where it can use the server logs. Then maybe it can replace or enhance Webalizer or Awstats. But not until then.
Thats fine..

I suppose what I'm asking is, do I need permission from SC for me to say to my ISP, "hey guys I've found this really cool and accurate web stat analysis tool called statcounter. Please have a look at it and consider recommending it (as well as webalizer) to your client base." :)
Oh, well, recommending that their users use a tool that's available to everybody is fine I'm sure. No different from your posting this same recommendation in another forum.
Not open for further replies.