I use hitbox and Webalizer they both always say something differant. Webalizer always says i have more hits than what hitbox.com says which one would you think is more correct?

personal site I use http://www.thecounter.com it is a counter and site stats

I usually recommend people use web site logs instead of HTML-based logging mechanisms. Apache does a good job logging activity on the site and there are many good log analysis packages available, such as WebTrends, HTTP-Analyze, and Wusage.

Best regards,
Frank Rietta

Webalizer pulls its info from the server logs (and I agree with Frank), so this would probably be more accurate than hitbox. Hitbox relies on the image to download and if this doesn't happen for any reason, the count is going to be off.

Remote site loggers are known to drop A LOT of traffic. The will never be accurate unless you pay for them. A combinaison of a log analyzer (I like webalizer) and a remote analyzer can give you complete information about your traffic.

That's because Javascript can tell you stuff that your logs can't (what modules are installed, is javascript / cookies / flash, etc supported)

Fast Stats it does an excellent job of parsing the server log files even reads them zipped


http://mach5.com/products/faststats/index.html

its 99$ shareware 30 day trial

Wusage 7.0

I haven't had the opportunity to try other alternatives so I don't know how it compares.

I personally use the extreme-dm trackers... but recently i've seen a much better one.

http://www.superstats.com - I haven't tried it out yet, but it looks goooood.

Thanks :D

SiteStatz.com is pretty good too. :)

But I prefer TheCounter.Com.