4 ms·

Before google analytics juggernauted the problem space, there were a bunch of log analysis tools which produced metrics similar to what the article describes, a

Before google analytics juggernauted the problem space, there were a bunch of log analysis tools which produced metrics similar to what the article describes, and more, locally and based on nothing but server logs. A ton of them still exist : things like webalizer, goaccess, and the venerable analog. See the self-hosted category here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_analytics_software https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_analytics_softwa...) Like the article, I recently realized that, while I did use it, I didn’t take advantage of google analytics at all so decided to nuke it from my sites. I had additionally been running webalizer for over a decade, but recently replaced it with goaccess (took about 10 minutes to set up) which is more actively maintained and have been quite happy with the basic metrics it produces. Sure it won’t stalk a user as they browse my site but I don’t care, just having an idea of how many hits I get, from which countries and which browsers is enough for my few personal and hobby sites.

ximm 6y ago
I was deeply amused by the title. In my world using shell scripts to analyze access logs is the obvious solution and using google analytics is the exotic approach that you might come up with in very few special cases.
- mobilemidget 6y ago
  AWK & SED :) one of the better books I bought when studying. Often parsing a logs to find some things that other logging don't record/show for a manager. Often you hear the same phrase 'You can check logs like that, and you don't need a browser? How... magic....'
eli 6y ago
I get a LOT of bot traffic with bogus user agents. Google Analytics does an okayish job dealing with it. Looking at web server logs and trying to reconstruct traffic patterns from just real users would be real chore.
- Seirdy 6y ago
  I mean, that sounds like more of a feature than a bug. You shouldn't know exactly what people are doing on your site (too invasive), but this approach gives you a rough idea of which requests are being made. I personally find it to still be too revealing in some cases, which is why tools like the nginx IPscrub module[0] should be the upstream default IMO. [0]: https://github.com/masonicboom/ipscrub https://github.com/masonicboom/ipscrub
  - sofixa 6y ago
    > mean, that sounds like more of a feature than a bug. You shouldn't know exactly what people are doing on your site (too invasive), but this approach gives you a rough idea of which requests are being made Why not? Why wouldn't you know what people are doing on your website, within limits? Which section is getting most visits, which is the slowest, how many elements people click on in your lists, etc etc can have immense value in deciding what to do with your site, what needs work, what doesn't work at all, etc.
    - Seirdy 6y ago
      I typically see software from the perspective of software freedom. When a user downloads a web page from my server, I can temporarily record that an anonymous user made a request because I'm only logging what the software I'm running on my machine is doing. After that, the user should own that downloaded copy of the page and use it freely without surveillance from me or anyone else. The only restrictions in place are those set by the license (hopefully AGPLv3). Beyond those restrictions, the software doesn't belong to me anymore so I don't collect metrics. It's true that I won't be able to get detailed metrics about what the user is doing, but it's also true that user's copy of my software will only be serving the user directly. Web apps aren't different from other software; telemetry and user studies should be opt-in, transparent, and sent back only with informed consent. Only then can I consider running analytics.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  I abandoned GA because they wouldn't do anything to fix the problem with referer spam. Unless they've finally fixed it, a lot of the stats they produce are from non-users.
oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
Good if you have access to server logs, but not all hosts offer that. GitHub pages, for example.
- codingdave 6y ago
  True, but that feels more like a critique of Github Pages than a valid reason to keep using Google Analytics.
- megous 6y ago
  nothing a "img = document.createElement('img'); img.src = 'https://your-server.net/t= https://your-server.net/t=' + Date.now() + '&u=' + encodeURIComponent(location.href); document.body.append(img);" won't fix

ximm 6y ago

I was deeply amused by the title. In my world using shell scripts to analyze access logs is the obvious solution and using google analytics is the exotic approach that you might come up with in very few special cases.

mobilemidget 6y ago
AWK & SED :) one of the better books I bought when studying. Often parsing a logs to find some things that other logging don't record/show for a manager. Often you hear the same phrase 'You can check logs like that, and you don't need a browser? How... magic....'

eli 6y ago

I get a LOT of bot traffic with bogus user agents. Google Analytics does an okayish job dealing with it. Looking at web server logs and trying to reconstruct traffic patterns from just real users would be real chore.

Seirdy 6y ago
I mean, that sounds like more of a feature than a bug. You shouldn't know exactly what people are doing on your site (too invasive), but this approach gives you a rough idea of which requests are being made. I personally find it to still be too revealing in some cases, which is why tools like the nginx IPscrub module[0] should be the upstream default IMO. [0]: https://github.com/masonicboom/ipscrub https://github.com/masonicboom/ipscrub
- sofixa 6y ago
  > mean, that sounds like more of a feature than a bug. You shouldn't know exactly what people are doing on your site (too invasive), but this approach gives you a rough idea of which requests are being made Why not? Why wouldn't you know what people are doing on your website, within limits? Which section is getting most visits, which is the slowest, how many elements people click on in your lists, etc etc can have immense value in deciding what to do with your site, what needs work, what doesn't work at all, etc.
  - Seirdy 6y ago
    I typically see software from the perspective of software freedom. When a user downloads a web page from my server, I can temporarily record that an anonymous user made a request because I'm only logging what the software I'm running on my machine is doing. After that, the user should own that downloaded copy of the page and use it freely without surveillance from me or anyone else. The only restrictions in place are those set by the license (hopefully AGPLv3). Beyond those restrictions, the software doesn't belong to me anymore so I don't collect metrics. It's true that I won't be able to get detailed metrics about what the user is doing, but it's also true that user's copy of my software will only be serving the user directly. Web apps aren't different from other software; telemetry and user studies should be opt-in, transparent, and sent back only with informed consent. Only then can I consider running analytics.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
I abandoned GA because they wouldn't do anything to fix the problem with referer spam. Unless they've finally fixed it, a lot of the stats they produce are from non-users.

oneeyedpigeon 6y ago

Good if you have access to server logs, but not all hosts offer that. GitHub pages, for example.

codingdave 6y ago
True, but that feels more like a critique of Github Pages than a valid reason to keep using Google Analytics.
megous 6y ago
nothing a "img = document.createElement('img'); img.src = 'https://your-server.net/t= https://your-server.net/t=' + Date.now() + '&u=' + encodeURIComponent(location.href); document.body.append(img);" won't fix