Talk:Real user monitoring

General Comments

Ok, that's not anywhere near as vendor POV. I used to work for a company OTHER than the one spamming there so I know it's not a protologism. That should be sufficiently clean to warrant an encyclopedia article. •Elomis• 08:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok fair enough - it does need sources though --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Redesign

This entire page is in need of a major cleanup or deletion. I'm proposing drastic cleanup steps here, and unless anyone objects I'm going to start to put these ideas into the page immediately (after a few weeks if no one comments).

I'm going to start with a new 'format' to the page, and layout like the article on Olap. Olap is a much older field though with well published books. Because of this the initial collection of data will be taken directly from Google searches & vendors sites, and common ideas mixed together into a common article. Of course I'll cite these from as many non-vendor sources as possible, and replace information with non-vendor info when possible in the future.

I will also be re-adding the list of vendors, particularly because the vendors will be acting as the primary source of this information. Any Vendor mentioned in an article using a few quick searches will be included & any that show up in a Google search for both "real user monitor" and "real user monitoring". Others may be added in the future. Unlike the Olap article we cannot organize the vendors based on revenue, as many are privately held and the larger ones (from what I can see) have not published how much incoming revenue is due to "real user monitoring" products. To be as fair as possible We'll put them into table format in alphabetical order including revenue and major features (where they can be found in publications).

In response to the below about RUM being oriented towards website monitoring, this appears to be the only field which has adopted RUM to describe its product lineups. For now I will not break this article into sections, and will assume all information to be HTTP specific unless I find, or someone can show a vendor that is using the RUM term to describe more than "website monitoring" - I have not found any yet, but the search was non-exhaustive. The article can be changed later, for now lets just get clean information on the HTTP aspect of RUM.

Disclaimer: I work for a company that is directly related to RUM in multiple ways. Although I am not willing to discuss which vendor this is I will be making it a point to stay as vendor agnostic as possible. I encourage anyone and everyone to actively point out, of fix, any vendor bias I may introduce due to knowledge that leans in a particular direction due to my exposure. Working for a vendor I would rather see a clean article on RUM than this mess be deleted and none at all, even if this means driving a sale (or more) towards a competitor where the client may not have otherwise heard of RUM. --Nalichu 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues

First, the article assumes that RUM applies to website monitoring. Technically, this is not quite correct. In fact the RUM products tend to follow a similar architectural approach -- they "ghost" packets from a switch that routes packets between the site users and the site. Often there is a load balancer between the switch and the web sites -- so in fact a RUM system might monitor packets for multiple sites. From the packets, they can assemble user "page" and "session" information. But they don't actually monitor a website itself, per se.

Second, someone User:AbsolutDan? removed the RUM products section. I think this is a mistake, and that a set of typical products should be included. Compuware, HP, even TeaLeaf are likely vendor choices for that section. I don't think it is "spam" to include the links to major vendors for products that provide the capabilities of the article. SunSw0rd 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow up -- I reinserted the RUM products section, and provided a representative list. SunSw0rd 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

- Comment: Based on your editing history you show bias in this article. You also missed at least two other major vendors based on customer count & install base.

Care to explain your "bias" comment? I think I have edited this article exactly -- once. Feel free to add the other vendors. Also, please sign your name when you post a comment. SunSw0rd 14:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re "In some limited cases it also uses Javascript or injected into a page or native code within applications to provide feedback from the browser or client." Describing this usage as "limited" is misleading because the world is rapidly changing. W3C's PerformanceTiming interface is now used extensively by being "injected into a page ... to provide feedback from the browser". To describe this form of RUM as "limited" is just plain wrong.

174.92.82.240 (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

References

External Links

This area of the page has grown, been deleted entirely, had links added back, been deleted again. As I see it, a short list of the major vendor tools would be useful. Unfortunately, "wikipedia is not a directory" is interpreted by some as reason to eliminate all tool lists -- from any page that has them. I do not agree with that interpretation, since from a wikipedia user perspective, if I come to an article I very well might be interested in the major vendor tools if that topic is technology related. And for example, go look at Snowblower -- there is a long list of manufacturers as well as external links to some of those manufacturers. Wikipedia is full of examples like this.

On the other hand, there are some small vendors who seem to want to use such lists as a way of drumming up business. I don't see this as spam -- in fact it is not spam at all in the way spam has traditionally been defined -- but I also don't see the need for wikipedia to host yitloads of links to multiple small vendors.

So I would like this topic to be discussed here. In the meantime I am reverting the last external link. SunSw0rd 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A short list of notable products (ie: those that already notable enough to have a wikipedia article about them) seems reasonable. If those products are not notable enough to support their own article, then it's probably not worthy of being listed anyways. -- Bovineone 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)