Read Part II, which leads you to a great Google Analytics "cookie creation" tool.
I really hate when analytics only allow me to remove my computer from the data by IP address. I have a dynamic address, as will more and more people in N. America soon (as we gradually catch up to Europe and Asia in the Internet Connectivity Competition.) So I can remove a range, or a piece of my address ("remove anything that includes the pattern...") but those options will remove other users, too. There are software tools to block your own computer, but that doesn't help my customers. It is particularly upsetting when little free packages can do what four thousand dollar packages cannot. But there is a reason why StatCounter and Blogbeat can easily exclude you from their analytics while you have to work at it with NetTracker's software version:
Client-side (page tagging) analytics should always have the ability to work this magic by setting a cookie on the visitor's (and your) computer. It then uses those cookies when you click the button that says, "Remove this computer from the analytics." This is why, when you erase your cookies, you put yourself back into your analytics and have to repeat the process of removal.
Server-side (log file) analytics can never work this magic unless you pro-actively install your own cookies (and maybe a webserver plugin from the software company). They may the ability to do the plugin thing, but often just tell you to use an IP address when screening yourself out, so you have to dig to find out what their capabilities are.
Just because you seem to track first time vs. returning visitors doesn't mean you are setting a cookie. Your analytics may merely do matching -- when the IP user string from one session matches an IP user string from another session, it marks that user as returning. If the individual had chosen, say, to use the same computer but a different browser, the analytics would not see them as the same person.
Robbin Steif
LunaMetrics
So do you know of an easy way to remove yourself from Google Analytics?
ReplyDeleteDespite them being a client-side technology, they don't seem to have an easy (cookie) solution for that. It's all about the matching IP, which doesn't work with dynamic IP (as you stated).
I never claim to be the GA guru (I think that honor goes to ZAAZ or ROI Revolution). But since I am interested in the same topic, I looked around some on the usually-less-than-helpful Google Analytics group, and found a number of posts complaining about the same issue. I also found this post, use it at your own risk:
ReplyDeleteWith a little javascript programming you could easily do it yourself
in the page code where it calls __urchinTracker(); put an if statement
around it to not call it if it sees your cookie.
if (document.cookie.indexOf("badcookiebad") == -1) __urchinTracker();
I will see if I can get Tim from ROI to weigh in on this.
Robbin
Why are you worried about a single user - albeit yourself? Unless your site usage is so low, your activity would be lost in the overall inaccuracy inherent in web analytics anyway.
ReplyDeleteAnd if your site use is that small, then you could easily block entire /16 address ranges and not remove anyone other than yourself.
It seems like a classic example of featureitus with no real understanding of the value - beyond the coolness factor - of those who would actually use it.
I once did strip out the activity by our site authors - a team of 5 people - from our numbers. The change was so insignificant as to make the effort to do so a complete waste of time. No ROI at all.
Sorry Robbin, but I'll have to generally disagree with the need to remove oneself from the data. It Depends.
Steve
Think I'll disagree with Steve.
ReplyDeleteOn my blog, it's very important to remove myself from the traffic because it is a low-volume site (I would imagine this to be true for the majority of bloggers). Conversely, if you are running a business where your employees could potentially skew your online data - all is lost as the data becomes meaningless. So making sure that you only track meaningful data (e.g. that of your users/audience/clients/customers) is critical to the efficacy of web analytics.
Furthermore, even on a low volume site, blocking traffic by IP is - at best - very difficult given that most ISPs run on a dynamic IP address model so by trying to block by IP potentially excludes valid traffic especially if cast the net wide by using IP ranges.
@aci: Interesting points, unfortunately I suspect you're missing the thrust of my arguments to Robbins article.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that I'm advocating ignoring certain types of activity: oneself, corporate users and such; rather that you have to keep the bigger picture in view.
Sometimes it doesn't matter if you ignore certain classes of user and that can even be a good thing - in my case as mentioned previously, leaving the content authors in makes as near as zero impact on the numbers as to be irrelevant. ie. The time taken to provide more accurate numbers was wasted and hence negative ROI.
Now if you're arguing that as a single person using your site, you can statistically significantly alter your numbers and analysis thereof... well you have bigger problems to worry about. :-)
Not least being that your traffic is so sparse that I would be extremely wary of reading almost anything into it. You really don't have enough data to draw any valid conclusions from at all.
You must also keep in mind, as I mentioned, the inherent inaccuracies in web analytics. eg. With very little know how it's trivial to become invisible to all page tagging methods.
Or in my case: assuming Robbin is tracking this article+comments the numbers will be artificially inflated as I've visited from 4 separate browsers using two differing O/S's via 3 physically different PC's from multiple IP Addresses. Additionally 3 of those browsers deliberately block page tagging of the type Robbin uses.
Your argument is stating that my activity herein would have just rendered your analysis of your blog's activity meaningless if I'd done the same to you.
One last point, dynamic doesn't always mean dynamic. For dial up, almost certainly, for broadband much less so. I had the same "dynamic" IP Address for over a year on my broadband connection before I went static.
Steve
Just because web analytics data is inherently inaccurate, doesn't mean that we shouldn't actively manage the inaccuracy.
ReplyDeleteGoing to toss that aside because I think Steve and I have philosophical differences of opinion when it comes to managing the quality of the data.
Just some notes on the JavaScript snippet that Robbin posted.
The urchin tracker function as displayed does not match how the GA code is written currently and therefore if you just splice that code into your GA code, it will fail and prevent any traffic from being measured. (Verified through experiment)
Here's the code that should work (verified as working on my site)
if (document.cookie.indexOf("badcookiebad") == -1) urchinTracker();
'badcookiebad' is an example of the cookie name, not its value.
Now of course, you need to set a cookie that is entirely unique to you - don't use a cookie placed by another site.
How's that done? Well I don't know about IE but if you are using Firefox, here are a couple of extensions that allow you to manage and create cookies:
Add N Edit Cookies
Web Developer 1.0.2
From Robbin: I'm all for freedom of speech. The only comments I have deleted on my blog so far have been adult-content. But I don't like personal attacks, even when they are surrounded by lots of good ideas. So I deleted Steve's last post and am republishing it here with a line or two removed (and I do wish, Steve, you would tell us who you are, or what kind of analytics you work with.)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
"Just because web analytics data is inherently inaccurate, doesn't mean that we shouldn't actively manage the inaccuracy."
You missed a bit. ... "Within the resources we have available."
There is little point in spending $2million in doing super accurate analytics for a website that does $100K a year. Your comments are advocating that you should and would...
In secondary school you learn the concepts of error in statistics and managing it. You are seriously deluding yourself ... if you think you are getting greater accuracy.
It's nothing to do with philosophical differences - it's a science in it's own right. The world is not flat. :-)
Steve
Robbin, Clint,
ReplyDeleteI apologise profusely and unreservedly, that my comments were taken to be offensive. That was never my intent at all, and I am deeply ashamed that they have been interpreted that way.
I was honestly attempting to draw attention to the dangers in having a greater belief in "numbers" than is strictly warranted.
I would far rather have friendly argument than open warfare.
As for myself? Hmmm, tricky that one. It would be best to describe myself as an employee who provides analytics advice etc to my employer. Among other tasks. Website Analytics is about 1/5 of my main job.
I'm not deliberately trying to hide per se. It's more that directly linking myself to my employer, in this webanalytics space particularly, would be very poor form. And somewhat inappropriate.
I've also had more than my fair share of being in the technology-media spotlight for a variety of reasons. None bad, I hasten to add, it's just not a pleasant place to be.
Hence I tend to be a bit more careful about revealing my full identity where I see no advantage to myself in doing so.
Web Analytics wise, I have had varying exposure to various products. The most well known would be Webtrends, of which I am not a fan. At all. :-)
The concepts we are discussing here are not unique to webanalytics, I've come across them in other facets in my career.
As for moderating? Robbin, deleting offensive comments is not violating Freedom of Speech - only Governments can do that. You've invited me into your house, I've just insulted one of your guests and have been politely asked to not do that again.
Your action was not violating my Freedom of Speech by my understanding of the phrase. It was my inadvertant lack of good manners. My fault.
Feel free to remove this comment if you deem appropriate. I only ask that you please pass on my apology to Clint.
Steve
Thanks Steve. I emailed it to Clint this morning in case he didn't have time to check out comments or didn't have co.mments enabled. (Of course, he works for a big entertainment company and so is on Pacific time.)
ReplyDeleteI hope you will comment again. I love the debate (especially when I can just watch, and always when it is friendly.)
Robbin