Increase in impressions reported by Google Analytics
-
Because Universal Analytics (and Google Webmaster) only stores SEO data for 3 months, I've been downloading SEO data (from the Acquisition tab of Analytics) to get a record of how impressions, clicks, CTR etc are changing in the long term (our business is seasonal, so these long-term patterns are important).
Today, I downloaded data for September, and found a very large increase in the number of impressions compared to previous months.
I looked back at the data for August, which I've already downloaded, and found that Analytics is now reporting much higher numbers of impressions than I have in my downloaded data. The total number of impressions has roughly doubled, and the increase for individual URLs varies, with some increasing by a factor of 10. The number of clicks has also increased, by about 15% in total. Because of the 3 month cut-off, I could only look back as far as the 11th of July, but the impressions for the end of July are also much higher than in my downloaded data.
I've noticed that Analytics has changed some other details in its reporting of SEO data. For example, the impressions and clicks data is no longer rounded. Could this increase in impressions be a result of those changes? Has anyone else experienced something similar?
We can go ahead and use the new data but it will throw our analysis off for past months (which have the lower numbers). If others have experienced something similar it would be good to know, so that we can adjust our historical numbers accordingly.
-
I think the API will help, but for the same date range, no filters, etc, the data shouldn't have changed. BUT Google has been known to edit their Search Console data, or they have in the past when they found discrepancies. There are any number of reasons why, but I am sorry we couldn't nail it down for you. I really do think the API will help. Best of luck!
-
Thanks, but the explanation still doesn't quite make sense because the discrepancy occurs for historical months in the downloaded data. So even if the CSV only downloads (for example) the top 1000 landing pages, it doesn't explain why the same download showed different data later. The top 1000 landing pages in that period should not have changed.
Anyway I think we will start using the API to extract the data in future as this seems to be more reliable regardless, so thanks for the help.
-
Ooohh!!!! Yes, I did misunderstand. I think the discrepancy here is that the CSV download only downloads part of the total data, the first thousand rows to be exact.
For example, in an account I have access to right now, for the last 30 days Search Console shows 35,145 clicks and over a million impressions. The download shows, upon summation of the data, 404,923 impresssions and 20,309 clicks.
You can't use the download to use as an overall view. The API should give you more accurate numbers.
-
Thanks for the further response.
However I think there has been a bit of confusion - we have already pulled the data directly from the search console by exporting the CSV.
So the discrepancy still remains, unless all of the historical data that we pulled (for every month back to April) was pulled incorrectly.
We are likely to automate the extraction of data in future to try and avoid any human error (thanks for the link, which will be helpful as we work out how to do this), but we're fairly sure that there wasn't human error this time. This is due to the fact that the data was previously rounded (in both GA and the search console) to the nearest thousand. When this rounding stopped all the impressions numbers jumped significantly, and that's the issue we are trying to get to the bottom of.
-
Yeah, there had to be something off with the dates pulled or something like that. It's always possible that the data came out wrong but more than likely something was missed in the report pulling. Human error and all. I've done it so many times myself.
If I might recommend, if you have the resources, pull this data from Search Console directly, rather than GA. Using their API, you can pull it directly: https://developers.google.com/webmaster-tools/?hl=en
This might be helpful: http://searchwilderness.com/gwmt-data-python/
-
We've been pulling the data from GA as follows:
Acquisition > Search Engine Optimisation > Landing Pages > Export CSV
We've not set up a dashboard so I guess it's "pulled by hand". I've checked and the number of impressions is the same (at least now) regardless of whether it's the Landing Pages or Queries data that is exported.
We followed exactly the same process when we first downloaded the data and so the data has definitely changed.
In the Search Console the data we've been using to cross-reference is in Search Traffic > Search Analytics.
It seems to me that we're unlikely to get a definitive answer on why it has changed and so we may need to simply start again with the past three months of data, and maybe set up a report so that we are 100% sure of the data export process. But any further advice would be gratefully received!
-
Can you add screen shots of your report download settings? Is this report automatic? Is is from a GA dashboard or pulled by hand every month?
I suspect something might be going wrong with the report pulling from GA.
-
Hi Kate,
Many thanks for the response. Margot is away this week so I'm picking this up in her absence.
The August Impressions and Clicks data in Search Console is slightly different to the SEO data in GA (it appears to differ by up to ~8% in either direction), but appears generally consistent with the current data in GA.
The GA and Search Console data are both much higher (around 3 X) than what we have in the historical data we'd previously downloaded for August.
The August Impressions data we previously downloaded shows daily impressions, and each day is rounded to the nearest thousand (i.e. each daily number ends with 000). The new data in GA and Search Console appears to be no longer rounded at all. Surely this must be related.
Any further thoughts appreciated!
Thanks
Jamie
-
That data should be straight from Search Console when you link your GA account with Search Console. Can you compare your reports from GA in August with the same data in Search Console? Is that different? What about what you see in Search Console vs what you see on screen in GA? Let's start there.
-
It's not that impressions have increased month-on-month, it's that data from August (which we initially downloaded at the beginning of September) is now showing much higher impressions etc data than when we initially downloaded it. This throws into doubt all the previous data (which we now cannot access because Analytics only goes back 3 months).
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
-
Does Google's Information Box Seem Shady to you?
So I just had this thought, Google returns information boxes for certain search terms. Recently I noticed one word searches usually return a definition. For example if you type in the word "occur" or "happenstance" or "frustration" you get a definition information box. But what I didn't see is a reference to where they are getting or have gotten this information. Now it could very well be they built their own database of definitions, and if they did great, but here is where it seems a bit grey to me... Did Google hire a team of people to populate the database, or did they just write an algorithm to comb a dictionary website and stick the information in their database. The latter seems more likely. If that is what happened then Google basically stole the information from somebody to claim it as their own, which makes me worry, if you coin a term, lets say "lumpy stumpy" and it goes mainstream which would entail a lot of marketing, and luck. Would Google just add it to its database and forgo giving you credit for its creation? From a user perspective I love these information boxes, but just like Google expects us webmasters to do, they should be giving credit where credit is due... don't you think? I'm not plugged in to the happenings of Google so maybe they bought the rights, or maybe they bought or hold a majority of shares in some definition type company (they have the cash) but it just struck me as odd not seeing a reference to a site. What are your thoughts?
Algorithm Updates | | donford1 -
Does Google use dateModified or date Published in its SERPs?
I was curious as to the prioritization of dateCreated / datePublished and dateModified in our microdata and how it affects google search results. I have read some entries online that say Google prioritizes dateModified in SERPs, but others that claim they prioritize datePublished or dateCreated. Do you know (or could you point me to some resources) as to whether Google uses dateModified or date Published in its SERPs? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | Parse.ly0 -
Recent Google algorithm update?
Two of our clients have experienced a huge dip in organic rankings during the past week or so and we haven't done anything that would cause this. Have there been any major Google changes reported lately? I'm not seeing anything reported here: https://moz.com/google-algorithm-change. Thanks for your input. Eric
Algorithm Updates | | EricFish0 -
Bounce rates: Google vs others
Hello Mozzers, I was wondering if anyone could share some insight into how Google calculates bounce rates vs other analytics out there. We use both Google analytics and Clicky here. I've made several changes and additions to the website in hopes to increase traffic, optimization and reduce bounce rates. So far so good on all fronts. However I do notice bounce rates are way higher on google analytics than Clicky. While I get a bounce rate of 20%-29% on Clicky, Google has me way up the 50's or 60%s. I've read a few articles on it but I'm still a bit confused. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | md30 -
Is it possible that Google may have erroneous indexing dates?
I am consulting someone for a problem related to copied content. Both sites in question are WordPress (self hosted) sites. The "good" site publishes a post. The "bad" site copies the post (without even removing all internal links to the "good" site) a few days after. On both websites it is obvious the publishing date of the posts, and it is clear that the "bad" site publishes the posts days later. The content thief doesn't even bother to fake the publishing date. The owner of the "good" site wants to have all the proofs needed before acting against the content thief. So I suggested him to also check in Google the dates the various pages were indexed using Search Tools -> Custom Range in order to have the indexing date displayed next to the search results. For all of the copied pages the indexing dates also prove the "bad" site published the content days after the "good" site, but there are 2 exceptions for the very 2 first posts copied. First post:
Algorithm Updates | | SorinaDascalu
On the "good" website it was published on 30 January 2013
On the "bad" website it was published on 26 February 2013
In Google search both show up indexed on 30 January 2013! Second post:
On the "good" website it was published on 20 March 2013
On the "bad" website it was published on 10 May 2013
In Google search both show up indexed on 20 March 2013! Is it possible to be an error in the date shown in Google search results? I also asked for help on Google Webmaster forums but there the discussion shifted to "who copied the content" and "file a DMCA complain". So I want to be sure my question is better understood here.
It is not about who published the content first or how to take down the copied content, I am just asking if anybody else noticed this strange thing with Google indexing dates. How is it possible for Google search results to display an indexing date previous to the date the article copy was published and exactly the same date that the original article was published and indexed?0 -
When did Google include display results per page into their ranking algorithm?
It looks like the change took place approx. 1-2 weeks ago. Example: A search for "business credit cards" with search settings at "never show instant results" and "50 results per page", the SERP has a total of 5 different domains in the top 10 (4 domains have multiple results). With the slider set at "10 results per page", there are 9 different domains with only 1 having multiple results. I haven't seen any mention of this change, did I just miss it? Are they becoming that blatant about forcing as many page views as possible for the sake of serving more ads?
Algorithm Updates | | BrianCC0 -
How much does Google take Social into account in serps
I have been reading and trying to learn more about how google takes social media into account when ranking sites, but I cant seam to find a definitive answer to this, does it make a big difference or does it not really matter?
Algorithm Updates | | MiracleCreative0 -
How To Rank High In Google Places?
Hello SEOmoz, This question has been hounding me for a long time and I've never seen a single reliable information from the web that answers it. Anyway here's my question; Supposing that there are three Google places for three different websites having the same categories and almost same keywords and same district/city/IP how does Google rank one high from the other? Or simply put if you own one of those websites and you would want to rank higher over your competitors in Google places Search results how does one do it? A number of theories were brought up by some of my colleagues: 1. The age of the listing 2. The number of links pointing to the listing (supposing that one can build links to ones listing) 3. The name/url of the listing, tags, description, etc. 4. The address of the listing. 5. Authority of the domain (linked website) You see some listings have either no description, and only one category and yet they rank number one for a specific term/keyword whereas others have complete categories, descriptions etc. If you could please give me a definite answer I will surely appreciate it. Thank you very much and more power!
Algorithm Updates | | LeeAnn300