dw_thomas wrote:akmc_in_au wrote:[snip] Better late, and all that...
Indeed, and at this moment it appears to be fixed.
Next up, the OM5 may be added to the database! Or not. Yes, I know I keep banging on about that but I don't think there is much that can
really get under the skin like paying for a service and being blatantly and rudely ignored.
For. Months. I suppose that the service requests relating to stats being ignored for a week fall into that category too, but as I said earlier I suspect that it's more likely that it's just a case of nobody even looking at the system for a week rather than them seeing the support requests and doing nothing about them.
dw_thomas wrote:I need those numbers ...
Eeeeh, I'm not so sure you do. Or to be more precise, I'm not sure that they have any value. I don't normally look at PBase stats, and now I remember why. I looked at them when they came back and at some of the images that supposedly,
suppppoooosssedly, received visits. There were a few examples of this, but let me pick one. There was one image in my Canberra Trips gallery which supposedly, according to PBase, received 1 visit on 17 April, 11 April, 17 March and 14 February.
Oddly, neither StatCounter nor Google Analytics (for both are hooked up to my account) know anything about such visits. Also, the gallery has not been updated in about a decade. The image itself dates from 2008, about 15 years ago, and is not what I would regard these days as being a particularly good photo. So (a) How could anyone have found it (I'll come back to that) and (b) Why would anyone want to view it?
Well, it could have been an indexing bot visit, right? Hmph, maybe. Just one or two things, though... (a) Why would the 'bot index that one photo that has been unchanged in a decade and a half, and sits somewhere in the middle of the gallery, and not one single
other photo in that gallery? and (b) Where did it get indexed? It certainly wouldn't have been on Google because Google seems to index hardly any PBase images for some reason. (A reason that I suspect has to do with the lack of moderation of photos which has resulted in PBase being on a significant number of site blacklists. The upside of that lack of moderation? Freedom of expression. The downside? "Glamour" photos that look more like gynaecological exams and result in the site ending up on black lists.) I know this because searching Google for (a) the image title, (b) part of the image description, and (c) the keywords (one of which, I noticed, had a typo in it making it pretty distinctive) yielded results of zip, nada and bupkis respectively, as is the case with most but not all images that I do a Google search on be they my own or someone else's.
An internal PBase indexing bot? The first question is the same as the above; why one and only one photo in an unremarkable position in a gallery that has been fossilised for a decade? Granted a PBase search on the keywords yields the image (a search on the titles or description does not), but I can't see why it would need to reindex the same image every month or so.
In short, I don't believe that there ever WAS a visit to the photos in question, or if there was one it certainly wasn't by a set of human eyes. Thus, while the lack of management response for a week further annoys me, the absence of the internal PBase stats themselves doesn't so much because I have zero trust in them.
dw_thomas wrote:I have CDO.
(The symptoms are very similar to OCD but the letters are in the
correct order ...
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
)
Every time I hear CDO I think of Collateralised Debt Obligations and get flashbacks to the movie
The Big Short.