Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Oct. 31st, 2005

  • 3:30 AM
Over Stand
Here are the stats for http://Guywise.org as of right now:
Not sure how I should interpret it though:
Calling BrowserNo of hits

msie v6.03715
msie v5.014
msie v7.010
-------------Overall Total:3729

Netscape v4.788

firefox v1.0.727
firefox v1.0.19
firefox v1.02
firefox v1.0.32
firefox v1.0.624
firefox v1.0.45
-------------Overall Total:70

I'm assuming that the No of hits actually signify the number of browser requests sent.  It's kinda hard to believe that I've had a grand total of 3813 hits in just under two weeks!  Hmmm!
I'm really not sure what to think.  If these scores are anything to go by, I think I might as well forget about forcing all my web-pages to be Mozilla friendly as well as IE friendly.
By the looks of it, the effort is thoroughly pointless!!

I mean like:  I got 53.27 times the amount of traffic from IE users than I did from Mozilla based visitors!!  :-o

NEway, here's some Domain Hit notes (excludes .com, .org, .edu, etcetera.) from http://Guywise.org:


It's odd to note that I have 3715 hits from unique US servers, and if you scroll up a bit, you'll find I have 3715 hits from IE v6.0.  Hehe!  co-incidence?  I dunno!
What shocks me is that I have 6 visits from Chinese servers and (holy cow!) 23 from Australia!  heck, I hardly know anyone there!!  and does anyone out there know what country 'ip' is?  Unless that's Iprius, which can't be, since that's actually spelled Eprius by the locals....  Hmmm!  Either way, it does'nt make sense!


subtle_blues wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 12:48 am (UTC)
way to go!
I understand you've given up on making guywise mozilla friendly but err.. did u do anything to make it particularly mozilla unfriendly... It seemed fine till yesterday. The first page is all screwed up now. The 'foul language' warning is not to be seen anymore and the font's turned funny.
and hey what about 'philippines' for 'ip'?? :o)
angiasaa wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 10:28 am (UTC)
Re: way to go!
The "foul language" bug has now been fixed.

It's basically due to a misinterpretation by the mozilla parser over variable hashcodes on the color tags. :(

IE represents it well, but for some reason, Mozilla is screaming "Foul!" :o)

I was working hard last night, trying to get the main-page as close to w3c XHTML 1.1 standard compliance as possible.

I think the w3c has a problem with understanding how nested <DIV> tags work. :( I have four errors on the page that are keeping me from achieving compliance. :( All of them are <DIV> tags. The rest of the errors seem to be stemming from there.

The only other error is my usage of the <center> tag. Apparently XHTML 1.1 does not accomodate this tag at all! Grrr!

I have'nt given up on making the site mozilla-friendly, it's just that it does'nt look like the fact is gonna help my hit-rate much (if at all!).

I scanned the internet registrar databases. turns out that the '.ip' country extention does not even exist! with 12 hits from '.ip', I'm a bit concerned, though there does'nt seem to be much of an issue.... What's happening? wierd!

P.S.: If you know of anyone who can help me with cross-browser compatibility, it would be nice if you could put me in touch with him/her. :(
ex_ga_woo wrote:
Nov. 2nd, 2005 02:02 pm (UTC)
Re: way to go!
P.S.: If you know of anyone who can help me with cross-browser compatibility, it would be nice if you could put me in touch with him/her. :(

I should have read this comment to the end. You actually _did_ want someone! :)
angiasaa wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2005 07:51 pm (UTC)
Re: way to go!
Not 'want'. And definitely not to work as an assistant.

If you can figure out why it's not working, (apart from the reasons I've pointed out earlier), and you tell me what those reasons are, _that_ would be what I'm looking for. :)
ex_ga_woo wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 12:19 pm (UTC)
Re: way to go!
"Way to go"? Goddamn! I hate you people!! :)
angiasaa wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 06:07 pm (UTC)
Re: way to go!
Human! :O)
subtle_blues wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 07:38 pm (UTC)
Re: way to go!
Why the fuck are you smiling dude?
Have you lost your senses?
No one goes.. "Goddamn! I hate you people.. *smile* " unless he was some sort of a cissy!

ex_ga_woo wrote:
Nov. 1st, 2005 02:51 pm (UTC)
Re: way to go!
I was typing out a very witty, very caustically insulting reply when I saw that ":P" at the end and realised that you were actually kidding.
angiasaa wrote:
Nov. 1st, 2005 10:04 pm (UTC)
Re: way to go!
You say it like you really believe that the ":P" always means someones _actually_ kidding. :P
ex_ga_woo wrote:
Nov. 1st, 2005 10:06 pm (UTC)
Re: way to go!
You just explained my "joke" :)
angiasaa wrote:
Nov. 1st, 2005 11:03 pm (UTC)
Re: way to go!
laughs at it.
mansu wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 04:06 pm (UTC)
What are the chances that some of the hits are from spiders?
angiasaa wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 06:06 pm (UTC)
These are the stats for the recorded spider hits:
googlebot           28
slurp                   5
jeeves                 2
ia_archiver           2
msnbot                1
appie                  1

Unless we've got spiders masquerading as browsers, it's definitely possible, but unlikely that there are so many masquerading bots out there. :)

angiasaa wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 06:29 pm (UTC)
Overnight.... These are the new values including today!

us 4737
in 40
jp 26
ca 24
au 30
ip 13
sg 11
hk 12
cn 6
fr 2

There's definitely something wrong here! :(
(Anonymous) wrote:
Nov. 6th, 2005 09:24 am (UTC)
what the hell is wrong ??
seems people/person from US are fond of ur page!

regarding the compatibility prob, u cud solve by removing the CSS

Sanjay K
angiasaa wrote:
Nov. 6th, 2005 05:07 pm (UTC)
What is wrong? If you view the code, you'll see nested divs. That's where _I think_ the problem is. It could well be anyplace else though. That's up to an experienced porter to notice. I'm not a porting guy, so I really am not sure.

Remove CSS? Yeah, I thought of that. But that's kinda pointless. because removing CSS would mean eliminating the framework that holds the modularity together.

Besides, if Mozilla goes around shouting "We're CSS compatible!!" what's the point?

Most important though, is the fact that I don't plan on NOT using CSS just because I can't figure out why it's rendering with problems under Mozilla. I'm not one to take the easy way out by giving up, if you know what I mean.

However, Thankyou for your comment. It did'nt help me in the least, but I'm glad you took to time out to leave a message on my journal.

Thanks for the effort.