I appreciate the comment and am glad to know you’re reading the blog!

In terms of time lines … I suppose this is just the risk you run with an almost-all volunteer organization. To me three years to produce the current document seems like kind of a long time but hopefully things will speed up now that the document is live!

Thanks again!

Just because you can change the time window in Visual Sciences doesn’t mean the time dimension of the metric goes away–it’s just more dynamic than in other packages.

Three years ago, when Jason Burby and I were appointed Co-Chairs of the WAA Standards Committee (Angie took over my place when I joined Burton Group and had to resign so I wouldn’t be using my industry analyst position to influence standards), we talked through these very issues and I was very much for not trying to boil the ocean.

We wanted to start off with the foundation–the metrics–and then build on that. In fact, that “build from the ground up” vision was where I came up with the count and ratio framework. To quote from an e-mail I sent to Bryan Eisenberg on September 9, 2004, “There is a method to the madness. The reason for introducing the counts and ratios framework was to imply a methodology of moving from defining the numerator and denominator used in a ratio, and then the ratio itself. Too many times, I have seen people rhapsodize over a KPI ratio that is built using undefined counts — they get all consumed by the formula calculation, and never think to ask, do we trust the numbers this ratio is built on?”

This incremental strategy was the same for gaining adoption of the metrics. The vision was to put a stake in the ground on the metrics and then start certifying the vendors’ compliance. We couldn’t measure compliance until we had the definitions.

Furthermore, the idea was not to remove each vendor’s “secret sauce,” but rather (for example) to put an asterisk next to every metric that was WAA compliant. A vendor could mix the WAA metrics in with their own, or have a report view that was WAA only. How they implemented the UI would be up to them, but a client would at some point be able to look at a WAA-compliant metric from Omniture, look at the same WAA-compliant metric in WebTrends, and see the same number.

The standards problem here is similar to what companies are discovering in taxonomies at the moment–that it’s a mistake to homogenize everything, because then you take away the value that departments and disciplines get from using their own unique terms. At the same time, there must be some kind of universally understood language, because otherwise no one can communicate with anyone outside their department. Therefore, you need some kind of yin and yang thing, where basic terms are universally understood but where there is tolerance of unique terms as well.

I also expected that the certification process would end up refining the terms as well, as vendors would point out issues that would require the definitions to be tweaked.

So perhaps the process isn’t going as quickly as you wish, but it’s certainly in line with the longterm goal we started out with.

So Eric you’ll probably be the only one reading this.
;-)

I think your matrix idea is the right thing at the right time. It will get the ball rolling and gradually catch vendors’ attention.

I agree with Steve that it is probably the small vendors that will adopt first using the matrix as a marketing tool.

Given time (and development cycles) vendors will adapt and adopt but only if we (clients, practitioners, WAA) keep the pressure.

I will be more than glad to help with the European vendors (especially the ones present in the UK). So keep me informed (you have my email address).

Michael

I’ve been too busy to respond since reading this post earlier in the week, and am limited for time again today, but I wanted to say “right on” and “good thinking.”

The real power of these standards will only come if consumers (i.e. users who buy web analytics products) demand adherence from vendors.

That’s why I recommend in my blog that the WAA start auditing and certifying vendors for compliance (like the IAB) within their interfaces and documentation (not core code).

In the meantime, the WAA should create and publish a compliance score (from 0-100%) for ranking vendor products. The score could be based off the matrix you suggest.

I’d be glad to help with the matrix too. ;)

Judah

I do agree. But it helps to have goals.
World Domination here we come! ;-)

More seriously, if the vendors at least see where we’re all trying to head, then perhaps the move will simply happen organically, no enforcement needed.
I could see the low end tools use standards compliance as a marketing plug - that happens all over.
Gradually that bubbles up into the big end of town such that no-one can avoid it.

Again with the analogies, that’s exactly how IP succeeded. vs Decnet, IPX, NetBEUI, SNA, X.25 etc etc etc. And to a certain extent we’re seeing the same thing (again, and again) with HTML.

And as you pointed out in the posting - we haven’t touched on the web2.0 stuff. So plenty of room for growth and continuous improvement.

Going back to an older posting as it touches here - the cookie deletion stuff. If several high end products using the *same* collection technology can’t even get close to agreeing on the critical numbers? Are we perhaps barking up the wrong trees (forest?) by worrying about cookie deletion rates, or Panel accuracy, or (my personal bugbear) Javascript vs Logs, or or or. :-)

THIS is where we appear to really need a standard, but I suspect we’re a long way from even sitting down to draw it up. Need to crawl before we can run. :-)

BTW Jacques? It’s “metre” not “meter”.
Boom. Boom. QED. Etc. :-)
Cheers!