Tuesday, April 09, 2002
A lesson in usability, part II
Mark had written in just after I made changes in the look of the site and said that the red I was using for unvisited links looked horrible.
Yes, it was rather garish but I wasn't sure what to use for colors. So tonight (okay, this morning really) I played around with the color scheme a bit (with the help of Spring) and I think I got a scheme that isn't quite as bad. The unvisited links are still light enough that they should be easy to see (even if the browser doesn't add the underlining like my one reader reported) and the color is a bit more subdued than the
BRIGHT RED
I was using for links (or rather, various shades of pure red) so Mark should be pleased.
You should also notice that the sidebox to the left is a bit smaller than it used to be—I bumped the font size down a bit to shrink the box up, to better fit the space.
I'm really liking style sheets.
Still no word
Still no word back on my application for the Creative Team Expert at MachFind.
Then again, there still doesn't seem to be anything searchable at MachFind either …
The Ins and Outs of Calculating Weblog Traffic
The buzz in Bloggerton is about numbers. The number of readers a blog has and it's not an easy number to calculate. Over the past few months I've been measuring myself against Sean Tevis, a fellow South Florida blogger (whom I actually met in real life once). For a while we were pretty much at parity, but then over the past month or so he's taken off. As he states (as of today) he is getting 4,000 visits and 10,000 page views per month.
And I'm wondering just how he's calculating that.
So here we go. Raw counts for The Boston Diaries: January 2002: 14,297 requests. February 2002: 8,035 requests and March 2002: 7,860 requests. Yes, there's a rather big drop there between January and February, but that can be accounted for—5,870 requests in January were from easily identifiable search engine robots (4,726 just from one alone). If we rerun the count for just the popular browsers (basically, any agent reporting itself as Mozilla, of which Netscape, Mozilla, Opera and IE—yes, that does skip Lynx, but the number of hits via Lynx (that aren't me) is miniscule for purposes of the rough estimates I'm doing here) and only pages (or files) that were successfully served up, we get: January 2002: 5,880 requests. February 2002: 6,089 requests. And March 2002: 5,292 (ouch).
Now, I'm generating this by going over the raw logs with a custom program I
wrote that allows one to filter out fields (to make it easier to
grep through). Those last figures, for instance, were done with:
escanlog -status 200 -agent boston.conman.org | grep Mozilla | wc
-l
escanlog is the program I wrote, and I instructed it to only print
out records that successfully completed (-status 200) and only
print out the user agent field (-agent) on the log file in question
(boston.conman.org). grep and wc -l are standard
Unix programs to search for patterns and count characters (or lines, in this
invocation).
But those figures are again, misleading. They include images, requests for the RSS file, the CSS file; extraneous stuff that don't really constitute an actual page view. Going over the logs again, this time only taking into account pages (most likely) viewed by humans we get: January 2002: 1,805. February 2002: 2,090. March 2002: 1,538 (ow! But it's still an improvement over December 2001 at 1,090).
Oh wait, one more variable to control for: those counts include those I've done. Remove those, and the results are: December 2001 (since I included it above): 1,009. January 2002: 1,673 (well, Rob and Spring are also being excluded—yea, that's why I had over 100 visits from myself). February 2002: 1,909. March 2002: 1,328 (oooh).
Now, I can pretty much guarantee that those figures up there represent unique visits. A more interesting question to answer would be the number of repeat (or regular) visits. This is tougher since most ISPs dish out dynamic IP addresses whenever someone reconnects but I don't think it's impossible to get a ball park figure, taking the previous results, pulling out the unique IP addresses and sorting, I see for January 2002 (cutting off after 5 unique visits per address):
197 65.116.145.137
92 208.55.254.110
63 211.101.236.143
45 63.173.190.16
30 64.129.118.129
30 24.52.32.105
20 211.101.236.79
19 24.4.252.167
15 208.60.8.130
11 65.58.147.103
11 164.77.128.210
10 64.131.172.241
9 66.157.2.122
8 207.49.213.174
7 65.2.207.3
6 65.207.131.180
6 64.39.15.82
6 12.39.254.108
5 64.30.224.30
5 63.251.87.214
5 212.250.100.122
5 209.214.129.196
5 208.1.105.145
5 204.89.226.65
5 196.41.28.43
5 130.74.211.63
And so on. Easily a dozen repeat readers, but there are probably more. One way would be to generate the number of visits per block of IP addresses (most users would fall into a range of addresses, usually along a classical C block and by doing that, I get:
197 65.116.145
92 208.55.254
83 211.101.236
45 63.173.190
30 64.129.118
30 24.52.32
21 64.12.96
21 24.4.252
18 208.60.8
11 65.58.147
11 208.1.105
11 196.41.28
11 164.77.128
10 64.131.172
10 152.163.189
9 66.157.2
9 216.10.44
8 65.207.131
8 212.250.100
8 207.49.213
8 205.188.209
8 205.188.208
7 65.2.207
7 195.163.203
6 64.39.15
6 12.39.254
5 64.30.224
5 63.251.87
5 24.51.202
5 209.214.129
5 204.89.226
5 130.74.211
5 129.74.252
Hmmm … not much difference really. Rerunning for last month (March) I get:
86 208.55.254
56 65.214.36
22 64.131.172
21 12.164.38
20 218.45.21
20 211.101.236
19 66.176.111
17 207.200.84
17 129.74.186
16 66.27.11
16 151.203.23
14 64.12.96
12 64.129.118
12 216.76.209
11 196.41.28
10 66.27.63
10 64.30.224
10 64.231.69
10 194.222.60
9 64.152.245
9 24.51.200
9 205.188.209
8 64.90.36
8 152.163.188
7 64.158.38
7 208.60.8
6 205.188.208
6 199.44.53
6 199.174.3
6 199.174.0
6 195.163.203
6 194.82.103
5 64.34.18
5 64.210.248
5 24.71.223
5 24.52.32
5 207.158.192
5 207.114.208
5 204.89.226
5 151.100.29
5 128.242.197
5 12.225.219
Oh, lets call it two dozen repeat readers and be done with it.
This is an interesting topic, and I would still like to know how Sean Tevis calculates his stats.
