Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Why Webbrowser statistics lie and just don't say anything
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| What do we conclude from all this? The number of hits in a
>| log file doesn't say anything, it says nothing about how
>| many people are using a certain browser. Ready made
>| statistics published by so called "analysts" say even less
>| - they lie. To get statistics which are just a little bit
>| near reality it's not enough to have a program which
>| analyzes a log file, it needs some mathematical background
>| and a good understanding of what is going on there at all.
> `----
>
> http://j3e.de/statistics_lie.html
>
> There are many more factors to consider, e.g. Squid,
> "Unknown" due to diversity (usually thrown out of stats,
> but accounts for ~10%), user-agent forging (for MSIE-only
> sites)...
>
> Many more reasons for error were discussed before. They
> work in Microsoft's favour and grossly underestimate the
> prevalence of GNU/Linux.
Statistics, or rather statisticians can lie. However, I have
noticed less Microsoft browser required sites on the Internet.
That indicates a trend.
--
HPT
|
|
