Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
That's by design :)
The box is meant to show the top among the posts your wrote in the specific
amount of time (last week, last month, last year, forever), not how many
"likes" the post had in that period (which we cannot track).
Maybe we can change the wording to make it more clear: any suggestions?
Original comment by simone.chiaretta
on 19 Jul 2010 at 1:11
Well, we have almost all the data to do this.
It's quite simple to implement I think (it always seems so :)).
If we would stamp the Web view with the date at which the user access the blog
post URL (I suppose subtext doesn't, I didnt check the DB neither the code yet)
then we can filter on that stamp. same for aggregator view, and we already have
the date of the comments...
That's my suggestion. I don't see much value in comparing posts published the
last week, and most likely, old posts will be have been viewed more than new
ones.
It just feels like a wrong stat to me.
But subtext is open source, so I'll for sure put my hands in there and try to
do it myself soon :)
Original comment by stephane...@gmail.com
on 19 Jul 2010 at 1:25
Subtext keeps a "global" counter of the visits, they are not split by day.
The stats you are suggesting is something you can easily get from google
analytics (most viewed page of the last week/month/year).
The rational behind the current stats is: "which is the best post among the one
I wrote last year/month/week"? As you say, comparing posts written 2 years ago,
that might already get 2-300 page view per day from search engines alone, with
posts written 3 days ago, which might have not been indexed yet, makes little
sense.
CC-ing Phil to gather his thoughts as he is the one that implemented this
feature.
Original comment by simone.chiaretta
on 19 Jul 2010 at 2:31
Thanks, I understand that it is not a mandatory feature. I use analytics
myself. It was just a concern I had because it didn't work the way I expected
it at first, so I was giving you a feedback that it didn't feel natural to me.
If I end up trying to do it on my side, I'd be glad to share my implementation
with you.
This new version release is great. so much nice improvement. Keep up the great
work!
Original comment by stephane...@gmail.com
on 19 Jul 2010 at 2:38
If it is just "misinterpretation" a change of wording might be enough to make
it easier to understand.
Any suggestions?
Original comment by simone.chiaretta
on 19 Jul 2010 at 2:41
Could be just to add a label "published:" just in front of the different time
filter.
But that doesn't look very good I think.
I have a hard time finding something better. It could also be just me seeing
this differently while everybody understands it as it is. What is your opinion?
Waiting for more feedback :)
Original comment by stephane...@gmail.com
on 19 Jul 2010 at 9:06
I think I'll mark as "wontfix" for now.
If someone comes out with a better descriptive text, just add a new item.
Thx
Original comment by simone.chiaretta
on 26 Jul 2010 at 10:32
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
stephane...@gmail.com
on 19 Jul 2010 at 12:56