Feature Cancellation; Thoughts?
Several users have requested the feature to be able to see how many times a given list has been read. I'm considering removing this feature from my "to do" list because of problems with making it representative of anything:
Irreconcilable Inaccuracy #1: First I'd have to filter out the search spiders that pound this site every day, so I'd only track "reads" from logged-in Listologists. Unfortunately that means non-logged in humans (as opposed to automated search spiders) that read the list won't get counted. This artifically deflates the count.
Irreconcilable Inaccuracy #2: Some users might keep up with your lists by viewing the "Recent Activity" page, but I'd only count "reads" from those users that actually visit the list itself. So you'd have users that are reading the list in effect, but not actually visiting. This artifically deflates the count.
Difficult-to-Reconcile Inaccuracy #3: What if a user revisits your list twice but it hasn't changed? Should that be two reads? What about the fact that they return to the list automatically after they've posted a comment? Should that be another read? I could track WHO has read each list and not record duplicates unless the list has changed, but then we start talking about a considerable amount of programming overhead to track all that.
So I think I'm ready to throw in the towel. Anybody want to convince me otherwise?
Wow I go away for a couple of weeks and this site goes and makes about 300 changes. Jim I Love them all.
Good Job!!!!!!!!
Welcome back! I'm so glad you like the changes! I've been having quite a bit of fun with the site lately (although I think I'm starting to run out of juice, and I've been neglecting my Netflix movies). It's particularly gratifying that the feedback from the regulars has been positive. Anyway, thanks for the compliments; it means a lot to me.
I've been sorely missing the writeups on your Damn lists. Are you going to be able to carve out a little time soon? I'm going into withdrawal.
Jim,
From an abstract point of view... Would eliminating ALL the filtering entirely result in more of less work for you? Could hits be automatically counted without your direct involvement? I honestly have no idea, but if every list is subject to the same amount of traffic count from every available source, wouldn't there still exist a common and equal starting point for every list?
It really doesn't matter a whole lot Jim. I see your point on the value of numbers which are impossible to narrow down to a specific source. I just wanted to bring up the flip side of the conversation I hadn't read yet. I DO wish there was a way to count "search engine" direct hits for exactly what we have to offer in the form of a list. Without some ability to measure outside interest, we're sort of a closed community with only our neighbors to judge.
You're still doing a great job on your improvements. Any clues yet on which of your recent upgrades are moving with the "Pro" version?
Alrighty, this is done. As of today, whenever an animal, mineral, or vegetable loads one of your lists, a "reads" counter is incremented. I'm not filtering out any reads. If something loads it, it gets counted. Of course this is only in effect as of this moment, so everybody's "read" counts should be right around zero. You can only see your own read-counts via the "my content" link in the menu header.
How's that?
Yay! Thanks, Jim! Way to go with all these cool updates!
Thanks AJ! I'm glad you're enjoying them, and thanks for the encouragement and feedback!
Okay, you and AJDaGreat have convinced me to just leave this on the table. Perhaps I will just track all "views", human or otherwise. It should balance out across the lists, but it will *grossly* inflate the numbers across the board. I'll think about it some more.
The Pro version is on hold. When I'm through with this round of changes I'll probably put some kind of "donate" banner across the top that will go away if you do, and I might try selling stuff on CafePress. Anybody that wants to propose a graphic to put on the products, I'd love to see 'em!
Sorry, Jim, but I still think it would be a cool feature despite #1 and #2. As for #3, I definitely think that if a user revisits an unchanged list, it should count as two reads. For example, I read lbangs's Critical Consensus lists on various artists all the time; if you count it as multiple reads, he could see how helpful those lists are to me. I think it would be flattering to see that someone came back and reread my writing without me even changing the list.
I understand that you're a very busy man, and you've created many new features lately, but I wouldn't scratch this one off your list quite yet.
Thanks! Do you have any suggestions for future installments?
I like this feature, even if it does end up racking up spider counts.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Hmm... 2003 updates for Rolling Stones, Elton John, and Bruce Springsteen might be nice. I'm also surprised that despite your love of Pavement, you've never made a CC for them (I love Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain, so I have to know where to go next... well, after I finally get Slanted and Enchanted, of course). Oh, and maybe a Billy Joel list whenever you get the chance (unless Piano Man is his only good album)? Thank you!
Hmm... I hope this post didn't sound too pushy. I do realize that you have a life outside of Listology... :-)
Nope, not pushy at all! I asked a question, and I now have my answer!
I enjoy working on the CC lists, and frankly, without a job right now, I have a bit more free time on my hands than usual.
I'm working on the Elton list...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Consider these next up! I might even get a chance to start on the Stones tonight!
How did I miss Pavement? Gee!
Thanks!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs