# Milnet.ca Routine Orders - Discussion



## Mike Baker (1 Apr 2008)

What are Unique Visitors?


----------



## Yrys (1 Apr 2008)

> User Registrations	454
> Accepted Terms & Conditions	387



Does that means that on the new users, some didn't accepted the guidelines ?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Apr 2008)

That shows how many unique IP addresses visited the site last month. It's not exactly unique visitors as a single IP (such as one of the DWAN IPs) can hide a lot of people.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Apr 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Does that means that on the new users, some didn't accepted the guidelines ?



It would seem so!


----------



## Yrys (1 Apr 2008)

Citation de: Yrys le Aujourd'hui à 14:40:04
Does that means that on the new users, some didn't accepted the guidelines ?



			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> It would seem so!



User Registrations   454
Accepted Terms & Conditions   387  = 67 people didn't accept the guidelines ...


No wonder there is trolls around here  ;D

 >


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Apr 2008)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> It would seem so!



Could you, should you make accepting the Terms and Conditions a precondition for registering?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Apr 2008)

It's currently a post-condition of registering. Once you've activated your account you'll be shown the T&C page until you accept it. After that you get normal access. These numbers seem to indicate that 67 people didn't make it past that stage!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Apr 2008)

Maybe you should make it a pre-condition then Mike


----------



## Yrys (1 Apr 2008)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> These numbers seem to indicate that 67 people didn't make it past that stage!



I'm not sure, now thinking a bit, that we can get a clear picture on that until we have a few "Milnet.ca Routine Orders".
Some may have activated an acount in the last few days without accepting the guides lines, so are in the "process of" .

There is nothing to say that those 67 activate an acount in March ... or not. Numbers for a trimester could get a better estimated.
There could get a month were the numbers are reversed ... or worst   :-X !

(I'm not sure I have  Clarity in those sentences ...


----------



## armyvern (1 Apr 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Does that means that on the new users, some didn't accepted the guidelines ?
> 
> User Registrations   454
> Accepted Terms & Conditions   387  = 67 people didn't accept the guidelines ...



Actually, I'll step in here because while most people sleep soundly at night, there's some insomniacs about who go through and kill (ie ensure some "registrants" can never activate) some "New Registrants" who are obviously spammmers etc.

This "67" figure of yours could also entail those who've registered, but have just not yet "clicked" on the link in their email to activate yet & ergo have not yet accepted the terms and conditions.

The Domanitrix 
(OHhhh...and I see there is another "Vern" activating his/her account right now!!) <--- I doth protest; unless of course it is my cohort in crime from CHAR FM and fellow radio announcer. If so, you'd better all get ready for the real show to begin because I won't have to be so shy anymore!!   > 


_Edited:_ Nope. Different Vern.   
(I have a feeling it's going to get confusing around here!! I hope they get all my nasty PMs!!  ;D) I'll have to remain shy I guess.  :-[


----------



## Shamrock (1 Apr 2008)

How was usage during Earth Hour/Hug an Iceburg Day?


----------



## armyvern (1 Apr 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> How was usage during Earth Hour/Hug an Iceburg Day?



That'd be hard to tell ... Earth Hour occured at different times accross the nation ... and there's some overseas folks here too. 

Here's some stats from the week though. I've bolded the Friday before as well (23rd):


Date                      New Topics     New Posts     New Members    Most Online      Page Views
*2008-03-22             26                      383                 13                          1075                  91581*
2008-03-23            21                  387               15                     1106               93842 
2008-03-24            22                  532                 7                     1187               112374 
2008-03-25            22                  525               16                     1242               114716 
2008-03-26            28                  487               12                     1081               115203 
2008-03-27            16                  380               16                       913               98334 
2008-03-28            24                  410               20                     1022               105810 
*2008-03-29             17                      291                  10                          1057                  99540 * 
2008-03-30            15                  319               11                     1169               106344 
2008-03-31            23                  578               14                     1238               127504


----------



## helpup (1 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> This "67" figure of yours could also entail those who've registered, but have just not yet "clicked" on the link in their email to activate yet & ergo have not yet accepted the terms and conditions.



I think I may be one of them actually.  I am pretty sure that in the last year or so I tried to register through under the nickname hellpup.  But for one reason or another it didn't get through.  I thought that it was a DIN computer problem, tried again a long time later and couldn't use that "hellpup" nickname.  So I dropped an L and voila!  Never thought to ask when I was getting my logg in if there was a chance of getting my normal nick back.


----------



## armyvern (1 Apr 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> I think I may be one of them actually.  I am pretty sure that in the last year or so I tried to register through under the nickname hellpup.  But for one reason or another it didn't get through.  I thought that it was a DIN computer problem, tried again a long time later and couldn't use that "hellpup" nickname.  So I dropped an L and voila!  Never thought to ask when I was getting my logg in if there was a chance of getting my normal nick back.



Nope. Nothing found under "Hellpup". It's probably long gone if it were never activated. Those stats Mike's got below are just from March 08.

Another thing for that "67" figure ... some of those registrations occured just yeasterday/last night (31 Mar 08) -- I have a feeling some of them will be activating today when they log in to their home emails and get the site "activation" link.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Apr 2008)

Helpup, some words are barred from being used in an account name... Hell is one of those.


----------



## helpup (2 Apr 2008)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Helpup, some words are barred from being used in an account name... Hell is one of those.



Thanks Mike, that entered my mind as well, although I don't normally have a problem with hellpup as a Nick on any of the past sites I have been to.  No biggie though, it is a Army nickname that I picked up way back when, but I do understand why sites do want to restrict the in-bedding of certain word combo's.


----------



## Greymatters (1 May 2008)

Interesting facts... didnt realize so many people got banned.  Is that because most of them get 'banned' before they even start posting? (i.e. known trollers, double accounters, etc...)


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 May 2008)

If you're talking about the "Banned User Blocked Actions" (142 last month) this figure is actually the number of times a user who has been banned tried to do something here (view a page, reply, check PMs etc.)

It could represent 142 users trying one action, or one banned user connecting 142 times. Most often people try 2-3 times and that's it, some are more persistent. We've seen some banned users literally try daily for weeks to get back in.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## aesop081 (1 May 2008)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> We've seen some banned users literally try daily for weeks to get back in.



Some of them try over a dozen times daily  :


----------



## JesseWZ (1 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Some of them try over a dozen times daily  :


Its your charm.


----------



## Yrys (1 May 2008)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Its your charm.



... or the addictiveness of the site  :-X !


----------



## NL_engineer (1 May 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> ... or the addictiveness of the site  :-X !



No its his charm  ;D


----------



## Mike Baker (1 May 2008)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Its your charm.


And my devilish good looks 

;D
Baker


----------



## Yrys (1 May 2008)

Baker said:
			
		

> And my devilish good looks



Speaking of which, still waiting on those photos !


----------



## Greymatters (1 May 2008)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> If you're talking about the "Banned User Blocked Actions" (142 last month) this figure is actually the number of times a user who has been banned tried to do something here (view a page, reply, check PMs etc.)
> It could represent 142 users trying one action, or one banned user connecting 142 times. Most often people try 2-3 times and that's it, some are more persistent. We've seen some banned users literally try daily for weeks to get back in.



Hmmm, if its not to much trouble, can you break down the different offense areas for all the bans?  Just curious what the common denominator(s) is/are, so would be interested if they are handy, but I dont expect you to expend hours of work tallying and so forth...


----------



## Yrys (1 May 2008)

March :

User Registrations   454
Accepted Terms & Conditions   387 = 67 (who didn't accept it)

April:

User Registrations	385
Accepted Terms & Conditions	321 = 64

Not much variation for the moment...


----------



## Shamrock (1 May 2008)

What's an advertiser impression?


----------



## George Wallace (1 May 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Hmmm, if its not to much trouble, can you break down the different offense areas for all the bans?  Just curious what the common denominator(s) is/are, so would be interested if they are handy, but I dont expect you to expend hours of work tallying and so forth...



I'm not exactly sure of what you are asking, but most of our bans have been for Trolls, Multiple Accounts (Done on purpose), Reincarnated Banned members, Spammers/Telemarketers, Racists, immature posters, and extreme Left anti-military protagonists.  Some of those banned, met more than one of those criteria.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 May 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> What's an advertiser impression?



That's an ad delivered to what the software considers a "unique user". So if an ad is delivered say 1,000 times it may reach only 200 actual people which translates to 200 impressions.

As for the ban reasons, unfortunately that would be a manual reconstruction, so not something I have the time for at the moment. 


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Greymatters (2 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I'm not exactly sure of what you are asking, but most of our bans have been for Trolls, Multiple Accounts (Done on purpose), Reincarnated Banned members, Spammers/Telemarketers, Racists, immature posters, and extreme Left anti-military protagonists.  Some of those banned, met more than one of those criteria.



That answered my question, despite my original question not being too clear, thanks.

Surprised about the racists though, as I havent noted any in particular on this site, which only proves a good job is being done keeping them out.  Must be a bit more interesting behind the scenes...


----------



## Mike Baker (1 Jul 2008)

I see that June had Air Force and Navy being used more, and only *3* new subscribers!


Here is the link to the stats


-Dead


----------



## GAP (1 Jul 2008)

Ad Requests 455,012 
Ad Impressions 175,378  

What's an Ad Request?/Impressions?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Jul 2008)

An Ad Request is when an ad is displayed on a page. An Ad Impression is the software's best guess at how many unique people saw the ads.


----------



## Mike Baker (1 Sep 2008)

Link to new post.


MilPoints Earned in August 29,194 

Not bad for having MilPoints for only a few days! ;D


-Dead


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Sep 2008)

Wait for it, we'll have a heck of a lot more than that this month. Things will also level out, there's a bit of a "bulge" right now as people adjust to the new system.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2008)

Mike, some time back (I cannot remember the context) you told us about Army.ca 'use' based on browser type: _n_% IE vs. _n'_% Firefox.

What about other browsers? Does your system recognize e.g. Operaand Chrome?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (3 Sep 2008)

Since you asked... Here's an overwhelming amount of useless data about the browsers in use so far in Sept:


VersionsGrabberHitsPercentMSIE101964760.2 %Msie 999.1No470 %Msie 8.0No219881.2 %Msie 7.0.6000.16711No10 %Msie 7.0.5730.13No10 %Msie 7.0No67266939.7 %Msie 6.0No26070815.3 %Msie 5.5No39970.2 %Msie 5.23No190 %Msie 5.22No710 %Msie 5.21No50 %Msie 5.17No70 %Msie 5.16No70 %Msie 5.02No12550 %Msie 5.01No10030 %Msie 5.00No170 %Msie 5.0No566033.3 %Msie 4.01No6170 %Msie 4.0No4660 %Msie 3.02No580 %Msie 2.0No1020 %Msie 1.5No20 %Msie ?No40 %FIREFOX 26493315.6 %Firefox 3.0.1No17712210.4 %Firefox 3.0No42500.2 %Firefox 2.0.4No120 %Firefox 2.0.0.9No5650 %Firefox 2.0.0.8No8940 %Firefox 2.0.0.7No2280 %Firefox 2.0.0.6No4700 %Firefox 2.0.0.5No2180 %Firefox 2.0.0.4No5250 %Firefox 2.0.0.3No4230 %Firefox 2.0.0.2No3490 %Firefox 2.0.0.16No597353.5 %Firefox 2.0.0.15No11700 %Firefox 2.0.0.14No43170.2 %Firefox 2.0.0.13No3690 %Firefox 2.0.0.12No17420.1 %Firefox 2.0.0.11No12850 %Firefox 2.0.0.10No980 %Firefox 2.0.0.1No3520 %Firefox 2.0.0No70 %Firefox 2.0No12180 %Firefox 1.6No1080 %Firefox 1.5.0.9No460 %Firefox 1.5.0.7No2300 %Firefox 1.5.0.6No1650 %Firefox 1.5.0.5No100 %Firefox 1.5.0.4No760 %Firefox 1.5.0.3No230 %Firefox 1.5.0.2No500 %Firefox 1.5.0.12No16590 %Firefox 1.5.0.11No10 %Firefox 1.5.0.1No690 %Firefox 1.5.0No180 %Firefox 1.5No1720 %Firefox 1.4No90 %Firefox 1.0.8No50 %Firefox 1.0.7No8390 %Firefox 1.0.6No2500 %Firefox 1.0.5No100 %Firefox 1.0.4No1380 %Firefox 1.0.3No30 %Firefox 1.0.2No650 %Firefox 1.0.1No2590 %Firefox 1.0No4400 %Firefox 0.9.6No760 %Firefox 0.9.3No20 %Firefox 0.9.2No1250 %Firefox 0.9.1No320 %Firefox 0.9No610 %Firefox 0.8.0No580 %Firefox 0.8No41200.2 %Firefox 0.5.6No1090 %Firefox 0.10.1No1600 %Firefox 0.10No1960 %NETSCAPE 42230.2 %Netscape 8.0.4No10 %Netscape 8.0.2No1310 %Netscape 8.0.1No1090 %Netscape 8.0No560 %Netscape 7.2No970 %Netscape 7.1No2990 %Netscape 7.02No320 %Netscape 7.01No390 %Netscape 7.0No1290 %Netscape 6.2.1No1670 %Netscape 6.0No910 %Netscape 5.0No13190 %Netscape 4.8No10 %Netscape 4.79No600 %Netscape 4.78No140 %Netscape 4.77No240 %Netscape 4.76No1330 %Netscape 4.75No5310 %Netscape 4.7No760 %Netscape 4.61No1360 %Netscape 4.5No3460 %Netscape 4.02No110 %Netscape 4.0No2240 %Netscape 3.04No10 %Netscape 3.01No10 %Netscape 3.0No680 %Netscape 2.02No10 %Netscape 0.91No480 %Netscape 0.6No740 %Netscape ?No40 %Others 40412223.8 %Unknown?31605718.6 %SafariNo474872.8 %OperaNo155970.9 %MozillaNo104450.6 %WgetYes83210.4 %BonEcho (Firefox 2.0 development)No39260.2 %LibWWWNo6060 %K-MeleonNo4900 %KonquerorNo1960 %PhoenixNo1890 %Firebird (Old Firefox)No1870 %LynxNo1730 %CaminoNo1260 %Acrobat WebcaptureYes550 %Nokia Browser (PDA/Phone browser)No480 %OSSProxyNo470 %GaleonNo390 %OmniWebNo370 %UP.Browser (PDA/Phone browser)No270 %Sony/Ericsson Browser (PDA/Phone browser)No260 %DilloNo230 %EpiphanyNo40 %Wizz RSS News Reader (RSS Reader)No30 %ShiiraNo30 %Samsung (PDA/Phone browser)No30 %MultiZillaNo20 %AWebNo20 %iBrowseNo10 %LG (PDA/Phone browser)No10 %WebTV browserNo10 %

[tr][td]


----------

