userTrack already supports this.
You can call UST.addTag('tag-value') to assign a tag to a user.
You can read more here: https://docs.usertrack.net/api/client-side-api.html#2-tag-visitors-dynamically
Is this what you were referring to?
This feature won't probably be implemented too soon but I will keep the ticket open.
The reason why this isn't implemented is because from the user experience point of view acessing your site as domain.com OR www.domain.com should lead to exactly the same content. This is the recommended way to server your website content and you should redirect the non-www version of your site to the www version.
So, by not implementing this "www" support userTrack "forces" the webmasters to follow the best-practices in order for it to work properly.
If by "normal work of product" you refer to your site then yes, userTrack does not alter your website in any way.
If you refer to userTrack, events can not be tracked from iFrames or Java applets as those elements do not propagate the mouse events to the containing website. So you will see the recordings correctly but no action done on those Java elements will be recorded.
I think you can force www. to be added by simply accessing your interface as www.site.com/userTrack instead of site.com/userTrack.
Send the number of visitors where, via e-mail?
I was thinking about implementing a monthly or weekly summary to be sent via e-mail, including some visitor and page statistics. Would you find that useful?
Do you mean on the main homepage statistics?
Initially userTrack was only a basic heatmap/session playback script. The statistics were added later, that's why they are a bit too simple. Improving the statistics is something planned, but currently the focus is on improving the heatmaps and session playbacks.
I don't think that completely excluding bot/fake visitors is a good idea. Sometimes they might not even be bots, but visitors that didn't wait for the page to completely load before leaving.
Now, having them on a separate tab/page might be useful. I think a better way might be to simply add a filter to the clients list to hide/show visitors with 0 data.
What do you think?
For userTrack v3 I decided to include a local database for IP geolocation in order to reducer 3rd party API calls and also be able to store the Country of the user in the database as soon as he’s saved into the DB, instead of getting the country only client-side.
Currently, only an IP2Location database is being used for retrieving the user Country and City. There have been no requests to implement a database for ISP detection, but I'm currently working on an export feature that will export the client list as a CSV file, from there you can use a service/program to also add the ISP provider.
Again, while this might be useful for you and a few others, this is not a priority and won't be added to userTrack anytime soon.
Thanks for your feedback!
Unfortunately, this is not that high on the priority list at the moment. The reason is that the browser limitation is only for the webmaster viewing the data, not for the visitors. userTrack might work perfectly in Firefox but currently I do not list it as supported as it has not been fully tested in other browsers except Chrome.
I am currently doing a big codebase re-write and, while doing so, I will also try to make sure that Firefox is also supported.
Thanks for your feedback!
This is something really hard to implement. What I can do is provide an option to give a link to a specific recording.
You could actually export is as an MP4 file by recording your screen while playing back the visit (using a software like https://www.screenr.com/)
The problem with this, considering the following two cases, is:
1) The user doesn't want to be recorded:
Everything is recorded locally until he pushes the button. If he pushes the opt-out button, nothing else is recorded and no data is being sent to server.
2) The user wants to be recorded:
Everything is recorded locally until... ? We don't know if data should be sent to the server to be stored or not, unless there is also an opt-in button. So, instead of the opt-out button there could be a question with a Yes/No answer. If no is selected, no data is sent to the server. If yes is selected data will be send.
The problem with this is that the user HAS to take a decision in order for data to be ever recorded, so this means the user has to take an extra action. This is not good or recommended for live websites, but this feature with opt-out might be useful for testing purposes (eg: you don't want to be tracked on your own website, you set a cookie to remember this and every time you enter on your website you will never be tracked).
How does that sound? What is your opinion?
Thank you for your feedback!