Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig

Expand Messages
  • Bob Willis
    Hey Jim, This would depend on if his analytic s solution is GA. Not all vendors have rolled out a fix for google secure search keyword hide. But in my
    Message 1 of 9 , May 17, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Jim,

      This would depend on if his analytic's solution is GA. Not all vendors have rolled out a "fix" for google secure search keyword hide.
      But in my experience the string associated with google secure search traffic contained q=& in the query string.
      If you are using some other analytic's tool besides GA you could right a url search&replace rule that would look for google as the referrer and replace q=& with q=No Value&

      Regards,
      Bob

      --- On Thu, 5/17/12, ju2ltd <jim@...> wrote:

      From: ju2ltd <jim@...>
      Subject: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig
      To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 8:04 AM
















       









      Andrew,



      If these visits were organic searches wouldn't there be a keyword associated with them (if logged in keyword = (not set)) and wouldn't Google Analytics recognise them as organic search.



      I wonder whether these visits are genuine referrels via links with-in igoogle gadgets such as Reader, News, Bookmarks, etc.



      Jim Williams



      --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "appinsights" <rich@...> wrote:

      >

      > Hi,

      >

      > google.com/ig is just the igoogle page of the search engine. Although most users searching from there will most likely be logged in, you can also still use it when you are logged out.

      >

      > That said... most users searching from google.com are also logged in, so in my opinion that's all organic searching.

      >

      > Rich

      > appinsights.co.uk

      >

      > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "andrew8626" <andrew_janis@> wrote:

      > >

      > > Hello,

      > >

      > > I am digging into my referrer reports, and when I break down traffic from Google, the top referring URL is www.google.com/ig. This traffic has no associated keyword, which makes me think that due to Google's recent change, what I'm looking at is actually users that are logged into a Google account. Has anyone else seen this? Would you agree that this traffic should be considered organic search?

      > >

      > > thanks,

      > >

      > > Andrew Janis

      > >

      >



























      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bob Willis
      FYI - i know when to use write . ... From: Bob Willis Subject: Re: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig To:
      Message 2 of 9 , May 17, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        FYI - i know when to use write .

        --- On Thu, 5/17/12, Bob Willis <bntwillis@...> wrote:

        From: Bob Willis <bntwillis@...>
        Subject: Re: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig
        To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 9:49 AM
















         









        Hey Jim,



        This would depend on if his analytic's solution is GA. Not all vendors have rolled out a "fix" for google secure search keyword hide.

        But in my experience the string associated with google secure search traffic contained q=& in the query string.

        If you are using some other analytic's tool besides GA you could right a url search&replace rule that would look for google as the referrer and replace q=& with q=No Value&



        Regards,

        Bob



        --- On Thu, 5/17/12, ju2ltd <jim@...> wrote:



        From: ju2ltd <jim@...>

        Subject: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig

        To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com

        Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 8:04 AM



         



        Andrew,



        If these visits were organic searches wouldn't there be a keyword associated with them (if logged in keyword = (not set)) and wouldn't Google Analytics recognise them as organic search.



        I wonder whether these visits are genuine referrels via links with-in igoogle gadgets such as Reader, News, Bookmarks, etc.



        Jim Williams



        --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "appinsights" <rich@...> wrote:



        >



        > Hi,



        >



        > google.com/ig is just the igoogle page of the search engine. Although most users searching from there will most likely be logged in, you can also still use it when you are logged out.



        >



        > That said... most users searching from google.com are also logged in, so in my opinion that's all organic searching.



        >



        > Rich



        > appinsights.co.uk



        >



        > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "andrew8626" <andrew_janis@> wrote:



        > >



        > > Hello,



        > >



        > > I am digging into my referrer reports, and when I break down traffic from Google, the top referring URL is www.google.com/ig. This traffic has no associated keyword, which makes me think that due to Google's recent change, what I'm looking at is actually users that are logged into a Google account. Has anyone else seen this? Would you agree that this traffic should be considered organic search?



        > >



        > > thanks,



        > >



        > > Andrew Janis



        > >



        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • andrew8626
        Hi guys, Thanks for the feedback. Jim, you re correct that that s how GA handles this traffic, but in this case my client is running NetInsight. Bob, thanks
        Message 3 of 9 , May 17, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi guys,

          Thanks for the feedback. Jim, you're correct that that's how GA handles this traffic, but in this case my client is running NetInsight. Bob, thanks for the feedback. In looking through all my Google referrals, I do not see q=& showing up. What i do show as the top referring URL is http://www.google.com/ig. That URL is typically iGoogle, but it simply makes no sense that they would have that large a percentage of visits from people's iGoogle pages. What seems more likely to me is that traffic is actually secure search. Perhaps NI has some sort of old filter in place or something that is categorizing referrals coming through as q=& and attributing it to iGoogle.

          In any case, thanks much to both of you for your feedback.

          Andrew Janis

          --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, Bob Willis <bntwillis@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hey Jim,
          >
          > This would depend on if his analytic's solution is GA. Not all vendors have rolled out a "fix" for google secure search keyword hide.
          > But in my experience the string associated with google secure search traffic contained q=& in the query string.
          > If you are using some other analytic's tool besides GA you could right a url search&replace rule that would look for google as the referrer and replace q=& with q=No Value&
          >
          > Regards,
          > Bob
          >
          > --- On Thu, 5/17/12, ju2ltd <jim@...> wrote:
          >
          > From: ju2ltd <jim@...>
          > Subject: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig
          > To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 8:04 AM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >  
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Andrew,
          >
          >
          >
          > If these visits were organic searches wouldn't there be a keyword associated with them (if logged in keyword = (not set)) and wouldn't Google Analytics recognise them as organic search.
          >
          >
          >
          > I wonder whether these visits are genuine referrels via links with-in igoogle gadgets such as Reader, News, Bookmarks, etc.
          >
          >
          >
          > Jim Williams
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "appinsights" <rich@> wrote:
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Hi,
          >
          > >
          >
          > > google.com/ig is just the igoogle page of the search engine. Although most users searching from there will most likely be logged in, you can also still use it when you are logged out.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > That said... most users searching from google.com are also logged in, so in my opinion that's all organic searching.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Rich
          >
          > > appinsights.co.uk
          >
          > >
          >
          > > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "andrew8626" <andrew_janis@> wrote:
          >
          > > >
          >
          > > > Hello,
          >
          > > >
          >
          > > > I am digging into my referrer reports, and when I break down traffic from Google, the top referring URL is www.google.com/ig. This traffic has no associated keyword, which makes me think that due to Google's recent change, what I'm looking at is actually users that are logged into a Google account. Has anyone else seen this? Would you agree that this traffic should be considered organic search?
          >
          > > >
          >
          > > > thanks,
          >
          > > >
          >
          > > > Andrew Janis
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Bob Willis
          Hey Andrew, What version of NI are you running and what specific report are you looking at (Entry Referrer Breakdown)? Unless someone has made a change for
          Message 4 of 9 , May 17, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Andrew,

            What version of NI are you running and what specific report are you looking at (Entry Referrer Breakdown)?
            Unless someone has made a change for you, NetInsight would not categorize anything as iGoogle. To see what keywords are being used by your referrers. You can go to Options>Marketing>Keywords. Here you will be able to see what Keyword Parameters are being associated with Google and which Referrers are associated with Google.
            If you want to see how the Referrers are defined, goto Options>Marketing>Referrer Groups, find the Google entry and see how that is defined. Hope this helps.

            Regards,
            Bob

            --- On Thu, 5/17/12, andrew8626 <andrew_janis@...> wrote:

            From: andrew8626 <andrew_janis@...>
            Subject: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig
            To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 11:13 AM
















             









            Hi guys,



            Thanks for the feedback. Jim, you're correct that that's how GA handles this traffic, but in this case my client is running NetInsight. Bob, thanks for the feedback. In looking through all my Google referrals, I do not see q=& showing up. What i do show as the top referring URL is http://www.google.com/ig. That URL is typically iGoogle, but it simply makes no sense that they would have that large a percentage of visits from people's iGoogle pages. What seems more likely to me is that traffic is actually secure search. Perhaps NI has some sort of old filter in place or something that is categorizing referrals coming through as q=& and attributing it to iGoogle.



            In any case, thanks much to both of you for your feedback.



            Andrew Janis



            --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, Bob Willis <bntwillis@...> wrote:

            >

            > Hey Jim,

            >

            > This would depend on if his analytic's solution is GA. Not all vendors have rolled out a "fix" for google secure search keyword hide.

            > But in my experience the string associated with google secure search traffic contained q=& in the query string.

            > If you are using some other analytic's tool besides GA you could right a url search&replace rule that would look for google as the referrer and replace q=& with q=No Value&

            >

            > Regards,

            > Bob

            >

            > --- On Thu, 5/17/12, ju2ltd <jim@...> wrote:

            >

            > From: ju2ltd <jim@...>

            > Subject: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig

            > To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com

            > Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 8:04 AM

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >  

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            > Andrew,

            >

            >

            >

            > If these visits were organic searches wouldn't there be a keyword associated with them (if logged in keyword = (not set)) and wouldn't Google Analytics recognise them as organic search.

            >

            >

            >

            > I wonder whether these visits are genuine referrels via links with-in igoogle gadgets such as Reader, News, Bookmarks, etc.

            >

            >

            >

            > Jim Williams

            >

            >

            >

            > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "appinsights" <rich@> wrote:

            >

            > >

            >

            > > Hi,

            >

            > >

            >

            > > google.com/ig is just the igoogle page of the search engine. Although most users searching from there will most likely be logged in, you can also still use it when you are logged out.

            >

            > >

            >

            > > That said... most users searching from google.com are also logged in, so in my opinion that's all organic searching.

            >

            > >

            >

            > > Rich

            >

            > > appinsights.co.uk

            >

            > >

            >

            > > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "andrew8626" <andrew_janis@> wrote:

            >

            > > >

            >

            > > > Hello,

            >

            > > >

            >

            > > > I am digging into my referrer reports, and when I break down traffic from Google, the top referring URL is www.google.com/ig. This traffic has no associated keyword, which makes me think that due to Google's recent change, what I'm looking at is actually users that are logged into a Google account. Has anyone else seen this? Would you agree that this traffic should be considered organic search?

            >

            > > >

            >

            > > > thanks,

            >

            > > >

            >

            > > > Andrew Janis

            >

            > > >

            >

            > >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            >



























            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • appinsights
            I think this article might have the answer: http://www.searchmarketingstandard.com/not-provided-keywords-are-on-the-rise Rich appinsights.co.uk
            Message 5 of 9 , May 18, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I think this article might have the answer:

              http://www.searchmarketingstandard.com/not-provided-keywords-are-on-the-rise

              Rich
              appinsights.co.uk

              --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, Bob Willis <bntwillis@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Hey Andrew,
              >
              > What version of NI are you running and what specific report are you looking at (Entry Referrer Breakdown)?
              > Unless someone has made a change for you, NetInsight would not categorize anything as iGoogle. To see what keywords are being used by your referrers. You can go to Options>Marketing>Keywords. Here you will be able to see what Keyword Parameters are being associated with Google and which Referrers are associated with Google.
              > If you want to see how the Referrers are defined, goto Options>Marketing>Referrer Groups, find the Google entry and see how that is defined. Hope this helps.
              >
              > Regards,
              > Bob
              >
              > --- On Thu, 5/17/12, andrew8626 <andrew_janis@...> wrote:
              >
              > From: andrew8626 <andrew_janis@...>
              > Subject: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig
              > To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 11:13 AM
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >  
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Hi guys,
              >
              >
              >
              > Thanks for the feedback. Jim, you're correct that that's how GA handles this traffic, but in this case my client is running NetInsight. Bob, thanks for the feedback. In looking through all my Google referrals, I do not see q=& showing up. What i do show as the top referring URL is http://www.google.com/ig. That URL is typically iGoogle, but it simply makes no sense that they would have that large a percentage of visits from people's iGoogle pages. What seems more likely to me is that traffic is actually secure search. Perhaps NI has some sort of old filter in place or something that is categorizing referrals coming through as q=& and attributing it to iGoogle.
              >
              >
              >
              > In any case, thanks much to both of you for your feedback.
              >
              >
              >
              > Andrew Janis
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, Bob Willis <bntwillis@> wrote:
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Hey Jim,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > This would depend on if his analytic's solution is GA. Not all vendors have rolled out a "fix" for google secure search keyword hide.
              >
              > > But in my experience the string associated with google secure search traffic contained q=& in the query string.
              >
              > > If you are using some other analytic's tool besides GA you could right a url search&replace rule that would look for google as the referrer and replace q=& with q=No Value&
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Regards,
              >
              > > Bob
              >
              > >
              >
              > > --- On Thu, 5/17/12, ju2ltd <jim@> wrote:
              >
              > >
              >
              > > From: ju2ltd <jim@>
              >
              > > Subject: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig
              >
              > > To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > > Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 8:04 AM
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >  
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Andrew,
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > If these visits were organic searches wouldn't there be a keyword associated with them (if logged in keyword = (not set)) and wouldn't Google Analytics recognise them as organic search.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > I wonder whether these visits are genuine referrels via links with-in igoogle gadgets such as Reader, News, Bookmarks, etc.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Jim Williams
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "appinsights" <rich@> wrote:
              >
              > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > Hi,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > google.com/ig is just the igoogle page of the search engine. Although most users searching from there will most likely be logged in, you can also still use it when you are logged out.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > That said... most users searching from google.com are also logged in, so in my opinion that's all organic searching.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > Rich
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > appinsights.co.uk
              >
              > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "andrew8626" <andrew_janis@> wrote:
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > > Hello,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > > I am digging into my referrer reports, and when I break down traffic from Google, the top referring URL is www.google.com/ig. This traffic has no associated keyword, which makes me think that due to Google's recent change, what I'm looking at is actually users that are logged into a Google account. Has anyone else seen this? Would you agree that this traffic should be considered organic search?
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > > thanks,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > > Andrew Janis
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • ju2ltd
              Bob, Good point I was being a little GA - centric there. Jim.
              Message 6 of 9 , May 18, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Bob,

                Good point I was being a little GA - centric there.

                Jim.



                --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, Bob Willis <bntwillis@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hey Jim,
                >
                > This would depend on if his analytic's solution is GA. Not all vendors have rolled out a "fix" for google secure search keyword hide.
                > But in my experience the string associated with google secure search traffic contained q=& in the query string.
                > If you are using some other analytic's tool besides GA you could right a url search&replace rule that would look for google as the referrer and replace q=& with q=No Value&
                >
                > Regards,
                > Bob
                >
                > --- On Thu, 5/17/12, ju2ltd <jim@...> wrote:
                >
                > From: ju2ltd <jim@...>
                > Subject: [webanalytics] Re: Referral Traffic from google.com/ig
                > To: webanalytics@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 8:04 AM
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >  
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Andrew,
                >
                >
                >
                > If these visits were organic searches wouldn't there be a keyword associated with them (if logged in keyword = (not set)) and wouldn't Google Analytics recognise them as organic search.
                >
                >
                >
                > I wonder whether these visits are genuine referrels via links with-in igoogle gadgets such as Reader, News, Bookmarks, etc.
                >
                >
                >
                > Jim Williams
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "appinsights" <rich@> wrote:
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Hi,
                >
                > >
                >
                > > google.com/ig is just the igoogle page of the search engine. Although most users searching from there will most likely be logged in, you can also still use it when you are logged out.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > That said... most users searching from google.com are also logged in, so in my opinion that's all organic searching.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Rich
                >
                > > appinsights.co.uk
                >
                > >
                >
                > > --- In webanalytics@yahoogroups.com, "andrew8626" <andrew_janis@> wrote:
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > Hello,
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > I am digging into my referrer reports, and when I break down traffic from Google, the top referring URL is www.google.com/ig. This traffic has no associated keyword, which makes me think that due to Google's recent change, what I'm looking at is actually users that are logged into a Google account. Has anyone else seen this? Would you agree that this traffic should be considered organic search?
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > thanks,
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > Andrew Janis
                >
                > > >
                >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.