There are some other odd features about the document and the direction WAA is taking with standards. Most critical of all is a questionable, but critical, decision to allow you to define a page as anything you like. On Page 6 the WAA states:
"A page is an analyst definable unit of content... Certain technologies including (but not limited to) Flash, AJAX, media files, downloads, documents, and PDFs do not follow the typical page paradigm but may be definable as pages."
In other words, if you say it's a page, it's a page. Note that this is completely open-ended: the organization specifically states the list it provides is not exhaustive. It provides no criteria for us to use when making a decision about what constitutes a page. In other words, WAA has absolutely no standard for what constitutes a page. You can call anything you like a page.
This avoids the problems JICWEBS encountered as new technology kept appearing for which it had no definition. However, it creates the possibility of immense confusion when people try to compare metrics. Both sides will need to know what each defines as pages, and they will both need to ensure they are using the same definitions. In other words, before you can talk to someone else, you're going to have to define your own standards. It is hardly a step forward when a standard forces you to define your own standards before you can do anything!
This open definition also allows people to define pages very broadly in order to inflate their numbers, something endemic in the use of the JICWEBS standard. However, it is much worse under WAA. For example, AJAX technology offers a great opportunity for you to "push" the numbers and pretend it's legitimate. AJAX involves hidden frames containing hidden pages. JICWEBS dealt with frames by stating a page is all the things that go to make a single screen, no matter how it is put together. Under WAA, I can decide to count the hidden frame as a page, the hidden content as another page, and so on.
No doubt, some people reading this will think I am being silly, that I am seeking to deliberately mis-represent what is happening in the site. Unfortunately, not everyone is interested in creating an objective and accurate picture of what is going on. WAA has created a system that allows these people to twist their numbers, yet comply 100 percent with the standards.
This also allows software vendors to take completely different decisions as to how they process data. One vendor may count PDFs, but not Flash, while another counts Flash, but not PDFs. The purpose in having standards is to put everyone on the same footing. This gives us a common language, a common way of doing things, and enables us to work together. Having all the software vendors all count pages in the same way means you can switch suppliers without your data losing continuity. WAA has made things more confusing in this respect because everyone can now do their own thing while claiming to comply to the same standard.
Furthermore, when it comes to analysis, you may find that defining some things as a page may lead to the wrong conclusions. Personally, I would not be happy to count downloading a PDF as a page view. I would rather have a separate metric for downloads.
A lack of guidance for Flash is also dangerous. Flash applications that completely fill the screen are undoubtedly functioning as pages. Animated Flash banners, 40 x 120, are undoubtedly not. However, under this scheme I can count them all as pages if I wish. If I want to, I could even define large images as pages. What WAA has done here is allow a free-for-all: every time publishers try to sell you ad space in their sites, you're going to need to see a detailed list of the things they define as pages.
There is no doubt that the rapid evolution of the internet makes defining a page difficult. It is also true that any definition would become incomplete within a few years. However, that is no reason to avoid the issue. The Standards Committee is a permanent body, and therefore can always review and update its definitions. I think its decision to avoid defining pages has opened up the potential for confusion and dispute. I suspect the committee will eventually have to return to this issue and fix it.
The web analytics industry desperately needs standards. While the majority of this new standards document from WAA is exactly what we need, other parts are very poor work. The definition (or lack thereof) for the page is, in my view, a real step backwards, so we have to ask if the WAA is moving the web analytics industry forward. If its standards take one step forward and another step backwards, maybe we're just going around in circles.
Brandt Dainow is an independent web analytics consultant and the CEO of ThinkMetrics. Read full bio.