| 12:13 am on Oct 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
What data do you have (i.e. where is that link - which is 404 - coming from)?
Is it a referrer? If so, I'm guessing that someone linked to your site in a prezi presentation, and a user clicked on it, but it may have been a temp or incomplete URL? Not really sure.
| 12:37 am on Oct 6, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Unfortunately, I have no further data than what I posted. I did not see an entry in my raw logs for the prezi hit. My server returned a 200 response not 404.
My wife is an architect and she brought prezi to the attention of the chief 3D modeling architect in her firm. He did not know about it. Apparantly, prezi is a program similar to what he now uses called Revit which interfaces with a program called Autocad. Prezi appears to offer superior features to Revit particularly its ability to "fly-through" a 3D model of a structure. It offers features not available in Powerpoint.
He believes that someone using prezi probably used a photograph from my site.
If I understood correctly, prezi works either free or paid through their cloud service. Maybe that is why I did not get further data on the hit in my raw logs.
| 4:05 pm on Oct 6, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Sure, it could be an image. But you still didn't say *how* you got the info that prezi is visiting your site. If it's not from your logs, where is it from?
| 4:50 pm on Oct 6, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|My server returned a 200 response not 404. |
He meant the link you posted, which probably requires some pre-existing cookies to resolve. We're not just advertising are we?
| 10:44 pm on Oct 6, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps, another case of my misunderstanding of language used on WebmasterWorld.
By raw logs I mean the IP, date, file requested, referrer and UA (if either is revealed) that is presented to me in a large text file. As a line after line of alphanumeric data, it is easy for me to miss a particular hit to my site.
My hosting company processes this text file through a program called Wusage 8.0 that produces a statiscal aggregation of data of hits in a variety of ways. I get pie charts of hits by TLD, for example. This is where I got the URL of the prezi hit that I posted.
No advertising meant or inferred. Just curious of what prezi was up to as a search of WebmasterWorld did not reveal any prior info on prezi.
| 4:40 am on Oct 8, 2012 (gmt 0)|
And by "hits" you mean the referrer?
So then a link to your site, a hotlinked image, anything could have resulted in prezi showing up. Without the log data, though, you don't know what the target was, so it's all just going to be guessing.
But prezzi isn't "visiting" your site. That would imply that prezi is running a crawler and in that case prezi would be the UA, not the referrer. So prezi is *linking* to your site, not *visiting* your site.
| 7:44 am on Nov 8, 2012 (gmt 0)|
| 5:02 am on Dec 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
:: bump ::
Here is what it looks like in raw logs.
72.237.248.ddd - - [17/Dec/2012:08:19:25 -0800] "GET /hovercraft/images/costofliving.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 2341 "http://prezi.com/bin/loader-30483.swf/[[DYNAMIC]]/1" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)"
I think it's the same thing the OP got-- not someone following a link, but the original presenter hotlinking an image. Leading them straight to, mwa ha ha, my lurid "no hotlinks!" png. I can just hear the oops! Preferably in front of a roomful of eleven-year-olds, since the IP appears to belong to a school. Good lesson there, folks. Why didn't they (a) ask permission or (b) simply steal the picture? Or at least (c) test the presentation ahead of time, which would have revealed that one image was not as expected?
Cursory research led me to:
|If you want to search the Internet for a picture, you can do it directly from Prezi without having to open a separate browser window or tab. Simply fill your search terms into the search bar that appears after you select 'From Google Images...'. |
Prezi seriously recommends selecting the check box that filters out all images that are not licensed for commercial use.
Note the "seriously recommends". There's even an illustration showing where the checkbox is. But it is a checkbox and you do have the option of not checking it.