The Telegraph's online news editor, Shane Richmond, rightly points to my overstatement in my posting below, At last - true figures for website audiences. In so doing, he gives a masterly exposition of the problems involved in measuring audiences for websites. He delineates the differences between "hits", "page impressions" (aka "page views") and "unique users" ("uniques"), and the difficulties they all present as measuring devices.
While agreeing that uniques do provide a better like-for-like comparison between websites he explains the various technical flaws which mean that they are "still not a 'true' picture of how many people are reading." I accept his argument therefore that the ABCe's decision to use them as the best measuring criterion will allow us to have a "truer" picture of web traffic rather than a "true" one.
