Subject:
|
Re: jump.cgi
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:54:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
191 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> Todd,
>
> What is the purpose of jump.cgi? Was there any problem with external links
> that prompted this?
No problems that I'm aware of, no.
> Or is is simply to track what links get clikced by who and how often?
It's to analyze what links get clicked and from where (which page). It's
something that can potentially be reported or tabulated for link listings,
etc. (see Patrick Delahanty's site listings[1], for example, which do a bit
of this), and and helps figure out which of N instances of some link are most
apt to be used, etc. For example, do people click through to the week's
CLSotW pick from the CLSotW page, or from one of its subpages, or from a
Spotlight where the link has been transcluded?
> If that data was useful for LUGNET (i.e. helps you raise money etc.) then
> I could see the point but otherwise why would you fix something that isn't
> broken?
Another benefit is that it makes is very easy to add in the future a provision
in jump.cgi to display an intermediate page notifying someone that they are
leaving lugnet.com and entering another site and that the link they have
clicked does not imply endorsement or imply that what they will find is free
of smut/etc. -- standard legal disclaimer stuff. If a page like that appeared,
it could include a checkbox
[ ] In the future, don't show this message and instead jump directly to
the site.
just like typical warnings in end-user software packages. That could be
governed by a client-side cookie or possibly something else.
Who clicked something is not tracked, although their IP address shows up in
the HTTP logs. I don't care who clicks what, only what gets clicked in
relation to other things that get clicked, and from where.
A final benefit is being able to tell people how many refers they had from
lugnet.com -- or at least a lower bound on it. There probably are other
benefits (smaller) but the above are the ones I can think of.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: jump.cgi
|
| (...) Do you find the delay (I've found it to be quite noticable) to be acceptable? It seems to be adding somewhere between 2-3 seconds onto the process of jumping to the intended URL. Dealing with that once isn't much of an issue, but as I noticed (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | jump.cgi
|
| Todd, What is the purpose of jump.cgi? Was there any problem with external links that prompted this? Or is is simply to track what links get clikced by who and how often? If that data was useful for LUGNET (i.e. helps you raise money etc.) then I (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
23 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
|
|
|
|
