Does Removing Google Analytics Help Your Conversion Rates?

[samwest]

During the usual zombie talk and between August SERP changes discussions, a few members who were long time lurkers popped their heads up and started suggesting that everyone with zombie traffic try removing Google Analytics tracking code and removing Adsense Ads, your webmaster account and everything Google. You are also advise to block moz and ahrefs in you .htaccess. Seems like a bad joke, but they argue that Google is using our own traffic data to plot evil schemes to load their pockets. So, what's your take on what even I consider to be intentional misinformation or Google paranoia. Hopefully this post will offload the discussion to a side topic rather than the monthly SERP changes hangout. Feel free to share.

[frankleeceo]

I initially saw GA removal idea as bunk. But now sold on the performance portion. I have removed the code from pages / sites that I think do not need them. I am glad that I follow this forum!

I still believe that they help somewhat with indexing and tracking in the initial stage of website creation. At least until presence is established in the index. For that belief I will still use GA for my less established sites.

[SnowLeppard]

Maybe this has already been suggested... What about having multiple versions of the site.

e.g. detect if the visitor has come from Google and/or is using Chrome and then include the Analytics code on all the pages in that session.

and have a separate version for other non-Google traffic sources not using Chrome, and put no Google code in the site (including Adsense).

I bet conversions would increase.

[keyplyr]

@SnowLeppard - Google has pretty significant penalties if cloaking is detected.

[SnowLeppard]

re. @SnowLeppard - Google has pretty significant penalties if cloaking is detected.

Is that really cloaking if all the other content remains the same? I'm not talking about separate content for the Google spider.

[keyplyr]

Well, the difference between your definition of cloaking & Google's definition of cloaking is where the danger is.

if the visitor has come from Google and/or is using Chrome and then include the Analytics code on all the pages in that session... and have a separate version for other non-Google traffic

You don't think Google would see that as cloaking? OK.

[Nutterum]

@keyplyr - isn't this the definition of personalization? In essence it is how optimize works..you can add or remove entire sections of your landing page URL based on predefined condition. (geolocation/remarketing/gender/IP range) Is this cloaking too?

[keyplyr]

I don't have the answers, I'm just putting out the question. Better to consider the risks now than to experience the repercussions later.

[Robert Charlton]

cloaking

I had the same thought as keyplyr, that SnowLeppard's approach might be considered cloaking. The issue is whether you're showing something different to your users than to Googlebot, with the intent of deceiving the user.

Google is big on intent, though... and as long as the intent isn't deceptive, they've historically been OK with various types of what is commonly called cloaking. There are all sorts of legit geo and cookie-based cloaking setups that are permitted, albeit some may require registering and/or adding code to the site to clarify intention.

In geo-personalization, changing language preference by geo IP, eg, isn't considered deceptive, so it is permitted (I don't recommend it because it's often not what the user actually wants, but that's an entirely different discussion).

At this point, Google expects user agents to identify mobile content, and stripped down content in a mobile site isn't considered deceptive.

And previous visitors, can be personalized by cookies to be welcomed, and cookies are part of the process to show them personalized product choices, etc. That's also different content than what Googlebot sees, and Google is fine with that.

Also (and this is something I've been thinking might come up in the interstitial discussion), Google permits several approaches to dealing with log-in pages etc on subscription sites, which can involve what's essentially cloaking [support.google.com...]

What SnowLeppard suggests is intriguing, and I'm thinking it would be hard to say that the user is being deceived, but I'm not the one stirring Google's tea-leaves. I'm sure there's got to be some element of interpretation here. Maybe the issue would be the terms of service of Google Analytics, though I don't know that. I'm also not clear exactly SnowLeppard would set it up with a reasonable amount of overhead. To me, it makes no sense to go to great lengths to have essentially a miniscule effect on the overall metadata (or whatever) of the Analytics ecosystem. I can imagine the setup might tend to trigger false alarms with Google, because the intent isn't likely to be easily classified by Google's set of exceptions.

For more on Google guidelines on Cloaking, with an embedded Matt Cutts video, here's a Google help article...

Cloaking
Google Search Console Help
[support.google.com...]

The video is from Aug 2011 and feels close to becoming dated, but it's still helpful because it's such a general overview.

I think Analytics is an incredibly useful set of tools... getting better constantly... provided by Google because they really want finely tuned sites in their index. Our sites are the content that Google's visitors see and interact with. If the visitors don't find what they're looking for, they're liable to go elsewhere. It's got to be a constant pressure on Google, and Google is tuning its content all the time, giving us some tools "free" (in exchange for very broad information) as part of the deal.

For now, I'll buy the argument of a performance hit, at least to an extent, but not for much longer. If I'm understanding how the multiplexing in HTTP/2 is going to be working, when hosting companies get caught up on the server end, analytics is not going to be that much of a drag on the system. The drag will certainly be less than the loading of a bunch of cookies for personalizing the site delivery to avoid Analytics would be.

And slow ad networks are a much, much bigger problem.

[ergophobe]

And always remember, that increases in US spending on science and technology causes a rise in suicides by hanging and strangulation.
[tylervigen.com...]

And a rise in the number of people who drown in their bathtubs causes a rise in the number of people who die of cancer on Thursdays.
[tylervigen.com...]

[Nutterum]

@smilie - this is a subject of an entirely new topic, but I`d say that Adwords is a not a magical solution for your e-com success. I have worked with a business that took them 6 years to become from no-body to a local brand that is sinonimous with good quality and perfect customer service. Only then their e-com related adwords started to actually pay for themselves and earn extra profit. Till then thousands upon thousands of dollars were spent to get the brand awareness, trust and company values to stick with the audience.

[FishingDad]

We removed Google Analytics about 2 years ago from our 10 year old ecom, around the same time we dumped Google base, just after it started "demanding" images without water marks.

Impossible to know if there has been any benefit or penalty to this but my thoughts are, give them enough rope. What else are they going to use all that data for? We never used the sales tracking function which to me seemed utterly crazy that anyone would tell Google how much they were turning over! Or the other crazy "give us ALL your data tools".

We have stopped short of anything else and continue to use WMT, I don't think we are giving them any info by using that.

[Walt Hartwell]

" Does Removing Google Analytics Help Your Conversion Rates?"

While it's not an overly interesting question, the assumption would be that removing Google Analytics could increase your customer conversion rates.

Which means if Site A and Site B were neck and neck in the competitive world, both getting site exposure through conventional SEO and getting social mentions, when Site A dropped Google Analytics, Site B would take all the potential customer conversions? That seems very unlikely, to say the least.

[toidi]

@walt
you are missing the point. Site A has GA running so when a buyer shows up, shops and goes through the order process to calculate the total cost of purchse, g now knows this buyer is almost ready to buy so when the buyer tries to comparison shop with multiple searches, site A gets buried in the serps and the buyer is presented with sites willing to pay for ready buyers.
Removing GA doesn't increase conversions, it saves your conversions from getting taken away on a follow up visit. I have experienced this as a shopper, leave a site looking for a better price and then have a hard time finding the site later.

[Simon_H]

@toidi I don't think that argument works. If you follow it through and assume Google is out to manipulate buyers, the obvious thing Google will do is penalise sites that don't use GA, e.g. by burying them in the SERPs for potentially transactional searches. Because the last thing Google would want is for a potential buyer to visit a site without GA, as Google would then not be able to evaluate the buyer.

So using your own argument, the last thing you'd want to do is turn off GA.

[Wijnand schouten]

@Simon_H

If you follow it through and assume Google is out to manipulate buyers, the obvious thing Google will do is penalise sites that don't use GA, e.g. by burying them in the SERPs for potentially transactional searches. Because the last thing Google would want is for a potential buyer to visit a site without GA, as Google would then not be able to evaluate the buyer.

This is pure speculation and the facts show otherwise. Google will not penalize when you remove GA, my site performance improved when i removed GA, so let's keep facts facts here please. They might do this in the future, but i have no reason to think they do this as of yet.

What Toidi states here is 100% valid and tested. You can even read it here:

[support.google.com...]

The "similar audiences" feature enables you to find people who share characteristics with your site visitors. By adding "similar audiences" to your ad group, you can show your ads to people whose interests are similar to those of your site visitors, which allows you to reach new and qualified potential customers.

It might be difficult to gasp for some people, but where do you guys think Google get's this data from?
Big adwords spenders just bid heavy on people who went to your site and have products in their basket. In the meantime you are left with the non converting junk.....

To me what Google does is nothing more then [ab]use of my website, enabling my competitor to steal my visitors who come organically ( mouth to mouth / Facebook / Twitter and all other sources except G ) away.... so whatever the supposed gain of GA is , you better keep it off ... at least when you're smart.

[Simon_H]

This is pure speculation and the facts show otherwise.

The only people speculating are those saying that Google is using their GA to steal their customers. It goes without saying that when someone comes up with a conspiracy theory such as yours, you have the responsibility to prove it, not others to disprove it. So your statement is somewhat ridiculous. If Google has increased your traffic since you dropped GA, that disproves your argument. Because if Google is manipulating buyers using GA, it would never want to send them to sites without GA as it can't monitor what those buyers are doing. It would only ever want to send them to sites with GA to track them, or sites where Google will earn clicks. Case closed.

Regarding your example link of the 'facts showing otherwise', that's completely unrelated. Google determines similar audiences based on the ads they click on. Nothing to do with GA or conversions.

[Wijnand schouten]

@Simon_H please read what Google says about this

AdWords looks at browsing activity on Display Network sites over the last 30 days, and uses this, along with our contextual engine, to understand the shared interests and characteristics of the people in your remarketing list. Based on this information, AdWords automatically finds new potential customers whose interests and characteristics are similar to those of people in your remarketing list. The more characteristics and interests people in your remarketing lists share, the better similar audiences works.

To find similar audiences, we look across the millions of apps and sites on the Display Network. As your remarketing lists change, your similar audience will change as well.

I don't read anything about users who clicked on Ad's so again please stick to facts.

Also there is no conspiracy ... i just read the terms and guidelines from Google and paste here. What more proof do you need?

If you keep insisting that Google only looks at Ad click's after reading above, and not at browsing activity like stated above, then we have to agree that we disagree... perfectly fine with that.

[Simon_H]

It says it straight underneath the bit you quoted.

A similar audiences list is created from a remarketing list with at least 500 cookies and enough similarity in characteristics and interests to create a corresponding similar audience. Similar audiences can't be created based on the characteristics and interests of individual users.

People who don't want to be included in similar audiences can opt out through their Ads Settings.

That's why you can opt out through your ad settings. Google's use of the term 'browsing history' has nothing to do with the history as obtained from GA. It means the history of ad clicks, which is also why it ties in with remarketing. You also seem to be forgetting that Google doesn't make money when a conversion happens. It makes money when a user clicks on an ad. So the perfect thing for Google to do is monitor which ads a user clicks on, and then put more similar ads in front of them, because that's what will maximise clicks = maximise Google revenue. Which is exactly what it is doing here. Nothing to do with GA or conversions.

In summary, the only reasons to remove GA from your site are (1) it provides you with no information that you need, hence there's no point having it and (2) it slows down page load. But with (2), you can get it to load asynchronously using Pagespeed Mod if it really bothers you that much.

[Wijnand schouten]

We seriously have a different take on this, that is fine.

The meaning opt out is something further down the line. I said "when i use analytics on my site, my compettitor can show my website visitors his ad's by means of the similar audience remarketing".

Having an opt out function means that my visitor may opt out of this ( to be shown my compettitors Ads ) ... but i don't want to enable my compettitor in this postion at all.

[NickMNS]

@Wijnand if you are showing Adsense ads on your website and you do not want you competitor's ads to appear you simply block your competitors url in Adsense. This will block all ads from that url, remarketing ads included.

Allow & Block Ads -> Advertiser URL, enter the domain click block, end of story.

It's all about the cookies and has nothing, zero to do with GA.

[Wijnand schouten]

@nickmns

My compettitor could advertise the visitor who visited my website ( previously with GA ) over / through the complete display and seach network of Google, not just my website.....That's the function of "similar visitors in adwords". So as soon someone previously visited my website he/she would get haunted with my compettitor's ad's unless he/she has opted out.

[Simon_H]

@Wijnand NO HE COULDN'T. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOOGLE ANALYTICS. 'SIMILAR AUDIENCES' IS ENTIRELY ABOUT AD CLICKS. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF IT.

[Wijnand schouten]

@simon_h no it isn't, so we disagree. Like explained above google's guideliness don't state ad clicks, neither browsing history. Google states browsing activity and there is only one way for them to collect it, with GA.

[robzilla]

If you don't trust the performance of Google's servers, just host your analytics.js file locally.

Like explained above google's guideliness don't state ad clicks, neither browsing history. Google states browsing activity and there is only one way for them to collect it, with GA.

The help page you referred to clearly states "AdWords looks at browsing activity on Display Network sites". The Display Network is AdSense, primarily, so that data is collected when users load, view and/or click ads. What does Analytics have to do with this?

[Simon_H]

@Wijnand This isn't something we can agree to disagree on. It's not that I like Star Wars and you don't. It's that you're insisting that 2 + 2 = 5 because you don't understand Google's help page. Multiple people are telling you that Similar Audiences is all about tracking browsing activity of ads, cookies, display network (which is paid), etc, which has nothing to do with tracking conversions or GA.

Here is a very simple example. A user clicks on ads of one or more advertisers selling red shoes. Because Google knows the user is after red shoes, Google will show that user ads of other advertisers who also sell red shoes. The user is likely to click those ads as well, hence, happy user, richer Google. That's it. Google has no need to look into GA conversion data; that won't help Google at all generate Similar Audience clicks. Don't you understand?

[FishingDad]

The point being made here is that Google is a business and a very big greedy business at that. They have share holders to keep happy and the ONLY thing that matters is $$$$$$$$$

They will use every tool, trick, angle, moral or immoral to keep company profits high. The only thing they have to make more of this money is data, the more data they have the more they can work it to suit them. That's just a simple fact.

Why would anyone give not only the conversion data but the amount of each sale to Google is bizarre to me. Ether through GA or any other Google product.

[robzilla]

The point being made here is that Google is a business and a very big greedy business at that. They have share holders to keep happy and the ONLY thing that matters is $$$$$$$$$

That does seem to be the suggestion, and the word "fact" is used a lot throughout this thread, but so far I've seen nothing but conjecture (and frustration). Facts are ideas supported by evidence; just saying "That's a fact!" doesn't make it so.

Personally, I feel there's too much about Analytics that can be manipulated for it to be a reliable source of data for Google on a per-site basis. However, it is a pretty reliable source of data for webmasters, and I subscribe to Robert Charlton's original idea that Analytics is "provided by Google because they really want finely tuned sites in their index".

[buckworks]

Big adwords spenders just bid heavy on people who went to your site and have products in their basket.

AdWords does not provide targeting that detailed.

[toidi]

I haven't used ga for so long i might be mistaken but i just tried to find ga on amazon and my searches turned up nothing. If amazon is not using ga why would any of its competitors?

(My apologies if i am mistaken and amazon does use ga)

[toidi]

Just looked at a couple of other big sites and so far, those that make sales do not have the ga code.