@james would be the best person to answer your question. We have spoken about stats on Slack, though I am sure by now they have been 10k’d.
From the usage statistics point of view, I personally would love to know what impact being on Installatron will have on the overall sites using ClassicPress. Though for accuracy that will probably only be useful to look at in 6-8 months to see if those sites stay around long term.
I don’t think those results are accurate. It says only one Australian site, and that one isn’t mine. I currently have 18 running ClassicPress.
I haven’t run the active sites numbers in a while, and this needs to be automated. However I can tell you those numbers from BuiltWith are way too low - we should have several thousand active sites by now.
I’m personally running more than 5 sites in the UK, so I’d say their stats are complete BS.
Ditto.
It also states only 3 live sites in the Netherlands, but were running at least 50.
Who’s the right person to contact them and point this out?
We might know what’s what, but inaccurate numbers have an uncanny way of sticking around.
Probably marketing? So @BlueSkyPhoenix ?
I also tried checking our own site with Builtwith and it didn’t even recognize it was ClassicPress
Thinking about that a little more, to be fair, we’ve not made it easy to tell the difference; possible, but not easy.
That’s a good thing for compatibility, but perhaps we should add something somewhere that says “ClassicPress”?
After a bit more a dive, it seems that it only registers sites that still have the “Proudly powered by ClassicPress” in their footer.
Mine are recognized as WP 4.9.
That can be very interesting.
Simone.
I can see what I’m going to be doing for the next 30 minutes then… 
Dang. The credits.
Could we just have our own line instead of using the very boring one borrowed from WP? Please…
That seems a pretty dumb way for BuiltWith to gather statistics. No professional or business site likes to have something like that in their footer - they only want info relevant to their business. And no custom theme developer would add something like that just to aid statistics.
There must be a better way - or isn’t there?
I didn’t know how they determined this, but I wouldn’t have guessed that this was the way. Like @anon95694377 said, it seems like a dumb/unreliable way to go about it.
I’ve reached out to them via their contact form to see if they would give me any helpful information. I’ll let you know if/when they respond.
Thanks!
Yes, there is…
<meta name="generator" content="WordPress 4.9.12 (compatible; ClassicPress 1.1.1)">
Version/CMS detection tools should be using this tag to detect ClassicPress. It’s structured the way it is for backwards compatibility (early on, we ran into some problems with tools detecting things like “insecure site running WordPress 1.x”).
Site owners can remove this tag using a filter if desired. This means they want to opt out of detection which is also fine. This is the same situation present with WordPress.
tl;dr We don’t need to make any further changes in order to enable this detection.
The generator string is also added to the RSS feed - that is, its located INSIDE the feed content, ie. the XML code:
<generator>https://www.classicpress.net/?v=4.9.12-cp-1.1.1</generator>
Seen that just today, when I was working on adding the feed of my blog to my portfolio site (and ran into fun with CORS).
cu, w0lf.
Agreed. I always remove.
<meta name="generator" content="WordPress 4.9.12 (compatible; ClassicPress 1.1.1)">
Interesting re these automated results for classicpress.net itselt:
Note: https://whatcms.org/?s=www.classicpress.net
https://w3techs.com/sites/info/classicpress.net
Will test Wappalyzer later but assume the results are the same.
So far, I’m finding that only manual can display that it is ClassicPress. Bummer.
This is true, except that it clearly isn’t doing the job.
If that’s true, we could add the blurb in a comment by the meta tag and in theory that should solve the problem.
It’s either that or try to persuade these kinds of sites to update their parsers.