A "hit" counts every page and graphic request and is not a true
indication of the number of visitors you may be getting.
I said that the other day before I even looked at Art's page counter and I
was wrong.

We had just reviewed some server stats for a few of our client's sites. We
use Web Trends which reports "hits" as individual image, script, and page
requests. This 'inflates' the numbers by about 5 to 1 (in this particular
case). We had GREAT difficulty convincing a client that "visits" are a far
more accurate indication of visits to a site that "hits".

That conversation was too fresh in my mind when Art happened to post his
note describing his milestone of 50,000 hits. I should looked prior to
commenting.

Art is correct. Those ARE actual page counts. Congrats!

Larry



"Enoch" wrote in message
...
"Larry" wrote in
:

A "hit" counts every page and graphic request and is not a true
indication of the number of visitors you may be getting.

This is true, but on the other hand, a big provider like AOL or
Earthlink will cache web pages and images in a proxy, so one hit
from AOL might potentially serve thousands. The number of hits
is a very rough indication of traffic; running the logs through
an analysis package like Analog or Webalyzer or even grepping the
logs for unique host requests for the index page gives a more
accurate indication of traffic.

That said, congrats to Art for 50,000 hits


/root