I am building a website that sells tickets and for various reasons I cannot use WixEvents. I would like to set a counter and have it incremented every time a user hits the select button.
Been trying to do this with collections but just can't seem to find the right reference.
I have also looked at repeaters but I'm struggling with finding the right syntax.
Any help would be appreciated.
The click of the button sends them to a hosted payment page so while it certainly wouldn’t be exact it would be close enough to track the number of tickets sold.
Unfortunately the HPP doesn’t return a success/failure so there’s no way to get an exact count from the web page.
Related
Not sure if this is even possible - but we are looking for a way to trigger mailchimp newsletters based on a custom field value in a Wordpress website.
Basically we will have a field value that holds "the number of miles" a person has walked based on the data they enter. We will be calculating the "total miles".....when they reach 100 miles for example we will need an email to trigger from Mailchimp....then 200 miles will trigger a 2nd email and so on....
Does anyone know if this can even be done with Mailchimp? If not is there a better approach to handling this?
THANK YOU!
If you are familiar with Python, I'd recommend using a Jupyter notebook for this to cut down on development work. You could set it to run at regular intervals checking the status of each user (running either on your computer or a server), then updating the merge tag of the status in mailchimp. You can have automations that are triggered when the merge tag of distance is a specific value, say 100 they get the 100 email, 200 they get the 200 email. (You could also do it so when a user hits a certain milestone their merge tag is updated in MailChimp but from my experience that's a little more work.)
Net net there are a few ways to achieve your goal but I think using a Python notebook using pandas to manipulate the data and the mailchimp3 mailchimp API client would be the lightest lift.
TIP: Mailchimp currently has a bug where merge tags information is not always accurately represented in the UI. So for example if via the API you added 500 people with the Distance merge value of 200, and checked that via the UI how many people had a value of 200 for Distance you would likely see an inaccurate number displayed for the count in the UI. If you export the list, you will see the correct number that is reflected in your API update. To be clear, in some cases UI does not display the accurate number for users with that merge tag or value, but if you export the list with that merge tag/value via the UI it should match what you pushed to the API. This is currently an open ticket.
Having an emergency situation. Currently on my site I have some customers that are being charged multiple times for the same order. The payment gateway is Authorize.Net and the store front platform is Magento Enterprise. What could be causing this? Bad code, server error, etc? This has never happened before and totally random. If this isn’t enough info to help please let me know.
It's a coding issue but trying to spot the code will be difficult in a site like this. A developer will need to go through and review the entire checkout code to look for potential errors.
The best course of action is to look to see how far apart the transactions are. If they are very close together (i.e. a few minutes or less) you can try to fix this by setting the duplicate transaction window to a value large enough to block the duplicates from happening. In other words, if the duplicate transactions are happening within 60 seconds of each other, update the Authorize.Net code to set x_duplicate_window to a value of 180 (this value is seconds). That should prevent the duplicate orders from happening.
I have been trying to research the hack proposed by Avinash Kaushik in his book Web Analytics 2.0. He poses the problem whereby most web analytics tools are unable to record the time a user spent on the last page they visit on a website, or on the only page they visit. In other words if user comes to page 1, a timestamp is created showing the time they arrived at the page, when they visit page 2, a second timestamp is created. The time spent on page 1 can be calculated by timestamp 2 - timestamp 1. However if the user closes the browser window or navigates away from the website there is no way to record time on page 2. Here is a link to this problem on Kaushik.net
standard-metrics-revisited-time-on-page-and-time-on-site
One proposed hack is to use the window.onbeforeunload event to call a method and push the time that the page was unloaded to google analytics. So I tried the following code -
window.onbeforeunload = capturePageExit;
function capturePageExit()
{
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview', '/page-exit?page=' + document.location.pathname + document.location.search + '&from=' + document.referrer]);
return("You are about to close this page");
}
Using firebug I can see that the correct __utm.gif image is requested and the correct params are sent to google analytics. But clearly there is a problem now that this will be called on each page unload and so each visitor will appear to go from page1 -> page-exit -> page2 -> page-exit -> page3 -> page-exit... but I should get a more accurate time on site reading, right?
However this is at the expense of accurate navigation-summary data and so not a good solution. What would be good is if I could tell - if user has clicked the close browser/tab button or is navigating away from my site then record the page-exit.
I cant find a great deal of information about how to solve this problem, plenty of discussion about being aware of this inaccuracy when interpreting google analytics (and most web analytics tools probably), another useful link is time_on_page_and_time_on_site_how_confident_are_you
Just wanted to raise this on stackoverflow as I cant find a similar question and start a discussion about this, but my interpretation is that there isnt really a way around this problem but it is just better to be aware of it.
any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------ UPDATE -----------------------------------------------------
Here is another link that was suggested to me from a blog called Savio.no, is this a good method?
how-to-measure-true-time-with-google-analytics
Web Analytics is not an exact science. Data is always approximate and most of the time sampled.
Web Analytics tools strive for Precision not accuracy. This whitepaper describes why it's more important to have precision and less important to have accuracy when working with Web Analytics.
Once you understand the difference between precision and accuracy and why it matters you will understand that it's not important to get the exact time on site metric, but a precise measure that could clearly express trendings or changes to that metric.
On other words forget about absolute numbers, learn to report using trends and changes.
Another advice, don't bother tweaking GA to render every single metric perfectly if you're never gonna use it. Bother with metrics that you can use. And by use I mean Actionable analysis.
There are, however a few cases were some code tweaking can help you out measuring the time on site. A clear example is a weblog. You may want to implement something like that in a weblog, ince most of your visits will be looking at your homepage, reading your posts and then leaving, all that is done in the same single PageView so it may be a good idea to fire an event when the user leaves to get the correct time on site, or maybe fire an event when the user scrolls past some threshold, in the end you'll be measuring the same ting, if the user scrolls more he reads more, and if the user spends more time then he reads more. So it may not make sense to track those 2 metrics to measure the same effect. Just choose one and stick with it, leave it running for a while to create historical data and then make use of it.
I frequently visit a certain page on the web to view the hit-counter, but my visit is counted every time and it's inflating the number of actual hits. Is there a way to visit the page without adding another hit to the hit counter?
In this case, the hit counter implementation is broken. Hits should only be counted by unique users usually. Otherwise any goon could set a reload bot and blow out the numbers on the counter. A real counting solution is going to be using something like the analytics API from google (or other analytics implementations) which will give you dashboard access to the real visibility of the site.
There is no perfect way to solve it. But a pretty good approach is setting cookies on visitor's browser. Then, keep counting only if that cookie did not visit your page yet. The biggest problem with this approach is that keeping track of every single visitor on your page could potentially lead you to a huge database.
if you want implement the hit counter yourself then what you can do is use 'sessions' and only increment hit counter when the session isn't present in the server with existing ip. but i don't think there is a way for you to control hit counter on someone else's website.
Try to add your IP to hit counter and block it in the code or you can use an javascript disable plugin .. web developer plugin for FF and chrome does that too.
I'm interested in finding out why this is used on some Web sites for processing user-initiated search submissions, how it affects the request and response flow, and programmatically why it would be necessary (or beneficial). In an MVC framework it seems difficult to execute since you are injecting another page into the middle of the flow.
EDIT:
Not advertising related. For instance, most travel sites used to do this, and there were no ads... some banking sites do it too, where there is just a loader that says something like "Please wait while we process your transaction...".
It is often used in long running requests to prevent the web server from timing out the request. With an interstitial page, you are able to continuously refresh the page until you get results back.
EDIT:
Also, for long running requests, it is beneficial to have a "Loading.." page in order to show the user that something is happening. Without the interstitial page, the request can appear to have hung up if it takes too long.
To supplement what HVS said, interstitials which appear before, say a homepage loads, are very much there for the purpose of advertising, we've all seen the 'close this ad' link.
One instance where they can be helpful from a user experience point of view is when a user initiates an action which requires feedback from a process which may take some time to respond - either because it's slow, busy or just has a lot of processing to do.
Think of a site where you book a flight online for example. You often get an interstitial on hitting 'find flights' because the the system is having to go off and ask for all relevant flight information and then sort them for you before displaying them on your screen. If this round-trip of 'request, interrogate, return, display' is likely to take an amount of time beyond that which a normal webpage transitions from one to the next, a UXDesigner may consider an interstitial screen (or message) to let the user know something is happening whilst at the same time allowing the system the time it needs to complete the request. Any screen with this sort of face-time is going to get the attention of your marketing department from a 'well while we've got them we might as well show them something' point of view.
As a UX Designer myself interstitials like this are not always preferred as I'd love every system to return data immediately but if it can't for whatever reason, I'm very much for keeping the user in the loop as much as possible about what is happening - rather than leaving them to stare at the browser status bar until they either try again or get fed up and leave.
One final point when considering this is also to have a lower and upper time limit on a screen like this. If you need to show an interstitial, show it for long enough so people can read it and understand it but not too long that they get fed up of waiting. As a rough guide, leave it open for at least 3-4 seconds (even if the process averages 4 seconds but has finished after 1 on this occasion). Between 4 and 10 seconds check every second to see if the process has responded (and then take the user to the next page f it has) and after 10 seconds seriously consider telling the user to either try again or telling them you've failed (whilst at the same time getting your tech team to fix what is ultimately a problem which will affect your bottom line).
I believe the vast majority of interstitial pages are there to run advertising.