Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Bobbie ] on Thursday 28 December 2006 15:03 \__
>
> > While taking a break from performing an interpretive dance of 'Flight of
> > the Bumble Bee', OK wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/December/os.php
> >> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
> >>
> >> ..and XP still climbing...
> >>
> >> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5
> >
> > So good to see you quoting stats from JupiterMedia.
> > You do know that JupiterMedia does press releases for Micrososft didn't
> > you?
> > You didn't, hmmmm. Check this out
> >
> http://whitepapers.zdnet.com/whitepaper.aspx?&scname=Accounting+Applications&docid=258515
> >
> > But you knew that already didn't you?
>
> Oops. I was referring to Jupiter Research which is probably a separate entity
> altogether. Apart from the obvious proof that there are ties, here's an item
> on the uselessness of stats:
>
> Why Webbrowser statistics lie and just don't say anything
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | What do we conclude from all this? The number of hits in a log file
> | doesn't say anything, it says nothing about how many people are
> | using a certain browser. Ready made statistics published by so
> | called "analysts" say even less - they lie. To get statistics which
> | are just a little bit near reality it's not enough to have a
> | program which analyzes a log file, it needs some mathematical
> | background and a good understanding of what is going on there at all.
> `----
Unless of course it's a stat from some web-site in Bulgaria that shows
Firefox improving 0.2% over IE in which case you will be the first to
push the browser statistic statistic as being the absolute truth.
|
|
