Friday, July 31, 2009
0
A big fat 0. That’s how many people visited this site according to Google Analytics during the period of July 13 to July 19, 2009.
I don’t think so.
I’ve never pulled in any tremendous amount of hits but to believe that NO ONE stopped by during that period is nonsense.
I set the tracking NOT to ignore when I stop by. I know I checked out the site during that period.
I think switching to a new template caused the problem. Goose egg reports started coming in after that. I deleted the old tracking code and re-installed it. The 0 visitors problem persists. Interesting when one considers that Google runs both Blogger and Anal-ytics. What’s the problem: one company has compatibility issues between its own services?
Fed up with Google’s bullshit, I’ve added another tracker. This indicates the normal amount of numbers so far – or it’s just lying to me to make me happy. Sure, part of it is ego. But also I’d like to know if anyone is out there or I’m just typing in unreadable nonsense.
Instead of blogging, I’ve been dealing with this tracking issue, screwing around with HTML code for each tracker.
Computers save time.
4 comments:
Actually, the first time I changed my template, the exact same thing happened with my tracker (sitemeter). It reset to zero, and it took me a couple of weeks to realize it was staying at zero until I reintroduced the code in a different place.
So if I place the Analytics code in a different spot in the HTML layout, it might start working?
So far Sitemeter is working OK. Maybe I won't bother with Anlaytics anymore.
Ray
Never tried Analytics.
Come now, Ray--typing unreadable nonsense wouldn't drive people away; that would attract good numbers. Look at Sarah Palin's popularity, for instance...
I've been using Sitemeter for a couple years now, and there was one issue with that (but that proved to be Blogger's fault) it's been okay. Well, for something I use for free, I can't complain.
Still, sometimes I think that not tracking could allow me to just believe I'm getting lots of hits, rather than having the facts prove otherwise.
Post a Comment