Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

MNHQ

Missing pages - can YOU help us track them down?

116 replies

JustineMumsnet · 16/11/2009 21:11

So, ever since BigTech made his new releases (which incidentally still have a few wee glitches to sort, before you shout) we've noticed that folks are clicking less on all the Talk topic home pages eg this one. In fact you are collectively clicking on those roughly half as much as you used to and we're completely stymied as to why. Don't spose any bright spark out there has any ideas about what might have changed?

(There's a pack of Christmas cards (or three) by way of reward for anyone whose information leads to the discovery of our lost pages...)

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 26/11/2009 19:28

Update on all this - we have now found our missing pages and the good news is we've been undercounting our visitors too - so there are in fact even more Mumsnetters than we thought.

Many thanks to JJ and everyone else who suggested the www lead. Turns out that Google were not tracking people who entered the site by putting mumsnet.com (ie no www) in the browser post BigTech's changes.

To claim your free Mumsnet Guide [email protected]. JJ when you're next in Kentish Town area - we owe you some sushi!

OP posts:
LeninGrotto · 17/11/2009 14:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Littlefish · 17/11/2009 14:13

Another question - completely off the topic, but nonetheless...

When I look at "threads I'm watching", when I click on a poster's name, instead of taking me to that point in the thread, it links through to the Topic menu. Why is that?

If I want to go onto the thread, I have to click the thread title, but it just takes me to the top of the thread and I then have to find my way back to the last place I read.

I don't like it.

whomovedmychocolate · 17/11/2009 11:55

It's not actually I just fixed it

Umm guess who set it up to backup then and then guess who put some other processes on at the same time. Doh!

You see, this is why I'm not allowed to have the launch codes

morningpaper · 17/11/2009 10:59

let's talk about your server problem, that sounds far more interesting

morningpaper · 17/11/2009 10:58

actually I'm trying to get the World's Easiest Formmail cgi script to work and fucking it up

I'm REALLY dim TBH

whomovedmychocolate · 17/11/2009 10:55

MP has sod all to do all day

I'm busy trying to fix my own bloody server which keeps keeling over at the same time each week

morningpaper · 17/11/2009 10:51

Go awn give me and wmmc the keys to the stats

I could procrastinate all morning looking through them

It will be our little secret

JJ · 17/11/2009 10:51

I don't know - it's just been every now and then. [useless]

Good luck!

MNHQ
YetMoreTech · 17/11/2009 10:47

Not sure if that changed (probably not, but not impossible). However, like I say, if one looks at the increase in page views using the numeric form it in no way accounts for the change.

morningpaper · 17/11/2009 10:45

oh you answered the bit about the numeric links already

morningpaper · 17/11/2009 10:43

The topic links on Threads I'm on also links to the numeric code for each topic instead of the new naming convention - has that changed?

I'm running out of ideas

Have you got the old site somewhere so we can compare?!

MNHQ
YetMoreTech · 17/11/2009 10:40

ZakuroFujiwara, nope. Definitely not moved.

ZakuroFujiwara · 17/11/2009 10:39

Obvious question probably - are you sure the call to the analytics script isn't on a different part of the page on the "missing" pages? Have had untold problems in the past caused by this kind of difference between seemingly identical pages. Especially where the position of the ad serving code varies slightly too....

MNHQ
YetMoreTech · 17/11/2009 10:30

JJ, yeah, I had a flick through last night looking for (bad) absolute links. It could be that. Where are you seeing them? In particular, links to topic pages?

JJ · 17/11/2009 10:30

But listen to mp more - I never use the topic pages for some reason.

MNHQ
YetMoreTech · 17/11/2009 10:29

Do we could? Is that like "Is you is or is you ain't?".

Meanwhile, the number of threads one sees on a topic home page hasn't changed, so it's not that.

JJ · 17/11/2009 10:29

Does google analytics differentiate between mumsnet.com and www.mumsnet.com? There are more links to mumsnet.com than usual instead of using /blah/blahdeblah as the link - noticed this because I am using Stylish which does differentiate.

whomovedmychocolate · 17/11/2009 10:26

AHA! (Penny drops). When you did the code release, for me at least, the page displays changed so that instead of getting 50 messages per page it was reset to unlimited. Do you could according to threads served or pages served?

WilfSell · 17/11/2009 10:26

So not MY suggestion then either? Boo. Hiss.

MNHQ
YetMoreTech · 17/11/2009 10:24

MP, we get some click path detail. One of the most interesting and noticeable things about this is that the number of times that (say) /Talk/pregnancy was followed by /Talk/pregnancy again has dropped a lot. This would be the case if pagination used to be on but now were off (the tracking doesn't distinguish between the views of each of the separate pages of the Talk topic homepages). But that's not so - they always had pagination and still do.

Looking more broadly at the path people take to get to a topic home page, that hasn't changed at all - the numbers before and after are amazingly similar.

morningpaper · 17/11/2009 10:14

give us the keys to the stats

we are highly competitive housewives, we will fight to find the answer to a question that we don't really care about. It's what we do

whomovedmychocolate · 17/11/2009 10:13

I wasn't saying quite the same thing as MP Yetmoretech.

However you say: "I don't think it's that things take longer than they used to - the average time spent on the site hasn't changed. "

I would take exception to this - given that it takes longer to load a page, if the average time spent on the site hasn't changed you should have an increase in the pages served (unless you are saying we've all become more ponderous (possibly we are old farts))?

Can I ask why it matters (is this an adserving target thing?) Or just idle curiousity?

morningpaper · 17/11/2009 10:06

e.g. if 90% of the visitrs came via the homepage, and now only 30% of them do, that would indicate where the change has occured

Poledra · 17/11/2009 10:06

I am strangely drawn to this thread, though I have not a clue what you are talking about. 'Tis like listening to people speaking another language, one can enjoy the musical cadences of the words without understanding a fecking word....