Comments on: Avg. Time per Visit – Standard definition http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html Increasing Front Page Performance for Online Media Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:20:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dennis R. Mortensen http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-150 Dennis R. Mortensen Sat, 01 Sep 2007 08:27:00 +0000 http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-150 Hi Angie,<br/><br/>>>I encourage you (and your readers) to send feedback like this directly to "standards at webanalyticsassociation.org"<br/><br/>Will do! :-)<br/><br/>By the way, are you attending Emetrics Washington? - as I have a set of questions/inputs from a Vendor point of view..<br/><br/>Cheers<br/>Dennis Hi Angie,

>>I encourage you (and your readers) to send feedback like this directly to “standards at webanalyticsassociation.org”

Will do! :-)

By the way, are you attending Emetrics Washington? – as I have a set of questions/inputs from a Vendor point of view..

Cheers
Dennis

]]> By: angie http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-149 angie Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:40:00 +0000 http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-149 Hi Dennis, Angie here from the Standards Committee. Thank you for such a detailed post: outlining issues like this so specifically will help us to make better definitions in the future, and you definitely have made points worth considering. <br/><br/>I encourage you (and your readers) to send feedback like this directly to "standards at webanalyticsassociation.org" to make sure it gets visibility. We're trying to keep up with what's out there in the blogosphere but I know we won't find everything. <br/><br/>Thanks again,<br/>Angie Hi Dennis, Angie here from the Standards Committee. Thank you for such a detailed post: outlining issues like this so specifically will help us to make better definitions in the future, and you definitely have made points worth considering.

I encourage you (and your readers) to send feedback like this directly to “standards at webanalyticsassociation.org” to make sure it gets visibility. We’re trying to keep up with what’s out there in the blogosphere but I know we won’t find everything.

Thanks again,
Angie

]]> By: Dennis R. Mortensen http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-146 Dennis R. Mortensen Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:52:00 +0000 http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-146 Hi Claire,<br/><br/>Thanks for the comment and heads up!<br/><br/>Cheers Hi Claire,

Thanks for the comment and heads up!

Cheers

]]> By: Dennis R. Mortensen http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-145 Dennis R. Mortensen Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:49:00 +0000 http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-145 Hi Clint,<br/><br/>Thank you very much for your comment. Much appreciated. <br/><br/>I think my “problem” lies within <br/><br/>A) the combined definition and calculation (this including my IndexTools) and <br/>B) pre-segmenting (as in removing 1 page view visits) <br/><br/><br/><i>>>Interesting. So if Index Tools includes all visits (regardless of bounce status) in the calculation of Avg. Time per Visit and does not include time spent by bouncers, aren't you essentially diluting the avg time metric?</i><br/><br/>YES! And I think we should; we being the WA industry and analysts in general. Simply because of the fair assumption that the more pages people visit the more engaged (as in time spent on site) they are. Have a look at my quick segment from 1 page or more to 4 pages or more per visit – the time spent increases dramatically. And I think it is fair to included 1 page view visits at 0 seconds to dilute the metric when calling it “Avg. Time per Visit”. <br/><br/>Furthermore, it leaves me with the full dataset and if I want to exclude bounces I can segment them away later. I cannot ADD them in e.g. Google Analytics.<br/><br/><br/><i>>>The problem with the way that the GA calculation works is (I think, someone tell me if I am wrong) that what it is actually calculating is the minimum known avg time</i><br/><br/>I think it is difficult to put “minimum” and “average” in the same sentence :-) however; I <b>really</b> like your definition of “KNOWN” – that makes a lot of sense to me. So with your input we are now talking about: <br/><br/>- Visit Duration Average (not segmented)<br/>- Known Visit Duration Average (segmenting to exclude bounces) <br/><br/>Great reply Clint.. Thanks.<br/><br/>Dennis Hi Clint,

Thank you very much for your comment. Much appreciated.

I think my “problem” lies within

A) the combined definition and calculation (this including my IndexTools) and
B) pre-segmenting (as in removing 1 page view visits)

>>Interesting. So if Index Tools includes all visits (regardless of bounce status) in the calculation of Avg. Time per Visit and does not include time spent by bouncers, aren’t you essentially diluting the avg time metric?

YES! And I think we should; we being the WA industry and analysts in general. Simply because of the fair assumption that the more pages people visit the more engaged (as in time spent on site) they are. Have a look at my quick segment from 1 page or more to 4 pages or more per visit – the time spent increases dramatically. And I think it is fair to included 1 page view visits at 0 seconds to dilute the metric when calling it “Avg. Time per Visit”.

Furthermore, it leaves me with the full dataset and if I want to exclude bounces I can segment them away later. I cannot ADD them in e.g. Google Analytics.

>>The problem with the way that the GA calculation works is (I think, someone tell me if I am wrong) that what it is actually calculating is the minimum known avg time

I think it is difficult to put “minimum” and “average” in the same sentence :-) however; I really like your definition of “KNOWN” – that makes a lot of sense to me. So with your input we are now talking about:

- Visit Duration Average (not segmented)
- Known Visit Duration Average (segmenting to exclude bounces)

Great reply Clint.. Thanks.

Dennis

]]> By: Claire Stokoe http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-144 Claire Stokoe Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:52:00 +0000 http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-144 I was aware that the figures had altered due to the drop of bounce rates from the calculation, but seeing the actual calculation alongside the Index Tools sum, I can now appreciate the need for a re-think on Google’s part. <br/><br/>I do agree that the new avg time metric, makes a lot more sense, based more on that which is tangible rather than that which is probable. It will be whole lot easier explaining this to my clients, who am I’m sure would rather see a figure based on actual time on site as apposed to a (as Clint pointed out) a diluted figure mixing hypothetical average times into the equation. <br/><br/>Thanks Dennis, fantastically informative post I was aware that the figures had altered due to the drop of bounce rates from the calculation, but seeing the actual calculation alongside the Index Tools sum, I can now appreciate the need for a re-think on Google’s part.

I do agree that the new avg time metric, makes a lot more sense, based more on that which is tangible rather than that which is probable. It will be whole lot easier explaining this to my clients, who am I’m sure would rather see a figure based on actual time on site as apposed to a (as Clint pointed out) a diluted figure mixing hypothetical average times into the equation.

Thanks Dennis, fantastically informative post

]]> By: Clint http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-142 Clint Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:12:00 +0000 http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/avg-time-per-visit-standard-definition.html#comment-142 Interesting. So if Index Tools includes all visits (regardless of bounce status) in the calculation of Avg. Time per Visit and does not include time spent by bouncers, aren't you essentially diluting the avg time metric? In other words, you're making the assumption that bounces also spend 0 seconds on the site. I don't know if that's true...I suspect not.<br/>The advantage of the Google method (and others I am sure) is that it is working with known (as Ian Houston might say) values whereas the Index Tools calculation makes an assumption, which may or may not be true.<br/><br/>The problem with the way that the GA calculation works is (I think, someone tell me if I am wrong) that what it is actually calculating is the <i>minimum known</i> avg time. So we know that, on average, visitors spent a minimum of x minutes on the site. Interesting. So if Index Tools includes all visits (regardless of bounce status) in the calculation of Avg. Time per Visit and does not include time spent by bouncers, aren’t you essentially diluting the avg time metric? In other words, you’re making the assumption that bounces also spend 0 seconds on the site. I don’t know if that’s true…I suspect not.
The advantage of the Google method (and others I am sure) is that it is working with known (as Ian Houston might say) values whereas the Index Tools calculation makes an assumption, which may or may not be true.

The problem with the way that the GA calculation works is (I think, someone tell me if I am wrong) that what it is actually calculating is the minimum known avg time. So we know that, on average, visitors spent a minimum of x minutes on the site.

]]>