Hans on Experience

Volgens mij heeft het Reader Type cijfer een overzicht van de laatste 24 uur en het cijfer met de grafieken het aantal van de laatste volledige dag? Als je dus de tweede dag minder bezoekers hebt dan de eerste dag, dan zal het getal in het 24 uur overzicht gedurende de dag dalen.

Dat is de enige logische verklaring die ik kan geven.

@kenneth: ja da's waar. Dat wist ik. Maar daar ging het me niet om. Het ging me erom dat 187 en 178 niet hetzelfde is. Maar vanochtend stond alles op 0 (daar waar 178) stond. Nu is het weer ok (186). Tegen de middag zal dit cijfer (186) in de Reader ticklet komen staan als het goed is. Ze waren kennelijk wat onder de motorkap aan het sleutelen.

Hi Hans. Yes, that's an interface inconsistency that fixed last night. We were using the wrong number for "circulation": we now show the same number as your FeedCount chicklet rather than the "Previous 24 Hour" number, which is what the "Readership" chart shows.

@eric: ok thanks. But another question about numbers:
2 sept: table daily circulation trend shows 109, circulation readership details shows 172 and chicklet shows 186 ?????

Let me start by admitting guilt and recognizing that this is way more confusing than it should be. The number represent different periods of time:

1. Daily circulation trend shows 109 for Sept 2. To tell you the truth, this row shouldn't even be displayed. That's a circulation number that is calculated based upon a partial day (since midnight in -0600 timezone). We'll remove this row since it's not an accurate circulation calculation.

2. Readership details. This number represents "the past 24 hours", as of "right now". So that represents the your circulation from (say) Sept 1 11:00am to Sept 2 11:00am.

3. The chicklet (and the myfeeds page) shows "yesterday's" circulation (so, Sept 1 midnight to midnight).

Like I said, we'll work on rationalizing this!

Eric Lunt
CTO, FeedBurner

Hans,

We realize this reporting needs some cleaning up, and the recent redesign has highlighted a few nagging deficiencies. The "Sept 2" value probably shouldn't be displayed, because it's sort of an "in-progress" number that isn't really reflective of an entire days' traffic. (Sept. 1 -- 186 -- is completed and set in stone, of course. This is the number you're current seeing on the new My Feeds page and in your FeedCount chicklet.) The "readership details" number is also an "in-progress" number, and we've strongly considered changing this entire section so that it's a breakdown of "Yesterday" (in this case, Sept. 1). So doing will remove this sort of "shifting sands of time" effect that causes all of these seemingly identical representations of circulation to be significantly different. My apologies for the confusion; we hope to have these streamlined reporting adjustments in place soon.

That said, if you'd expect things to be reported some other way, I'd love to have your additional feedback!

@matt and eric: thanks for your conversation. Great! I thin it is the description which makes it confusing. In progress or/and real time is better. This number is then what is described: real time.
On eric: nr.1 I agree, need not been shown. So skip.
Should be great if a kind of realtime number is shown in the chicklet and stats.
Another thing is the different time zones. Now the number changes during our working day.
I think it is important to use the right words for the numbers.