The following reports are taken from our beta test sites. The first shows a site with a good reception profile. IBM.
Here are your WRMS statistics for this period Numbers in brackets indicate the average for the last 5 periods, if available. http://www.ibm.com/ Average reception time for this page 22 (24) secs Fastest receptions were 1.3 (1.5) times faster than slowest receptions All page requests were completed OK this period For comparison, the averages for entire WRMS database this period are Fastest receptions were 2.5 times faster than slowest receptions 5% of page requests failed to complete
For each URL we show the average reception time and the ratio of fastest to slowest times. We include historical figures, in brackets, to show if your reception time is increasing or decreasing. The last five weeks are used for the historical comparison, or the number of weeks available if you have just joined the service. In this case the reception this week (22 sec) is an improvement over the historic average (24 sec).
The ratio of fastest to slowest time shows how erratic the reception times for this page are. This number is not very meaningful by itself. The things to look for are the comparison to historical results (smaller is better), and the comparison to our entire database. In this case, this weeks reception (1.3) is more consistent than normal (1.5). Compared to the average for all the sites we monitor (2.5), this site is noticeably more consistent than most.
We assume your reader's perception of how "good" your page reception is, will partly depends on how everyone else is doing. Because of this, we see our comparison to the entire database as a valuable feature. As the Web improves over time, you can check that your reception is keeping pace with the improving standard
If any of our attempts to receive your page failed, the percentage of failures is recorded. In this case, all reception attempts were successful. For our whole database, an average of 5% of page requests failed. A message is also generated if any attempts took over the 100 seconds we allow for a reception.
We would like to produce a more detailed analysis of connection failures. At present, the Netscape browser, which we use on our reception stations, does not allow this. We feel it important to use a real commercial browser on a standard desktop computer to generate our statistics. Hence we are limited by the capabilities of the leading browsers. We have requested improved error reporting from Netscape, and will await the next release of their product.
The message "insufficient responses for analysis this period" appears if not enough good accesses to your page were performed to get good statistics. The variation in reception times is quite high, so the report is suppressed if only a few observations are available. This message may indicate the URL you gave us is no longer valid.
Here is a report from a site with below average reception. We have modified the URL for this site, as we have not requested their permission to publish their results. (In the case of IBM, we obtained permission).
Here are your WRMS statistics for this period. Numbers in brackets indicate the average for the last 5 periods, if available. http://www.pacificsite.au/ Average reception time for this page 39 (37) secs Fastest receptions were 2.4 (2.6) times faster than slowest receptions 3 (1) % of page requests failed to complete For comparison, the averages for entire WRMS database this period are Fastest receptions were 2.5 times faster than slowest receptions 5% of page requests failed to complete
On this report, you see that reception this week is slightly slower than average, but slightly more consistent than the historical average. More page requests failed this week (3% as against 1%). Reception spread from this site was about average at 2.4 (versus 2.5 for the entire database). Not bad considering its in Australia.
These two sites also feature in our Reception History Charts examples.
Return to WRMS description.
Last updated 21st July 95 by td@timedancer.com.