On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
>> <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Heh, I didn't think this would be a simple process.
>>> If the site is maxing out the "free" version of Google Analytics, that means
>>> 10M+ impressions/hits (not page views) a month which is already saying
>>> something.
>>> There is certainly some filtering that can be done in the free version that
>>> would arrive at some useful metrics for everyone.
>>> Jonathan, what makes you think the data isn't "correct" (or being collected
>>> correctly)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Kris: http://support.google.com/analytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1070983
>>>
>>> Magnus did some rough calculations off the cuff based on some of the
>>> major-viewed pages within the GA token that the site uses and figured we are
>>> above those limits.
>>
>> Hmm, well my math doesn't quite tally with Magnus'. A quick look at a
>> few different recent months tells me we're hitting around 3 - 3.5M
>> page views per month on www.postgresql.org, with archives getting just
>> under 1M.
>
> There are a bunch of more sites that track under the same account, I
> believe. If you sum them all up, you get close enough to that
> explaining things.
There are, but www and archives are *by far* the busiest. The rest of
them are tiny in comparison, and at most would put us around the 5M
mark.
>> We're not tracking anything other than pages though, so I'm not sure
>> how impressions would actually differ from page views. Or am I missing
>> something?
>
> I don't know GA enough to actually comment on details :)
:-)
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
