BlogHarbor Home Page
FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  UsergroupsRSS   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Here we go again - more stats
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BlogHarbor Community Forum Index -> Beginner's Lounge
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gristgal



Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 209
Location: Mississippi

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:48 pm    Post subject: Here we go again - more stats Reply with quote

Dear John, Wink

The logfiles, requests vs. logfile size:
4th 711 reqs, logfile 103kb
3rd 518 reqs, logfile 299kb
2nd 652 reqs, logfile 185kb

The 2nd doesn't look sufficient, and the 4th looks positively puny. I hate to remind you, but I still have not received an answer from you regarding the 23rd, which I understood you to say had not yet been rechecked. As a refresher:

23rd, 394 reqs, logfile 55k

At this point, I'm inclined to go ahead and take the time to manually count the number of reqs in the logfile for the 23rd, and possibly for yesterday. I almost wish I hadn't decided to see how many actual readers, and whether some topics are not that appealing (among other things). Confused

May we know the status of the "fix" Question
_________________
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
Confucius
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gristgal



Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 209
Location: Mississippi

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:18 pm    Post subject: Update Reply with quote

I just did a count on GET reqs in the May 23 server logfile. There were 182 GETs and 95 records, versus 394 page views in the daily stats report.

Since I just figured out a way to get my counts without depending on my own brain, I'm gonna go ahead and do the rest. It only requres "copy and paste" of each logfile, and clicking some buttons. Oh, how I love NoteTab! (virtual string of hearts here)


Last edited by gristgal on Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gristgal



Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 209
Location: Mississippi

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:03 pm    Post subject: Need clarification Reply with quote

It's your best nuisance again, John Rolling Eyes Razz

I've double-checked a saved copy of the "sample log record", to try to be sure I'm understanding all this correctly. In each of these, there is the date, followed by other stuff. An actual record contains two GET commands (or two POST commands, but those would be me, not a reader). What I'm supposed to count is each record, not each GET, right?

Either way, it appears that my logfiles going all the way back to May 1st are missing records. I refuse to check earlier, 'cos I've decided it doesn't matter what happened in April. At that point, I was just cruisin', not thinking about content vs. readers. And the ones that really matter begin with May 15th.

When I asked before if the stats were measured differently, I assumed - but did not say - that the stats are measured by the computer which is the "home" of my account. That is, the stats are measurements of how many times that "home" computer where my account (all of my account; it is not split between computers) "lives" fetched a file, when, and which file, and how many times, from my account. And therefore, those are the benchmark records. Is that correct?

Thanks for your patience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john
Site Admin


Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Posts: 3434

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Need clarification Reply with quote

I hate to remind you, but I still have not received an answer from you regarding the 23rd

Not sure what I still owe you on that, but it is not likely we will generate new stats for that date.

May we know the status of the "fix"

Our developers will be applying a software update tomorrow aimed at ensuring that the log files contain all of the data from all of the servers at all levels. That is the only change you may see, that your downloadable logs contain more data and match up with the numbers you see in our Site Stats analysis.

An actual record contains two GET commands (or two POST commands, but those would be me, not a reader).

Not following you... If you go to the Web Page Analyzer and enter your weblog URL, the service will perform an analysis on your web page, and tell you the 'Total HTTP Requests' required to fetch your page.

In your case, accessing the main page of your blog results in 5 requests. #1) The HTML for your page, which in turn generates a request for #2) Your CSS stylesheet, all blogs have them, it's where the design elements come from #3) one image, your permanent link "Page" icon #4) you have a Javascript for Google and #5) an Amazon image.

The first 3 are requests to your blog server, and will be reflected in your logs (your log will not show requests for third party images and scripts, since it was not the server who served them).

GET and POST are just types of request to a server. I would need to refer you to other sources if you want to learn more about get vs. post, please try this google search on the topic.

How to parse a server log is straying pretty far from what we can provide you in terms of support. If you need to learn more about logs, please start with the Wikipedia entry on Server Logs.

When I asked before if the stats were measured differently, I assumed - but did not say - that the stats are measured by the computer which is the "home" of my account. That is, the stats are measurements of how many times that "home" computer where my account (all of my account; it is not split between computers) "lives" fetched a file, when, and which file, and how many times, from my account. And therefore, those are the benchmark records. Is that correct?

I am having trouble understanding what you are saying here... Our server has no idea who you are, or where you are accessing from. It does not differentiate in any way accesses from you or someone else. If you access your home page 500 times from home and 500 times from work, and no one else visits your site, our stats will still report 100 page views...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gristgal



Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 209
Location: Mississippi

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried hard, but clearly what I said wasn't what you read.

I think I see where one of the problems is. When I mentioned that POST requests would be me, you read the sentence as my conflating the GET and POST requests as all coming from me. Is that right? It's not what I meant, trust me.

Quote:
That is the only change you may see, that your downloadable logs contain more data and match up with the numbers you see in our Site Stats analysis.


Then you don't intend to go back to redo any of it, even the beginning of this month. Is that correct?

Quote:
the service will perform an analysis on your web page, and tell you the 'Total HTTP Requests' required to fetch your page.


That wasn't what I was asking. I was telling you that each of the records in the log (all that I've noticed) contain two reqs, whether they're GET or POST. I was asking whether a given, single record is the same thing as a HTML or XML page request as shown in the daily site stats. I will surely look at the links you have given, as some have been very useful. I hope they'll be more useful than the one about code for moving around inside the page (which was directed at titles; totally useless for footnotes. I did find another site that may have what I need, if I ever get finished dinking around with this.). Whenever I do learn the correct HTML for footnotes, I will put it up in Tips & Tricks.

Quote:
Our server has no idea who you are, or where you are accessing from.


I know that. It's why I save my IP number every day into a separate log, so I can delete my own requests from the total.

Second try:

When the server receives a request, all requests for a particular blog are sent to a particular computer where that blog is located. Is that right?

If so, then the computer where the blog is located is the one which collects the stats that we see for each day. Is that right?

If so, then that's why the stats you give us each day are the definitive ones. Is that right?

If I understood you correctly, you won't be going back on anything, and I'm SOL on the May stats. Just so you understand the frequency and severity of the discrepancies, here are some comparative data. They are not cherry-picked. These are not all my best days nor, AFAICT, the log's worst (most discrepant) days.

5-1 page views 312 log contained 217 records
5-2 page views 239 log contained 167 records
5-3 page views 231 log contained 180 records
5-10 page views 320 log contained 145 records
5-11 page views 219 log contained 97 records
5-12 page views 324 log contained 243 records
5-21 page views 435 log contained 218 records
5-22 page views 325 log contained 197 records
5-23 page views 394 log contained 095 records
6-1 page views 182 log contained 127 records
6-2 page views 652 log contained 313 records
6-3 page views 518 log contained 470 records
6-4 page views 711 log contained 164 records

Now that I look at them, I wish I'd chosen at least one batch where there were more records in the log than page views for the day. There aren't many of those, but there are a few.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john
Site Admin


Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Posts: 3434

PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I mentioned that POST requests would be me, you read the sentence as my conflating the GET and POST requests as all coming from me. Is that right? It's not what I meant, trust me.

Not quite what I assumed, but I will admit to having difficulty parsing your statement "An actual record contains two GET commands (or two POST commands, but those would be me, not a reader)" and did my best to point you to some information on the web which might be of value.

I was telling you that each of the records in the log (all that I've noticed) contain two reqs, whether they're GET or POST.

I have downloaded your logs and do not see what you are referring to here. I simply do not see these "two reqs". If you could give me a date for the log and the line numbers to look at I will be glad to take a peek. As it stands, I just don't understand what you are referring to here...

When the server receives a request, all requests for a particular blog are sent to a particular computer where that blog is located. Is that right?

No it is not right, and perhaps is the crux of the issue we are trying to resolve...

As we tried to explain here, your blog does not exist on any one server. Not only can it be served from any computer in an array, there is more than one array from which it could be served. That is on the front end; on the back end your blog lives not only in a file server array (uploaded files live in one place) but also in a database array (your uploaded posts live in another place).

So your assumption is incorrect, there is no particular computer where a blog is located. It is distributed across a network.

We initially created a system to sift through logs across the network and generate stats for our users. Many users said that our stats were superior to other hosted blogging platforms, most of which still do not provide aggregated stats.

Our users asked for more, a downloadable log file, something no other managed blog hosting platform could provide. We worked on developing that and on 3/11/06 delivered our initial release.

Our users asked for a faster platform, and we added our caching servers on 5/13. We've admitted difficulties in integrating logs from the caching servers and are still working to solve that problem.

We do apologize for introducing 2 valuable and useful features in such a short time, and not getting the interaction between them down quite as fast as we'd expected. As I've been trying to express, we are well aware of the issue and are working very hard to resolve it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gristgal



Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 209
Location: Mississippi

PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As we tried to explain here


You explained why it could be larger. That answers (to an extent, given that I have NO graphics, excluding the Blog Harbor ones - should I delete them? - in my blog, and only 5 {count'em} trackbacks in the entire 11 months of blog) the 3 or 4 May logfiles that contain more records than the day's page views. That doesn't explain the 23 or so where there are many fewer records than the day's page views.

I am honestly not doing this for the sake of being difficult. Sad Perhaps it will help you understand my persistence on this subject if I explain that most of my work over the years involved numbers, from experience rating insurance policies, to bookkeeping, to university budget and class schedule preparation. When there are numbers, I need them to make sense.

If you are telling me now that the logfile records will be reconcilable (like a checking account, frex) with the page views after you get through debugging, then that's good news.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john
Site Admin


Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Posts: 3434

PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You explained why it could be larger. That answers (to an extent, given that I have NO graphics, excluding the Blog Harbor ones - should I delete them? - in my blog, and only 5 {count'em} trackbacks in the entire 11 months of blog) the 3 or 4 May logfiles that contain more records than the day's page views. That doesn't explain the 23 or so where there are many fewer records than the day's page views.

What I am saying is that log files currently contain less information than is reflected in the Site Stats analysis we create since the process is not actually collecting all the logs, and are working to correct that. It does not appear you are interpreting that statement correctly, but that's as clearly as I can say it.

and only 5 {count'em} trackbacks

Most bloggers don't get any legitimate trackbacks. It takes a lot of readers and great content to get one reader who is also a blogger and is so inspired by your content that he or she not only created a post referencing yours but also took the trouble to send a trackback to your original post. But that's another discussion, please post a new thread if you want to discuss trackbacks.

If you are telling me now that the logfile records will be reconcilable (like a checking account, frex) with the page views after you get through debugging, then that's good news.

That is what we are aiming for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gristgal



Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 209
Location: Mississippi

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
since the process is not actually collecting all the logs, and are working to correct that. It does not appear you are interpreting that statement correctly, but that's as clearly as I can say it.

No, I understand. I probably shouldn't have included that addendum. It's just grumbling because I had the definite impression last month that you intended to reprocess the erroneous logfiles after the fix. You have since disabused me of that expectation, however little I may like it. And I do understand the realities of budgets, compensation, and time constraints; that's the other side of someone with my background.


Quote:
Most bloggers don't get any legitimate trackbacks.

I'm aware of that. And after my experiences with spam trackbacks, and your very welcome fix, I try to monitor the trackback reports daily, to keep up. I think it's one of the most outstanding and welcome fixes you've made.

It's entirely possible that you're getting the wrong impression of my overall satisfaction with Blog Harbor's performance and service. Yes, I've been very frustrated for the past several weeks, probably more than you realize. And I'm one who tends to let people know when I'm not happy. I figure that letting people know may produce a change, one that can never happen if nobody knows about it. It's unfortunate that I didn't decide to look at log contents and sizes earlier, as you most assuredly would have known about the problem much sooner. Oh, well. Better late than never.

But that doesn't affect the fact that I'm aware you guys work hard to deliver superior service.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john
Site Admin


Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Posts: 3434

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But that doesn't affect the fact that I'm aware you guys work hard to deliver superior service.

We appreciate that very much and once again apologize for the delay in resolving this issue with server logs. The update is taking much longer than expected since it is being looked at very carefully by our QA testers. We do hope to have some info very shortly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gristgal



Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 209
Location: Mississippi

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now that you maybe understand I'm not trying to give you a hard time for my entertainment, and - quite the contrary - trying not to be too unrealistic in my expectations: Smile

Is there a chance that you'll be correcting (rerunning) June logfiles? Of the seven days of my logfiles for June, one has more records than page views. That, of course, is an issue that's been satisfactorily dealt with. I will be very interested to see what the analysis programs make of such days. The rest mostly aren't, although two days have more than 50% of the correct number of records (127 of 182 & 470 of 518).

Or is that a decision that can't be made until you've got a fix accepted and installed?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gristgal



Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 209
Location: Mississippi

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:35 pm    Post subject: Is the fix in? Reply with quote

John,

I'm assuming that the recent lack of spam trackbacks means you've licked that problem (for now, at least)? I know I haven't seen any for several days - maybe a week or more - but I'm being a Good Girl and still looking at the listings daily.

The announcement about maintenance on June 24th and 29th didn't say what you're doing. Are these related to the logfiles? If so, when should we expect the logfiles to produce at a minimum the same (or greater) number of requests as the page request totals, please?

I can give you comparative stats on my blog for almost any days this month - there were a couple where the logfile size was so pathetic (less than 50kb) I didn't bother to download. I can tell you that they're still mostly quite deficient. :sigh:

Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Search all BlogHarbor support resources.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BlogHarbor Community Forum Index -> Beginner's Lounge All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum