Browser Stats Nick Finck October 25, 2004 at 4:33 PM Add to Delicious or Add to My Yahoo! Since people seem to be boasting their browser stats and showing off how they favor certain browsers, I am going to do the same for Digital Web Magazine:
October 25, 2004 at 4:33 PM
Since people seem to be boasting their browser stats and showing off how they favor certain browsers, I am going to do the same for Digital Web Magazine:
A few caveats to go with that.
- This is a web practitioner site so the stats don’t accurately translate to your average consumer or business web site.
- These stats are only since the 19th of October since that is when we switched to the new server and host.
- Like all stats, the weight of the information is strongly influenced by the metrics used and the source of the data. In this case, from a single web site’s session data.
Feel free to add your site’s stats in the comments.
That total is 39.14 – you have 60% of other browsers below .29%?
no, I have 50% of my readers who use RSS readers like FeedDemon and such. /files/includes/10.css% is search engine bots, and really obscure browsers… at least for the last few days anyway.
My stats for September 2004: IE: 30.2% Firefox: 30.1% Safari: 6.9% Mozilla: 5.4% Opera: 4.1% Netscape: 1.4% Around 20% traffic from newsreaders, aggregators, search engine robots etc.
It’d be a lot more interesting if the stats were filtered, so you’d only get reports on browsers that actually viewed the site. For that I use AWStats 🙂 http://www.awstats.org
Its a shame you have failed to explain the ‘missing’ 60% in your article before someone pointed it out. Not everyone knows that 50% of your readers are using feeds . . .
Morgan: I am not sure what you mean. A session is an accurate metric for browsers that actually use the site. I have used AwStats as well as other tools. The metrics are a bit less accurate in Awstats are they are in other tools, but overall a session is a session. Hits and “page views” don’t really weigh as much for determining what browsers are hitting your site compared to actual session. Note: feed readers are browsers too… the actually load a XHTML page for viewing (with full design, just like any other browser) inside of them. They typically use IE or Firefox for an engine… but they don’t typically use that as their agent string as I understand it… though I could be wrong. Maybe one of the developers for the feed readers out there wants to speak up. Mary: Well, I guess if I titled this post “user agent stats” it would be a different story eh? Point being I wanted to talk about specifically stand-alone web browsers. Heaven knows you can browse using your gas pump or refrigerator. The focus of this post was specifically about web browsers. You should note that I also didn
For those curious, this should be the percentage of each “browser brand” within the above cited stand-alone browser total (which accounted for about 39.14% of the user-agents visiting Digital Web Magazine in this sample): • Internet Explorer: 40.37%; • Mozilla: 24.99%; • Firefox: 20.39%; • Opera: 8.20%; • Safari: 5.31%; • Konqueror: 0.74%.
Craig, good point. I will update the table in the post.
Nick: The stats show exactly what I was interested in now 🙂 What I meant was that unfiltered stats, that shows bots, spiders and RSS readers are usually not very interesting for me, when making the tough decisions on what browsers (IE, Firefoxy, Safari, etc) to support, and ultimately test in.