Issue with GA tracking and Native AMP
-
Hi everyone,
We recently pushed a new version of our site (winefolly.com), which is completely AMP native on WordPress (using the official AMP for WordPress plugin). As part of the update, we also switched over to https. In hindsight we probably should have pushed the AMP version and HTTPS changes in separate updates.
As a result of the update, the traffic in GA has dropped significantly despite the tracking code being added properly. I'm also having a hard time getting the previous views in GA working properly.
The three views are:
- Sitewide (shop.winefolly.com and winefolly.com)
- Content only (winefolly.com)
- Shop only (shop.winefolly.com)
The sitewide view seems to be working, though it's hard to know for sure, as the traffic seems pretty low (like 10 users at any given time) and I think that it's more that it's just picking up the shop traffic.
The content only view shows maybe one or two users and often none at all. I tried a bunch of different filters to only track to the main sites content views, but in one instance the filter would work, then half an hour later it would revert to no traffic. The filter is set to custom > exclude > request uri with the following regex pattern:
^shop.winefolly.com$|^checkout.shopify.com$|/products/.|/account/.|/checkout/.|/collections/.|./orders/.|/cart|/account|/pages/.|/poll/.|/?mc_cid=.|/profile?.|/?u=.|/webstore/.
Testing the filter it strips out anything not related to the main sites content, but when I save the filter and view the updated results, the changes aren't reflected. I did read that there is a delay in the filters being applied and only a subset of the available data is used, but I just want to be sure I'm adding the filters correctly.
I also tried setting the filter to predefined, exclude host equal to shop.winefolly.com, but that didn't work either.
The shop view seems to be working, but the tracking code is added via Shopify, so it makes sense that it would continue working as before.
The first thing I noticed when I checked the views is that they were still set to http, so I updated the urls to https. I then checked the GA tracking code (which is added as a json object in the Analytics setting in the WordPress plugin. Unfortunately, while GA seems to be recording traffic, none of the GA validators seem to pickup the AMP tracking code (adding using the amp-analytics tag), despite the json being confirmed as valid by the plugin.
This morning I decided to try a different approach and add the tracking code via Googles Tag Manager, as well as adding the new https domain to the Google Search Console, but alas no change.
I spent the whole day yesterday reading every post I could on the topic, but was not able to find any a solution, so I'm really hoping someone on Moz will be able to shed some light as to what I'm doing wrong.
Any suggestions or input would be very much appreciated.
Cheers,
Chris (on behalf of WineFolly.com) -
Lots going on here, so, a laundry list of follow up questions and thoughts for you...
Are you seeing AMP results showing up in the Search Console? Are you seeing them indexed as intended?
If you're doing Native AMP, you won't be able to diagnose pages by /amp URL types of formatting. It might be worth trying to fire off an event, or custom dimension in GA, for AMP = Yes / No or something like that.
For the sitewide view, have you tested loading pages on a private browser and incognito mobile browser and seeing if they show up in GA realtime in each of the 3 views when they're supposed to?
It looks like you might be using Cloudflare - I haven't dealt with an AMP site that uses it, but have you checked whether there are compatibility issues or anything you need to activate?
Are any Google Tag Manager pages set to fire on HTTPS only?
Are any GA filters in place that specify HTTP/HTTPS that need to be broadened?
Your Amp Analytics code seems to match the one on a site that is functioning as intended, so I don't think it's a formatting issue.
For the GA view filter - it seems like you should be able to simply include/exclude traffic to shop.winefolly.com - why the added complexity beyond that?
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Site Architecture & URL length
Hello SEO Folks, Wanting to have an expert advice on which one we should give preference. We understand a well put-together site architecture is one of the major factor ranking factor. In the other hand shorter URL also an important factor. Since our site aim to have many pages and destination wise product pages, in order to have shorter URL we avoid to follow the best site structure. in our site a product page do not have the right path to have right architecture, would it hurt our DA ? Thanks in advance John Adventure Emirates
Technical SEO | | Johnauh0 -
I've had a sudden a increase in crawl issues as of yesterday (like 300 from a steady 10, does anyone else have this issue?
the main issue is that it's now indexing both www and http:// - anyone else got this issue or had any changes suddenly on their crawl results?
Technical SEO | | beckyhy0 -
Hreflang and possible duplicate content SEO issue
| 0 <a class="vote-down-off" title="This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful">down vote</a> favorite | Hey community, my first question here 🙂 Imagine there is a page with video, it has hreflang tags setup, to lead let's say German visitors to /de/ folder... So, on that German version of page, everything like menus, navigation and such are in German, but the video is the same, the title of the video (H1 tag) is the same, <title></code></strong> and <strong><code>meta description</code></strong> is the same as on the original English page. It means that general (English) page and German version of it has the same key content in English.</p> <p>To me it seems to be a SEO duplicate content issue. As I know, Google doesn't think that content is duplicate, if it is properly translated to other language.</p> <p>Does my explained case mean that the content will be detected by Google as duplicate?</p> </div> </div> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table></title> |
Technical SEO | | poiseo0 -
Disavow Issues
Hi We have a client who was hit by Penguin about 18 months ago. We disavowed all the bad links about 10 months ago however this has not resulted in an uplift in traffic or rankings. The client is asking me whether it would be better to dump the domain and move the website to a fresh domain. Can you provide thoughts / experience on this please? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | EffectiveSEOUK0 -
Geo Domains & SEO Issues
Hi Is there issues to duplicate content on geo specific domains. For example we have a client with a .co.uk site who wants to create a .ie website for the local market, rather than sending them to the UK site. The content would be duplicated with limited customization. What issues would you for-see and how could they be overcome? Thank you
Technical SEO | | RadicalMedia0 -
Standard Responses Causing Duplication Issues
Hi Guys We have a Q&A section on our site which we reply to customers using standard responses which have already been approved. This is causing a lot of duplication errors, however due to the nature of our business we need to use these responses. Is there anything that we can do to stop this? Matthew
Technical SEO | | EwanFisher0 -
How to solve issues regarding canonicalization?
Today, I was searching for article which may help me in issues regarding canonicalization and found very interesting article on SEOmoz. I am facing issues regarding de-indexing of pages and down of organic search engine visits. I have done proper R & D and apply it very carefully. But, still my indexed pages and visits are going down. I have applied canonical tag to following pages. Narrow by search: http://www.vistastores.com/outdoor-umbrellas?manufacturer=California+Umbrella Sorting: http://www.vistastores.com/outdoor-umbrellas?dir=desc&order=position Pagination: http://www.vistastores.com/outdoor-umbrellas?p=2 How can I improve my performance?
Technical SEO | | CommercePundit0 -
Google crawl index issue with our website...
Hey there. We've run into a mystifying issue with Google's crawl index of one of our sites. When we do a "site:www.burlingtonmortgage.biz" search in Google, we're seeing lots of 404 Errors on pages that don't exist on our site or seemingly on the remote server. In the search results, Google is showing nonsensical folders off the root domain and then the actual page is within that non-existent folder. An example: Google shows this in its index of the site (as a 404 Error page): www.burlingtonmortgage.biz/MQnjO/idaho-mortgage-rates.asp The actual page on the site is: www.burlingtonmortgage.biz/idaho-mortgage-rates.asp Google is showing the folder MQnjO that doesn't exist anywhere on the remote. Other pages they are showing have different folder names that are just as wacky. We called our hosting company who said the problem isn't coming from them... Has anyone had something like this happen to them? Thanks so much for your insight!
Technical SEO | | ILM_Marketing
Megan0