Two days ago I posted my first contribution on Iroon.com and was unpleasantly surprised by the low number of visits that my article received. It was very different to my experience in Iranian.com and I was duly disappointed. That was of course until I found a fundamental different between the two sites’ reported statistics which pointed to a high level of modesty exercised by the iroon.com. Let me explain.
I used to publish my writings in Iranian.com and each article received 10,000 - 20,000 visits. I used to ponder whether these 30-40 thousand views included some repeat visits or whether indeed 50-60 thousand people had viewed the blog. As the old site did not provide any detailed statistics one could never say how many of the 100 thousands visits that my blogs received were repeat visits by eager visitors. I was however sure of one thing, that the damn Drupal would force new visitors to queue once 150 thousands people had clicked on the blog. You can now see that a person like me who is used to receiving 300 thousands to half a million visits to each of his blogs would feel a little neglected when his contribution receives 14 visits.
Now, I do not worry too much about the clicks, but to help the site reporting more respectable statistics I started hastily clicking on the link to my own blog. It is a simple process involving the link and the back button. I must have repeated that process around 100 times when I noticed that to my bewilderment it still reported 14 visits. I thought it must have been the nasty cookie or something about my profile, so logged out and tried the process again but to no avail. By then I had to go to work.
In the office I clicked on my blog again which increased the number of visits to 15. The subsequent clicks had no effect and I just frustrated myself when I tried it from two other computers in the office. Despite all my selfless efforts the number of visits still stood at 15. It was then that I realised that unlike Iranian.com, our modest iroon.com does not report the number of clicks, but the number of unique IPs.
That was the discovery that made me sigh with relief. It meant that if 5000 people worked in an office and shared the same connection, the site would report only 1 visits if all 5000 of them visited my contribution. Now if the same company had another 19 branches with 5000 people working in each, the site would only display 20 visits instead of 100,000. Even based on such modest assumption, my blog has been visited 360,000 times and not only 72 times. Given the equal number of prints that the readers distribute to their friends, the copy and pasted material in emails, and those zealous viewers who read it over the shoulder of their colleagues, I am very pleased that still more than a million people care to read my humble writings.
But at the end of the day, I am very glad you are here and I will promise to be part of those statistics as I have always enjoyed reading your material.
Mehrdad
Divaneh jan,
از قدیم گفتن که دل به دل راه داره!
Before reading your blog, I left a comment on Faramarz's brand new post, regarding the good old philosophical question: "If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is around to hear, does it make a sound?"
Hilarious blog! You are so brave (since I had the same reaction at the low number of readers...I guess some shaky people liked our writings..:-)
It's so great to see/read you here!
Az.
Brother Divaneh.
What a co-incident! Today, I had a similar conversation with one of my regular customers. A little fellow, his height just reaching my waist line, with shifty eyes, goaty beard, always demanding to be called a Khan, always asking for rain deer Donar Kebab. He has been telling me that he recently purchased an internet site, with an interest free loan from some charitable government run organisation in Tehran. Today all his fingers were covered in band aid. So i said to him, didnt I tell you watching porn sites on internet can damage more than your eye site?!! To which he responded: "No, this time, my fingers were injured because I have been liking and tooping my own comments, and praising myself with multiple user ID's on my new, my very own internet site 24/7".
Divan...gerami
Forget about clicks and Rating!
Just keep writting and let us enjoy it.
God bless Hazrat- e Divaneh :) .
Thanks you all for reading and commenting. It feels great to be amongst good friends. I hope you all agree with me that there is nothing wrong with a little glorification of the past. A few extra zeroes does not hurt anyone.
Before posting in Iroon.com I used to compare the number of hits in IC with iroon.com, assuming that these were the same. I now know that I was not comparing like for like. If iroon.com reported the hits instead of the unique IP then in my view the figure would have been around 4 times larger. currently if two people in a household visit the same article, iroon.com still registers one visit. This is some sort of shooting yourself in the feet. It may be a good idea to report the hits as well as unique IP. That would surely give the contributors a good deal of encouragement.
Very funny blog! Maziar is right!
It's good to see you here, Divaneh Jan. I have missed you and the other community members from Iranian.com. As usual, you are thought provoking with a great sense of humor. Looking forward to reading more.
Looks like Amin's chaotic censorship is driving out the bloggers. It looks like he is inviting feature blog wirters supporting NIAC and Western appeasers.
As long as we get your kind of quality back, it is a plus for us.
Dear divaneh, interesting observation. First, as some folks pointed out, it is good that you are here and posting.
You're assessment is not entirely correct. Your test gives a hint that the site measures a combination of logged-in users' visits _AND_ IP address. So going from 14 to 15 sounds right. Your IP changed, but your username did not. Absolute uniqueness is possible, but then you would have stayed at 14. You got one extra point. Now, go ahead and click from 1,000 different IP addresses and the number of visits will be increased by 1,000.
Your math in terms of number of employees in one company, however, is incorrect. Their clicks would certainly be counted one by one, because as registered users on this site they would be logged in regardless of their IP address. The key word is "combination."
It would be nice, if JJ explained some of these technical things, but (a) he does not seem to have hal-o-hoseleh for technical matters, and (b) he believes nobody would care anyway. I mean Iranians KNOW everything, right? We know exactly what CIA is doing right now. So much for secrecy! Iranians conduct their own studies and research and publish their findings. LOL!
If you believed that on the IC you got 10,000, 20,000, or 100,000 unique views per post of yours, it was unfortunate.
Thinking about this outloud, I say there must be a generic statistics (like Google Analytic), but I suspect disclosing it would add more work for JJ as everyone here would be quick to invoke democracy, dis and dat in demanding that he give us every detail stats, or we will post on his own web site what an "arrogant dictator" he is. I have seen these adjectives thrown at JJ right here. It is so sad.
In general, Iranian web sites are very small in terms of crows, but this is a topic for another day.
I don't go there anymore.
Dear friends thanks for your encouraging comments. I am glad to see many of my favourite contributors in this site where freedom of speech is still respected.
Dear Bavafa, I thought it was obvious from the blog that the author was delusional and exaggerated with ease. For a good measure I stated in my first comment that glorification of the past and a few extra zeroes do not hurt anyone. Glorification of the past and exaggeration should not come as strange qualities to us Iranians. I however noted that after they archived the contents of the old IC all statistics were removed from the blogs and for those I can make any claim that I want.
I have to disagree with you about my maths. My maths is simply impeccable and in the college my teachers used to tell me how sorry they were that they could not give me more than 100% mark. You of course imply that my assumption is wrong which would result in a garbage in-garbage out scenario. I am not going to swear to my brother's life that I am telling the truth as I have done that quite a number of times and he is now getting nervous about it. I however can confidently state that your assumption is not correct. You have missed the point that I did after logging out and I did it again in the office from two other computers without logging in. In fact many visitors are not registered which make it impossible to apply a combination of logged-in user and IP address as a measure. Frankly I don't think JJ had gone to such measure in reporting statistics and the site simply report the number of unique IPs. I hope JJ or someone with credible information can shed some light on this.
Dear divaneh. Thank you for your reply. I too lost my valuable articles over der. They came back, but, anyway, I moved on. It is always JJ. I am here because of JJ.
Side note: One of these days I will repost my Pulitzer-winning stories here. I have been busy with my work. I also want to see Groups functionality on this site. I think groups is a better place for Pulitzer-winning articles. :-)
eh, you were a math genius too? That's great. baba, let's have a round of "akbar-mashdi" together. In elementary school, I was so good at math I won all "cart afarin's". In High school, ke dige nagoo. I used to stop by Aryamehr University and solve students' math problems over der, and rush back to my high school on time for "zang-e aval." LOL!
You wrote
> In fact many visitors are not registered which make it impossible to apply a combination of logged-in user and IP address as a measure.
Not entirely true. It is possible, although at this time it may not have been implemented exactly in this scheme.
> the site simply report the number of unique IPs
Buzz. Wrong! baba, I showed the cheat sheet. "Combination."
> ... or someone with credible information can shed some light on this.
I may be that someone, and I gave you the credible information. LOL!
baba, trust.
Anyway, this site is work in progress. It will get better and hopefully more money will allocated for displaying more precise stats.
Jeeez, my time to edit elapsed.
Dear divaneh, you wrote:
> You have missed the point that I did after logging out and I did it again in the office from two other computers without logging in.
OK, you got my attention. Would you, poleeez, describe your steps? I mean from home, then to office, logged in, not logged-in, etc. I am curious. You may have stumpled on a bug. Thank you in advance.