Building website traffic

Thanks Tom. As a computer illiterate I found it explained many of the points that aren’t mentioned in books.
I shall go through many of your informative and helpful links.

I found more reliable checker…

http://www.searchengineworld.com/cgi-bin/page_size.cgi

But it doesn’t give approximate download time.

i was using my weather page carterlake…
http://www.weather-display.com/windy/gb/grahamsbeach.htm

it just reported on the speed of the html page …did not take into acccount all the images that has to be loaded! :wink:

mine got slightly different results. but not bad.

[quote author=windy link=topic=10384.msg77575#msg77575 date=1122842733]
i was using my weather page carterlake…
http://www.weather-display.com/windy/gb/grahamsbeach.htm

it just reported on the speed of the html page …did not take into acccount all the images that has to be loaded!

dang,my site sure is a hog, LOL

WebPage Statistics:
http://home.mchsi.com/~dsmweather/
Total WebPage Size 41751 (bytes)
Visible Text Size 2039 (bytes)
Size of HTML Tags 39712 (bytes)
Text to HTML Ratio 5.38%
Number of Images 49
Largest Image Size 617675 (bytes)
Size of All Images 1021100 (bytes)
Grand Total:
Images+Html= 1062851 (bytes)

WebPage Statistics: http://weather.dcrooks.net/ Total WebPage Size 19432 (bytes) Visible Text Size 4726 (bytes) Size of HTML Tags 14706 (bytes) Text to HTML Ratio 24.81% Number of Images 14 Largest Image Size 70281 (bytes) Size of All Images 204538 (bytes) Grand Total: Images+Html= 223970 (bytes)

Web Page Statistics http://www.tnetweather.com Total WebPage Size 19027 (bytes) Visible Text Size 4660 (bytes) Size of HTML Tags 14367 (bytes) Text to HTML Ratio 24.99% Number of Images 11 Largest Image Size 14531 (bytes) Size of All Images 49839 (bytes) Grand Total: Images+Html= [b][color=Red]68866 [/color][/b](bytes)

With frontpage there is an option to remove all white space, thus removing extra bytes when it uploads to the site. The down side is debugging from the site and of course you want to upload one direction rather than sync or it gets interesting as the site and work piece are exact, with no white space.

oy.

Removing whitespace may not make much difference. Some (all?) HTTP servers like Apache have plugins giving them the ability to send pages in a compressed format. For example, this forum sends pages in GZIP format to browsers that can handle it. This will speed up page downloads for many users without having to worry about minor things like whitespaces.

Fab article. I only did my site as hobby and never really expected too many visitors but must admit that I have fallen into "wow, look at all this site visitor traffic " without too much attention as to whether it is “good” or “bad” traffic. Since I started monitoring my site traffic at the beginning of July I have had 400 visitors & 1200 hits. Is that normal ? or below or above average? I have no idea. I know I have had visitors from Austria, USA, NZ, Russia & Poland and as you say should I consider them good or bad. I don’t know yet. I have also followed back some of the visiting IP address’s and found one or two link-backs to me I did not even knew existed.
Most of the reccuring visitors are due to the fact that I am sited over the final approach leg and landing threshold of the local air strip. They have no weather measuring abilities and my site is given out to all visiting aviators to check on local conditions before flying in. Glad some one out there finds wibbleweather useful.

[quote author=aardvark link=topic=10384.msg77628#msg77628 date=1122870259]
With frontpage

Hi Wibble. Glad you liked it. I didn’t really go into what is “high” amounts of visitors because it varies from location to location. Obviously a smaller town is going to get less visitors. And then there’s who has internet access in said town. Anyway, if we start posting stats it quickly becomes a pissing match of who has more when such a number is completely subjective.

Monitoring your traffic is certainly the good step toward a better understand.

Couldn’t agree more. Wasn’t posting stats as a brag but genuinely as I have no idea what is considered low , medium & high traffic these days & was hoping some one could enlighten me… As I said its a hobby I do in any spare time I have so its not the ‘be-all-&-end-all’ of my life

Hope I didn’t offend Wibble. I just think it’s a very hard number to nail down. From Googling, I understand Defford is pretty small - 600 people? - so your traffic sounds pretty darn good to me.

I’m curious what you are calling a “Hit”

I know that some count any hit on their page as a hit. Some of the page counters are a little more elaborate than that though such as Awstats.

In Awstats for example, it shows tnetweather getting 108,717 hits in July. But there were only 9,953 unique vistors with 16,041 visits and 78,776 pages.

So it reports:

Hits 108,717 Unique Visitors 9,953 Visits 16,041 Pages 78,776

Kind of a mishmash of stats that mean more to some than others.

And of course there is bandwidth…

812.18 MB for the Month of July (51.84 KB/visit)

A hit is usually an access to any item to be sent to the browser, so a HTML page with 3 images would count as 4 hits. For example, weather-watch.com had nearly 600,000 page accesses last month or 4.4million hits. These accesses came from 69300 unique visits consuming 12.2GB of outbound bandwidth).

[quote]
LISTING ON SEARCH ENGINES

Listing today is easy. There are really only two search engines left on today

http://analyze.websiteoptimization.com/wso

# Congratulations. This site is using HTTP compression, otherwise called content encoding using gzip. The sizes reported here are for compressed content sent from the server to the client.

   <meta http-equiv="content="Accept-Encoding: br;q=1.0, gzip;q=0.8, *;q=0.1;" />

Not sure the meta settings are right I could not find a fully coded example of the accept command.