<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comparing Web Statistics Services - Sitemeter, Go-Stats, Extreme-Tracker, 103Bees</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/04/11/comparing-web-statistics-services-sitemeter-go-stats-extreme-tracker-beeswork/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/04/11/comparing-web-statistics-services-sitemeter-go-stats-extreme-tracker-beeswork/</link>
	<description>Politics, Commentary, Culture, Technology.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:53:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/04/11/comparing-web-statistics-services-sitemeter-go-stats-extreme-tracker-beeswork/#comment-74</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/04/11/comparing-web-statistics-services-sitemeter-go-stats-extreme-tracker-beeswork/#comment-74</guid>
		<description>Richard

Thanks very much for your comments - I really appreciate the input. 

As I said, these are tentative conclusions.

I'll be doing some more detailed comments at the end of a full week, when I should have a better set of data - something like 1000-1500 visits. This should also deal with any "time zone" problems.

My experience on filtering webstats for larger (work) websites, is that - foe example - up to 25% of traffic on a site with 250,000 page views a month was bots of various sorts (including watch dogs). This was filtering against a list of several thousand ip addresses used by search engines etc.

I'll be doing a more detailed comparison of the services offered at that point, and crunching my server logs in some detail - and inviting comment from the services.

I need to get around to banning image and video / audio leechers.

Once more - thanks for dropping in.

Matt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard</p>
<p>Thanks very much for your comments - I really appreciate the input. </p>
<p>As I said, these are tentative conclusions.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll be doing some more detailed comments at the end of a full week, when I should have a better set of data - something like 1000-1500 visits. This should also deal with any &#8220;time zone&#8221; problems.</p>
<p>My experience on filtering webstats for larger (work) websites, is that - foe example - up to 25% of traffic on a site with 250,000 page views a month was bots of various sorts (including watch dogs). This was filtering against a list of several thousand ip addresses used by search engines etc.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll be doing a more detailed comparison of the services offered at that point, and crunching my server logs in some detail - and inviting comment from the services.</p>
<p>I need to get around to banning image and video / audio leechers.</p>
<p>Once more - thanks for dropping in.</p>
<p>Matt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/04/11/comparing-web-statistics-services-sitemeter-go-stats-extreme-tracker-beeswork/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:36:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/04/11/comparing-web-statistics-services-sitemeter-go-stats-extreme-tracker-beeswork/#comment-73</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://gostats.com" rel="nofollow"&gt;GoStats.com&lt;/a&gt; allows you to block your own PC from counting; you may miss a few of your own hits this way.
-Another thing to note is the order of the counters on the page: if a person with a slow net connection is clicking quickly through your site, you may miss a hit or two most likely for the trackers lower down on your page.  (however that doesn't explain the significant difference with the lower ones)
-Server stats will always show more as it will include bots, image theifs, pings (or other non browser behavour)

&lt;strong&gt;Matt - The Go Stats figures for yesterday (Wesnesday) were 138 visits/161 pages vs figures for my server stats (using the SlimStat plugin) of 164 visits - which are far closer than the figures in the report.&lt;/strong&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://gostats.com" rel="nofollow">GoStats.com</a> allows you to block your own PC from counting; you may miss a few of your own hits this way.<br />
-Another thing to note is the order of the counters on the page: if a person with a slow net connection is clicking quickly through your site, you may miss a hit or two most likely for the trackers lower down on your page.  (however that doesn&#8217;t explain the significant difference with the lower ones)<br />
-Server stats will always show more as it will include bots, image theifs, pings (or other non browser behavour)</p>
<p><strong>Matt - The Go Stats figures for yesterday (Wesnesday) were 138 visits/161 pages vs figures for my server stats (using the SlimStat plugin) of 164 visits - which are far closer than the figures in the report.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 3.621 seconds -->
