-
Am I the only one seeing a small advert for this at the bottom of the forums?
I'm running ad-aware, but not detecting anything. It's not cropping up on any other pages, either.
Moved to Hard Light forum. // Sandwich
-
Yeah it's there for me too. Sarnie's subscription to his statistic program run out? :p
-
Rolling over the link = redirect "cosmeticsisrael"
....
Sandwich? :p
-
Yeah, sorry guys - I meant to post a new thingy about it.
StatCounter sent us an email saying that their free service only goes up to 250,000 pageviews a month, and we surpass that at over 9,000 pageviews per DAY. So they suspended service.
So I dug up this old defunct account I had with HitsLink from a few years back, back when they had a free package when you signed up through an affiliate program. Long story short, the account wasn't in use, so I redeemed it. Unfortunately, you can change everything about the account but the login name, which is what "cosmeticsisrael" is. :p
-
rofl
-
We've got some interesting stats already; I'll post a sampling in a min...
-
Thread moved to Hard Light.
Browser Version Visitors Percent
Firefox 1.0 157 42.55%
MSIE 6.0 153 41.46%
Opera 8.x 18 4.88%
Firefox 1.4 16 4.34%
Safari 41 9 2.44%
Mozilla 1.7 5 1.36%
Netscape 7.0 3 0.81%
Netscape 8.0 2 0.54%
Opera 7.x 2 0.54%
Safari 31 2 0.54%
Firefox 1.6 1 0.27%
Firefox 0.9 1 0.27%
Total 12: 369 100.00%
-
Why, I do believe that single 'Firefox 1.6' would be...
ME!
:D
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Browser Version Visitors Percent
Firefox 1.0 157 42.55%
MSIE 6.0 153 41.46%
That's a pretty impressive percentage for Firefox. :D:yes:
Out of curiosity, do they do OS stats too?
-
Yup.
Operating System Visitors Percent
Windows XP 105 83.33%
Windows 2000 11 .73%
Linux 5 3.97%
Mac OS 3 2.38%
Windows 98 1 0.79%
Windows ME 1 0.79%
-
Ok, who's still using ME? :p
-
Originally posted by kv1at3485
Why, I do believe that single 'Firefox 1.6' would be...
ME!
:D
Hmm... *cross-corellates forum IP with the web stats...*
[q]Browser Firefox 1.6
Platform Windows 98
Language English (United States)
Script Version Javascript 1.3
Screen Resolution 1024 x 768
Color Palette 16.7 million colors (32-bit)
Java Support Yes
Cookie Support Yes
[/q]
Yup! :p ...scary, ain't it?
-
By the Union! :eek:
:nervous:
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Ok, who's still using ME? :p
That's what I want to know!
Unfortunately (or fortunately, perhaps), unless a person comes forth and states that they are using a specific OS, I can't find out what IPs are using what browser/OS/screen resolution without going through each visitor individually.
-
Well I'm the second 1.6 Firefoxer then.
-
How is there a Firefox 1.6 when 1.5 is still in beta testing?
-
You must search...
-
1.6 is the alpha for the post-1.5 builds.
1.4 is the beta for 1.5. I'm personally running 1.4.1 at the moment.
-
Heres a quick one from the GTD Bastion, even though its quite dead...
(http://www.woodentoyandgift.com/stuff/browsum.png)
-
I beleive that Single ME is I. Works well.. alot better then XP (which i have one vote for the ME and the XP, as i use both).
So.. now that you know.... um..
-
Originally posted by Charismatic
Works well.. alot better then XP (which i have one vote for the ME and the XP, as i use both).
HERESY!!!
-
Originally posted by Charismatic
I beleive that Single ME is I. Works well.. alot better then XP (which i have one vote for the ME and the XP, as i use both).
I can personally (and painfully) attest that that's flat-out wrong :p
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
HERESY!!!
Heresy hardly begins to describe it... we enter a dark time....
-
Take it easy people! Lol. My XP is crap then. Cauze my ME works loads better then my XP. Loads..
-
That's amazing. You have an Millenium Edition that actually works? That's a first in the history of mankind.
-
Didnt yours? This is smooth as pie..
EDIT: Sweet! Score one for the underdogs!
-
I skipped Millenium Edition after seeing the havoc that it caused.
-
What a victory for Firefox... crazy.
And um... Big Brother watching, much?
-
Originally posted by Corsair
And um... Big Brother watching, much?
Um.. :wtf:
GW: Havoc? What havoc?
-
Incredibly instability, for one. Both 2000 and 98SE were considered to be far, far more stable.
-
I used to install ME on a few customer's PCs and I used it as well.
It's pretty unstable, but there were times when it ran on a few custumer's systems, especially the older ones. It used to run surprisingly good on those systems...
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
That's amazing. You have an Millenium Edition that actually works? That's a first in the history of mankind.
I have two that work.
On my P200 computers. Works great. I never use them.
-
ME.
Sorry, again.
-
ME >> 98se.
I used it for two years on my main machine and it hardly used to crash at all, much more than I could say about 98SE. It's still used on my old game computer. I originally wanted 98SE on there for compatibility reasons, but installing any newer DirectX version together with one of MS's security patches seemed to make the OS unbootable, so I went back to the superior ME. The only problem with it is that D1 3dfx doesn't work well on it for some reason and exits to the desktop by itself very often.
I'm on Firefox 1.4 because I can't be bothered to upgrade these things very often.
-
I skipped over Mangled Edition and went straight to Xtra Problems.
-
Originally posted by Charismatic
I beleive that Single ME is I. Works well.. alot better then XP (which i have one vote for the ME and the XP, as i use both).
So.. now that you know.... um..
What, you want me to look your stats up? Very well, if you insist...
Hmm, I can only look up the last 100 visitors to the site.
-
*Loves Adblock to death* One right-click later and the problem is solved.
*Wonders how it is possible that people managed to get Mass Errors to be anywhere near stable*
-
Slightly off topic now... Do you remove advertisements from the magazines you read for example? Nope, you just don't pay attention to them. Websites are using ads to cover the expenses it requires to keep the website running. This is quite an issue because most ads are keeping track of how many times it is being loaded and gives extra if someone clicks that ad. Now, you don't need to click any ads but blocking them is trouble to the website owner.
Although the magazine comparison does not quite fit, as the magazine has already gotten their money at the time.
-
I was under the impression that most ads needed to be clicked to actually amount to anything (and I click ads veeeery rarely whether they're visible or not), not just be loaded. If the latter's the case, I'll curb my rampant ad blocking.
[Edit] It's also possible to set Adblock to load ads, but not display 'em. I could always do that, too.
-
It depends on the ads really. While it might only a little sum of money website owner gets from each advertisement view, it becomes a quite large sum on websites which are visited regularly. Nearly all ads give more money if someone actually clicks the ads.
Now, I believe Firefox's adblock plugin can also only stop ads from being displayed but still allows all ads to be requested and downloaded by the browser. I am unsure how well it actually works and whether advertisement companies have developed means to work against this feature, but at least it should be a better alternative to complete blocking of ads.
-
Some ads are PPC (pay-per-click), others are PPV (pay-per-view). This Alexa thing isn't an advertisement that is netting HLP or Gamespy any money though. What it IS doing is giving the staff here a detailed look at what kind of people visit our site, when things are busiest, how much server load we can expect, etc. Personally, I'd appreciate it if people left the Alexa thing unblocked. It's way down in nowheresville, it won't slow the loading of any pages (unlike the gamespy ads), and the only "tracking" it does is for the benefit of HLP directly.
BTW, if anyone would like to know a certain stat about HLP, I have no problem posting that. Just don't take the stats HLP gets as representative of the state of the net. ;)
-
Eh, you're right. Alexa = unblocked. And I've found the option to toggle hiding ads and still letting them load as opposed to outright blocking 'em too.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I can personally (and painfully) attest that that's flat-out wrong :p
As can I.
For the last six years I've been doing general Tech Support for friends, family and random Uni students.
Literally 80% of the hours were spent fixing WinME problems, which is surprising since only about 2% of the problems involved WinME.
In contrast, XP problems go away with a few mouse clicks.
[In particular, the clicks necessary for installing Spybot S&D, Firefox and Adblock. --ITDescenter]
-
Ok Now check my stats if u want too (dont know why u were going too but what the heck. It'd b interesting).
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I can personally (and painfully) attest that that's flat-out wrong :p
Ditto.
There is only one way to fix windows ME.........
format c:
-
Ah, yes. Never forget the "Three R's" of computers...
Reboot.
Reload.
Reformat.
-
One of those Linux users is me, from uni. :yes:
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Ditto.
There is only one way to fix windows ME.........
format c:
Not reliable these days. You're looking for somthing along the lines of "format %SYSTEMROOT%". :p
-
And for a misbehaving *n[iu]x install, there's always 'rm -rf /'.
Or 'nuke /' if you've got the same alias configuration I have.
-
I always found such recommendations amusing, since they often amount to the computer equivalent of telling a snake to swallow it's own tail. :p
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Not reliable these days. You're looking for somthing along the lines of "format %SYSTEMROOT%". :p
1/Pick up hammer by handle
2/Bash
-
Use a sledgehammer. It's more effective.
-
BTW:
[q]Screen Resolution Visitors Percent
1024x768 592 44.41%
1280x1024 411 30.83%
1152x864 95 7.13%
800x600 58 4.35%
1280x960 47 3.53%
1280x800 36 2.70%
1600x1200 30 2.25%
1680x1050 11 0.83%
1920x1200 9 0.68%
1280x854 8 0.60%
1440x900 8 0.60%
1280x768 6 0.45%
1400x1050 4 0.30%
1152x768 3 0.23%
1360x1024 2 0.15%
1536x960 2 0.15%
Unknown 1 0.08%
1280x976 1 0.08%
1344x840 1 0.08%
1274x962 1 0.08%
1274x991 1 0.08%
1280x720 1 0.08%
2048x768 1 0.08%
2400x1920 1 0.08%
2560x1024 1 0.08%
2560x960 1 0.08%
768x1024 1 0.08%
[/q]
-
:rolleyes:
Are you winding up to show off your huge throbbing shiny monitor again?
(ooh, matron)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
:rolleyes:
Are you winding up to show off your huge throbbing shiny monitor again?
(ooh, matron)
Nahh, dude; I've been outdone. Someone has TWO of them:
[q]2400x1920 1 0.08%
[/q]
-
You could track down their IP and burglarize them. Now that's thinking digitally!
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
You could track down their IP and burglarize them. Now that's thinking digitally!
No, I can't. Unlike StatCounter, which lets you dig down from any type of stat to find anything else, HitsLink doesn't allow one to find out the IP of a user of a certain resolution.
-
The 768x1024 will be my tablet PC.
The 2560x1024 will be my desktop PC (which has a static IP; DAMN!).
-
"Hello, is that Somerset balaclava rentals? Excellent. Oh, and do you do crowbars?.........."