[Battlemesh] Publishing results: call for help

[Benjamin Henrion]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:48 PM, nemesis <nemesis at ninux.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:15:38 +0800, Antonio Quartulli <a at unstable.cc> wrote:
>>
>> On 19/01/16 20:51, Saverio Proto wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The effort was not in vain, in less than a year (from august till today)
>>>> the
>>>> documentation was read by roughly 1000 people, which in total spent
>>>> something like 50 hours reading it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you mean that in average everyone of this 1000 people just spent 3
>>> minutes reading the documentation ?
>>>
>>> (50 * 60) / 1000 = 3
>>
>>
>> Maybe we need to know the variance before drawing any conclusion :)
>>
>> I like to think that many people spent way more time on the results,
>> while another portion only saw the first page and then walked away.
>>
>> Still it's 1000 people who hit this website.
>>
>> Federico, to avoid bad interpretations, it would be nice to exclude
>> people who opened the website and then closed it right away...basically
>> "hit & leave". Not sure you are using any analytics tools which allow
>> you to do that, but it would be helpful in order to get a more
>> meaningful feeling (but I am not sure we want to really do analytics on
>> doc.battlemesh.org).
>
>
> It seems it's not possible to do this with the free tool i'm using.
> But I'm willing to share the administration with whoever wants to take a
> look.
>
> I'll give you an example of a successful small nutrition business which has
> a blog which attracts roughly 400 unique visitors a day (12K+ each month).
> The average time spent on the website is 49 seconds.
>
> Without analyzing variance, you can easily understand that a lot of those
> people go there accidentally, spend a few seconds and then leave.
> For the battlemesh results instead, most of the people are really interested
> in reading the stuff; not many people accidentally look for "mesh network
> test under load", or keyphrases like that.
>
>> I think the whole point from Federico was that these result are
>> considered by somebody and this is really nice for everybody.
>
>
> Yes you got the point, which is: if people who know what they're looking for
> find something and they spend that amount of time reading it, it means the
> stuff is interesting, over time it will pay off, like a good investment.

What is important to learn from previous mistakes, like the TOS field
for QOS should be fixed in all the protocols tested (that should be an
easy one).

Second, I really hope for some more non-wifi 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz spectrum analyzer.

--
Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-3500762
"In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software
patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy.
Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of
software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent
court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their
favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or
democratically elected legislators."