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.

[Wijnand schouten]

@Simon_H

I hope you have cooled down a bit over a good night sleep, so your caps lock doesn't get stuck again.
Anyway, i have been thinking about our difference on opinion and to really sort this out, there is only one way i guess and that is to "ask google".

So, i am about to ask the following question:

>>
Dear Google,
After reading the pages [thinkwithgoogle.com...] and [support.google.com...] i have a question. Do you ( apart from other tools ) use Google analytics to collect data needed for this function on the display network to find users who share the same interests as those in my remarking list?
>>

As english is not my native, can you help and correct or add anything to clarify this?

[robzilla]

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

Then it must be true ;-) I actually see plenty large ecommerce sites using Analytics.

If amazon is not using ga why would any of its competitors?

Because they cannot or do not want to roll their own analytics like Amazon does.

Unless you're paranoid or find Google Analytics lacking, you don't need to, either.

[Simon_H]

@Wijnand Sorry, wasn't meaning to sound shouty! I originally wrote that comment with extra spaces between the letters to give the impression I was spelling it out to you, but it didn't render properly when I posted. So I removed the spaces. Should have removed the caps too.

Feel free to ask Google about this. They have already said many times that they don't use GA data in any way, but it can't hurt to ask! The question seems to be worded fine.

[mosxu]

Ok but the click is way to expensive these days in Adwards so nobody can make money anymore. I guess the logic is that fewer companies get the higher converting traffic to stay profitable and so they will be able to keep the value of the click...

And also the number of websites/competitors increase all the time but not the number of buyers but how can you share these buyers and still keep some companies profitable? I guess the logic is to have high paid clicks from few than it means higher converting traffic has to go to the money making companies

GA/ecommerce tracking could work only if preferred by the system

[j1357]

A reply to post #7:

In fact the main reason that Google expended all the money and effort to create the Chrome browser was to be able to collect this data.

The reason Google made Chrome is to get people to click on ads.

That's why Chrome is so slow from a user's standpoint: when you type something into the address bar, it doens't suggest going to the actual destination, but sends you to Google Search to click on ads before going to the destination. It's a scheme to get companies to pay for organic traffic, because many of them bid on their own brand names.

This is also why the ads are no longer clearly marked as ads. I suspect that most users have no idea that they are clicking on ads when they land on the SERPs.

[ergophobe]

Google was dependent on deals with Firefox to make Google the default search engine. That meant that if FF cut a deal with Microsoft instead, Bing (or Live or whatever it was at the time) would become the default search engine in every browser that mattered. Since a large number of people do not change the default search engine in their browser settings, this was a major threat to Google.

So Google created a browser that could go toe-to-toe with IE and FF.

And if we go back, this was essentially the rationale for IE - Microsoft saw computing moving off the desktop and they weren't going to be part of it if they couldn't control a browser. This was (and is) a basic threat.

when you type something into the address bar, it doens't suggest going to the actual destination,

It does if it's a domain and for most users, this is better. Not so long ago I was looking over someone's shoulder, someone I regarded as a fairly savvy user, trying to show her something SEO related. I asked her to do a google search. She opened up IE, typed "google" into the search box, got the Bing results for Google, clicked on the link to Google and then did the Google search. The simple fact is that for a large number of users, having a box for search and a box for URLs was just confusing.

So basically I agree that j1357 is right - Chrome is about getting people to click on ads, but it's more a matter of controlling the default search engine than a dark pattern involving unnecessary redirects.

The data gathering was a bonus, but Google would have had to do this even without that incentive. Whereas without the threat to their core ad/search business, I'm not sure they would have ever created a browser just for the data (maybe they would have, I'm just saying I'm not sure).

[j1357]

It does if it's a domain and for most users, this is better

I don't know about how IE does it (I'm using Linux), but go use Firefox for a month and then go back to Chrome. Firefox will take you to where you want to go, while Chrome won't suggest the URL even if it's a page that you recently visited. It won't search on URLs that you've visited just a few minutes ago, while Firefox will.

Example:

Visit this URL in Firefox and in Chrome: marriott.com/hotel-search/london.hotels.united-kingdom.travel/

Then close the tabs.

Now open up new tabs and type: "london marriott"

Firefox will suggest taking you directly back to that URL before you finish the word "london". Chrome will take you back to Google SERPs to get you to click on the ads that are paid for by Marriott. The final result is that Marriott pays for organic search, and the user's time is wasted.

It's a dark pattern. People at Google are not unaware of how the interface is making them so much money.

I asked her to do a google search. She opened up IE, typed "google" into the search box, got the Bing results for Google, clicked on the link to Google and then did the Google search.

I know people who do things like that. I think that they need better training, not worse interfaces.

The data gathering was a bonus

Google has said that they don't use Chrome browsing data for rankings. Did something change?


Mod's note: Edited typos at poster's request

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:50 am (utc) on Sep 25, 2016]

[ergophobe]

@j1357 - now I get what you're talking about. I was understanding it differently, but now I'm on the same page and yes, that is annoying... and a dark pattern

don't use Chrome browsing data for rankings

I don't think anything changed. In a straight tactical sense, I believe that to be the case, though they do use the data to improve Chrome and perhaps search. I haven't read up on it in a while, but I think it's more used as user/usage data than ranking a given site. There are potentially other issues though, such as privacy and the ability to connect different devices to a given user, particularly if you use Chrome while signed in.

[Nutterum]

Well a month and a half passed since I removed any type of Google related Analytics or similar. Nothing happened to the guinea pig site I did it on. Everything remained exactly the same. There were not shifts in CPC costs, no changes on the SERP, no more or less zombie traffic (as far as I can tell from Kissmetrics). Pretty much same-old-same-old. I think I am placing the GA tag again. I had my fun with the topic, time to get things back to the way they are supposed to be.

[samwest]

@Nutt - I ran my own test for 60 days and saw absolutely no change in conversion rate. I did notice that using PIWIK my actually bounce rate on a daily basis is 39% while GA reports 62%, maybe because they appear to calculate an average over 30 days. That's the only difference I have observed. Bottom line, conversions stink with or without GA code in place....except for those rare and random software switch bounces that produce short "lucid" periods of converting traffic.

[Sagacity]

It's all a bit random. Google analytics data helps understand UX issues, but has no bearing on conversion rates.

[head_dunce]

Google Has Quietly Dropped Ban On Personally Identifiable Web Tracking
[tech.slashdot.org...]

[Robert Charlton]

Google Has Quietly Dropped Ban On Personally Identifiable Web Tracking

See discussion on this story here....

Google latest tech company to drop anonymous web tracking
Opt-in, but 'a wall has fallen'
https://www.webmasterworld.com/goog/4823374.htm [webmasterworld.com]