larsjohnsson wrote:I don't belive that there can be thousends of hits more on those days when Pbase was all down, compared to days/weeks it was working normal. My best/most hits was the days nobody could use Pbase or try to click on my pics.
I could understand if I still would get some clicks from direct linking. But not five times as many as when I had a normal working Pbase and also the direct linking together. Also I don't belive there is direct linking to thousends of my pics. Only to a few.....
They're not "clicks", they're attempts to read the page. There doesn't have to be a human being clicking a mouse on the other end. I'm not an expert on indexing 'bots (like Google's, Yahoo's etc) but I would imagine that if a 'bot knows that a page is there and it can't read it, it may keep banging away on the door for a while; that is, trying to reload the page and thus generating phantom "hits". I also seem to have a ridiculously high number of "hits" for the period in question, and there's no way on the gods' little green earth I was really getting that many human viewers at that time; I hadn't been in my galleries since about July back then, and I normally get only a handful of hits per day when I haven't been updating them. (Certainly not the hundreds that I can see.) However this may help explain why I've never been able to reconcile PBase stats with StatCounter / Google Analytics stats; StatCounter only shows me actual
reads on my page, not automated reads (or my own, which are filtered). If I can see the path that the user followed, I'll believe that it's a real hit. If it's a number on a page... well, that could be what we're seeing here. That's why I was never fussed about the stats as such; it's nice to see them back, but my main source of information will continue to be StatCounter if for no other reason than that the page really has to be loaded before the StatCounter code is triggered, and because it filters out the theoretical hits from web crawlers.