<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Peter Meyers</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/11587</link>
    <pubDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2007 07:40:37 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Peter Meyers</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;You certainly make some valid points about the limitations of web logs, but I really think you&amp;#8217;re throwing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to analytics. Yes, analytics aren&amp;#8217;t very useful for getting a window on any individual user, but they are useful as one more tool for understanding people in the aggregate. A lot of the caching issues do work themselves out in the wash, just as noise does in any system where you&amp;#8217;re collecting large amounts of data. Personally, I have gleaned valuable usability insights by tracking long-term trends in exit pages, bounce rates, jumps in error-page activitiy, etc. In some of these cases, analytics helped me pinpoint a problem that I didn&amp;#8217;t know was there, and that problem was completely verifiable (in other words, it wasn&amp;#8217;t an illusion of bad data).&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;Look at the flip-side as well. Is testing a single user (or a couple of users) in a traditional usability test perfect, statistically speaking? Not remotely. Using a couple of users to generalize to thousands or tens of thousands is wildly unreliable, especially since those users may not even be representative. Does that mean the technique is useless? Of course not. In fact, using these techniques in tandem helps reduce noise even further: if you take the hypotheses from testing users individually and reference them against the clues you get from aggregate data, you&amp;#8217;ll end up with information that is all the richer and more valuable.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;My grad advisor used to say that there were three levels of understanding statistics: (1) knowing just enough to be dangerous, (2) knowing enough to play by the rules, and (3) and knowing when the rules don&amp;#8217;t matter. I&amp;#8217;ve met statisticians who can tear apart absolutely any real-world analysis someone could ever run, and they&amp;#8217;re all level 2 people. The problem is, if you carry that too far, you can&amp;#8217;t get anything done. I think it&amp;#8217;s important to look at any tool objectively, know its faults, but then move forward and try to extract the best value you can. Web analytics aren&amp;#8217;t a new, unproven tool, and while many people misuse them, I also know some flat-out brilliant people deriving real value from them for both clients and end-users.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the-limitations-of#content_13200</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the-limitations-of#content_13200</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2007 07:40:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Peter Meyers</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
