Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
All our sites used to get heavy traffic from google..
We implemented google analytics on site 1 which used to get more then 1,00,000 uniques from google alone.. After 3 days traffic was dropped down to 5000 and 1 week later just to 1200 uniques a day (we sufferred a -50 penalty here)
on few other sites we included google custom search (paid) site traffic was dropped by 50% in a months time and still the same.. Our content was indexed in nearly 15 minutes on this site but now it takes more then 2 hours for same to get indexed.
Strange and confused :)
Google paid a LOT of money for Urchin (GA for those who don't know) and they paid a LOT of money for Feedburner, both collect data on a massive scale. Why did they do it?
Market share/monopoly? - very doubtful IMHO. So where does it fit into their business model?
It helps them to build the 'perfect' algorithm and I do believe that for better or worse, if you have GA installed then there are more factors to your rankings than the website that doesn't have it installed. Why would they buy these companies then NOT make use of them?
C'mon chaps. It makes sense doesn't it? :)
The point is worth repeating, so here goes:
They've never said they wouldn't (or don't) make use of them. And they've never stated that they weren't using aggregated data to "improve" other services. In fact, they've clearly stated that they will use aggregated data to improve their services.
They have, however, given users the free choice of if, how and with whom their identifiable data can be shared - including choosing to be anonymous. Users can choose to share data for further use and to receive extra "help" and access, or they can remain anonymous so that their data is scrubbed to be unidentifiable, and their privacy is protected.
Google Patent Application: Using Usage Statistics in Search [webmasterworld.com]. Published in 2002.
Would it have made sense for them NOT to purchase Urchin? The KEY word being aggregate data.
Why in the world would they risk the consequences of violiating Auntie Mae's privacy for her cooking site if she chooses her data to be anonymous, to hand demote her recipe site in favor of any other cooking site?
Added:
This is about GA, so Feedburner is off-topic, but here's some detail on Blog Search and Feedburner:
Patent Application: Ranking Blog documents [webmasterworld.com]
Why would they NOT buy Feedburner? And for further reference, check out the threads on scoring with reference to use of Historical Data (another Google patent).
They don't keep it all secret and go around spying on webmasters. Auntie Mae's cooking site just isn't that important in the overall scheme of things.
[edited by: Marcia at 8:00 pm (utc) on July 17, 2008]
Jan 50k
Feb 51k
Mar 49k
Apr 54k
May 31k <- i added analytics on the 2nd
jun 27k
jul 11k (already 14 days into this month and we're only at 11k, so it looks like this month we might hit 22k
I SERIOUSLY believe Google adjusts traffic coming into each site based on spying on data implanted on my site.
I use to laugh at the suggestion Google would ever do this, but I'm not laughing anymore..
I can't understand what is going on.
We don't have slow servers, they're on Dual Quadcore (8core cpus), with 8gb ram, not shared with anyone else. We have GA code placed right at the bottom before </body>. Our primary search terms is the best this month. In the past 7 months, they float on page 4/5, but now are on page 1/2.
The idea proposed in this thread is that if you add Google Analytics (GA) or Custom Search (CS) then there will be fall in rankings.
We've had the opposite, our main keyword rankings increased, BUT traffic across the board fell. Maybe they devalue other search terms and pages, not keywords being actively seo-ed?
Wondering why people think Google are not using GA to do anything to their sites. Google is a "business", their "sole" purpose is in getting MORE $$$$ for their shareholders. If they know you're making more money than you should be in your industry (through conversion tracking in adwords/GA), then obviously they have a valid reason to do something about it.
Let's just imagine this.
Say you are Google, you knew a certain site that was taking business away from all the other paying Adword customers via free search, would it not be in your business interest to devalue the site dominating its industry via free search, not doing so would be just plain stupid, it would mean all the other Adword customers in that industry end up spending less because this site is taking all their orders using free search.
IMO, GA filter will devalue a site if it believes you get too much free traffic from Google as a overall % AND you have conversion tracking turned ON. For one of our sites, a huge % of incoming traffic was from Google. I guess Google does not appreciate not getting a cut from it. Before, they would have no clue as to how many visitors we get and where they came from.
Perhaps some of the folks on here can test this on their popular site if they don't believe it? :)
Add GA to their site, activate conversion tracking and put a very high SALE number, so their conversion appears very high, and see if their Google referrals drop after a few weeks.
[edited by: np2003 at 11:37 pm (utc) on July 17, 2008]
Ok then, let's imagine this:
Google LIES on publicly published documents and hand edits sites to restrain trade. (Stupid in the first place, because if they knock out some sites, others will take their place. Not so, or are you saying that they leave the 1-5 places blank?)
But let's assume they LIE and violate their publicly declared privacy and anonymity policies to restrain trade. They're a public company, so if they do that the FTC steps in and asks for a congressional hearing to censure them and also to delist them with the SEC. And put key execs in jail for fraud maybe?
Let's get real!
Worth it to lie? What for, to get Adwords clicks instead of sending traffic to Aunt Mae's recipe site or Uncle Fred's fishing site? They're not some basement or backroom black hat spammer/scraper sleazes, they're a publicly traded multi-billion dollar corporation.
Added:
IMO, GA filter will devalue a site if it believes you get too much free traffic from Google as a overall %. For one of our sites, a huge % of incoming traffic was from Google. I guess Google does not appreciate not getting a cut from it. Before, they would have no clue as to how many visitors we get and where they came from.
Just listen to it! How logical does it sound?
[edited by: Marcia at 11:40 pm (utc) on July 17, 2008]
Have you considered any other possibilities - like your actions, or the progression of your rivals - for the changes?
I am not saying you ARE wrong (though I believe that's almost definite), but I am suggesting that there are so many other possibilities, and such a total lack of evidence, that your certainty is rather frightening.
Google LIES on publicly published documents and hand edits sites to restrain trade. (Stupid in the first place, because if they knock out some sites, others will take there place. Not so, or do they leave the 1-5 places blank?)
LOL that's a FAQ you're referring to. Maybe you should read their TERMS OF SERVICE.
[google.com...]
6. INFORMATION RIGHTS AND PUBLICITY . Google and its wholly owned subsidiaries may retain and use, subject to the terms of its Privacy Policy (located at [google.com...] , or such other URL as Google may provide from time to time), information collected in Your use of the Service.
INDEMNIFICATION . You agree to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Google and its wholly owned subsidiaries, at Your expense, any and all third-party claims, actions, proceedings, and suits brought against Google or any of its officers, directors, employees, agents or affiliates, and all related liabilities, damages, settlements, penalties, fines, costs or expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses) incurred by Google or any of its officers, directors, employees, agents or affiliates, arising out of or relating to (i) Your breach of any term or condition of this Agreement, (ii) Your use of the Service.
The fact they have the above, means they're not liable for anything.
Google being taken down by the SEC, FTC because they use data from GA to demote websites, I would like to see that.
What makes you think your site is important enough for them to take that kind of risk? How many billions of dollars are we talking about that you're saying they're stealing from you by defrauding you with GA?
Read their TOS. Secondly, I believe it's just an automatic filter, it wouldn't be hard to create one, based on how complicated the Google algo is. They are not defrauding sites at all, it's just common sense, Google is sending me free traffic and its in their right to drop the amount if it is hurting their other Adword customers. You seem to be forgetting that Google is a business run by people who are judge by the performance of their stock price.
arising out of or relating to (i) Your breach of any term or condition of this Agreement, (ii) Your use of the Service.
If they filter out the #1 site, another site will move into the #1 place and get the traffic instead. Musical chairs, if you will.
The send too much traffic to Aunt Mae, so they filter her out and send her traffic to Aunt Lucy instead. So what? #1 does not stay empty.
Case closed for me, de Nile is not just a river and it can't be crossed.
Ok then, let's imagine this:Google LIES on publicly published documents...
Let's take Google at their word and assume that they do not use specific data from GA or CS to impact a site's ranking. But for the sake of this discussion, what is to stop them from using other information that a person willingly provides, to build up a profile of a webmaster's various activities? The obvious example being the use of the same name/contact for every Google account across all your websites. If you have 10 sites and 2 of them have problems, will the other 8 possibly be scrutinized more severely, since (in my example) the webmaster has announced to Google that they are all connected to the same person?
That's not violating their public pledge to not use the data, but it could in its own way have an effect on that siteowner's positions.
To me, the lesson here is to not show your hand any more than is necessary.
.......................
I do believe that for better or worse, if you have GA installed then there are more factors to your rankings than the website that doesn't have it installed. Why would they buy these companies then NOT make use of them?C'mon chaps. It makes sense doesn't it?
Not to me, no. Mathematically, using a signal that's only available from just a portion of websites just doesn't hold water. It would only unbalance the algorithm.
So what's the motive for Google to make Urchin/GA freely available? To help sites make better use of Adwords, for one.
that your certainty is rather frightening.
It's a hard lesson and it took me some years to realize it, but the people who seem to do best in the face of adversity (be it lost traffic, ranking, AdWords Google slap, or AdSense income drop) are the ones who can look inward - at their site(s) - instead of outward - at Google. I try to concentrate more on "what can I do?" instead of "What did Google do to me?" Doesn't always work, but it's a goal.
>> that your certainty is rather frightening.huh? why would that scare you?
You are quoting out of context. I actually said:
there are so many other possibilities, and such a total lack of evidence, that your certainty is rather frightening
Make sense now? ;)
If they filter out the #1 site, another site will move into the #1 place and get the traffic instead. Musical chairs, if you will.The send too much traffic to Aunt Mae, so they filter her out and send her traffic to Aunt Lucy instead. So what? #1 does not stay empty.
Let's say Aunt Mae's site converts at 20% and Aunt Lucy's site that converts at 3%.
Which site at #1 makes google more money?
So what? They have no way of knowing.
>>Which site at #1 makes google more money?
How about when NONE of them in the top ten (or 20) make Google any money?
So what? They have no way of knowing.
How about when NONE of them in the top ten (or 20) make Google any money?
Aunt Lucy's site makes Google more money. If people aren't buying from the #1 SERP result they're likely to go back to Google which then gives them another opportunity to click on an adwords ad.
It's far from every GA user who also tracks conversions -- and those who do are not necessarily tracking Adwords conversions. So this would be an even less common signal for Google to include in the algorithm - and that would add in even more distortion.
If this were only a question of differing opinons I would not step into this thread yet again. But it's not just about opinions. It's about clearly visible data that anyone who works with a large number of clients sees regularly. It's also about appreciating how powerful Google's business acumen really is.
You certainly don't NEED Google Analytics to succeed, but these particular reasons for not using GA don't hold any water.
Business success requires a commitment to disciplined analysis. Please, for the sake of your own success, do not make decisions based on anything like the unreasoned fears raised in this thread.
It's far from every GA user who also tracks conversions -- and those who do are not necessarily tracking Adwords conversions.
Exactly. I'd guess that most owners of information sites who use Google Analytics don't even think in terms of conversions--or use AdWords to get traffic.
TO A DIFFERENT WAY !
If its unsafe to talk about google, yahoo or msn its perhaps the time to move to different place ?
People here dont speak to matter instead speak twice in higher english for novice or begineers this was not our motive to register here, the topic considered in first post of this thread is completely off the scene now...
Unsure if we should discuss of this things being a webmaster on webmasterworld.com ?
Sandy, no the topic in the first post is not off the scene, it is what we are all discussing.
What the first post is saying is that BECAUSE of putting Google Analytics and Custom Search on sites, there was a huge traffic drop and a -50 penalty - in 3 days.
We don't agree that it was because of that, most of us believe that the drop in traffic has absolutely nothing to do with using GA and Search.
Practical experience? My practical experience is that rankings and traffic for a site went UP after putting GA on a site. So tell me, did traffic go up because of putting GA on? Would it make one site go up, but another site go down?
How could yours go down and mine go up, both for the same reason? That can't be.
>>If its unsafe to talk about google, yahoo or msn
It is 100% safe, but it's 100% wrong to think that we will agree with everything someone says if we believe they are wrong.
I hope this post is clear enough.
[edited by: Marcia at 10:19 pm (utc) on July 19, 2008]
However, at a practical level, when operating businesses online or managing clients online, one has to use tactical deduction to assess the most logical reason why any given event has happened.
Here are some of the facts we know:
GA is only installed on a portion of websites live in the Google index.
Some websites across a sample subset of late with GA, GWT, or no stats / analytics have shown drops in rankings.
Websites with HIGH bounce rates currently retain high rankings in Google.com for competitive terms - a fact I can attest to - on more than one account.
Websites with pitifully low Adsense earnings, CTR hold top spots for many keyword phrases.
If the theory held water, the following would need to be true:
Very low earning websites that have both low CTR and Adsense earnings would be penalized to make room for much better earning websites at the top of the SERP's
Only websites with GA, GWT, or a combination of the two would take hits (which is clearly NOT the case)
Since none of those two are true, it is very unlikely that GA or GWT have any impact currently on ranking drops for your website. Simply because you cannot locate the source of the rankings issue for your particular site(s) does not correlate to placing the source of the issue with those tools unnecessarily.
It is just as likely that there are server architecture issues, header issues, canonical issues, or loss of trust across supporting pages in the website that has caused wholesale drops.
You are quoting out of context. I actually said:
there are so many other possibilities, and such a total lack of evidence, that your certainty is rather frighteningMake sense now? ;)
nope! not given that your certainty of his misplaced certainty is based on something certainly subjective. ;)
The evidence is there; sorry you can't see it.
But I don't have time for all this statesmanlike banter, so I'll leave you find those reading glasses!
Byeeeeee ;)
total lack of evidence
The evidence is there
Sorry, no comprendo
You summed it up well. :)
I don't see how the CSE would be the cause of either of those two results. Spidering is set by the crawl team, accoring to complex logic that isn't publicly available. Google's crawl resources do shift around - sometmes because of factors that are all about Google's back end, and not the site itself.
I assume you've validated the source code for these changed pages, right? One thing I do wonder about is whether the two additions to your pages made a technical problem with the way the code got integrated.
