4 ms·
Very few people will object if a _site operator_ would know what they did on their site exactly, if they were a returning visitor, how much time they spent per
by huhtenberg 6y ago
Very few people will object if a _site operator_ would know what they did on their site exactly, if they were a returning visitor, how much time they spent per page, etc.
The principal privacy-related concern with any form of analytics is that of tracking by _a 3rd party_ across _unrelated sites_. And this concern is fully addressed by simply not using external analytics services and relying on a self-hosted one instead.
So I really don't understand the whole exercise with not using random techniques that may be abused by 3rd party analytics services and then somehow claiming pro-privacy focus, whereby the solution is to NOT make yet another analytics service.
The only right way to do "privacy-focused" analytics is to offer a self-hosted option. Whoever makes a proper clone of the the original Urchin, before it mutated into GA, will strike pure gold.
- Proven 6y ago> The only right way to do "privacy-focused" analytics is to offer a self-hosted option. That's completely wrong. As the other comment said there are several very nice options out there. With some the site operator cannot even see visitors' IP addresses.
- j0e1 6y agoI don't understand your point. PiratePx seems to be MIT licensed and open-source so that it maybe self-hosted. Are you taking issue with the technique of tracking used here- using pixel-sized GIF?
- huhtenberg 6y agoThe point is that if it can be self-hosted, then there's no reason to not use cookies and JS, because that's what allows for collecting actually actionable metrics. And if it's a 3rd party service, then it's not option for anyone who genuinely cares about visitors' privacy.
- XCSme 6y agoThere are already several good self-hosted analytics tools depending on your needs (Matomo, userTrack, Plausible, etc.) What features are missing from those platforms that the original Urchin had?