New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Analytics on TC39 sites, e.g., the specification page #1167

Open
littledan opened this Issue Apr 11, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@littledan
Member

littledan commented Apr 11, 2018

I don't want to invade anyone's privacy, but we may benefit from adding some basic tracking to TC39's specification. For example, if we had the download count, this would be useful to compare against the download count for specifications on Ecma's website. This data was requested by the Ecma Executive Committee in the April 2018 Face to Face meeting.

@mathiasbynens

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mathiasbynens

mathiasbynens Apr 11, 2018

Member

I agree it would be interesting to get analytics for https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/.

Note that for the repository itself, such data is already available at https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/graphs/traffic. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of hits/visits to the repo already exceeds the number of PDF downloads on Ecma’s website.

Member

mathiasbynens commented Apr 11, 2018

I agree it would be interesting to get analytics for https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/.

Note that for the repository itself, such data is already available at https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/graphs/traffic. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of hits/visits to the repo already exceeds the number of PDF downloads on Ecma’s website.

@littledan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@littledan

littledan Apr 11, 2018

Member

@mathiasbynens Thanks for the reference. Does this give us any insight on how many people go to the specification draft itself?

Member

littledan commented Apr 11, 2018

@mathiasbynens Thanks for the reference. Does this give us any insight on how many people go to the specification draft itself?

@mathiasbynens

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mathiasbynens

mathiasbynens Apr 11, 2018

Member

No, unfortunately. We’d need separate analytics for that.

Member

mathiasbynens commented Apr 11, 2018

No, unfortunately. We’d need separate analytics for that.

@domenic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@domenic

domenic Apr 11, 2018

Member

FWIW we've struggled with this in the WHATWG and so far come down against tracking people when they land on specs; we have a single analytics tracker for the homepage of whatwg.org and nothing else.

I'll be curious to see what TC39 does here, and how it is received by the community. I polled once and got mixed results: https://twitter.com/domenic/status/889982507432660992

Server-side analytics seem like the best answer, but those aren't available on GitHub pages unfortunately.

Member

domenic commented Apr 11, 2018

FWIW we've struggled with this in the WHATWG and so far come down against tracking people when they land on specs; we have a single analytics tracker for the homepage of whatwg.org and nothing else.

I'll be curious to see what TC39 does here, and how it is received by the community. I polled once and got mixed results: https://twitter.com/domenic/status/889982507432660992

Server-side analytics seem like the best answer, but those aren't available on GitHub pages unfortunately.

@xtuc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@xtuc

xtuc Apr 11, 2018

Member

Note that the folks going on the spec are most likely those blocking tracker/analytics on websites. I wouldn't expect the stats to be super precise.

Member

xtuc commented Apr 11, 2018

Note that the folks going on the spec are most likely those blocking tracker/analytics on websites. I wouldn't expect the stats to be super precise.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment