If users connecting to your site are behind the same firewall, is there a
way to tell if there are seperate users connecting to you or 1 user with
multiple browsers all connecting to you?
Thanks,
bgc
"BGC" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message
news:kP_xe.3249$Zt.131@okepread05...
news:kP_xe.3249$Zt.131@okepread05...
| QUOTE |
| If users connecting to your site are behind the same firewall, is there a way to tell if there are seperate users connecting to you or 1 user with multiple browsers all connecting to you? |
I'd imagine the raw logs would have the individual internal IP addresses
listed.
elyob wrote:
| QUOTE |
| "BGC" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message news:kP_xe.3249$Zt.131@okepread05... If users connecting to your site are behind the same firewall, is there a way to tell if there are seperate users connecting to you or 1 user with multiple browsers all connecting to you? I'd imagine the raw logs would have the individual internal IP addresses listed. |
No, the logs would see all of the hits from the firewall/proxy/cache
device. The most reliable way to track those types of users is to make
them log in with a username/password. Cookies would be another
possibility for more accurate tracking.
--
Theg
Theg wrote:
| QUOTE |
| No, the logs would see all of the hits from the firewall/proxy/cache device. The most reliable way to track those types of users is to make them log in with a username/password. |
Thus skewing the results when those of us who refuse to "log in" to a random
website just to look at it move on elsewhere.
| QUOTE |
| Cookies would be another possibility for more accurate tracking. |
See above.
Cheers
Richard.
Previously in alt.www.webmaster, BGC <[Email Removed]> said:
| QUOTE |
| If users connecting to your site are behind the same firewall, is there a way to tell if there are seperate users connecting to you or 1 user with multiple browsers all connecting to you? |
rf wrote:
| QUOTE |
| Theg wrote: No, the logs would see all of the hits from the firewall/proxy/cache device. The most reliable way to track those types of users is to make them log in with a username/password. Thus skewing the results when those of us who refuse to "log in" to a random website just to look at it move on elsewhere. |
Of course, nothing is perfect. Log the IP's, and track the users who do log
in.
It's all skewed anyways by those who mask their IP or use proxies.
| QUOTE |
| Cookies would be another possibility for more accurate tracking. See above. |
ditto
--
Tony Garcia
Web Right! Development
Riverside, CA
www.WebRightDevelopment.com
Tony wrote
| QUOTE |
| Of course, nothing is perfect. Log the IP's |
There will possibly be only one hit for all those people behind the proxy
anyway, the proxy might just cache the page.
For a while my ISP had a proxy cache (commonly referred to as the poxy
cache). Every bigpond broadband user in Australia was behind it. Thousands
of people could visit a web site and the sites server would only see one
hit.
"Counting" stuff in a log file seems to me to be a futile exercise anyway,
especially something as detailed as determining if one user is using two
browser instances.
<aside>
In any case if one single user views a page with two browser instances there
is a good chance the second instance will read the page from the browsers
cache.
</aside>
<aside distance=further>
42 seperate individuals sequentially walk up to an internet cafe computer to
ask the BBC site if London won the olympic games. The server sees one hit.
</aside>
I only use my logs to determine trends. That is if I see 1000 hits last
month and 1500 hits this month then I have an average gain of 50%. I don't
care *what* those hits were.
That said it is a couple of years since I even looked at the logs. My
company site does not *need* hits. It is a service for my customers and
potential customers. They go there to download stuff when I tell them to.
Cheers
Richard.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.