Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

piwik server side tracking #9962

Closed
masteranalyze opened this issue Mar 24, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

piwik server side tracking #9962

masteranalyze opened this issue Mar 24, 2016 · 3 comments
Labels
duplicate For issues that already existed in our issue tracker and were reported previously.

Comments

@masteranalyze
Copy link

Hi guys,

When you add website in piwik open source,it gives you that javascript code that you have to put into your website or cms,or whatever.

What about server side tracking on the domain without no javascript,how that can be done?I`m reffering to an simple method,so the people can decide if they want to use javascript or if they want to use server side tracking.

For the future in version 3,maybe its possible an hybrid system,were piwik does work with the javascript but also on the server side,and things missing from server side tracking like : screen resolutions, browser plugins,can be matched between Ips.For more accurate stats.

As cpanel/whm haves over 80% market share and most hosters are using that,maybe an plugin i`m thinking for cpanel for piwik,something maybe like awstats but more good,can be done,and piwik can be adopted easily by hosters that way. - this will increase the usage of piwik and the number of people using it.

@hpvd
Copy link

hpvd commented Mar 26, 2016

maybe this goes also in same direction:
"Make usage of log analytics easier / acessible by more users" #9711

@masteranalyze
Copy link
Author

hi @hpvd

Yes exactly,that is exactly what i mean,what is writed by you in 9711.

This should be user accesible and easy to do,the same as with javascript.That is the main ideea,in order to be able to be used.

This 2 should be merged into 1.

@tsteur
Copy link
Member

tsteur commented Mar 29, 2016

This might be also related to #9665

Closing this one as a duplicate.

@tsteur tsteur closed this as completed Mar 29, 2016
@tsteur tsteur added the duplicate For issues that already existed in our issue tracker and were reported previously. label Mar 29, 2016
@tsteur tsteur modified the milestone: 2.16.1 Mar 29, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
duplicate For issues that already existed in our issue tracker and were reported previously.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants