counting downloads

2007-05-02 Thread Marshall Schor
We're curious to see how many downloads we're getting, perhaps sorted by ip number or who's downloading (I realize that would need be "volunteered" information). Do other projects have a good way to track this? I know we could pull the logs for the p.a.o webserver and grep through them looking f

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-02 Thread Luciano Resende
Yes, I'd be interested in this information for the Apache Tuscany downloads as well... On 5/2/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We're curious to see how many downloads we're getting, perhaps sorted by ip number or who's downloading (I realize that would need be "volunteered" informa

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-02 Thread Garrett Rooney
re getting one guy downloading it more than once because he's accidentally deleted it... Get used to the idea that counting downloads is an inherently poor way to judge if your software is being used. More interesting metrics might be

RE: counting downloads

2007-05-02 Thread Noel J. Bergman
Garrett Rooney wrote: > The mirror system makes this an essentially unsolvable problem. And in addition to all of your other valid points, there is the problem of having a a farm of caching proxies on the ISP side of the net, leading to the seemingly odd case that the more popular a download, the

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-02 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 18:43, Garrett Rooney wrote: > The mirror system makes this an essentially unsolvable problem. Not > to mention the fact that you have no clue if people are actually > getting the code from one of our mirrors at all, they could get it > from a linux distribution, or any nu

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-02 Thread Luciano Resende
Thanks Dan, indeed, as Tuscany is still under incubation, mirrors and other things won't apply. Did anybody ever created a script to parse the logs and provide totals ? On 5/2/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 02 May 2007 18:43, Garrett Rooney wrote: > The mirror system ma

RE: counting downloads

2007-05-03 Thread Noel J. Bergman
> Except you forget one detail: incubator artifacts don't go to the mirror > system. And that's changing/changed. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-03 Thread Daniel Kulp
Noel, On Thursday 03 May 2007 03:59, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Except you forget one detail: incubator artifacts don't go to the > > mirror system. > > And that's changing/changed. Can I ask when?The vote that was called in mid march [1] never had a "result" posted. The discussion [2] th

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-03 Thread Danny Angus
On 5/2/07, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do other projects have a good way to track this? I know we could pull > the logs for the p.a.o webserver and grep through them looking for > things, but I'm wondering if there's something we can put on our > download page that users would cl

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-05 Thread Marshall Schor
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Garrett Rooney wrote: The mirror system makes this an essentially unsolvable problem. And in addition to all of your other valid points, there is the problem of having a a farm of caching proxies on the ISP side of the net, leading to the seemingly odd case that

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-05 Thread Garrett Rooney
On 5/5/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One confusion I have: If we count "clicks" on the download link, it seems that even if that link led to a "mirror" page, it would count pretty accurately (except of course if a person clicked to download, and then didn't bother going through w

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-05 Thread Eelco Hillenius
Unless they don't download it via your link, or they download more than once (getting copies on multiple machines?), or any number of other things that can throw your numbers off. It's a losing battle for statistics that IMO aren't very useful anyway. All download counts are good for is ego stro

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-06 Thread Xavier Hanin
FYI, Vadim is already providing stats on some (non incubating) projects: http://people.apache.org/~vgritsenko/stats/projects/index.html I don't know if it's easy for him to add incubating projects, and how he deals with mirrors. In a sense even if the download counter is not accurate, I agree wit

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-06 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 5/3/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Noel, On Thursday 03 May 2007 03:59, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Except you forget one detail: incubator artifacts don't go to the > > mirror system. > > And that's changing/changed. Can I ask when?The vote that was called in mid march [1] n

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-06 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 5/3/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/2/07, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do other projects have a good way to track this? I know we could pull > > the logs for the p.a.o webserver and grep through them looking for > > things, but I'm wondering if there's somethi

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-06 Thread Martijn Dashorst
On 5/6/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: i'd rather have CXF and wicket in the old places and have the time to do this properly than delay the releases or rush the move And this is why we put the release in the old place. We want to keep our project going whilst still working

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-06 Thread Martijn Dashorst
From what I overheard, the old place is as bad as the new place. And What I meant was: at *this time*. The new place is much better when everything is set up. Martijn -- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.6

Re: counting downloads

2007-05-06 Thread Daniel Kulp
Thanks for the clarification Robert. I'm glad we didn't mess something up. :-) I'll definitely keep an eye on the various threads for information about the changes. It all sounds very good to me. :-) Dan On Sunday 06 May 2007 06:55, robert burrell donkin wrote: > On 5/3/07, Daniel Kulp