PDA

View Full Version : I feel like analytics hurts my rankings



the goat
02-10-2009, 01:40 AM
I have zero proof to back this up except that I have had a few sites that rank well for my keywords drop significantly in rankings after putting the analytics code on them and have seen them regain position after removing it.

Is it possible that my sites are judged well by google on content, backlinks etc. but since I don't wow them with traffic stats once the analytics is there, they penalize me?

Or am I just paranoid and google knows the stats without the code in place anyway?

seolman
02-10-2009, 01:59 AM
No - Google does not penalize sites for putting their Analytics code on the site. It has to be something else. Is there any chance you tweaked anything else on the site while adding the Analytics code (silly question I know but I have to ask).

the goat
02-10-2009, 03:48 AM
Nope, no other changes. I have experimented with this also. I have done it with three different sites now and all of them ranked better when there were no analytics on them. It is probably just coincidence, I just get the feeling some of my sites (especially the newer ones) are a lot better in every other aspect of SEO than their traffic stats.

Harold Mansfield
02-10-2009, 04:10 AM
You are not alone. I have always had suspicions about Google analytics. First of all, I have never gotten an accurate reading from it compared to my own server stats. I have sites that show no traffic what-so-ever in analytics, yet they have made sales.

I have also had sites go in the sandbox, after adding them to my Google webmaster account, with the analytics code, compared to sites that I have not added that are doing just fine, and have never been in the sandbox.

For the sites that it works on, Googles stats are not even close to server stats, or site stats.

I personally am not very impressed and don't feel that it is the best option for me. It seems to better serve Google with information, more than it serves me with information.

I do much better when I just let Google find my site through links.

Steve B
02-10-2009, 06:34 AM
Actually, it sounds like you have pretty good proof.

Since Google will never disclose how they rank things - it's impossible to say it will NOT hurt. Your observation is all you can really go on.

Don't worry about being paranoid - sometime everyone really is out to get you!

nealrm
02-10-2009, 08:39 AM
I really doubt that analytics effective your page rank. While Google is secretive about how they rank sites we can make some logical guesses. (Sorry if this is a little long winded)

Logical Guess 1) Google goal is to return search results that meet or exceed the users expectations. If they didn't people would search elsewhere and the value of their other service would drop.

Logical Guess 2) Site traffic plays no more than a minor role in determining search engine results. My support for this is that I know the amount of traffic coming to my site. I also have a good guess on the amount of traffic certain other real estate sites get. Even so those site get a fraction of the amount of traffic as mine, they rank higher in specific keyword searches.

Logical Guess 3) Google as a business wants to earn a profit and that any services that it provides for "Free" some way benefits Google in it's ventures.

Fact 1) Google make 99% of it revenue from advertising. (Based on Google's financial reports) The search engine only supports the advertising venture and doesn't produce revenue on it's own. (It's the ads on the side of the results that make money, not the results themselves)

So based on the above, I believe that Google uses data from the analytics feature to help improve it's advertising services. So does it help Google advertising service for the search engine to direct traffic to more popular sites verses site with less traffic. NO - The amount of views on their ads remain the same regardless if you see the ad on a popular site or a less popular site. OK, then does it hurt Google to use analytic traffic information to effect search engine results. YES - The results returned would be less accurate and result in fewer people using the search engine.

seolman
02-10-2009, 09:52 AM
You are not alone. I have always had suspicions about Google analytics. First of all, I have never gotten an accurate reading from it compared to my own server stats. I have sites that show no traffic what-so-ever in analytics, yet they have made sales.

This will always be the case. The server stats are always much more accurate. The code placed on the pages Google gives you only runs when someone successfully downloads the page to their browser and a message is successfully sent back to Google Analytics. A lot can go wrong in that scenario.

The server logs a visit every time a request is made by a human or robot. No chance for error. You'll almost always find significant discrepancies between your Analytics numbers and the web logs. You should definitely rely on the web logs for real visit numbers but Analytics for trending and other valuable data web logs just can't give you.

I don't really subscribe much to the Google "big brother" theories. It is in their interest to help you make as much money as possible whether you have 10 visits a month or a million. I have Analytics on about 50 sites and it hasn't really affected any of these that I can see. I do see seasonal changes in traffic, economic changes, business cycles and other effects that happen. Once the Analytics data starts coming in and I can measure what is happening then I am able to do something about those cycles.

orion_joel
02-10-2009, 07:07 PM
I believe that it is in googles favor to put less relevant sites, near the top. Especially on pages that start out with ads just above the search results. But also because if people click the first couple of results and get pages that don't give much of what they want then they may be more likely to click the ads supporting googles advertising business. Which while it may not matter to google how much you make it matters to them how much they make.


Of course this is not to say that they do actually manipulate the results for their own benefit, but the potential is there.

the goat
02-10-2009, 08:12 PM
I don't really subscribe much to the Google "big brother" theories.

Nor do I, my feeling is that google has my sites ranked high because they have a lot of fresh unique content, but when I put the analytics on them it tells them "oh wait, this site that we thought looked good only gets 5,000 uniques a month, it must not be that great".

That's my theory anyway...

bizcard
03-20-2009, 08:02 AM
Well, this is the first I heard about this issue on analytics.

Just a quick question how long does your ranking significantly drop if you have analytics installed on your site? within 24 hours? 3 day? 1 week?

vangogh
03-20-2009, 12:05 PM
I have a hard time believing that simply adding Analytics to your site causes a significant ranking drop on its own unless there are other factors involved. It wouldn't be in Google's interest to do that or no one would use Analytics.

Do they collect information about your site if you're using Analytics? I'm sure they do. Why wouldn't they? Is it possible some of that data is used to evaluate your site for ranking? Possibly, though all they'd really be getting is performance based statistics, which aren't the best way to rank a page given how easy it is to spam.

Another theory. Is it possible you've had sites in the past that were flagged as crossing the spam line and were those sites easily tied back to you? Perhaps you're adding Analytics lets Google know you are someone associated with a past site that did get penalized.

jem
04-01-2009, 09:56 AM
Google is (one) of the fickle masters we serve. There are thousands of conspiracy theories about what works and doesn't work.

It would seem unlikely that Google Analytics hurts your rankings (but not impossible) it may give Goog some info that they put into their ranking cauldron and cook up the results that are worse than before

The big G is my best friend somedays (when I appear #1 in the 10-pack) and my worst enemy the next (when I don't!) - but over the long haul I find that just good old fashioned elbow grease with a little special secret sauce will help you rank consistently.

I view it a little like weight-loss - you have to do a little everyday and before you know it you have lost 30lbs!!!

I find that analytics helps a LOT for a new site (goog gets interested in it) but not sure about more mature sites with a decent track record.

Simon

nealrm
04-01-2009, 11:09 AM
.............
I find that analytics helps a LOT for a new site (goog gets interested in it) but not sure about more mature sites with a decent track record.

Simon

My site is a mature site with a good track record. I still use Google to help me compare my current web position with the prior year. It helps me to know in which market my site is doing well or not so well. I can thus change my advertising to compensate.

nighthawk
04-03-2009, 02:44 PM
I believe that it is in googles favor to put less relevant sites, near the top. Especially on pages that start out with ads just above the search results. But also because if people click the first couple of results and get pages that don't give much of what they want then they may be more likely to click the ads supporting googles advertising business. Which while it may not matter to google how much you make it matters to them how much they make.


Of course this is not to say that they do actually manipulate the results for their own benefit, but the potential is there.
In that case it may also be in googles interest to promote sites that feature google ads. I wonder if removing google ads would cause you to drop in the ranks?

However I am not sure if your theory makes sense - in the long run if people consistently find the top results are not what they want, they will stop using google and switch to yahoo instead. Its in googles interest to ensure you find the site you want, thats how they managed to take the market by storm and established themselves as market leaders.

vangogh
04-03-2009, 05:32 PM
I wonder if removing google ads would cause you to drop in the ranks?

Some conspiracy theorists think it does, but Google insists no and I don't think there's any proof. If they were doing this and word got out (which it inevitably would) it would be a real black eye for Google and I can see investigations into their business.

Harold Mansfield
04-04-2009, 02:38 PM
Nor do I, my feeling is that google has my sites ranked high because they have a lot of fresh unique content, but when I put the analytics on them it tells them "oh wait, this site that we thought looked good only gets 5,000 uniques a month, it must not be that great".

That's my theory anyway...

I may be paranoid, but I subscribe to that. How much traffic should not be a factor, if the content matches the request should be the only factor, so, yes it's paranoid, but if Google knows the traffic reporting..can some one who is better at building traffic get more love because they "seem" to be more popular therefore are deemed to have the content everyone is looking for ?

Can I have a site in the basement, with better content ?

I actually did put this one to the test and here is what I found.

I have a site in my sig Midnight Funk Association. It's very specific, I even got the exact domain and the content is all about the actual "Midnight Funk Association".

It is in my webmaster account but does not have analytics installed.

For months, I was pissed because I figured there is no way that if people searched for that term exactly, that Wikipedia and You tube should beat me. None.

I purposely only did minimal SEO, and I don't update it much because the Wiki entry and You Tube videos are obviously the same all the time.

For a while, I was number 4 but eventually I did rise to the top. If it hadn't, I would have had proof that some sites get better ranking no matter what..but I can actually say that I don't think Google had a choice in this one,

I still don't think it's fair that You Tube and Wikipedia are automatically 1 and 2 on a lot of stuff, but I guess if I have a problem with that I could use Yahoo, or open my own search engine :)

vangogh
04-04-2009, 06:45 PM
YouTube and Wikipedia, along with other sites rank because Google's algorithm is favoring authority sites with many inbound links. (And umm Google does own YouTube you know.) Recently there's been talk of a branding algorithm in the SEO world where it's being speculated that Google is favoring big brands even more than they already were.

You can optimize a page for a specific phrase, but if the phrase is mentioned once on a Wikipedia page they'll likely outrank you. I understand in some respects why Google is leaning this way, but I think they're weighting things way too heavily on the side of big brands.

Conspiracy theorists would tie the brand boost with AdWords spend.

eborg I don't think what you saw with your site had anything to do with Analytics. Just that Google has tweaked things to favor authority sites based on their overall authority regardless of whether or not the page is the most relevant.