JSH: Yeah fame is weird
in [Math]
|
From: JSH on 15 Jun 2010 10:27 On Jun 15, 6:10 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > Regardless most of the hits you mention could be pings sent for any > > number of reasons. > > > I suspect you're giving server data and it's a place where you work > > which is why you're so coy about details. Server data doesn't compare > > against data from Google Analytics as for instance, they wouldn't > > include pings. > > Pings don't show up in web logs. Oh, it's been years since I played with a web log. So I'm not surprised if I'm wrong on that one. Regardless web logs tend to show more hits than analytics software does. My *guess* is that dude is apparently talking about server data from a school where he works. > More than likely, he's seeing traffic from bots -- just as you are for > some percentage of your hits. I think Google sets a cookie. If you know how Google Analytics works you know why bots shouldn't get counted. And that's important for users who need to know for business reasons, so it should occur to you that it's a problem that analytics software would need to solve. Again, it's a situation of "unskilled and unaware". You need javascript enabled and I'm fairly certain they set a cookie. > Spammers have programs to scan websites for email addresses, for > instance. These programs are indistinguishable from a human reader, > except possibly by looking closely at behavior. For instance, some of > my hits come from a single IP address that methodically views every page > of the site. That's a bot, but aside from really looking at the > behavior, I wouldn't know. (I imagine other bots are less obvious.) And why should a spammer have the bot accept a cookie? And have javascript engaged? Have you ever used analytics software at all? And again, the repeated attacks on Google and its methodology are bizarre, but telling. People who wonder how you can all be wrong in attacking me, can now start doubting whether or not Google actually is effective at being, Google. From what you posters present, Google search rankings are meaningless, and its analytics software is too stupid to not count bots. People who trust you people should wonder why anyone bothers using Google for anything! Just like you convince some of them to not trust my math. Why do YOU think people use Google? Just because it's popular maybe? James Harris
From: dannas on 15 Jun 2010 14:51 "JSH" <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1f741b74-3c03-486b-9957-d90ad72db94d(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com... On Jun 14, 2:57 am, Enrico <ungerne...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 9:51 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > <snip> >More importantly, the algebraic integers vs complex numbers result IS >actually fairly straightforward. and.......... SO WHAT ??? (you know nothing, NOTHING about complex numbers at all) <snip sniviling troll poo-poo > James Harris
From: dannas on 15 Jun 2010 15:24 "JSH" <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:efa09b75-18ce-4e6f-a3c3-14a6f574c43d(a)11g2000prv.googlegroups.com... On Jun 15, 6:10 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > Regardless most of the hits you mention could be pings sent for any > > number of reasons. > > > I suspect you're giving server data and it's a place where you work > > which is why you're so coy about details. Server data doesn't compare > > against data from Google Analytics as for instance, they wouldn't > > include pings. > > Pings don't show up in web logs. >Oh, it's been years since I played with a web log. So I'm not <snip> >James Harris gad, you are so far out on a limb with this. If people liked your math or thought it hav value, they would beat a path to your door and make you rich. Instead, you are beating bushes to see if anybody has visited your blog about it. Obviously, you have now demonstrated yourself that your math is un-likeable, and has no value.
From: Joshua Cranmer on 15 Jun 2010 18:35 On 06/14/2010 11:30 PM, JSH wrote: > Also, how do you know where people who've gone to that school at any > time in its history have gone? I have a very good idea of the ethnic makeup. Actually, the two foreign countries most to be expected based on the student body are not at the top of the list. Also, accounts are terminated once the student leaves the institution, so the more important bit is the people who are there now. > I suspect you're giving server data and it's a place where you work > which is why you're so coy about details. Server data doesn't compare > against data from Google Analytics as for instance, they wouldn't > include pings. How do you know? Do you have access to their analytic software and therefore know what exactly the service counts? > And "perhaps"? If the Chinese walked in and blew everyone away except > on subjects related to, say, Galois Theory, where they simply failed, > no one would notice that? .... Your lack of knowledge is particularly astute here. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Joshua Cranmer on 15 Jun 2010 18:46
On 06/15/2010 10:27 AM, JSH wrote: > I think Google sets a cookie. Most likely, it relies on geolocation of IP addresses of accesses, with a filtering step to determine individual sessions and users. The software I use takes the IP address and does a reverse DNS look-up on it. This will overcount the U.S. at expense of other countries. > And why should a spammer have the bot accept a cookie? And have > javascript engaged? To be indistinguishable from a person? Actually, note the following: * Anyone can pretend to support JS: just download the .js files. * Similarly for images, CSS; it's not hard to do. * Having a JS-aware spambot is beneficial to the spammer: they can grab email addresses from people who try to obfuscate them with DOM manipulation. * JS-aware spambots are also probably more likely to be able to break CAPTCHAs. * Robots.txt is like asking the robber to not rob your house if you're not home. As a security measure, it's a load of bullcrap. > From what you posters present, Google search rankings are meaningless, > and its analytics software is too stupid to not count bots. People > who trust you people should wonder why anyone bothers using Google for > anything! It's good enough, not perfect. Google just needs to be better than the competition. Anything more would be wasted money. Spammers are twelve steps ahead of everybody else; that's why they not only exist but thrive. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth |