originally posted by: WombRaider69
I have seen many basic websites with a viewcounter, so I don't think it would be that difficult to realise? Some1 with some pc knowledge who can
confirm this?
It would be a pointless number.
Our massive "footprint" of over five million indexable pages means that we get a crazy amount of traffic from indexing agents and other non-human
bots. A while back, MOAT (real-time audience measuring software used by advertisers) threw up a red flag, saying ATS had an extraordinary amount of
fraudulent traffic. That issue was corrected when I tallied traffic from bots...
48 Hours of Bot Traffic
bingbot..............................893,181
yacybot.............................363,352
Slurp.................................348,853
AhrefsBot...........................266,109
Yandex...............................263,876
Googlebot...........................163,393
SearchmetricsBot...................74,776
Baiduspider...........................62,636
GrapeshotCrawler...................19,500
MaxPointCrawler.....................9,882
Clickagy Intelligence Bot v2.......5,617
NetSeer crawler......................3,054
There’s a few smaller ones for a total of 2.52 million hits on content pages from indexing agents in 48 hours... which is an average of 14.5 hits
from non-human sources every second.
Most of these bots detect changes in pages, and keep checking pages that change regularly, such as new threads. So I looked for bot activity on a
popular thread; more than 20,000 hits in 24 hours... while Google analytics only showed about 5,000 human hits.
The above bot activity also illustrates why we need to have an expensive hosting solution: 15 hits on database-heavy pages every second just to
satisfy non-human web traffic.
So. For us, thread-view counters would be a pointless, as it would never reflect how many people saw the thread.
edit on 27-5-2016 by
SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)