As of 4:45 p.m., The Ellis County Observer has been pounded with 1,000 hits. That’s one day’s worth. Many of these are unique users, i.e., first-time visitors (tracked by different IP addresses). That, friends, is effectiveness. And there’s not even an election anytime soon! Thank you, visitors, whoever and wherever you are. Tell your friends. Tell your co-workers. Tell your clients.
July 23, 2007...4:51 pm
1,000 Hits
Jump to Comments
9 Comments
July 24, 2007 at 1:46 am
1000 hits or 1000 visits?
There’s a big difference. 1,000 hits can mean that one person simply looked at 1,000 different files on your website.
1,000 visits would mean you had 1,000 people actually come to the website during the day.
I’m sure you got it right in your reporting – just like you always do.
July 24, 2007 at 3:22 am
Clarification: It does not mean that 1,000 of your files were accessed (In fact, neither means that); however yes, Publisher Joey Dauben did in fact mean 1,000 hits (which for the day ended up at over 1,400).
The unique hits are for our research – which happens to be a separate number.
Let us no forget: Statistically Tuesday is the busiest day for the internet, while Monday’s can be the among the worst.
We do hope you are enjoying the features and structured design.
Ali A. Akbar
Blog Administration Team
July 24, 2007 at 11:19 am
From Wikipedia:
# Hit – A request for a file from the web server. Available only in log analysis. The number of hits received by a website is frequently cited to assert its popularity, but this number is extremely misleading and dramatically over-estimates popularity. A single web-page typically consists of multiple (often dozens) of discrete files, each of which is counted as a hit as the page is downloaded, so the number of hits is really an arbitrary number more reflective of the complexity of individual pages on the website than the website’s actual popularity. The total number of visitors or page views provides a more realistic and accurate assessment of popularity.
# Page View – A request for a file whose type is defined as a page in log analysis. An occurrence of the script being run in page tagging. In log analysis, a single page view may generate multiple hits as all the resources required to view the page (images, .js and .css files) are also requested from the web server.
# Visit / Session – A series of requests from the same uniquely identified client with a set timeout. A visit is expected to contain multiple hits (in log analysis) and page views.
From Webmasterworld:
“hits” is a useless statistic though it is used by many to promote sites. A hit is counted every time one file is accessed on your server, whether it be a page, an image, a program, js file, css file etc. Complex or highly visual pages with lots of js or small images therefore will get 40 “hits” for a page with say a css, 2 js’s and 36 images. A page with no images or scripts, gets “1″ hit.
From Google Analytics:
Hit
A request to the web server for a file. This can be an HTML page, an image (jpeg, gif, png, etc.), a sound clip, a cgi script, and many other file types. An HTML page can account for several hits: the page itself, each image on the page, and any embedded sound or video clips. Therefore, the number of hits a website receives is not a valid popularity gauge, but rather is an indication of server use and loading.
Based on these definitions it would appear to me with all your fancy graphics and CSS files and Java scripts used to run a WordPress blog – I’m sure you hit 1,400 hits easily.
I recently had 2711 visits to my page.
Of those visits, I had 1376 unique visits.
Those visitors viewed 10,887 pages for a total of 33,996 hits, sucking 584.42 MB in bandwidth.
So yeah – I’d say you probably had 1,400 hits. Whooptie doo.
July 24, 2007 at 3:38 pm
There seems to be some disagreement as to the correct application of the term. The Counterize programmer seems to consider a hit to be a page view. Each numbered “hit” listed in the administrative area refers to a URL, each of which is a page URL, not that of an individual file. Additionally, it appears that only views of the public pages are counted, as no administrative page views appear in the list.
July 24, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Thank you Old Man.
I think you wouldn’t find a single SEO expert or decent webmaster to agree to the terms set forth by our friend “don’t mess up your stats.”
It’s amazing the grief put in over it. A website hit is not a term (used properly or in passing) that means a single webfile.
As the Blog Administrator and New Media Director for several going causes – I would be an expert. Thank you for you time and concern, however there is a clear concise definition that is accepted by the lay and those in the field like myself.
July 24, 2007 at 10:15 pm
To “dont mess up your stats”:
First of all, for someone who is obviously so concerned with petty details, such as the correct definition of “hits”…you sure overlook the correct usage of a little friend of mine I like to call, “Apostrophe”. It’s fine…I will let it slide this time.
But, instead of criticizing someone elses’ alleged wrongdoing, you should probably start with examining yourself.
That’s all…
Best regards,
July 25, 2007 at 7:57 am
I really wanted to post a good comeback – but since “an expert” showed up I guess I’m just wrong. I’ll be sure and let the rest of the online world know they’ve been mistaken.
My apologies.
July 25, 2007 at 10:50 am
It’s okay. For the record Awstats let us know that we received over 20,000 data file requests (what you originally called “hits”). We did not want to misinform the people and say that we had 20,000 hits – therefore we went with the logical 1,000 visits (most commonly known as hits in the online world).
It’s a most obvious observation. There might be a need to inform the “rest of the online world” if you have friends that are too mistaken about the process of blogging and online statistics.
We would suggest emailing a SEO expert even your basic run in the mill web hosting company for any more clarification.
Thank you for your concern though.
~Blog Administrator
August 31, 2008 at 4:36 am
I do not believe this