<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Advanced SEO Metrics for Beginners</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seo-theory.com/2008/06/24/advanced-seo-metrics-for-beginners/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seo-theory.com/2008/06/24/advanced-seo-metrics-for-beginners/</link>
	<description>Algorithm analysis, Web community relationship analysis, SEO practices and techniques, industry news, etc.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:48:35 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: chrisg</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-theory.com/2008/06/24/advanced-seo-metrics-for-beginners/comment-page-1/#comment-1026</link>
		<dc:creator>chrisg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:13:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo-theory.com/wordpress/2008/06/24/advanced-seo-metrics-for-beginners/#comment-1026</guid>
		<description>Good answer Michael. The point re: browsers other than &quot;web browsers&quot; is fair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good answer Michael. The point re: browsers other than &#8220;web browsers&#8221; is fair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Martinez</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-theory.com/2008/06/24/advanced-seo-metrics-for-beginners/comment-page-1/#comment-1025</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Martinez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo-theory.com/wordpress/2008/06/24/advanced-seo-metrics-for-beginners/#comment-1025</guid>
		<description>I know of no authorities on the topic of browser statistics, although there are some well-known sites that are frequently referred to.  These sites publish statistics from their own server logs (which is why they are not &lt;em&gt;authorities&lt;/em&gt; on the subject).

One source that is often cited is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;W3C Schools&#039; Browser Statistics page&lt;/a&gt;.  There is also a Wikipedia article that is updated monthly (a tedious task that requires a lot of dedication from a volunteer or group of volunteers).  Of course, none of the Wikipedia sources (which includes the W3C Schools page) is authoritative.

If you scan these resources you&#039;ll see that reported Javascript usage is up to about 95% for mid-2008.  However, these statistics don&#039;t reflect the number of people who are reading content through mobile search, offline feedreaders, and other software that may or may not execute Javascript.

To understand just how limited the W3C Schools&#039; data is, look at their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;screen resolutions data&lt;/a&gt;.  How many of those people are using mobile search?

Mobile search is extremely popular in Asia, and I know from personal experience that Asian surfers are interested in multilingual and international content.  Both my personal network and this blog receive significant traffic from Asia.

So that is why I say &quot;up to 1/5 of Web site visitors&quot; may not be tracked by Javascript-analytics software.   Google Analytics, for example, does not break out RSS feed subscriptions for me.  It reports a lot of Direct traffic but what is considered to be &quot;Direct&quot;?

Also, I don&#039;t know if the detection of &quot;Java Support&quot; in a browser indicates that Java and Javascript are turned on.  My guess is the statistics programmers only mean that your identified browser is known to support Java and Javascript but they are not trying to determine how many people actually have Java and Javascript enabled.

I suppose I could test that and I may at some point when I have more time on my hands.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know of no authorities on the topic of browser statistics, although there are some well-known sites that are frequently referred to.  These sites publish statistics from their own server logs (which is why they are not <em>authorities</em> on the subject).</p>
<p>One source that is often cited is the <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">W3C Schools&#8217; Browser Statistics page</a>.  There is also a Wikipedia article that is updated monthly (a tedious task that requires a lot of dedication from a volunteer or group of volunteers).  Of course, none of the Wikipedia sources (which includes the W3C Schools page) is authoritative.</p>
<p>If you scan these resources you&#8217;ll see that reported Javascript usage is up to about 95% for mid-2008.  However, these statistics don&#8217;t reflect the number of people who are reading content through mobile search, offline feedreaders, and other software that may or may not execute Javascript.</p>
<p>To understand just how limited the W3C Schools&#8217; data is, look at their <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">screen resolutions data</a>.  How many of those people are using mobile search?</p>
<p>Mobile search is extremely popular in Asia, and I know from personal experience that Asian surfers are interested in multilingual and international content.  Both my personal network and this blog receive significant traffic from Asia.</p>
<p>So that is why I say &#8220;up to 1/5 of Web site visitors&#8221; may not be tracked by Javascript-analytics software.   Google Analytics, for example, does not break out RSS feed subscriptions for me.  It reports a lot of Direct traffic but what is considered to be &#8220;Direct&#8221;?</p>
<p>Also, I don&#8217;t know if the detection of &#8220;Java Support&#8221; in a browser indicates that Java and Javascript are turned on.  My guess is the statistics programmers only mean that your identified browser is known to support Java and Javascript but they are not trying to determine how many people actually have Java and Javascript enabled.</p>
<p>I suppose I could test that and I may at some point when I have more time on my hands.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chrisg</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-theory.com/2008/06/24/advanced-seo-metrics-for-beginners/comment-page-1/#comment-1023</link>
		<dc:creator>chrisg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:19:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo-theory.com/wordpress/2008/06/24/advanced-seo-metrics-for-beginners/#comment-1023</guid>
		<description>Michael,

I agree with the spirit of your post -- check as many data points as possible and employ healthy, independent critical thought. Definitely. 

However ... &quot;Javascript misses up to 1/5 of Web site visitors because many people (estimates vary from 12% to 20%) disable Javascript in their browsers.&quot; .... in the spirit of questioning the numbers, I find this hard to believe. I doubt 20% of web users would know what javascript is and know how to turn it off in a web browser, never mind actually do it. I have no data to back that assertion up, though I&#039;d also point out you didn&#039;t cite any authorities for the numbers you presented.

Cheers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael,</p>
<p>I agree with the spirit of your post &#8212; check as many data points as possible and employ healthy, independent critical thought. Definitely. </p>
<p>However &#8230; &#8220;Javascript misses up to 1/5 of Web site visitors because many people (estimates vary from 12% to 20%) disable Javascript in their browsers.&#8221; &#8230;. in the spirit of questioning the numbers, I find this hard to believe. I doubt 20% of web users would know what javascript is and know how to turn it off in a web browser, never mind actually do it. I have no data to back that assertion up, though I&#8217;d also point out you didn&#8217;t cite any authorities for the numbers you presented.</p>
<p>Cheers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
