I am using Firefox on my Mac.
I am a minority.
holy shit, that's only 20 seconds?
ew, I can't even use IE anymore (since getting firefox). I think if most people were forced to use it for a week or so they wouldn't go back. bleh.
I'm not sure this has a huge affect on LJ, but Firefox does perform a significant number of requests when a favicon can't be found. On subdomains, for example, you could see a request every time someone switches tabs in firefox, because it tries to fetch the icon and cache it, but it won't cache the 404s.
Since LJ has a favicon on the main site, this probably isn't nearly as big of a deal as it could be, nor am I sure if you're including 404s in your stats or anything, but just something to think about, and something that friends of mine have seen as statistically significant in watching browser stats.
Wow, you get a lot of hits. But we knew that already...
Despite the fact that LJ has an image as a place full of dumb, angsty highschoolers, I'm often surprised at the technical sophistication of many users. It has a large number of Firefox users (and 494 people listing Firefox as an interest), and I'm constantly running into hackers I know from Perl Monks, perl6-internals, or other important communities.
I think the reality is that LJ is for people who don't know how or don't want to bother to set up their own blog. (Or people who think the friends page is the cleverest thing anybody has ever done on such a service. Which it is.)
It is the friends' page.
The friends' page is actually why the LJ code base is being considered for use within certain federal government communities.
Friend's page is the main reason I stick around here. I'm not that tech savvy, but I love the friends page.
|From: evan |
2005-03-26 11:50 pm (UTC)
494 firefox interests / 6576793 users = 0.007% of LJ
Yeah, but casual users aren't likely to list a browser in their interests.
|From: brad |
2005-03-27 12:10 am (UTC)
That stat means nothing.
I use toilet paper but I don't list it as an interest. It's just what gets the job done.
|From: evan |
2005-03-27 01:45 am (UTC)
"That stat means nothing." was my point, too
|From: d4b |
2005-03-27 02:56 am (UTC)
LOL!! What a quotable line!
Opera can very easily be made to identify itself as something else (usually as IE, so that websites that force you to use IE will still load in Opera). It's an easily accessible menu option. So it's quite possible that there's more Opera users out there than these stats show.
Though, checking it out, the user-agent apparently ends up looking like "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Opera 7.54 [en]". So maybe you're already checking for cases like that. :)
I only use Firefox because it has tabs and I can shut off images.
As for OS, I'm cheering for Mac. Though currently I'm on my PC right now. I've noticed some flaws in LJ with OS X, most of them are caused by bells and whistles and aren't compatiable.
At least LJ isn't like gmail and gives OSX the complete bird! I just don't use gmail just because it refuses to accomodate to Mac users.
really? I've never noticed any problems using gmail on OSX.
For me it says that if I remember correct, an active X problem. I'm not the only one. I have set up my gmail account to accept pop access, and I use gmail as a back up email.
huh, i use firefox on OSX and gmail behaves exactly the same as it does on XP. what have you noticed that doesn't work right?
XSLTProc is the one that Google Maps uses which Safari doesn't support. Orkut had some feature which didn't work in Safari. Etc.
GMail is fine on the Mac in Safari. So's Google Maps, which is even more advanced. GMail even seemed fine to me back when Google claimed they weren't supporting Safari (a long time ago now). Not sure why you're hitting problems, but rest assured.. it's all cool.
GMail works just fine under Safari.
Yay for Firefox. I guess it is not representative for all internet users, but at least LiveJournal (which is my favorite site on the net), so it's all good.
Does it toss Mozilla and Netscape in with FireFox, or did nobody use those browsers in that time period?
|From: brad |
2005-03-26 10:42 pm (UTC)
I lumped all "Gecko" together into Firefox because it was mostly Firefox.
you know what'd be neat? a page displaying these stats in real time. with pretty graphs and stuff.
(btw, konqueror advertises itself as "KHTML; like Gecko" as well, but i guess that's not a significant %age of the total.
While it's interesting, I'm not convinced that a ~20 second sampling is sufficient for a real metric here. I'm not stating this as fact, but I would be unsurprised to learn that this statistic was drastically different between 15:00:00 and 15:00:20 EST than it is between 23:50:00 EST and 23:50:20 EST.
I think you could get statistically valuable metrics by sampling 20 seconds once an hour on or about the hour.
|From: evan |
2005-03-27 01:46 am (UTC)
on the hour is more likely to pick up hourly bots. ;)
|From: jwz |
2005-03-27 03:43 am (UTC)
If you only counted logged in users, that would probably exclude almost all bots. Comparing the "logged in" and "not logged in" stats might be interesting.
On Audioscrobbler, Firefox is a good 2% ahead of IE, and Linux has 4.4%. Our userbase is leeter than yours ;).
How does your logging work now then? We've just changed to using mod_log_sql with mod_proxyfixup, then feeding the database into AWStats hourly, after we do some realtime stuff with it.
|From: mart |
2005-03-27 12:20 pm (UTC)
I'm almost certainly not included in these stats anyway, but my browser appears as "Mozilla/5.0 (Compatible)". What would you class that as, per your regex? ;)
|From: brad |
2005-03-27 06:38 pm (UTC)
You'd be ignored.
: Linux may only have 1%...
Yeah, but we're definitely the coolest 1%.
And we get to experience the glory of LogJam. So there. Hahahaha.
|From: youngoat |
2005-03-28 05:05 pm (UTC)