Urchin 5.7 Versus Google Analytics

[rustybrick]

Ever take a look at the difference between the results you get from Urchin Server based analytics (5.x) and Google Analytics (developed by Urchin)?

I just did. And I see a ~20% increase in traffic on the Urchin side when compared to Google Analytics.

That is huge, huge!

[rustybrick]

Here is a visual comparison of the data.

Google Analytics in Blue & Urchin in Red

[md_doc]

Does the server based on parse logs or does it also use javascript just like the google one?

[rustybrick]

server based users a combo of logs and javascript (1st party).

[md_doc]

Well that is the reason then. Using logs you get information that you would not get with javascript... like when someone that has javascript disabled comes to your site, or when a robot parses your site.

I am kind of sad to lose this data by using googles web based software makes things a little easier to read than at least the software I used to use.

[SEOJaimie]

Matt,

I would venture to say it's not terribly disappointing. The real number is probably somewhere in between Urchin and Google Analytics. Why would you want your numbers to be artificially inflated? Anything that doesn't accept cookies won't yield a conversion anyway (at least the way you and I write things). Nobody leaves trans_id in PHP on anyway.

Anything that doesn't accept a cookie is probably not a person anyway IMO. The more interesting part is that probably almost 20% of your traffic is a bunch of bots according to this.


Oh, and aw_stats is garbage. I agree. And the numbers are even MORE inflated by aw_stats because it won't filter uniques the way Urchin does.

J.

[md_doc]

It is actually very disappointing to lose that information. I gather a lot of information from my heavily modified version of aw_stats which is modified in such a way that I can more easily tell which actual bot is parsing my site and how often and other related information like that.

I personally think it is important, esp with a new site, to know when google is parsing your site so you can know when to expect certain increases or decreases in rankings due to new content or old content.

But in terms of pure traffic and how much money has been made from a site I think google is more than fine.

I would venture to think that the urchin is the best solution for both though.

[rustybrick]

Well, Urchin does a good job not including the bots into those figures.

Of course, you need to be careful with those rogue bots.

[SEOJaimie]

Is there any tolerably easy way to take the difference of the data and sniff it out? I suspect it's rogue bots, not people with cookies off. Just my personal opinion, but it's based on zero data.

Do people still really think cookies are evil? Turning off cookies in IE is like locking the front door and leaving all the windows open. My favorite IE exploit is the one where you just need to download an image to execute arbitrary code. People should turn off images too. In fact, turn off cookies and images. heh.

We can assume the people who turn off the cookies are IE people. People who use Firefox can't possibly be that naive.

J.

[rustybrick]

It is possible they have high security settings on that auto-delete cookies, or prevent JavaScript and so on. Many people have this and are unaware about it.