test please delete

[zeitghost]

Thank you kind Sir. But isn't it three in a row?

Nope.

On checking you got 148000 and 147000, HeliCraig got 146000

[zeitghost]

A very good age. Even if I do say so myself.... (although late 20's is much better!).

Late 30s is even better, more enthusiasm...

[zeitghost]

you were right!

[HeliCraig]

Late 30s is even better, more enthusiasm...

Would you be implying that you are a giant alien lizard in his late 30s? Or that lustee's in their late 30s have more enthusiasm? Or both?

[NickFitz]

Very best of luck with it. Let us know how you get on.......

Techy post for you over on the ASA thread, Scourer

[zeitghost]

Would you be implying that you are a giant alien lizard in his late 30s? Or that lustee's in their late 30s have more enthusiasm? Or both?

The latter... since I am a GAL of advanced years...

[BrilloPad]

Techy post for you over on the ASA thread, Scourer

thank you

But I must read the asa website again. You basically said that the 250k unique visitors was proveable by google. So why did the asa find against cuk?

[voodooflux]

But I must read the asa website again. You basically said that the 250k unique visitors was proveable by google. So why did the asa find against cuk?

Lack of independant auditing of the figures I think?

However, we also understood that the figures CUK referred to had not been independently audited and did not therefore ensure traffic claims adhered to industry agreed standards; we understood that, because they had not been audited, it was possible that CUK's figures could include double counting and could report invalid traffic due to spiders, robots, or internal usage. We understood that figures could be audited by ABCe, the industry owned auditor, which audited systems and data to standards defined by the Joint Industry Committee for Web Standards in the UK and Ireland (JICWEBS). We understood that the software used by CUK could deliver unique user figures to JICWEBS Industry agreed standards if it was correctly implemented. However, we understood that, because the figures had not been audited, it was not possible to know if the software had been correctly implemented. We considered that, because of those problems in the measuring of the data, the evidence CUK had sent was not sufficiently robust to substantiate their unique visitor claims. Because we had not seen robust evidence of the number of unique visitors to CUK's website, we also considered that the claim "The UK's most visited IT Contractor Site" had not been substantiated.

[BrilloPad]

Lack of independant auditing of the figures I think?

yes. unless you get in a load of pen pushers for vast amounts of money then figures dont count.

Way of the world these days....

[cailin maith]

I need a wee!