Talk:Web analytics

No company names

Can I propose that we don't include any company names in this article, even in a list at the bottom? Although I work for a web analytics vendor, I think naming specific companies will only turn into a battle as a hundred companies want to be included. Stephen Turner 10:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the same situation, I agree completely. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, not the free advertising center. I urge contributors to also limit mention of products - I'm personally inclined to mention only those that are not only not available any longer, but also not easily linked to an active vendor. Mr. Bene 16:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page tagging "more accurate"

I'm trying to avoid the claim that page tagging is "more accurate". I anticipate some disagreement over this, but I think that most of it is a myth, fed by companies that only do page tagging (sorry, Mr Bene — I suspect you're in one of these companies — nothing personal intended).

In particular, the claim that spiders cause problems for log analysis is bogus. Spiders identify themselves, so it's easy to exclude them from the human visitors. And in fact, log analysis has an advantage over page tagging in this respect, because it can report spider activity.

Instead let's try to present the arguments for and against each method. There are valid arguments on both sides. And as I tried to say, the economic arguments are often the biggest ones, and they can come down on either side of the argument.

Stephen Turner 17:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit odd keeping the company details out of the discussion. However, your suspicions are incorrect — my company continues to provide log analysis tools as well as page embedding tools. My personal opinion is that straight log analysis provides the most accurate information possible about the activity the web server has seen, while page tagging solutions provide significantly more accurate information about human usage of the web pages - the way people are using the web site. That's why the text was "more accurate in presenting human activity" and not simply "more accurate".

One solution type that I haven't touched on is the hybrid solutions, that include page tagging and log analysis information together. Want to touch on this?

Mr. Bene 17:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I maligned you. I don't mind putting my company name in the talk page — I just wanted to keep companies out of the article itself. I'm at ClickTracks, and I'm also the author of analog.

Maybe I spoke too strongly yesterday. I just feel that there's an often-repeated view that "of course we all know page tagging is better" and in fact I'm not convinced it's quite so clear cut. I think logfile analysis is superior in many ways: I think the accuracy argument is somewhat overstated, and the advantages of software purchase vs outsourcing, and no vendor lock-in, are big advantages for many companies.

I realise other people strongly believe page tagging is better for perfectly valid reasons, and I'm not trying to criticise people who hold that opinion. But for writing a Wikipedia article, it's good practice just to state the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

As for hybrid solutions: I think we should acknowledge their existence and the reasons for them, although I don't feel qualified to discuss them in detail.

Stephen Turner 09:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the hybrid solutions. In order to discuss them after the discussion of the advantages of each approach, I ended up combining the history and the advantages/disadvantages sections into one new section on technologies. Stephen Turner 11:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Web server integration

I removed the reference to IIS Assistant, because I think it's not historically accurate. The first log analysis programs date from about 1993, but IIS Assistant dates from 1996.

The method of web server integration is an interesting one, and we should mention it somewhere. Maybe there could be a section of "other methods". Aren't there solutions which sniff the traffic going down the wires, for example?

Stephen Turner 09:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Web Analytics Demystified page 18 for a discussion of network sniffers. Stephen Turner 11:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What else do we want to include?

I feel the section on the technologies is pretty much getting there. The section on definitions is just starting. But what else should be included in this article? To put it another way, what would a person looking for an article on web analytics want to know? Stephen Turner 14:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, definitions to include would be ROI, Click Stream or Path through Site, Shopping Cart and associated concepts, Paid Links, Outbound Links or Outbound Referrals, Organic vs Paid keywords, links to JavaScript. Maybe a bit of a discussion on methodology for most accurate tracking (ie, unique landing pages vs referrals for advertising campaigns)? Mr. Bene 16:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1st party vs 3rd party cookies - maybe additional information needed about page tagging that circumvents this by including Visitor ID somewhere else, like CGI Parameters? Mr. Bene 22:00 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all this. But I'm beginning to get a feeling that we're concentrating purely on the technology of web analytics, and not enough on the practice of web analytics. What I'm not quite so sure is how to fix it. An encyclopedia article shouldn't become a textbook, but maybe a section on KPIs would help? Stephen Turner 08:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, gentlemen. A very nice entry you've created here! I applaud your decision to keep the entry vendor-agnostic. As far as what else to include, may I suggest a section on failings of web analytics? For example, while WA attempts to measure the behavior of individuals, Avinash often points out that 1) multiple people may use a single machine, such as a public terminal, or the family PC, 2) one person may use multiple machines, such as home and work, and 3) a single person on a single machine may have 3a) multiple browser tabs or windows open, all viewing different pages on the same site, and 3b) multiple types of browsers active on the same machine, such as IE and Firefox, for reasons of compatibility with different sites, and thus have multiple cookies. -- WDave Rhee (WAF Co-Moderator)

Specific company's blogs

I've just reverted the addition of a blog to the external links, because it concentrated on a specific product.

There are lots of new blogs at the moment from people affiliated with one company or another. If we add one or two it's unfair, but if we add all of them it would get completely out of hand. So I suggest we avoid them altogether.

Stephen Turner 09:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too many blogs

I've now removed all the blogs, and the mailing list, from the References section. There were just too many of them already, and I could anticipate many more being added.

WP:EL is quite clear:

"Certain kinds of pages should not be linked from Wikipedia articles... 7. Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself."

And WP:NOT says:

"Wikipedia is not a directory"

which that section was in danger of becoming.

So even though I enjoy reading some of those resources, I think Wikipedia policies are quite clear that it's not suitable to maintain a list of them here.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag-based ≠ centralized, correct?

Reading through this article, there seems to be some equating of tag-based solutions with centralization. Many of the downsides to the tag-based approach seem to imply it MUST be centralized (ie "Page tagging solutions involve vendor lock-in.") And yet the article itself states, "some vendors offer installable page tagging solutions with no additional page view costs." This, to me, as a shopper of analytic solutions, introduces confusion. It would seem, upon reading this article, that a non-centralized, tag-based system could be quite useful, and nothing in the article indicates it is impossible, and yet we don't really cover it. This is compounded by the odd "no company names" thing going on here (something not shared, by the way, in the Web log analysis software article). I'm not qualified enough to do it, but it would seem to me that clarification is in order, or at least an attempt to not exclusively equate the two. Even if such a product (tag-based, non-centralized) does not exist (and quick research indicates it does (http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206862&cid=16874210), it ought to be addressed, no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lizstless (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're right. Page tagging solutions are most commonly run by the vendor, but there are page tagging solutions that are installed in-house (the company I work for, ClickTracks, does a lot of business this way, for example), and maybe we should cover them a bit more. However, note that they still involve vendor lock-in, because the data is in a proprietary form which cannot be read by any other program. You still can't read historical data in another program if you're considering switching vendors like you can with logfiles.

Is there any other specific sentence you think is misleading?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you so much. Though even then, there's no technical reason why locally-hosted, tag solutions would HAVE to be stored in a proprietary format, though, is there? Just seems so strange to me, but I guess it makes sense in the sense that logfiles are yours, they're all in open formats, and no one can ever take them from you. But yeah, I think upon re-re-reading, I would just want to modify or delete the "page tagging solutions involve vendor lock-in" line, since it seems either inaccurate or overly broad. Thanks! Lizstless 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Integration with other systems

I would suggest expanding the article by talking about how Web analytics fits into Email, SEO, etc. I can write this section if you guys agree with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier casanova (talk • contribs)

Hi Xavier, Good to see you round here! I think this is a good idea; go for it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS You can sign your contributions on talk pages by using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change this definition

Respectfully, I think we need to change this definition. "Web Analytics" is the work you do to interpret web traffic data. It's generally performed by a person with the help of a computer. What you're describing when you talk about logfile analysis or page tagging is web traffic reporting, in spite of the names that folks assign to products like 'Google Analytics'.

Can we move the content that discusses traffic data collection methodologies to 'web traffic reporting' and focus this page more on the practice of web analytics? Ian Lurie

I agree that web analytics is really about the analysis not the data collection, and that there is too much focus on the technical side at the moment. That's just because that's the easiest bit to write! I still think the technical stuff belongs here (at least until the page gets too long) but the real analytics needs expanding. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]