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
-
Traffic cut-off since Google core update
Hi all, I am the webmaster of www.chepicap.com/en (Cryptocurrency news), and since the 3rd of june (Google core algorithm update) we got the hammer from Google. Organic traffic dropped with 90%+ overnight. We are still in the dark whether we can do to improve the current situation. Does someone have suggestions regarding this issue?
Algorithm Updates | | NielsDE0 -
Why Google changed our page-title suddenly which has been same for years
Hi all, I know Google shows a different page titles. Happens when over optimised or when we copied competitors page title. But we did neither. Suddenly Google changed our homepage page title in search results. Our page title suffix "brand name" has been moved to beginning. Our page title is still for years.
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz1 -
Does Google ignores page title suffix?
Hi all, It's a common practice giving the "brand name" or "brand name & primary keyword" as suffix on EVERY page title. Well then it's just we are giving "primary keyword" across all pages and we expect "homepage" to rank better for that "primary keyword". Still Google ranks the pages accordingly? How Google handles it? The default suffix with primary keyword across all pages will be ignored or devalued by Google for ranking certain pages? Or by the ranking of website improves for "primary keyword" just because it has been added to all page titles?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
The Google Algo update that happened 1-8 is KILLING my rankings
Does anyone know what happened?? I have a great website, we ranked very highly for a slew of industry keywords, #1 in most of our top-money kws....and our keywords have been in freefall since the update. Help?!
Algorithm Updates | | Sean_Gutermuth0 -
Same search term shows #1 on Bing but #140 on Google?
Hi, I am using the search term of my website domain i.e. "Series Digital" on both Bing and Google. Bing shows my website as the top most link. But on Google, my website appears on page 14!! Why is this happening when I am using the string within the " "?
Algorithm Updates | | Cloudguru990 -
New Google SERPs page title lengths, 60 characters?
It seems that the new Google SERPs have a shorter page title character length? From what I can gather they are 60 characters in length. Does this mean we all need to now optimise our page titles to 60 characters? Has anyone else noticed this and made any changes to page title lengths?
Algorithm Updates | | Adam_SEO_Learning0 -
Fetch as Google - removes start words from Meta Title ?? Help!
Hi all, I'm experiencing some strange behaviour with Google Webmaster Tools. I noticed that some of our pages from our ecom site were missing start keywords - I created a template for meta titles that uses Manufacturer - Ref Number - Product Name - Online Shop; all trimmed under 65 chars just in case. To give you an idea, an example meta title looks like:
Algorithm Updates | | bjs2010
Weber 522053 - Electric Barbecue Q 140 Grey - Online Shop The strange behaviour is if I do a "Fetch as Google" in GWT, no problem - I can see it pulls the variables and it's ok. So I click submit to index. Then I do a google site:URL search, to see what it has indexed, and I see the meta description has changed (so I know it's working), but the meta title has been cut so it looks like this:
Electric Barbecue Q 140 Grey - Online Shop So I am confused - why would Google cut off some words at start of meta title? Even after the Fetch as Googlebot looks perfectly ok? I should point out that this method works perfect on our other pages, which are many hundreds - but it's not working on some pages for some weird reason.... Any ideas?0 -
Google Local Algorithm Changes?
I was wondering if you have heard about any Google Local algorithm changes. We have about 200 franchise locations. Some of our locations have dropped significantly over the past few weeks. Locations that were showing up in the 1-3 positions are now no longer showing on the first page. This is for very relevant phrases for our main line of business (which is also in our business name)... ‘Phrase, CITY NAME’. These locations have plenty of positive Google reviews. We would typically rank well for a phrase like that based on our relevance. I did some brainstorming. Do you think any of these could have any impact? Google is all about things looking and feeling natural including link building, etc. We have used Yext which made a lot of changes across the web to fix addresses, etc. Do you think Google may be seeing this as unnatural? Too many changes at to many sites in to short a period of time? Along those same lines, do you think Google may be penalizing some of our franchise pages for being to ‘perfect’? It would be ‘natural’ for addresses to have some difference across the web and a bit unnatural to have them all match so perfectly. I know that Google has always stated the business name should be listed in Google Local the way it is listed to the general public. Things such as “Business Name Boston” should be listed as “Business Name”. Each of our franchise locations is named in house to reflect their geo location..... "Business Name Boston", "Business Name St. Louis". Many of our competitors also use the practice of attaching geo terms as well. Do you think we may be getting hit with a penalty now even though we have listed things on Google with the Geo term for years.... and is how WE refer to each location? Is it possible that by working with Yext, we drew attention to this practice? Should we remove our local listings geo term on Google Local? How about across the web? We are in a business that does not require customers to come to our location. Some of our locations have not suppressed the address in their local listings while others have. Many of our competitors have not. Do you think this could play into it? Some of our locations that are not showing in Local have good organic results. Have you heard anything about Google dropping Local if they show in organic? I know Google has been looking at social media more and more and I believe they will continue to do so. If our local pages have no social presence, could this adversely affect things? (I think this is probably not the case…. but wanted to throw it out there) I have noticed that in some cases where Local has dropped, we have multiple offices in that metro area. Is it possible that this could affect things? Have you heard of any Local algorithm changes? I know they are releasing a new dashboard sporadically, could this be in conjunction with a larger Local algorithm change? Our CMS tool does not allow us to change Title/Meta per page (I know... terrible!!). So every page has the same title and same meta description. (We are changing our CMS system! Can't wait!). Could this play into it? Thanks for any feedback!
Algorithm Updates | | MABES1