Google Analytics

[Stecyk]

Hi,

I am curiuos what everyone thinks about Google Analytics: http://www.google.com/analytics/

I don't have any thoughts as yet, except that those companies providing stats are in trouble.

Best regards,
Kevin

[Wassercrats]

Looks like just another stats program, except that it's "the only product that can automatically provide AdWords ROI metrics, without you having to import cost data or add tracking information to keywords" but I don't know what that is and I don't use AdWords. It looks like it doesn't include anything on IP addresses. Maybe I'll try it because I'll be thinking about using AdWords eventually, and I intend to use AdSense, and I'd like another opinion on my unique visitors.

Anyone know whether their server has caused major slow downs to people's webpages, or how the unique visitors count compares to AWstats or other stats software?

[Jeff]

I take it this is remotely hosted (so you have to insert an extra call to the google stats server on every page load?)

[Randall]

I've got it set up on my non-FQ site, which actually gets measurable traffic. At the moment, all we have is a WebTrends report that keeps a running total since it was set up by our host in March 2003...

Says the first report will be generated in 12 hours, so tomorrow morning I'll know how many people stayed up all night visiting our web site. :winky:

Randall

[Wassercrats]

I take it this is remotely hosted (so you have to insert an extra call to the google stats server on every page load?)Yes (http://www.google.com/analytics/feature_fast.html).

[bobba]

We spend a small fortune on our custom stats software, and already the boss has asked if this service by Google will do the job for us.

I can’t see it ever replacing a custom stats package, I’m not talking about the webtrends rubbish that’s about but the real professional stuff.

I wonder though if Google analytics will become the industry standard for counting traffic, especially for rate cards etc.

What do you think?


I’ve just signed up to test 2 of my sites to see what its like, it might be good to keep a post going so we can all see what everyone thinks the figures are like.

[bigjossey]

I can’t see it ever replacing a custom stats package, I’m not talking about the webtrends rubbish that’s about but the real professional stuff.


What is real professional stuff?

[Randall]

It's been about 12.5 hours now, but my status hasn't changed. Waiting for Data
Analytics has been successfully installed and data is being gathered now. Your first reports will be ready within twelve hours. Anyone seeing results yet?

Randall

[Andilinks]

If it catches on (and there have been a few G flops) it definitely will become the industry standard. They've owned Urchin for some months now so they should have it right. I've just been too busy/lazy to do anything but log on, but I'll get it started today.

Andi

[Andilinks]

What is real professional stuff?There are packages that sell for more than $1000, and big ecommerce companies can easily spend hundreds of thousands on analytics and have an in-house staff to run it, I don't think the free version will replace that. But I'll bet G has packages that can, it's a big business.

[Stecyk]

Yeah, so far, I haven't logged any hits, mind you it's just been 12 hours or so.

Google's Urhin used to cost $200/month, so they are releasing a fairly sophisticated package for free.

I think I saw reference to IP addresses in one of the messages above. I have filtered my IP address, so I should be safe there.

My suspicion is that G has been swamped with users. So let's see what the next few days bring.

[bigjossey]

I haven't seen any results. It turned out that I had installed it in the wrong place. It must be in the head after the meta tags. I wonder if it also needs to be after the style link

[Randall]

I haven't seen any results. It turned out that I had installed it in the wrong place. It must be in the head after the meta tags. I wonder if it also needs to be after the style link That's where I put it, and still nothing to report. I think Google overload is the likeliest scenario, so we'll just have to be patient (I want it now now now now now!) and wait for them to catch up.

Randall

[bigjossey]

Yeah from what I understand google really botched this one (http://www.makeyougohmm.com/?p=2614)

They have been getting a serious overload and noone is able to see stats yet.

[Stecyk]

For bloggers, the following service is supposed to be even better than Google's offering: http://www.measuremap.com/

Should be interesting.

[Wassercrats]

I think I saw reference to IP addresses in one of the messages above. I have filtered my IP address, so I should be safe there.I don't know what filtering an IP address is, but I was complaining about there being no list of host IP addresses (of visitors to your website) with the number of page views, hits, etc. for each. One of the things I don't like about AWStats is that I can't tell which IPs hit which pages and when, and Google Analytics seems to not list any IP addresses at all, based on their snapshots.

[mromero]

It says it just needs to be within your head tags. For me I had to use Search and Replace to insert in a couple hundred pages as my include header goes OUTSIDE the head tags on some pages.

[Stecyk]

I don't know what filtering an IP address is, but I was complaining about there being no list of host IP addresses (of visitors to your website) with the number of page views, hits, etc. for each. One of the things I don't like about AWStats is that I can't tell which IPs hit which pages and when, and Google Analytics seems to not list any IP addresses at all, based on their snapshots.

Sorry Wassercrats, I misunderstood.

Filtering an IP address: Your IP address (or whichever) is filtered so that your visits are not included as part of the results.

Host of IP Addresses: You might very well be correct in that there is no list. But I do note that many of the screens have Excel downloads. Perhaps when you download the data, you might get more detailed information. But I don't know as Analytics is not providing any info as yet.

Best regards,
Kevin

[Andilinks]

Another version 1.0 fiasco, I'm glad I procrastinated. I'll wait 'til others have good results. Nancy agrees:

http://www.mccordweb.com/weblogs/2005/11/google-analytics.html

[bobba]

Well, ive got some results and I must admit although I don't even have a full days worth of stats their does seem to be a lot of functionality.
Obviously It's hard to tell how accurate or useable it's going to be but at first glance with some stats in it, it does look impressive.

Time will be the only way to tell though.

Oh yes I mentioned before about real professional stuff. I meant companies such as : www.speed-trap.com They build custom reporting software.

[bigjossey]

I have to say that I'm really impressed with the google analytics.

Previously I was using the futurequest stats, but this is in a different league.

1)It is supposed to be real time updating every hour or so.
2) you see which url people exited.
3) How much time they spent on a particular page.
4) How many people are new visitors opposed to old visitors
5) How loyal your users are ie how many of your users have come back to your website.
6) Web reports like which version of flash, screen resolution, java enabled, connection speeds.
7)There are tons of charts where you can view data over time how it has progressed.

There is much more than what i have mentioned, overall I"m very impressed for something that is free.

I don't currently use google adwords, but there are tons of reports that aggregate this data.

Yosef

[Andilinks]

Previously I was using the futurequest stats, but this is in a different league.

Wow am I happy to hear that, it sounds better than the Mach5 package I've been using too (paid $100) which is itself better than the http-analyze 2.2.

This free stats availability is going to take a lot of friction out of the entire internet. Go Google.

Bubble, bubble, buy, no trouble... :) Fasten your seat belts it's gonna be a fun ride.

Andi

[Randall]

Oh. My. God.

It'll take me a while to understand what this stuff all means, but man is it one slick piece of work. I can see what categories people are searching in our member directory, and which members are getting the most attention.

Randall :confuz:

[Wassercrats]

Does anyone think there would be a noticable increase in the time it takes for webpages with the Google Analytics code to load when the Google Analytics server is slow?

[Stecyk]

Wassercrats,

I don't notice any difference in loading times.

Best regards,
Kevin

[Wassercrats]

Google Analytics has experienced extremely strong demand, and as a result, we have temporarily limited the number of new signups as we increase capacity. In the meantime, please submit your name and email address and we will notify you as soon as we are ready to add new accounts. Thank you for your patience.I didn't sign up for the notification. I'll wait a while.

[Randall]

I think they've gone into overload again. My reports show no data since Wednesday, and even that day looks incomplete. All data continues to be collected and no data has been lost. Uh-huh. I'll believe it when I see it.

Randall

[Randall]

OK, now all of a sudden I'm seeing data for Tuesday-Thursay, with a sharp drop-off on Friday. I think I'll wait a week before I come back to it -- my stomach doesn't these ups and downs. (Imagine rollercoaster smiley here.)

Randall

[Randall]

If you look at the Hostnames report -- which in our case should show only example.com and www.example.com -- and see some mysterious IP addresses, I know where at least some of those are coming from.

I did an nslookup on one of them, 64.233.161.104, and got "Non-existent domain." So I pasted it into the browser's location bar, and it took me to Google's home page. Hmmm. :ytthink:

Then I did a Google search for our site, but went to Google's cached copy instead of the actual site. The IP address? 64.233.161.104. Bingo!

Presumably the other IP on our list is another of their cache servers, since it also led me to google.com.

One might hope that a future Analytics update will recognize Google cache hits and either filter them out or at least label them as such.

Anyway, for those keeping score at home, www beats non-www by 22:1. :winky:

Randall

[Wassercrats]

Could Hostnames include hosts of images and css files? I don't think Google caches those. It loads them from the actual website.

[Randall]

Could Hostnames include hosts of images and css files? I don't think Google caches those. It loads them from the actual website. No, I just figured out what's going on here. Images and linked CSS files wouldn't trigger the Analytics Javascript code, because it's embedded in the HTML.

Which is the answer to the question: The cached copy of our home page has the Javascript code in it, so it triggers every time someone views the cached copy.

We probably need some extra code in there to verify that the page is being served from our site before it phones home to Google. But that makes me wonder why our local network isn't also showing up in the Hostnames list -- after all, the Javascript code runs whenever I load a page from our development server. So it should be registering in the stats too.

Hmmm. :ytthink:

Randall

[Wassercrats]

Assuming your development server is connected to the internet, I was thinking that maybe you can't call Javascript that's at a remote location from a local file, but I don't understand the tracking code here (http://www.google.com/analytics/feature_fast.html). It looks like it calls a subroutine that's not there.

[Randall]

It looks like it calls a subroutine that's not there. No, you missed the line at the top: <script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
</script> That's the file that contains the urchinTracker() function.

Randall

[Wassercrats]

Yeah, I forgot Javascript works like that. At least when it's in the head section. I remember having some communication problem between scripts when JS was in the body.

[Randall]

Anyone else seeing an absence of certain kinds of data since the 18th? For example, Content Optimization > Navigational Analysis > Entrance Bounce Rates. The graph for 11/21 is totally empty. But other charts like Initial Navigation do show data.

I'm open to the possibility that my (unsuccessful) attempt to filter myself out of the data broke something. I've removed the filters, so I'll check back in a couple of days to see if those charts start working again.

Randall

[hedonism]

Mine is extremely slow to update results... hasn't given me anything for the last 2 days.

-Jon

[benwalsh]

I am looking to filter myself and other staff members out of our web stats.

Ip filtering is difficult as most do not have a static IP address, Any suggestions as to how best to tackle this, perhaps a blocking cookie?

Thanks In Advance
Ben

[Randall]

I am looking to filter myself and other staff members out of our web stats. I've been wanting to do that too. I tried to set up a filter in Google Analytics based on the DynDNS.org address I use for remote access to the office, but it didn't work. Any suggestions as to how best to tackle this, perhaps a blocking cookie? That sounds like it would work. I know absolutely nothing about reading cookies from Javascript, so if someone can point the way I'll take a whack at it tomorrow. :ytguido:

Randall

[benwalsh]

http://labnol.blogspot.com/2005/11/prevent-google-analytics-from-tracking.htmlyou can block Google Analytics from tracking your visits by adding the following line to your Windows Hosts file.

# [Google Inc]
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com

How this works: Google Analytics downloads a small javascript urchin.js (Google Analytics Urchin Module) on the client's computer which reports the all the tracking and analyzing data about the visitor back to Google. By adding the above line, we have effectively blocked our browser from downloading the urchin.js file.Location of Windows Hosts file:

95/ 98/Me \windows\hosts
XP Home \windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
NT/2000/ XP Pro \winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

[harry]

google-analytics.com not found.

Would it be http://www.google.com/analytics/

[Randall]

google-analytics.com not found.

Would it be http://www.google.com/analytics/ No, he's right -- the script it calls is <script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"></script> Randall

[Randall]

you can block Google Analytics from tracking your visits by adding the following line to your Windows Hosts file.

# [Google Inc]
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com Word to the wise: Don't omit the "www" like I did. :rolleyes:

I couldn't understand why my secret test page was showing up in the stats, even after I'd confirmed that I couldn't access the urchin.js file from my browser. But I was testing it without the www, whereas the actual call to the script -- which I quoted, d'oh! -- clearly specifies the www.

@#$% these literal-minded machines. Do as I want, not as I say! :rasberry:

Edit: Still not working. Does anyone remember how to clear the DNS cache in XP? (Answer: ipconfig /flushdns)

Last edit: D'oh-squared -- one too many W's in the hosts file. All better now, you can cancel my reservation at the asylum.

Randall

[Randall]

OK, let's make it three posts in a row. :dopey:

Editing the hosts file in OS X is not for the faint of heart, as it involves enabling the root user account. But if you can handle that, log in as root and add 127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com to the /private/etc/hosts file.

(In older versions of OS X, lookupd may be set up differently -- I suggest doing some Google research before you start mucking around in the system folders.)

Those who feel uncomfortable with this approach may want to try a Javascript/cookie solution instead.

Randall

[steveinspain]

Hello to all:

I've just jumped on this thread kinda late in the game, and read through most of it. I was fortunate to get in on Google Analytics on the first day, and after a few fits and false starts, GA has been tracking my site flawlessly since about the third day after release. I'm presuming they're open for business again, having added more capacity.

There is one thing though....

I'm concurrently running HitBox Professional, and I've subscribed to this service for years. One nice feature, especially for my site, is that HitBox tracks PDF downloads off my site. As each of our products has not only an independent "info" page but also a PDF version so visitors can have a permanent record, this is most helpful. My site is constructed such that the PDF download is the objective, and I can track it...but not with GA.

Has anyone seen where this data might be on the GA reports?

Best,

Steve

[Randall]

Looking at Google's report for February, you would think that our site traffic has dropped to near zero all of a sudden. (Actually, it started January 31.) I'll have to look at our raw logs to see if there's any truth to it, but has anyone else seen this happening?

Randall

[Wassercrats]

I'm still not using Google Analytics, but AWstats tells me that I'm getting more visitors from Google this month than in January. It also tells me that Google has grown fonder of my website than Yahoo over the last year.

Search Engine Page Views (current)
Google: 64.4%
Yahoo: 13.9%

Search Engine Page Views (January, 2006)
Google: 59.9%
Yahoo: 15.7%

Search Engine Page Views (January, 2005)
Google: 24.4%
Yahoo: 49.5%

[Matt]

Perhaps this is the wrong place for it, but Google's increasing size is a bit disconcerting. The possibility for foul play is just too tempting when you have the same company that does your advertising campaigns (a la Adwords) tracking the effectiveness of your campaign (ala Urchin). Suddenly it pays to fudge traffic numbers (or hide evidence of click fraud). Also, I can imagine a time when Google will use the Urchin data to see how much traffic your site gets, how frequently external links are clicked on web sites, and plug it into their search algorithm. Not using Urchin? Maybe your site will be penalized... or not. Suddenly an SEO decision becomes whether you should use Urchin and whether "bot-clicks" to your site will fool Google into thinking your site is more useful than it really is... or a third party site linked from yours is more popular than it really is. A bit paranoid? It is right now... but it won't be when Google has reached the critical mass it is bound to reach with "free" visitor analytics software. I generally recommend Hitbox Pro, but clients don't see the point in spending several hundred dollars a year when Google Analytics is "free."

The problem of an internet monopoly is becoming clearer lately. The results I am getting back from Google searches are abysmal. Perhaps the problem is a modification Google has made to its search algorithm... or maybe the number of sites it is spidering is now so large that good information is being drowned out by the noise. Regardless, I want effective search results, so it's off to... Yahoo? The same Yahoo that is apparently "giving up (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/256748_yahoo24.html)" in the search engine wars? The point is, where do you turn IF Google does obtain a search engine monopoly? Is the picture going to get better with Google controlling internet advertising and internet analytics?

Maybe I'm being too hard on Google, but irrespective of their motto to not be an evil company, Google is now a publicly traded company and the motto of shareholders is to be a money-making company.

Looking for a good Google alternative -Matt

[Randall]

Sorry, scratch this post. What I thought was happening apparently wasn't happening, so I can't yet explain the drop-off in Analytics.

Dunno if anyone actually read this, but I'd feel dumb leaving an empty post.

Randall

[Randall]

Looking at Google's report for February, you would think that our site traffic has dropped to near zero all of a sudden. (Actually, it started January 31.) I'll have to look at our raw logs to see if there's any truth to it, but has anyone else seen this happening? I finally figured out what the problem was.

Apparently, on January 30th I uploaded a version of the page header that didn't have the urchin.js code. :blush:

The only reason I didn't catch on from the very beginning was that we were still registering some traffic. Not a lot -- 48 visits for the entire month of February -- but more than zero.

Today I finally started analyzing our server logs in Access, and we registered 45 pageviews on the homepage alone on Jan. 31, vs two according to Analytics.

That's when I realized that every visit registered by Analytics since January 30th was a cache hit. D'oh! The cached pages still had the urchin code, but the actual web site did not. :rolleyes:

Edit: That and the fact that it's supposed to be at the end of the page, just before </body>. D'oh again.

Randall