Drop GA now?

Bill Lambert Says So.

[Sally Stitts]

My one question - What are the disadvantages of dropping GA, in your mind?
It has been fun playing with it, but am I cutting my own throat?
I am seriously beginning to wonder (continuing wretched performance of my website).


.

[edited by: DixonJones at 4:01 pm (utc) on Dec 31, 2019]
[edit reason] This initial post has been distilled to its central point [/edit]

[NickMNS]

People have been repeating this for years. A few years back a few members here at WW conducted a test and found that it didn't change anything in terms of traffic or conversions. It did make data collection more difficult.

If you feel strongly about this, there is no harm in trying it out. Switch it off, and you can use something like matomo (formerly piwik) as substitute. Or you can simply rely on your raw server logs, which are far more accurate but includes reams of additional data such as bot traffic, which may make it more difficult to analyze.

The only real harm will be that you will lose the data for the time period that you have the system switched off.

If you do try it, report back and let us know how it went.

[not2easy]

Get rid of GA if you wish, but please not because some persona says you should or shouldn't. There are more reliable articles from real people that you might actually know, try this one: [searchenginejournal.com...] for example.

[Sally Stitts]

Thanks, Nick. I always value your comments (votes/posts ratio).
You say plenty with few words.

I'm an old amateur, but still an amateur. My issue is no CMS. It would have to be one at a time (300-400 pages).
So, it is an all-or-nothing proposition for me, due to the effort required.
I guess I will need more persuasion, to undertake the task.
Thank you.
.

[Sally Stitts]

@not2easy

I guess I need to read less Bill Lambert, and more Michael Martinez, Roger Monti and the Swiss dude.
.

[JorgeV]

Hello-

To me Bill 's advises are only common sense, and nothing new under the sun. Certainly an AI bot, which learned from its readings, and rehashing things.

By the way, yes, it's good idea to drop GA, this is not it which is making you gain (or loose) traffic. It might help you understand your traffic, but eventually helps in making decisions. But think about it, what are you really doing of it? How do you use the data? Is it profitable to you?

[vivalasvegas]

My issue is no CMS. It would have to be one at a time (300-400 pages).

Sally, don't you have an editor with a 'find&replace' tool? It does the job in a few seconds.

[Sally Stitts]

@viva-
Trying to out me? OK. I don't like to talk about it (embarassing), but I use Claris Homepage 3.0 from 1997.

There has been nothing like it (Apple elegance) since, always works, and I know all the weird things it does and doesn't do, and can work around them with TextEdit.
None of the massive code bloat and feature bloat and expense of DreamWeaver and others. And always wondering just WTH is going on?
I can FLY using this app. However, the F&R function is an issue when dealing with multiple files simultaneously.
It hadn't quite gotten there yet, when it was taken out behind the barn and ...

Your seconds are my hours and hours. I'm 75. Old dog, new tricks, etc., etc.
Having to use PCs at work years ago, I have been 100% Mac since 1986.
.

[Mark_A]

I have been wondering about dumping GA. The stats are straightforward but a bit limited. Plus it must slow down the site, and I wonder if other engines like Bing might mark you down for having GA on your site.

Then there are raw logs and the software that runs stats on them if you want it. I forget but I used to be happy with logs and a program. I do wonder what G does with the info it may get from GA?

[justa]

Google Analytics is a wonderful way for google to know about all the sites and usage patterns across the web, and they would use that data to help improve on their advertising business. By removing GA you're making a small insignificant dent in Googles understanding of how users are navigating your site. Enough people ditch it though....

Most of us add Google Analytics as a default because.... well it's because we've always done it. I'm sure the community on this forum are some of the most active users of GA, but even then how often do you _really_ utilise the data provided?

With everyone becoming more privacy conscious and the cookie consent becoming an opt in process I think there'll be less use of third party tracking tools like GA and we'll start moving across to more privacy focussed or paid for options.

[topr8]

Most of us add Google Analytics as a default because ...

I'm sure you're right! personally I've never used GA. not because i'm chipping away at Google's data gathering - they have more than enough, with or without me.

I'm very interested in data and the way my site is used, but i have my own metrics and targets and goals which i've created for myself based on my business model - eg. selling my product. that's all i care about. ... i just don't think a one size fits all system is appropriate for me.

my view of life is that if you want to get by then follow the herd ... however if you want to do better than that, think outside the box, don't do what everybody else is doing (without good, thought through reason)

questions i would ask are:
what am i using analytics for?
what do i want to measure and why?
what is the best way of measuring that and how would i impliment that?
how will any answers i get help me?
what should i do with the data i've got to better my business?
what is bettering my business - what are my actual targets?

if the above questions and more (i just quickly wrote them out over a cup of coffee) are answered by GA then that is absolutely what you should be using! it's a very sophisticated app, that you couldn't possibly replicate and it's free (of direct financial cost).

[topr8]

and I wonder if other engines like Bing might mark you down for having GA on your site.

... no reason for that to be a problem ... cloak it,eg. don't serve the GA code to bingbot or any other bot you don't want to let know that you use it.

[NickMNS]

well it's because we've always done it.

Categorically no! I use it because it is the right tool for my needs. Show me a better tool, and I would gladly switch, but there isn't one.

I'm sure the community on this forum are some of the most active users of GA, but even then how often do you _really_ utilise the data provided?

Every day. The information gleaned from analytics is invaluable.

Plus it must slow down the site

I doubt that the speed difference would have any significant impact on page speed. However, running a software of your own server that provides the same level of precision with the same speed as GA would certainly have a significant impact. But then I guess you could always setup a second server to handle your analytics.

Then there are raw logs and the software that runs stats on them if you want it.

Let me begin by saying that raw server logs are not just important, they are essential. Google Analytics does not replace those logs. Anyone that believes that because you have GA you don't need server logs is gravely mistaken. But analyzing server logs serves a different role.

GA is not perfect and one needs to be aware of its shortcomings. It is certainly possible to collect similar if not more data from your logs, but the amount processing and storage required would eclipse the size of server and database's used by most webmaster here at WW.

The most important thing to consider is that the data collect by Google with GA, is being collected regardless, through a variety of means such as the use of other Google services, as well as by Facebook by including their services, and by other third party services not mention by the users through the use Chrome. The difference with Analytics is that they give you access to the data collected such that you can use it for you own benefit.

So in conclusion, if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend like Google isn't collecting data on your user's anyways then remove GA from your website. It really wont change anything either way. If someone can prove, with a repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable test, that eliminating GA does make positive difference, then please share.

[lucy24]

There’s a distressing tendency to equate GA--a specific entity--with script-based analytics in general. You need to ask two questions:

#1 Do I benefit from the information that only script-based analytics can provide?

#2 If and only if the answer to #1 is yes: Should I use
(a) Google Analytics
(b) some other third-party analytics program (that is, data is stored on their server, not yours)
(c) an analytics program that stores the data on your own server.

And, finally, if you go with 2b or 2c, you need to home in on a specific choice.

Only the preliminary question is a yes/no toggle. The follow-up is a three-way choice with further sub-choices.

[tangor]

Giving anything to a third party means you have given up something and you get nothing in return... expect pretty graphs and lists which really don't answer questions or provide answers.

And slows the site down in the process.

YMMV.