Talk:Web log analysis software

List of log analyzers

I'm worried about the list of log analyzers that's developing. If we let every commercial program be added, we're going to end up with a huge list of links (and Wikipedia is not a link directory).

In addition, some of those that have been added aren't even log analyzers — they use Javascript tags instead (see web analytics for the difference). But this is only a secondary point because even if we restrict to those that have a logfile version, we will have far too long a list.

Does anyone have an opinion what to do? Should we get rid of the list altogether?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some other suggestions:

Limit to free software (I tend to think of commercial software as web analytics rather than web log analysis: meaning that it focuses on business-relevant stats more than technical stats, although the line is by no means clear).

I don't think this is the right way to do this. Just because something is commercial doesn't mean it's bad or shouldn't be included, and just because something is free doesn't mean it's good and worth including. I'd be happier to list the larger web log/web analytics software packages as well (Urchin, Webtrends, etc.) but continue to remove the spammers. Notability is more important than philosophy in this regard. --Kickstart70·Talk 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limit to links to Wikipedia articles, not external sites

Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the external sites from the list. Most of them aren't log analyzers (or aren't primarily log analyzers) anyway, as explained above. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another article of relevance ...

http://wiki.edeskonline.com/index.php?title=Web_Statistics

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding it to external links section Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular log analyzers

We should be removing the red linkages Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. Red links should generally be retained if they point to a real topic (see WP:REDLINK). The situation isn't completely clear cut here because some of those programs might be too small to ever have an article, but I generally think they should be kept if they point to a real topic.

But now we're on the subject, I'm not sure about having the list at all. Or maybe it should be restricted to those that have Wikipedia articles. Like all such lists on Wikipedia, it started out with the top half dozen programs, but everyone adds their own until it gets out of control.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the title of this para to read as Whether a list is required . IMHO, you are correct in wishing to remove the list alltogether. Best is to replace it with a DMOZ entry. Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have the dmoz entry already in External Links so I've removed the list, and moved the bluelinks into the See Also section. I wouldn't even mind deleting them altogether, depending what other people think about that. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the title of this para to read as Whether a list is required . And yes, you may dele the links to suppliers alltogether (considering that a link to dmoz exists)Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]