incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From drew <>
Subject Re: Google Analytics on
Date Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:46:20 GMT
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 10:40 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <>wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On 2012-03-23, at 12:03 , Kay Schenk wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 03/21/2012 07:23 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > >> I'd like to enable Google Analytics on our download page.
> > >>
> > >> This would allow us to collect some important data, such as the
> > >> geographical distribution of download requests.  This information has
> > >> been sought for 3.4 mirror distribution planning. It can also provide
> > >> continuity of our download statistics which we would otherwise lose
> > >> when moving off of MirrorBrain.
> > >>
> > >> Of course, if some else is willing to implement an alternative way of
> > >> collecting this info, then I'd love it hear it.  But I think GA is the
> > >> most direct method.
> > >>
> > >> Lazy consensus, 72 hours, etc.
> > >>
> > >> -Rob
> > > This sounds fine with me. Yes, we should state our privacy policy on
> > use, and at some point, if you do produce a public report, maybe nix IP
> > addresses if that's a concern.
> >
> > I think nixing IP addresses is a necessity, if one were to publish this
> > data, as is informing the downloader of the privacy issues.
> >
> >
> This part is really easy, since Google Analytics does not provide us with
> IP addresses.  It is giving us aggregate information, not per-user
> information.
> FWIW, we used to use several means to track downloads of the binaries. None
> > was particularly great and none satisfied the desires of corporate
> > marketing. And all made some in the corporate hierarchy uncomfortable, if
> > only because a download of a binary is hardly the same as a contribution to
> > source.
> >
> > We used Google Analytics but also, as was then called, Omniture. Selected
> > data were published in graphical form to the services wiki.
> >
> > In addition, more or less from the start, I published spreadsheets of
> > downloads, and particularized it according to language but not region. (I
> > also listed OS of version downloaded.)  There were many problems to these
> > spreadsheets, as I noted at, not least of
> > which was spurious duplication and misleading numeration.
> >
> > What I always desired was a mechanism by which a successful download could
> > "call home", thus supplying rather useful information. In the end, a
> > version of just this was indeed done, via update calls, extensions, etc.
> > However, there was no direct insertion of such a mechanism. If we were ever
> > to do that, I would argue that we do need then to inform any would-be
> > downloader of the privacy issues.
> >
> > -louis
> >
> > PS Roberto asked me about the old data and if it a) was extant and b)
> > reflected geolocation. Answers: It was not extant, and I didn't keep the
> > raw data. (I could probably find it stuffed into some archive, but why? As
> > I pointed out to Roberto, the ODF Alliance information regarding ODF uptake
> > is actually a better indicator, as most ODF implementations they track were
> > or are based on OOo.)
> >
> >

Howdy Louis, Kay, Rob, et al

I've certainly delayed this long enough, longer then my intent in fact.

There is no real question that analytics are important, Google is likely
the fastest and easiest road to acquiring them, I suppose.

I'm glad that Louis added some historic view to the subject, it might be
worth noting that in the case of the Omniture data gathering campaign
individual site users could opt out.

The real real question is access IMO, Louis also broached the subject of
his employer when he uses the phrase, "the desires of corporate
marketing". Historically of course, SUN or Oracle, the analytics where
the purview of the corporate owner. With Apache OpenOffice there of
course is no corporate owner, analytics are then a resource of the
Apache Software Foundation and from this flows, I would say, to the

This distinction I would submit means that the full analytics are not
available to any specific employer of someone volunteering their time to
the communal effort within AOO.

However, another way to look at that would be that the analytics are
available to all PPMC members. Of course as Rob points out, with Google
this requires access to a specific account, so it would make sense that
individual PPMC would need to request full access. 

I just want to emphasize that whomever is maintaining the Google account
is doing so as a steward for the entire Apache OpenOffice (P)PMC, at
least this is how I see it.

Otherwise, it would make sense with regards to public access to not look
much beyond what basic charting was available in the past, but to at
least shot for building a system to deliver that.

So, it seems everyone is ok with this and I certainly don't want to
deter it anylonger - it's a +1 from me now.

@Rob - if I can help with generating reports, let me know.


View raw message