Questionable ICANN statistics

[Michael Oghia]

I agree, this is really concerning. If you all agree that it merits further
investigation, perhaps the NCSG should submit an official statement (to
Goran and staff).

Best,
-Michael

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:03 PM, dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is serious as this kind of data generation/analytics should be
> managed by not very complicated software. It will be very interesting to
> find out why this is not working.
> best
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:34 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Send a note to Goran
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 02:09, Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM
>> <icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>
>> See this email exchange
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atlarge-review-wp/2017-February/000374.html>.
>> ICANN staff claimed a public document on the ICANN website had been
>> downloaded zero times since it was uploaded. A member of the At-Large
>> community corrected the record, noting that they had downloaded that file
>> several times. I too had downloaded it. So it seems we should be very
>> careful taking ICANN at its word when it comes to statistics. I cannot help
>> but think back to last week at the Intersessional when the SVP Contractual
>> Compliance and Consumer Safeguards spoke about how the Compliance pages
>> were the most visited on the ICANN website. I hate to be so cynical, but
>> maybe the analytics function just doesn't work — like much of the ICANN
>> website?
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170223/ee9adf72/attachment.htm>