incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Google Analytics on
Date Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:40:57 GMT
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

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.)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message