wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Late Edits Complete - we passed 360!
yuval levy 2007-Jan-10 20:25:00
--- Hans Nyberg <#removed#> wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2007, at 6:08 PM, yuval levy wrote:
>
> > Other aggregate numbers that would be interesting:
> > - how many entries does an average visitor see? (I
> > suspect insiders look at many more than outsiders,
> and
> > I guesstimate outsiders look at 4-8 VRs on
> average).
>
> That would be very high.
You are probably right. Let me rephrase that: I
guesstimate that outsiders that have access to the
content look at 4-8 VRs on average.
The average for common websites is 6 pageviews, but
there is big variation, hence my interest for the
median and the standard deviation as well. If the
median is too far away from the average then it is
likely that there are at least two clusters of
different users out there. In this case: those with
QuickTime and those without.
> I only get that from some countries or very
> specific viewers who are
> from links like Rob Galbraith or other photographic
> sites.
interesting how this relates with asset allocation
decisions. financial analyst are constantly discussing
whether it is better to break down the investment
decision by country or by industry. empirical research
shows a slow shift toward industry as the global
economy gets more and more integrated, but country
effect are still prevalent in emerging markets. So if
the internet is to be considered an emerging market,
the country is relevant. If it is to be considered a
mature market, the speciality (i.e. the site where the
visitor comes from as an approximation for the kind of
visitor) will be more important.
> As an average 3 page views is great from Google or
> from linksites. I have only 2.5
I'd have an hypothesis about this low number. Your
site requires QuickTime which to my knowledge is
available on about 60% of computers worldwide. 2.5 is
roughly 60% of 4. My hypothesis is that in your 2.5
*average* there are at least two clusters: one of
users w/o QuickTime that bounce away after the first
view, and one of users with QuickTime that have access
to your content and enjoy browsing your site.
Note that "with" or "without" in this case do not mean
with the software installed, but with access to
QuickTime content. There are situation in which the
content does not display even if the software is
available (e.g. corporate firewalls).
Since I do not know the details of your statistics, it
is not possible for me to verify this hypothesis.
I guess you are using GoogleStat?
Be aware that GoogleStat is not a silver bullet
solution. I have just looked at a dozen VR from your
New Year 2007 event and I am sure you won't find me in
your GoogleStat. But you will find me if you check
your Apache Logs for IP address 70.55.118.xxx.
> Spanish, Italian, German and French visitors are
> great.
does Google give you a breakdown of the plugin
availability by country? it would be interesting to
see if there is a correlation between the "great
visitors" and the plugin penetration in those
countries.
> How the site is presented by the one who features it
> is what makes the most difference.
I would think that what makes the most difference
first is the content of the site itself and how
navigable it is. And on both counts I think the WWP is
an excellent site.
How the site is presented by the one who features it
will determine the quantity and quality of visitors,
but even the best potential visitors (e.g. VR
passionate with plenty of time to surf, great
bandwidth and a modern computer) will not stay long on
a site with poor content and bad navigation.
> > - what are the most popular ways of navigating the
> > site (e.g. I discovered on this even that I can
> > simply move from one fullscreen to the next, but
> > this mean that I am loosing on the non-FS entries
> > and I don't get to see the text. If this sort of
> > path becomes a popular one, I'd like to see the
> > text in a pop up of some sort,
>
> You already have that. Just click at the link at the
> bottom.
well, sort of yes, but what I am thinking of goes
further.
first: what pops up currently when I click that link
is the full entry, not just the text. This means that
I get a lot of redundant stuff such as the small sized
pano, and a navigation that I don't need there either.
All this redundant stuff eats up resources on my
computer and clutters the screen. Description only
would be ideal.
second: i'd like it to be automated so that I do not
have to click. I'd like the second window to be
synchronized with the first, so that when I move to
the next entry, the window is updated with the
description of the next entry.
An onLoad JavaScript on the Fullscreen view could do
that.
last but not least: the link you mention would be the
switch to turn the feature on/off. Click it and the
pop up window appears. Click it again and it
disappears.
Yuv
____________________________________________________________________________________
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.