Yes and no. I thought the log said 130 accesses in a span of 2 days with windows. If you're accessing a page 130 times 65 times a day, there's little likelihood that you've got time for much else on another computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delsus
Oh, I saw 2 different ipad accesses from 2 different ip's per Alhanelem reply. They were also the closest to his actual post date and time. But this last one, obviously, it didn't happen. Well, log reading and data mining isn't an exact science yet.
ARR and Mac
Printable View
-
02-17-2013, 05:58 AMLaume
-
02-17-2013, 06:01 AMispano
Could also be from a different thread. 130 accesses in a few hours is actually easy to do depending on how the browser is configured, refresh habits, etc.
-
02-17-2013, 06:40 AMLaumeAs delsus pointed out, I only get a log when someone sees my signature. And I thought I limited to the ffxiv website. If you extrapolate initial erroneous number that a) he doesn't just read threads/pages I posted on. b) it takes at least 3~4 seconds to skim through a page. c) takes 5~15 seconds to actually post a reply. D) also considering the time range I thought the logs reflected, 130 refreshes can only be considered the minimum while the real number is probably 2~5 times that of an actual visit on the website. And the time on the website much longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ispano
But remember, I don't grep for a few hours. I grep for days. 130 (or so I thought) in 2 days. (meaning some entries in the morning and some in the evening and inbetween.) -
02-17-2013, 06:44 AMispano
This isn't the only thread you've posted in. People could have viewed many threads that you've posted in.
Some people have the tab/browser set to auto refresh.
I stand by my statement that that many, even more could be done in a matter of hours. I do it easily on a daily basis. -
02-17-2013, 06:54 AMLaumeRight, that's what I'm saying. The topic was what client they use and how often. Not which threads they posted in. Which means what threads the posted in doesn't matter. Which also means that the ratio of them viewing my avatar to viewing a page without my avatar is still 1:3~5. (well, probably more so, but I'm being conservative)Quote:
Originally Posted by ispano
I had thought of that, but with auto refresh, the numbers wouldn't be 130 spread unevenly through out the days, which is what the logs showed. It's still possible, but very unlikely so I hedged my bets on no auto refresh.Quote:
Originally Posted by ispano
-
02-17-2013, 06:55 AMDelsusI would be very careful with what you say, if the mods feel like you are holding anyone's information they can delete your sig or even ban you. I had a sig that told people what OS and browser they are using, and that got deleted by a mod for displaying people's personal information, if the mods think you are holding anything they can take action. IP addresses, browser info and OS info tells you where to aim a hack (IP address) and any potential back doors in software (browser and OS)Quote:
Originally Posted by Laume
Have a guess at which OS I posted this on. -
02-17-2013, 07:15 AMLaumeReally? Wow, didn't think they cared that much. Well, if they tell me not to divulge the data, I won't. But they can't tell me to host my signature somewhere else and expect me to not host it on my own webserver. Besides, if I really wanted to mess with you, I wouldn't need the signature to find you. It was just convenient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delsus
Well, now that you know I'm doing it, you can change the user agent string, go through a proxy or filter any web content that comes from my signature's server, etc. You did, after all, say something along the lines of only way I could get reliable data is if I was the controller of the square-enix domain or dns. (or something, I read it as I was running out the door. Which is completely false as domain registrars and dns servers, don't get direct traffic from the end user unless the dns server happens to be the one your computer is using.) But sure, this is kind of fun and you asked, so I'll take a stab at it. These are the only 2 requests I see around the time of this posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delsus
86.141.156.48 - - [16/Feb/2013:14:06:20 -0800] 200 27819 "http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/60337-ARR-and-Mac/page18" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729)"
70.161.97.230 - - [16/Feb/2013:14:10:44 -0800] 304 - "http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/60337-ARR-and-Mac/page18" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_2) AppleWebKit/537.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/24.0.1312.57 Safari/537.17"
Assuming you actually did view my signature. 86.141.156.48 is BT in europe. From your posts, you don't sound like you're in Europe so I'll rule out 86.141.156.48. Which means you're probably 70.161.97.230. Which is cox here in the US. Which means Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_2
Again, now that you know I'm doing it, none of this info is reliable. For all I know, both of these could be you. One through a proxy and one with the user agent string changed. -
02-17-2013, 07:21 AMDelsus
What makes you think I'm not in EU? Just wondering. (I will tell you if you are right after you answer.)
-
02-17-2013, 07:28 AMLaumeIt's just a guess. But UK and european english speakers tend to use grammar a little differently than US speakers. Of course, looking at your post times via http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/s...93&pp=0&page=3, I see that I can be completely wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delsus
Addition: Yep, completely wrong:
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...173#post910173
Also, unless you're a journalist, people in the US doesn't usually use the term "EU" -
02-17-2013, 07:30 AMDelsusHaha yeah you are wrong, I'm in UK, and you did spike me (I'm actually on my server 08 VM right now messing around with SQL)Quote:
Originally Posted by Laume