To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 2286
2285  |  2287
Subject: 
Re: usage stats
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:32:11 GMT
Reply-To: 
kloch@nospmkl.net(AvoidSpam)
Viewed: 
289 times
  
301's are moved permanently.  Not exactly errors.

Example:
if someone links to or types http://www.kl.net/scans it will generate 2
log entries,
first the 301 response and the subsequent http://www.kl.net/scans/
that the browser then grabs.  I used to have a significant number
of those, because I diddn't have trailing slashes in any of the
hrefs on my pages (oops!).

IMO It's perfectly ok to count 304's, they indicate a user is accessing
the object again, but they will probably get it from their cache instead
of your server.  If browsers always access the object anyway, that too
would result in 2 for one hits, but that isn't usually the case unless
someone hit's reload.

KL

Todd Lehman wrote:

In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin Loch writes:
Do the raw hits and page views numbers exclude 301 errors?
I found that these can skew the numbers a bit.

Hmm, 3xx's aren't errors, are they?  Do you mean 304's? -- there are tons
of those, but only a tiny handful of 301's.

But anyway -- good question!  Lemme see...

86.1% of the requests result in 200 ("OK"), and 12.9% of the requests result
in 304 ("Not Modified").  Everything else together is 1%.

So I'll count 200's only.

Counting 200's only, the raw hit count is ~69,800 per day and the page-view
count is ~26,200 per day (averaged over the past 21 days).  So my numbers
were off -- the raw hits were inflated by approximately 15% and the page
views were inflated by approximately 5%.  Sorry, I should have thought of
that.  Thanks for asking.  :-)

--Todd



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: usage stats
 
(...) So when places talk about "page views per day" they probably are including 304's? :-) I'd guess so, because it helps inflate the numbers, heheh. --Todd (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: usage stats
 
(...) Hmm, 3xx's aren't errors, are they? Do you mean 304's? -- there are tons of those, but only a tiny handful of 301's. But anyway -- good question! Lemme see... 86.1% of the requests result in 200 ("OK"), and 12.9% of the requests result in 304 (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

6 Messages in This Thread:


Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR