For those interested in such things....

[Mr Barguzin]

As some or all of you might be aware, I do have a web site that is rather under-utilised at the moment ..... well, more like rarely updated as opposed to under-utilised.

 

The reason for the above statement is twofold: I rarely go their myself, and as such have not updated it for quite a while.... but I had cause to 'drop in' today and decided, because they were there, to look at the site stats. This proved to be rather interesting.

 

Well, it was to me, and may I begin by apologising to those who have tried and failed.

 

"Times site unavailable: 2 today | 26 this month

Page views refused: 94 today | 379 this month

 

Hourly limit: 4.2MB

Used: 24%

Times exceeded today: 2

Times exceeded this month: 26"

 

"Page View Summary

Total page views in last 7 days: 391

Total page views in last 30 days: 1,697

Most page views in last 30 days: 96 (Wed 12/31)"

 

The pages have been viewed 376,377 which sounds good until you realise the following:

 

Index Page (the one most{?} folks go to first): 40,752

Subindex page (lists sections within site): 52,784

 

which means that the other 75 pages have had a total visitage of just 282,842 or just 3,771 visits per page. Ah well.... maybe it wasn't what the others were looking for *grin*

 

As for those visitors, well they are showing individuality as less than 60% use IE6 whilst over twenty per centum use Mozilla 1.8. And Netscape seems to have died completely, although there are a greater variety of browsers available now.

 

Operating systems are equally changing:

 

Windows NT 5.1: 71.67%

MAC OS X : 16.92%

Linux : 7.17%

MAC OS : 3.34%

 

The big thing when it comes to setting up a webpage is what will be the screen resolution of the viewer. Well folks, it sure as Hades AIN'T 600 x 400 :

 

1024x768 51.41%

1440x900 26.77%

800x600 11.19%

1280x1024 10.62%

 

That totals 99.97%. So I guess the 0.03% still using 600 x 400 are getting the best deal screenwise within the site *grin*. At least I could (if I knew how) use Java to set up the images within each page to make use of the additional real estate now available in most cases.

 

And yes folks... the links page in the Library and at FFG and Mikhails Soft Spot and even the old Fur Ring do work. Funnily enough, I guess less than 10% of folks have still got the page bookmarked LOL.

 

DAMN!!! just accidentally closed that page... GGGRRRRRRR So that's it fur the moment. Now all I gotta do is sit down and think about what should be done with the site...... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Worker 11811]

Being primarily a pictures site, you're going to bump your head against the bandwidth ceiling every so often. Especially on a free server like GeoCities. (Unless you are paying for extra bandwidth.)

 

I suppose you could redo the site to drop your bandwidth load. You can compress pictures more. (?) You can crop them smaller. You can thumbnail, etc. etc. etc. You can probably squeeze out a little more bandwidth by tweaking your background image. It's small but it can be compressed more than the regular pictures.

 

Most people won't go more than a few pages deep into a site unless they are REALLY interested in the subject matter. You might increase readership by making the site "shallower" but "wider". (Fewer pages. More stuff on each page.)

 

640 X 480 is plenty. Increasing the page size may increase your readership but it may also increase your bandwidth usage. It's an intricate dance.

 

Overall, the site is nice! And furry!

I wouldn't say it really NEEDS to be changed but IF you were in the mood, that's what I'd do.

[ReFur]

Piotr,

 

You think that is low for a sit you are not working on? I guess I don't. Seems good to me. But, I am not a site manager like you, either.

 

The stats you quoted are very similar to the ones that eBay provides me.

 

I personally don't think the page resolution is a constraint. because if someone is willing to pay for broadband they probably will spend the money for an updated monitor if they are into pictures.

 

To me the constraint is the ability for many people to have access to, or afford, broadband.

 

I get about 10,000 viewers a month on my main eBay site.

 

I also gets stats on the registered language of the viewers. 75 to 80% are some form of English.

 

About 30% of my buyers are International. I think it is because access to furs in many parts of Europe is more difficult.

 

Linda

[Mr Barguzin]

Thanks for your responses folks. I was more aiming at the changes in browsers and resolution than worrying about an update (howls of anger from 'fans') and the numbers of folks that have been excluded from the site which is at Geocities (for those who don't know... and no, this is not a free bit of plugging or else it would have been posted into another).

 

As for the web design thing.... I would use 800 x 600 as the minimum now, but to play safe would use percentages for width of tables, not finite pixels. Reducing and cropping images defeats the purpose of the site, IMHO. I know that some of the images were reduced but are linked to the full scale ones therein.

 

I Agree that proper use of thumbnail software would be advantageous, and not as some folk do with their thumbnails and reduce the size of the full sized image within the thumbnail. THAT sorta defeats the purpose of the software. But using thumbnails would defeat the purpose of the text that accompanies all pics, IMHO.

 

Bump my head against bandwidth ceiling?? THAT explains the headaches!!! Well, until I win Powerball, I guess they will continue. Actually, methinks that the the backgrounds are the least of my probs as they are usually less than 10Kb, believe it or not *grin*

 

What does hurt is that ISP's have ceased using their own online caches to store pages that are frequented by more than one visitor using the one ISP. So if Joe Boggs, Jean Bratt and Andy Nobutt all use Terrible ISP and are on broadband....... all three may download the same image(s) and text..... but from Geocities, not from Terrible ISP as when they were on dial-up. Why?? Because some ISP's still charge outrageous prices for relatively small amounts of download on broadband and Yahoo wants to make a profit. So I ain't gunna pay (until I win Powerball.... and it'd better be a biggun.

 

Oh yes, one thing that I did omit from original report is that all visitors have Java, and most have Java Script enabled. WEG... and it's the GOOD Java.

 

The "shallower/wider" would lead to a similar amount of download breaches as currently, or a reduction of maybe three/four days a month as the images and text are the main consumers, not the background, which as it is constant in every section... and small (size and Kb-wise) HMmmmmmmmm maybe I should look at what they are offering.... *grin*

[Worker 11811]

Wanna see some cool-as-heck JavaScript?!

 

javascript:R=0; x1=.1; y1=.05; x2=.25; y2=.24; x3=1.6; y3=.24; x4=300; y4=200; x5=300; y5=200; DI=document.getElementsByTagName("img"); DIL=DI.length; function A(){for(i=0; i-DIL; i++){DIS=DI[ i ].style; DIS.position='absolute'; DIS.left=(Math.sin(R*x1+i*x2+x3)*x4+x5)+"px"; DIS.top=(Math.cos(R*y1+i*y2+y3)*y4+y5)+"px"}R++}setInterval( 'A()',5); void(0);

 

I found this on another site. It's VERY cool! 8)

 

Go to one of your pages with lots of pictures on it. Then select/highlight all the text in the above quote with your mouse. Copy/paste it into the address bar at the top of your browser. Hit return and watch the fun!

 

(Make sure you have JavaScript turned on in your browser controls.)

[s1m17]

Damn that is fun Worker! Everyone should try it !

[Worker 11811]

Thanks!

 

It has been dubbed "The Vortex of Awesomeness" by others, out there, on the world wide web!

 

Just go to any site that has lots and lots of pictures but, preferably, doesn't have any frames. Enter that JavaScript snippet into your URL bar, where you normally enter a website address. Press RETURN and watch the fun!

 

I suppose, if you go to a fur pictures site, we could re-dub it "Vortex of Fur"!