Can you explain in more detail where you are getting these two figures please?

Let's say I get 1000 page views in sitemeter. The total (far right figure) for that same day using the internal B2 hit counter would be 2500. I have sitemeter on all the templates. I guess the sitemeter is more trustworthy. If you calculated it, would that be your result as well?

www.nelsonguirado.com

Thanks

Your sitemeter depends on your visitor allowing javascript. b2evolution doesn't. Sitemeter is therefore the less likely to reflect the truth. For example it has never counted a hit from me. Nothing personal there about me not trusting you okay? It's how I surf: javascript is not trusted by any domain until I specifically say it's okay. I do that only when something I specifically want depends on javascript running.

Other forms of inaccuracy will come from what constitutes a hit to each of the different methods. It is possible that sitemeter might say "oh that visitor clicked right through to a permalink so it's really the same hit" where b2evolution will count a hit on the multipost page and a hit on the permalink page 2 seconds later. Check out sitemeter's page about this topic at http://kb.sitemeter.com/entry/123/ and you'll see what I mean.

OK, my domain host statistics say:
Day 16 May
Hits 1772
Files 1543
Pages 486
Visits 218
Sites 292
which is for my whole web site, including blog and other stuff.

My b2evo stats say:
Direct accesses 73
Referers 18
Referring searches 9
Blacklisted 12 (really means internal page clicks)
Total 112
(This was a quiet day)

This is of no use at all in doing what you are doing is it?

Ed,

You hurt my feelings. I thought we could trust each other. Seriously, thanks, that explains a lot.

RTomes,

That's a different comparison, but still interesting. My Bluehost numbers are higher than the B2 numbers.

Sitemeter counts all the people who visited your blog; b2evolution counts all the blog activity.

b2evolution includes also spam referrers (when not filtered by the antispam filter), where Sitemeters probably don't. The b2evolution counter can be used to check the server activity (the counted pages have really been served, but not always seen), but not the pages really seen by human beings...

[url=http://blog.lesperlesduchat.com]My b2evolution blogs[/url]' statistics for May 20th, 2007:

• Google Analytics: 9,942 pages;

[*]b2evolution: 12,401[/list:u]

I browse with scripts turned off and allow sensible accesses. I never allow google analytics, so if I visited your site that would account for some difference.

RTomes wrote:

I browse with scripts turned off and allow sensible accesses. I never allow google analytics, so if I visited your site that would account for some difference.

I also use some other analytics tools: [url=http://www.xiti.com/]Xiti[/url] and [url=http://www.quantcast.com/]Quantcast[/url]. All of those tools show similar audience where [url=http://b2evolution.net]b2evolution[/url] and [url=http://www.mrunix.net/webalizer/]Webalizer[/url] tend to overestimate my sites audience in comparison, including each one some amount of referer spam and other suspicious or not robots (I stopped updating the antispam blacklist since it tends to become huge over time and consume more system resources than it saves).

On May 20th, 2007, [url=http://www.xiti.com/]Xiti[/url] claims 98,1% of my site visitors have JavaScript activated in their browser. 98,6% of all 2007 visitors have JavaScript activated. Very few people turn off JavaScript.

Therefore sitemeter doesn't count all the *people*.

ALL visitor tracking methods are subject to error in some way shape or form. Depending on javascript means it will always under-report. Doing it server-side means it will always over-report (spammers aren't people).

Think of them as politicians: they're going to say whatever they want, no matter what reality is. You're going to find one or two you trust, and okay so you trust it, but that won't make it right. Just more right for you than some other one.

Personally I use b2evo's stats to kill spammers. Oh and the search hits for the search tag cloud. All other hits get purged via phpmyadmin frequently.

kwa wrote:

98,6% of all 2007 visitors have JavaScript activated. Very few people turn off JavaScript.

Yay, I'm in the top 1.4% of the web population, I knew I was special :D

¥

I'll bet it was a script-dependent study ;)

EdB wrote:

I'll bet it was a script-dependent study ;)

[url=http://www.xiti.com]Xiti[/url] uses both JavaScript and image to count visitors. ;)

EdB wrote:

I'll bet it was a script-dependent study ;)

Bugger, counts me out then :(

kwa wrote:

[url=http://www.xiti.com]Xiti[/url] uses both JavaScript and image to count visitors. ;)

Damn, now I have to disable images as well? ;)

¥

gentlemen,

how can i determine unique visitors with the b2evo stats? i want to compar to my web host to see how close they are.