Weird thinking - Remove Google Analytics from sites with low traffic?

[AjiNIMC]

If Google comes to know that my site has low traffic or low user experience then I guess thats the worst signal to open it for Google. One should improve and eventually that happens too but meanwhile how about removing GA and going with some paid analytics to send a signal to Google that I am ready to pay to get better analytics so I am serious about my website rather than showing my weakness.

Once I have good user experience and traffic, Google you take it all and rank me better :), just a weird thought but I guess it has some points to think over.

Also I am aware that Google will get data from many other ways but still it will have to guess it.

Thanks,
Aji Issac

[TheMadScientist]

Amazing... I'm going to be drawn into this discussion... Grrrrrr... LOL

IMO It's not as much about 'should or shouldn't be done' but more about what you can do reliably and consistently on a large scale and what you cannot do reliably and consistently on a large scale...

You can reliably and consistently compare one site's analytics data to another site's analytics data.

You can reliably and consistently compare one site without analytics data to another site without analytics data.

You can reliably and consistently determine one site provides analytics data, and another site does not provide analytics data.

You can reliably and consistently favor one site for providing analytics data and disfavor another site for not providing analytics data.

You can reliably and consistently disfavor one site for providing analytics data and favor another site for not providing analytics data. (If for some reason you wanted to, which would make no sense since it's G's SERPs and analytics we're talking about.)

What you cannot do reliably and consistently is compare one site's analytics data to another site's 'no data available' and make determination in where the two sites should rank relative to each other, except to favor one and disfavor the other generally for providing the data or not providing the data.

It's not even apples to oranges... It's apples to 'I don't know'.
It's apples to 'no idea what they have or don't have in their basket'.

You can't make an accurate and reliable comparison of 'data' to 'no data' except to favor or disfavor 'data' or 'no data' ... Either you can favor 'provides data' and disfavor 'does not provide data' or you can disfavor 'provides data' and favor 'does not provide data' ... That's the end of the reliable comparison you can make as far as 'data' and 'no data' goes.

I'm really not even sure you could reliably and consistently do as you suggest and devalue a site for discontinuing data provided, because how would you factor 'provided data, does not provide data any longer' against 'has not ever provided data' and relate it to where the two sites rank in the SERPs without generally favoring 'provides data' in the first place?

It really circles back to 'favor sites using analytics' and 'disfavor sites not using analytics', generally, so then you can reliably and consistently compare sites providing analytics data to generate the results, otherwise you cannot make a reliable and accurate comparison for ranking purposes between two sites by comparing one site's 'data' to another site's 'no data'. You just can't do it... There's no data for one so there's nothing to compare, except 'provides data' and 'does not provide data'.

* The only other way I could see analytics data to be used would be as someone stated earlier in this thread about all of their sites being removed from the index because they were running analytics, and I could see it if they were spam or MFA or multiple 'essentially the same sites' in the same niche, because they don't want those type of sites in the results, but that's not 'comparative analysis for SERPs' that's spam & network detection using analytics and IMO they're two different things.

[Reno]

I use webmaster tools but I have many different account which I login to through web proxies, I separate sites on to accounts that have websites that are in similar industries. I don't have more than 3 websites per webmasters account.

How I wish I'd had the foresight to take these precautions, not because I have any specific data I can point to that would confirm to me without a doubt that I'd be "safe" from the Goog living under my bed, but rather because I'd not be spending time wondering if I'd hurt myself by announcing all my sites in the one account.

I think there's a career out there doing counseling for people (like myself) suffering from Googlephobia...

;]

.................................

[wheel]

The only reason anybody uses GA is because it's free.

The reason not to use GA is because you are providing competitive information to someone else.

You can speculate why or if they use it - but there's little denying that you're exchanging your personal competitive information in exchange for them putting analytics on your site.

People that do some thinking instead of being lemmings on the issue might be a bit more reluctant to use GA if they thought of it as "I will get some nice analytics, in exchange for all my site information."

Unless you're going to believe that Google has no current or future plans to use that data for their own purposes (doesn't have to be 'against' you, it can just be for whatever they want - and that's probably not 'for' you either).

What would you think about a free desktop utility from MS - useful and free. Oh and the product calls home on everything going on your desktop, all installed apps, all docs, your entire surfing habits, your personal email list, full capability to access whatever they want on your desktop. Nobody would do that. they'd call it spyware. Yet GA? they don't call it spyware. They call it 'free'.

[claus]

I just want to add to the discussion that if you display AdSense ads on your site, Google will get all the traffic information anyway.

[wheel]

Of course. And there's a million different ways that Google's going to get your data anyway. Not using GA is like standing on the traintrack yelling 'Halt!' as the light approaches. You're not going to stop it.

But there I am anyway, with my hand raised yelling 'Halt!' :).

[blend27]

million different ways that Google's going to get your data anyway

and what are they? if it's not a biggie, can you please tell from where will the get the browsing patterns of my sites visitors on my site besides of those that use "firefox safebrowsing"(3%), GTB(ok maybe 5-8%), chrome(less that 0.2%). OK 41% of traffic comes from G(and it's properties).

I personaly don't use ONE Single product offered by GORG, well FF for Search(SafeBrowsing, cookies and JS Disabled - period), and FF for testing of local dev site.

See, that is the perceptions we have buit in our heads, same with the Green PR thingy, Mighty G.

So Please tell me, What Else?, let's see how much we realy know?