Good invisible Web statistics program?

Bacchus wrote:

> On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:55:00 +0000, Robert Montgomery wrote:
>
>
>>Are there yet any good Web statistics programs available, which allow
>>invisible tracking of the statistics?
>>
>>I was told before to get the statistics from my ISP, but I was told by
>>my ISP I'd have to set up a business account for that, which would cost
>>me hundreds of dollars a month. (Please don't recommend that I change
>>ISPs; I'm not willing to do that just to get Web stats.)
>>
>
>
> Sounds like you are using something like an earthlink personal page or other
> personal page and having your url forwarded maybe?

No; I have two sites and I own domain names for them.
>
> There are several good reasons then to change isp if that is what you are
> doing.
>
> if you are running a business page, pay some money ( usually a small amount
> for what you will get in return) and get a real ISP, I host many of my own
> clients from 35 -65 per year depending on their traffic.
> and they get cpanel which breaks everything down for them on the stats.
>
> moving a site is not that hard unless you have no real web design
> experience. I move accounts all the time with little problem.

I'm an excellent site designer, but but moving accounts to another
company is always a huge, time-consuming, frustrating, stressful hassle.

Trust me; I know what I'm writing about. I've had five ISPs and a few
domains and domain registrars over the years, and changing accounts is
ALWAYS a pain in the ass. (It's like changing your cable company; that's
also always a hassle because there are always so many options and
restrctions and caveats and packages and different people to deal with,
and usually everyone you deal with tells you something different.

Robert

> __
> Bacchus the Roman God of Wine
> Women just love him
> http://www.helamonster.com/classified/
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Robert Montgomery wrote:
>
>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Montgomery wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was told before to get the statistics from my ISP, but I was told
>>>> by my ISP I'd have to set up a business account for that, which
>>>> would cost me hundreds of dollars a month. (Please don't recommend
>>>> that I change ISPs; I'm not willing to do that just to get Web stats.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is true that getting Web stats isn't worth changing ISPs for.
>>>
>>> However, it *is* worth changing ISP to get away from a company that will
>>> charge you hundreds of dollars per month for basic services like
>>> this. I'm
>>> sure you could find one for $30-$40/month.
>>
>>
>> I called my ISP again and was told that I CAN get access to my Web
>> logs, but there's a heavy cost.
>>
>> The logs aren't available because my data is on the old
>> servers/platform /package, and to get access to them I'd have to
>> switch to the new servers/platform/package, which means that I
>> wouldn't be able to get my Web bill included with my phone bill.
>>
>
> But you can get other hosting for a very reasonable price - $5-10/mo.,
> for instance.
>
>> It would also mean that the contents of my Web sites and email would
>> have to be transferred to my ISP's new servers/platform/package, which
>> implies to me there would or could be hassles with my email accounts.
>>
>
> Depending on the size of your site and your upload/download speed, this
> might take five to thirty minutes.
>
>> It would also mean I'd have to contact both of my domain registrars to
>> get them to change my name servers.
>>
>
> I can change the nameservers I use myself. This takes two minutes.
>
>> It sounds like a big, time-consuming and frustrating hassle, and I've
>> decided Web logs aren't satisfactory for my needs anyway; I want
>> lovely pie charts and bar charts to help me to easily analyze my hit
>> info.
>>
>
> Should take less than an hour to do everything.

Not true. This would probably take me several hours at least, partly
because I'm not a top technician and partly because all tasks in life
gernerally take longer than expected (Murphy's law).

(The other day it took half an hour at least just to fix the problem of
me getting junk email every day. The ISP had to forward email from one
account to another to stop me from getting most of my jusk mail. It took
half an hour on the phone to sort it out. I couldn't log into my site on
my Mac because the link didn't work and had to keep going back and
forthe between the Mac and the PC while talking to the tech guy on the
pone. And the problem with the email had already been fixed before but
the emaill blocking system broke down for some reason and I had phoned
the ISP months ago and a different person had told me there was nothing
that could prevent me from being deluged with email and that my email
blocking system was set up properly.

These things are NEVER simple and brief.

Another example: a few months ago I set up a bank loan at my bank.
During a meeting at the bank this week, my banker told me she had no
record of whether or not there was a guarantor listed on the forms
concerning my investment. To try to get the infomation, I'll have to set
up another meeting at the bank with another banker.

One important lesson I've learned in life is that nothing is as simple
as it first appears, and you can't convince me otherwise because I have
50 years of life experiences as proof.

And I've often been told by Internet folks how easy it is to do this or
that, but it seldom is as easy as claimed. Case in point: I was
recommended Site Stats as a good, invisible site tracker. Well, I tried
it, and it's NOT invisible, even though I pasted the code in twice and I
had to fiddle with the code to try to fix it, to no avail.)


It will take longer for
> everything to propagate throughout the net.
>
> I admit raw statistics themselves are worthless. But if you have them,
> you can run virtually any statistics analysis program to get the graphs
> you want.

I would have no idea of how to do that, and wouldn't have the time or
inclinationto learn it. I want pre-packaged stats that don't need any
work on my part to assemble.

Robert
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

Robert Montgomery wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Robert Montgomery wrote:
>>
>>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert Montgomery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was told before to get the statistics from my ISP, but I was told
>>>>> by my ISP I'd have to set up a business account for that, which
>>>>> would cost me hundreds of dollars a month. (Please don't recommend
>>>>> that I change ISPs; I'm not willing to do that just to get Web stats.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is true that getting Web stats isn't worth changing ISPs for.
>>>>
>>>> However, it *is* worth changing ISP to get away from a company that
>>>> will
>>>> charge you hundreds of dollars per month for basic services like
>>>> this. I'm
>>>> sure you could find one for $30-$40/month.
>>>
>>>
>>> I called my ISP again and was told that I CAN get access to my Web
>>> logs, but there's a heavy cost.
>>>
>>> The logs aren't available because my data is on the old
>>> servers/platform /package, and to get access to them I'd have to
>>> switch to the new servers/platform/package, which means that I
>>> wouldn't be able to get my Web bill included with my phone bill.
>>>
>>
>> But you can get other hosting for a very reasonable price - $5-10/mo.,
>> for instance.
>>
>>> It would also mean that the contents of my Web sites and email would
>>> have to be transferred to my ISP's new servers/platform/package,
>>> which implies to me there would or could be hassles with my email
>>> accounts.
>>>
>>
>> Depending on the size of your site and your upload/download speed,
>> this might take five to thirty minutes.
>>
>>> It would also mean I'd have to contact both of my domain registrars
>>> to get them to change my name servers.
>>>
>>
>> I can change the nameservers I use myself. This takes two minutes.
>>
>>> It sounds like a big, time-consuming and frustrating hassle, and I've
>>> decided Web logs aren't satisfactory for my needs anyway; I want
>>> lovely pie charts and bar charts to help me to easily analyze my hit
>>> info.
>>>
>>
>> Should take less than an hour to do everything.
>
> Not true. This would probably take me several hours at least, partly
> because I'm not a top technician and partly because all tasks in life
> gernerally take longer than expected (Murphy's law).
>

It takes virtually no technical knowledge to download a site and upload
it to another host. All it takes is a decent ftp program.

It takes a little more knowledge to change your name servers. You've at
least got to read the directions.

And the one our is conservative - figuring a slow line and reasonably
large website. The last website I transferred was about 750MB and took
under 10 minutes. Of course, it helped that I was able to transfer
directly from server to server.

> (The other day it took half an hour at least just to fix the problem of
> me getting junk email every day. The ISP had to forward email from one
> account to another to stop me from getting most of my jusk mail. It took
> half an hour on the phone to sort it out. I couldn't log into my site on
> my Mac because the link didn't work and had to keep going back and
> forthe between the Mac and the PC while talking to the tech guy on the
> pone. And the problem with the email had already been fixed before but
> the emaill blocking system broke down for some reason and I had phoned
> the ISP months ago and a different person had told me there was nothing
> that could prevent me from being deluged with email and that my email
> blocking system was set up properly.
>

That's a little different.

> These things are NEVER simple and brief.
>

Neither are they hard nor lengthy.


> Another example: a few months ago I set up a bank loan at my bank.
> During a meeting at the bank this week, my banker told me she had no
> record of whether or not there was a guarantor listed on the forms
> concerning my investment. To try to get the infomation, I'll have to set
> up another meeting at the bank with another banker.
>

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

> One important lesson I've learned in life is that nothing is as simple
> as it first appears, and you can't convince me otherwise because I have
> 50 years of life experiences as proof.
>

Unfortunately, I have a few more years than you. But unlike you, I have
found many things which are both quick and simple.

> And I've often been told by Internet folks how easy it is to do this or
> that, but it seldom is as easy as claimed. Case in point: I was
> recommended Site Stats as a good, invisible site tracker. Well, I tried
> it, and it's NOT invisible, even though I pasted the code in twice and I
> had to fiddle with the code to try to fix it, to no avail.)
>

There's a lot out there which is easy on the internet. But most things
require a basic level of knowledge, also.

As for Site Stats, I'm not familiar with it. But it doesn't see like it
would be too hard to insert two lines of html at the end of the page.


>
> It will take longer for
>> everything to propagate throughout the net.
>>
>> I admit raw statistics themselves are worthless. But if you have
>> them, you can run virtually any statistics analysis program to get the
>> graphs you want.
>
> I would have no idea of how to do that, and wouldn't have the time or
> inclinationto learn it. I want pre-packaged stats that don't need any
> work on my part to assemble.
>
> Robert
>

How about search for analysis programs on the internet and look at them?

Or maybe you should pay someone to do the work for you. You don't need
a ton of knowledge to operate a website, but you need some. Just like
you don't need to be an automotive designer to operate a car, but you
need some knowledge.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

Robert Montgomery wrote:
> Scott Bryce wrote:
>
>> Robert Montgomery wrote:
>>
>>> It would not be cost effective to switch ISPs.
>>
>>
>> I am not suggesting that you switch ISPs. I m suggesting that you keep
>> your ISP and move just your hosting somewhere else. A 2-domain plan at
>> a low cost web host will run between $5.00 USD and $10.00 USD per
>> month. Is it worth that much additional cost to get the statistics
>> that you want? Will you save that much or more if you don't host at
>> your ISP?
>
> I went to a great deal of trouble (several hours of frustrating, stress
> ful work) to amalgamate my Web services to try to streamline them, by
> switching my domain hosting from my domain registrars to my Web
> host/ISP, so I don't see how it would help to split the services from my
> current setup:
>
> • two domain registrars and
> • one domain host/Web host/ISP
>
> which would then become:
>
> • two domain registrars
> • one Web host/ISP
> • one domain host
>

Why do you have two registrars?

And why do you insist that your ISP has to be the same as your ISP?

For any domain, I have one registrar and one hosting company. I also
have two different ISP's (primary and backup), but neither has anything
to do with hosting.


> As it stands now, I have to pay three companies for my Web services and
> you're suggesting that I further complicate the situation by having four
> Web services suppliers.
>

I don't see that anyone's suggesting that. But your domain registrar
should NEVER be the same as your hosting company.

> And of course any switching of such services always entails hours of
> frustrating, stressful work trying to communicate with the parties
> involved to sort out all of the complex technical issues invloved, and
> dealing with customer service and tech service people many of whom don't
> know what they're doing.
>

Then maybe you need to pay someone to do the work for you. Last time I
switched a domain to another registrar it too less than five minutes.

And BTW - it took no technical knowledge - all I had to do was read the
directions at my registrar.

> Robert
>
>> You do understand, don't you, that an ISP and a web host are two
>> different things? You just happen to be paying the same company to do
>> both for you right now. I am suggesting that you continue to pay your
>> ISP for your phone line, long distance, bundled phone features, etc.
>> Just have someone else host your two domains.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.RemoveThis@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

On Sat, 12 May 2007 19:18:26 GMT, Robert Montgomery put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Scott Bryce wrote:
>
>> Robert Montgomery wrote:
>>
>>> It would not be cost effective to switch ISPs.
>>
>>
>> I am not suggesting that you switch ISPs. I m suggesting that you keep
>> your ISP and move just your hosting somewhere else. A 2-domain plan at a
>> low cost web host will run between $5.00 USD and $10.00 USD per month.
>> Is it worth that much additional cost to get the statistics that you
>> want? Will you save that much or more if you don't host at your ISP?
>
>I went to a great deal of trouble (several hours of frustrating, stress
>ful work) to amalgamate my Web services to try to streamline them, by
>switching my domain hosting from my domain registrars to my Web
>host/ISP, so I don't see how it would help to split the services from my
>current setup:
>
>• two domain registrars and
>• one domain host/Web host/ISP
>
>which would then become:
>
>• two domain registrars
>• one Web host/ISP
>• one domain host
>
>As it stands now, I have to pay three companies for my Web services and
>you're suggesting that I further complicate the situation by having four
>Web services suppliers.

There are three very good reasons for separating your web hosting from
your Internet connectivity:

1. Functionality. As a general rule, a dedicated hosting supplier will
provide a much better service than a company which merely offers it as
an add-on to connectivity. This is particularly the case if the
connectivity supplier (the "ISP") sells primarily to home users rather
than businesses.

2. Continuity. If you ever move premises, you may well need to change
your ISP. You don't want to have to change your web host at the same
time.

3. Price. It's often cheaper to split your services than have them all
with the same supplier. Again, this is paticularly the case with ISPs
that do hosting as an add-on to their primary business of supplying
Internet access.

>And of course any switching of such services always entails hours of
>frustrating, stressful work trying to communicate with the parties
>involved to sort out all of the complex technical issues invloved, and
>dealing with customer service and tech service people many of whom don't
>know what they're doing.

If it's that bad, then you're with the wrong suppliers anyway. Switch
to a set of suppliers with better customer service.

As a general rule, people who are serious about doing business on the
web will have three different suppliers:

Domain registration/hosting
Internet connectivity
Web hosting

It can often make sense to combine the first and third of these (let
your web host handle your domain management as well), but it's almost
never a good idea to combine these with connectivity. Bundled
solutions are for home users, not for anyone who uses the Internet for
business.

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Did I tell you it was wine when really it was water?"
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

"Robert Montgomery" <info-block.RemoveThis@stargate_tech.net> wrote in message
news:Zbo1i.12573$g63.7539@edtnps82...
> Brian Cryer wrote:
>
>> "Robert Montgomery" <info-block.RemoveThis@stargate_tech.net> wrote in message
>> news:8PH_h.10485$KN6.2558@edtnps89...
>>
>>>Are there yet any good Web statistics programs available, which allow
>>>invisible tracking of the statistics?
>>>
>>>I was told before to get the statistics from my ISP, but I was told by my
>>>ISP I'd have to set up a business account for that, which would cost me
>>>hundreds of dollars a month. (Please don't recommend that I change ISPs;
>>>I'm not willing to do that just to get Web stats.)
>>>
>>>What about Go Stats? I tried the free version, but I no longer want to
>>>have the Go Stats logo on my Web site front page, because it looks
>>>unprofessional.
>>
>>
>> A while back I pulled together a list of trackers -
>> http://www.cryer.co.uk/resources/websitetracking.htm. I only know of two
>> which are free and don't require a logo of some sort - RiteCounter and
>> StatSession. Don't know what either of them are like.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>
> Yes, it helped somewhat, Brian.
>
> I'm now using the Stat Session tracker at your suggestion (at the
> http://www.mywebstats.org site), but despite clicking on the button that's
> supposed to make the tracker code invisible on my site, the tracker code
> on my site IS visible anyway, with a link to an inkjet supply company.
> (The linkage explains why the tracker is free; the tracker provides
> advertising revenue for the tracking company.)
>
> And the tracker is limited because it only lists the front page of my site
> as being the "referrer" page, so I don't know what pages on my site people
> are looking at. Maybe it's because my site is all frame-based – I don't
> know.
>
> And the counter doesn't show the country of origin of the hitters. (I
> emailed the company to suggest adding the country of origin to the stats,
> but there was no reply.)

Interesting.

Having a frame based site may well restrict the referrer information.

I appreciate the feedback on stat-session. Thank you.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

Brian Cryer wrote:
> "Robert Montgomery" <info-block.TakeThisOut@stargate_tech.net> wrote in message
> news:Zbo1i.12573$g63.7539@edtnps82...
>>
>> And the tracker is limited because it only lists the front page of my site
>> as being the "referrer" page, so I don't know what pages on my site people
>> are looking at. Maybe it's because my site is all frame-based – I don't
>> know.

>
> Having a frame based site may well restrict the referrer information.

Well, if the frames-based site is telling all visitors, "this site
consists of only one page," (meaning the frameset page) and shows only
one URL in the browser window, then it wouldn't be surprising that the
"tracking" software sees it the same way, too. You're always linking
(jumping) from the main (frameset) page because that's the one that's
always the current page.

--
John
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> It takes virtually no technical knowledge to download a site and upload
> it to another host. All it takes is a decent ftp program.

Not so. First I have to find another host, check out its credentials and
rate structure and policies and choose a plan and pay for it. That all
takes time.

I've had five ISPs over the last 11 years and every one of them was
fraught with problems.

> It takes a little more knowledge to change your name servers. You've at
> least got to read the directions.
>
> And the one our is conservative - figuring a slow line and reasonably
> large website. The last website I transferred was about 750MB and took
> under 10 minutes. Of course, it helped that I was able to transfer
> directly from server to server.
>
>> (The other day it took half an hour at least just to fix the problem
>> of me getting junk email every day. The ISP had to forward email from
>> one account to another to stop me from getting most of my jusk mail.
>> It took half an hour on the phone to sort it out. I couldn't log into
>> my site on my Mac because the link didn't work and had to keep going
>> back and forthe between the Mac and the PC while talking to the tech
>> guy on the pone. And the problem with the email had already been fixed
>> before but the emaill blocking system broke down for some reason and I
>> had phoned the ISP months ago and a different person had told me there
>> was nothing that could prevent me from being deluged with email and
>> that my email blocking system was set up properly.
>>
>
> That's a little different.
>
>> These things are NEVER simple and brief.
>>
>
> Neither are they hard nor lengthy.

It depends if you're a programmer type or not. I'm not and you are. It's
like a chef expecting everyone to find it basically easy to whip up
gourmet meals. Not everyone has the same intrinsic skills and I don't
have great intrinsic technical skills. That's a point that's very hard
to make you technical wizards understand.

For example, I have a friend who says that HTML is easy. I find it very
difficult to master because I'm not good at that type of thing. I'm an
artist, not a programmer, while my friend is an programmer, not an
artist, and he has very little artistic ability. Get it? (I know;
probably not.)

And besides, I've got 500 other tasks to do because I'm so busy. (Note
that I'm so busy that it took me five days to get around to answering
your message.) Changing Web hosts is not even in the top 400 items on my
to-do list.

Also, you guys keep displaying the "grass is greener on the other side
of the hill mentality". I wanted a Web site tracker so you recommended
the drastic step of cancelling my hosting service and finding another.

It's like if you get marriage counselling and the first piece of advice
the counsellor has is to get a divorce.

No need for drastic action; I tried Google Analytics since starting this
thread and it's fantastic! And I didn't have to go to the drastic step
of changing any hosts to do it!

I of course prefer the simple approach first to problem-solving. No need
to throw out the baby with the bath water, as the saying goes!

>> Another example: a few months ago I set up a bank loan at my bank.
>> During a meeting at the bank this week, my banker told me she had no
>> record of whether or not there was a guarantor listed on the forms
>> concerning my investment. To try to get the infomation, I'll have to
>> set up another meeting at the bank with another banker.
>>
>
> And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
>
>> One important lesson I've learned in life is that nothing is as simple
>> as it first appears, and you can't convince me otherwise because I
>> have 50 years of life experiences as proof.

The above paragraph answers your question about the tea in China.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, I have a few more years than you. But unlike you, I have
> found many things which are both quick and simple.
>
>> And I've often been told by Internet folks how easy it is to do this
>> or that, but it seldom is as easy as claimed. Case in point: I was
>> recommended Site Stats as a good, invisible site tracker. Well, I
>> tried it, and it's NOT invisible, even though I pasted the code in
>> twice and I had to fiddle with the code to try to fix it, to no avail.)
>>
>
> There's a lot out there which is easy on the internet. But most things
> require a basic level of knowledge, also.
>
> As for Site Stats, I'm not familiar with it. But it doesn't see like it
> would be too hard to insert two lines of html at the end of the page.

What seems easy is often more involved that is first seems.

>> It will take longer for
>>
>>> everything to propagate throughout the net.
>>>
>>> I admit raw statistics themselves are worthless. But if you have
>>> them, you can run virtually any statistics analysis program to get
>>> the graphs you want.
>>
>>
>> I would have no idea of how to do that, and wouldn't have the time or
>> inclinationto learn it. I want pre-packaged stats that don't need any
>> work on my part to assemble.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
> How about search for analysis programs on the internet and look at them?
>
> Or maybe you should pay someone to do the work for you. You don't need
> a ton of knowledge to operate a website, but you need some. Just like
> you don't need to be an automotive designer to operate a car, but you
> need some knowledge.

I found a great tracker in the meantime: Google Analytics. It's
comprehensive and it's free! I'm blown away by it! It's way better than
Go Stats and Site Stats!

(And people say don't get hung up on site stats, but I find it've
motivational; I'm getting about 35,000 hits on my site annually,
according to Google Analytics, and people are spending an average of 20
minutes looking at my site, so i'm motivated to keep improving my site
to keep 'em coming back for more!)

Yahoo! (I mean Google!)

Thanks, guys!

Robert
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

Robert Montgomery wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> It takes virtually no technical knowledge to download a site and
>> upload it to another host. All it takes is a decent ftp program.
>
> Not so. First I have to find another host, check out its credentials and
> rate structure and policies and choose a plan and pay for it. That all
> takes time.
>
> I've had five ISPs over the last 11 years and every one of them was
> fraught with problems.
>

Yes, I've had problems with hosting companies before, also. Even the
better ones seem to have problems at times.

But I've also found good hosting and good support isn't going to be
found for $2.99/mo.

>> It takes a little more knowledge to change your name servers. You've
>> at least got to read the directions.
>>
>> And the one our is conservative - figuring a slow line and reasonably
>> large website. The last website I transferred was about 750MB and
>> took under 10 minutes. Of course, it helped that I was able to
>> transfer directly from server to server.
>>
>>> (The other day it took half an hour at least just to fix the problem
>>> of me getting junk email every day. The ISP had to forward email from
>>> one account to another to stop me from getting most of my jusk mail.
>>> It took half an hour on the phone to sort it out. I couldn't log into
>>> my site on my Mac because the link didn't work and had to keep going
>>> back and forthe between the Mac and the PC while talking to the tech
>>> guy on the pone. And the problem with the email had already been
>>> fixed before but the emaill blocking system broke down for some
>>> reason and I had phoned the ISP months ago and a different person had
>>> told me there was nothing that could prevent me from being deluged
>>> with email and that my email blocking system was set up properly.
>>>
>>
>> That's a little different.
>>
>>> These things are NEVER simple and brief.
>>>
>>
>> Neither are they hard nor lengthy.
>
> It depends if you're a programmer type or not. I'm not and you are. It's
> like a chef expecting everyone to find it basically easy to whip up
> gourmet meals. Not everyone has the same intrinsic skills and I don't
> have great intrinsic technical skills. That's a point that's very hard
> to make you technical wizards understand.
>

You don't have to be a "programmer type". I know several good
webmasters who aren't programmers - they are graphic designers. When
they need programming, they sub it out. And they handle domain names
and the other administrative work quite well. It's not hard - nowadays
everything is menu driven. You just need to pay attention to the details.

> For example, I have a friend who says that HTML is easy. I find it very
> difficult to master because I'm not good at that type of thing. I'm an
> artist, not a programmer, while my friend is an programmer, not an
> artist, and he has very little artistic ability. Get it? (I know;
> probably not.)
>

No problem, I'm not an artist - I can't draw a straight line with a
ruler. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

> And besides, I've got 500 other tasks to do because I'm so busy. (Note
> that I'm so busy that it took me five days to get around to answering
> your message.) Changing Web hosts is not even in the top 400 items on my
> to-do list.
>

Yep, I'm busy also, but I still find time to maintain my domains.

> Also, you guys keep displaying the "grass is greener on the other side
> of the hill mentality". I wanted a Web site tracker so you recommended
> the drastic step of cancelling my hosting service and finding another.
>

If your hosting company can't or won't give you what you need, then you
should change hosts. Others will.

> It's like if you get marriage counselling and the first piece of advice
> the counsellor has is to get a divorce.
>

If your spouse can't or won't give you what you need, and you've tried
working it out, that may be your only choice.

> No need for drastic action; I tried Google Analytics since starting this
> thread and it's fantastic! And I didn't have to go to the drastic step
> of changing any hosts to do it!
>

Nothing drastic about changing hosts. I'm getting ready to do that for
another site soon - because they need some features not available on the
current host.

> I of course prefer the simple approach first to problem-solving. No need
> to throw out the baby with the bath water, as the saying goes!
>

No, but you've already said your host can't or won't give you what you need.

>>> Another example: a few months ago I set up a bank loan at my bank.
>>> During a meeting at the bank this week, my banker told me she had no
>>> record of whether or not there was a guarantor listed on the forms
>>> concerning my investment. To try to get the infomation, I'll have to
>>> set up another meeting at the bank with another banker.
>>>
>>
>> And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
>>
>>> One important lesson I've learned in life is that nothing is as
>>> simple as it first appears, and you can't convince me otherwise
>>> because I have 50 years of life experiences as proof.
>
> The above paragraph answers your question about the tea in China.

Not at all. Just something completely unrelated.

>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, I have a few more years than you. But unlike you, I
>> have found many things which are both quick and simple.
>>
>>> And I've often been told by Internet folks how easy it is to do this
>>> or that, but it seldom is as easy as claimed. Case in point: I was
>>> recommended Site Stats as a good, invisible site tracker. Well, I
>>> tried it, and it's NOT invisible, even though I pasted the code in
>>> twice and I had to fiddle with the code to try to fix it, to no avail.)
>>>
>>
>> There's a lot out there which is easy on the internet. But most
>> things require a basic level of knowledge, also.
>>
>> As for Site Stats, I'm not familiar with it. But it doesn't see like
>> it would be too hard to insert two lines of html at the end of the page.
>
> What seems easy is often more involved that is first seems.
>

Often times only if you make it so. You've already convinced yourself
this is hard and time consuming. So it will be. I've convinced myself
it's quick and easy. And for me, it is.

>>> It will take longer for
>>>
>>>> everything to propagate throughout the net.
>>>>
>>>> I admit raw statistics themselves are worthless. But if you have
>>>> them, you can run virtually any statistics analysis program to get
>>>> the graphs you want.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would have no idea of how to do that, and wouldn't have the time or
>>> inclinationto learn it. I want pre-packaged stats that don't need any
>>> work on my part to assemble.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>> How about search for analysis programs on the internet and look at them?
>>
>> Or maybe you should pay someone to do the work for you. You don't
>> need a ton of knowledge to operate a website, but you need some. Just
>> like you don't need to be an automotive designer to operate a car, but
>> you need some knowledge.
>
> I found a great tracker in the meantime: Google Analytics. It's
> comprehensive and it's free! I'm blown away by it! It's way better than
> Go Stats and Site Stats!
>

OK, if that works for you, great.

> (And people say don't get hung up on site stats, but I find it've
> motivational; I'm getting about 35,000 hits on my site annually,
> according to Google Analytics, and people are spending an average of 20
> minutes looking at my site, so i'm motivated to keep improving my site
> to keep 'em coming back for more!)
>

Not that those stats mean anything. Because they don't.

It's less than 100 hits per day. And as each page request, image, etc.
counts as a hit, it could be as little as one person viewing 5-6 pages.
Or 5-6 people displaying one page.

As for 20 minutes average - impossible to tell. They may close their
browser. No analytic program will tell that. They may display a page,
take a coffee break or answer the phone and come back in half an hour
(or more) and spend 5 seconds on your page before moving on.

Or any of a hundred other things.

> Yahoo! (I mean Google!)
>
> Thanks, guys!
>
> Robert


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex DeleteThis @attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

John Hosking wrote:

> Brian Cryer wrote:
>
>> "Robert Montgomery" <info-block.DeleteThis@stargate_tech.net> wrote in message
>> news:Zbo1i.12573$g63.7539@edtnps82...
>>
>>>
>>> And the tracker is limited because it only lists the front page of my
>>> site as being the "referrer" page, so I don't know what pages on my
>>> site people are looking at. Maybe it's because my site is all
>>> frame-based – I don't know.
>
>
>>
>> Having a frame based site may well restrict the referrer information.
>
>
> Well, if the frames-based site is telling all visitors, "this site
> consists of only one page," (meaning the frameset page) and shows only
> one URL in the browser window, then it wouldn't be surprising that the
> "tracking" software sees it the same way, too. You're always linking
> (jumping) from the main (frameset) page because that's the one that's
> always the current page.
>
> --
> John

Forget about Stat Session; it's like a Dinky toy compared to the
muscle-car power of Google Analytics, which is also free – and Google
Analytics works like a charm!

I just followed the Google Analytics intructions, which were to past the
Analytics code onto evry page of my site (instead of Stat Session, which
doesn't work on my site because the instructions say to put the Stat
code only onto the front page of my (framed) site., meaning the Stat
code only reads the left frame, which gets loaded with every page.

Robert
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Sat, 12 May 2007 19:18:26 GMT, Robert Montgomery put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>
>>Scott Bryce wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert Montgomery wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It would not be cost effective to switch ISPs.
>>>
>>>
>>>I am not suggesting that you switch ISPs. I m suggesting that you keep
>>>your ISP and move just your hosting somewhere else. A 2-domain plan at a
>>>low cost web host will run between $5.00 USD and $10.00 USD per month.
>>>Is it worth that much additional cost to get the statistics that you
>>>want? Will you save that much or more if you don't host at your ISP?
>>
>>I went to a great deal of trouble (several hours of frustrating, stress
>>ful work) to amalgamate my Web services to try to streamline them, by
>>switching my domain hosting from my domain registrars to my Web
>>host/ISP, so I don't see how it would help to split the services from my
>>current setup:
>>
>>• two domain registrars and
>>• one domain host/Web host/ISP
>>
>>which would then become:
>>
>>• two domain registrars
>>• one Web host/ISP
>>• one domain host
>>
>>As it stands now, I have to pay three companies for my Web services and
>>you're suggesting that I further complicate the situation by having four
>>Web services suppliers.
>
>
> There are three very good reasons for separating your web hosting from
> your Internet connectivity:
>
> 1. Functionality. As a general rule, a dedicated hosting supplier will
> provide a much better service than a company which merely offers it as
> an add-on to connectivity. This is particularly the case if the
> connectivity supplier (the "ISP") sells primarily to home users rather
> than businesses.
>
> 2. Continuity. If you ever move premises, you may well need to change
> your ISP. You don't want to have to change your web host at the same
> time.

I'm not planning on moving for a long time.
>
> 3. Price. It's often cheaper to split your services than have them all
> with the same supplier. Again, this is paticularly the case with ISPs
> that do hosting as an add-on to their primary business of supplying
> Internet access.
>
>
>>And of course any switching of such services always entails hours of
>>frustrating, stressful work trying to communicate with the parties
>>involved to sort out all of the complex technical issues invloved, and
>>dealing with customer service and tech service people many of whom don't
>>know what they're doing.
>
>
> If it's that bad, then you're with the wrong suppliers anyway. Switch
> to a set of suppliers with better customer service.

I've already had five ISPs and they were all very problematic. My
current one is the best one.

Every ISP has problems, so switching is only going to take up my
precious time.

This reminds me of a neighbour who told me I should move because another
neighbour has been causing me trouble. Moving my home/business would
take me weeks if not months and cost a lot in terms of lost
productivity. The neighbour's advice (and yours) implies that the moving
or switching is better because the grass is always thought to be greener
elsewhere, but that's just wishful thinking.


> As a general rule, people who are serious about doing business on the
> web will have three different suppliers:
>
> Domain registration/hosting
> Internet connectivity
> Web hosting
>
> It can often make sense to combine the first and third of these (let
> your web host handle your domain management as well), but it's almost
> never a good idea to combine these with connectivity. Bundled
> solutions are for home users, not for anyone who uses the Internet for
> business.
>
> Mark

I'd rather pay a bit more and have the services packaged and handled for
me. (That's why my Web hosting company, ISP and phone company are all
the same company. It's much simpler to have one company do all those
things for me. i'd rather let them handle the technical problems and pay
a bit more every month while I can concentrate on other apsects of my
business that I'm more suited for. I'm streamling, which means for more
efficiency. Having fewer suppliers to deal with obviously leads to more
efficiency and less time wasted dealing with billing and issues in which
the suppliers have issues that need to be sorted out among the suppliers
(in my opinion).

What you're suggesting is like saying I should deal with three banks
instead of two, or two instead of one. Obviously amalgamating services
is more efficient when all the banks can handle the same service.

I AM serious about my business on the Web. I'm getting 36,000 hits on my
site every year and it's driving a lot of busines my way and it keeps
growing and it's exciting!

I'd rather spend time improving my Web site and let my amalgamated Web
tech team handle the technical aspects that I'm not good at.

Robert
 >> Stay informed about: Good invisible Web statistics program? 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Robert Montgomery wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> It takes virtually no technical knowledge to download a site and
>>> upload it to another host. All it takes is a decent ftp program.
>>
>>
>> Not so. First I have to find another host, check out its credentials
>> and rate structure and policies and choose a plan and pay for it. That
>> all takes time.
>>
>> I've had five ISPs over the last 11 years and every one of them was
>> fraught with problems.
>>
>
> Yes, I've had problems with hosting companies before, also. Even the
> better ones seem to have problems at times.
>
> But I've also found good hosting and good support isn't going to be
> found for $2.99/mo.

As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, I'm paying more for my Web services
than the cheapest and I'm willing to pay a bit more than the cheapest
because the domain hosting, site hosting, email and phone services are
all managed together and I get one bill every month for all those
combined services.

>>> It takes a little more knowledge to change your name servers. You've
>>> at least got to read the directions.
>>>
>>> And the one our is conservative - figuring a slow line and reasonably