GA Benchmarking: sum of sessions by channel vs total number provided
-
Hello.
There is a huge difference in benchmark provided total amount of sessions and number of sessions if I add them up by channels:Screenshot
If I manually add number of sessions by channel i get 187+114+59+69+231+121+168+225=1174 However,report says 227. That's MORE THAN 5 TIMES difference.
Does anybody know what's happening?
If not, are there other free tools, providing some benchmark reports?Thanks!
-
No problem
I looked at Google's documentation for benchmark reporting and they didn't go in to how their benchmarking system works unfortunately.
-
Thanks!It took me some time to convert your english into my brain's english, but now I understand what's what.
-
Your stats are on the left. 178 vs 227 (your total sessions are 178). So the total does add up for your data.
As for the sample data, there's 2 possibilities I think:
1. It's all samples and averages. It's grabbing sample data based on your industry category, region and traffic volume. It's not necessary using the exact same data set for Total, Social, Direct, Organic, Referral, etc. Which is why they don't add up. Google collects a lot more data on overall traffic numbers than they do on say, email referrals (different sample sizes, different averages).
2. It's not an average at all. The report is to measure your channel volume against a benchmark. Google never said it was a benchmark average. The could be determining the benchmark based on some other equation.
There's definitely some other tools that could give you some benchmark reports. Like SimilarWeb, Alexa, I'm sure there are others some Mozzers can list.
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
-
Data that shows people who click on paid vs organic listings
Hey Everyone, I've been searching for data on the percentage of people who click on paid vs organic. My last stats which are now outdated show 60% of the people click on organic on average and 40% click on paid. Any help/links would be greatly appreciated.
Competitive Research | | JohnSammon0 -
MOZ vs Ahrefs vs SEMRush vs Spyfu and so on
Hello, fellas. I've been trying to find some type of comparison analysis for online SEO related tools and I couldn't find any, which are fresh and overview more than three. I'm interested to see if anybody saw good comparison reviews of such tools, as well as your own thoughts (back your thoughts up with more than just "I like it", please 🙂 The tools I'm interested in comparing are: MOZ Ahrefs Majestic Spyfu SEMRush Raven Wordstream whatever else you use or have in mind
Competitive Research | | DmitriiK2 -
Ranking for Competitive Keywords vs. Less Competitive Keyword Variations
I'm curious about situations where a website ranks very well for query variations, but doesn't rank for the query itself (or the reverse of that). For Redfin (where I work), here is the situation with regard to keyword rankings on Google (searched today from USA, incognito)... real estate search - #4 real estate online - #4 real estate site - #5 find real estate - #9 get real estate - #16 real estate - #163 It stands to reason that a site ranking well for a competitive query should also rank well for less competitive query variations - especially query variations that are non-limiting and do not demand a custom landing page (for example, I would consider 'board games' to dramatically limit the query 'games' and be best targeted with a targeted page...not so with 'real estate site' and 'real estate'). So, my question is, what are some theories regarding situations like this? Why do some sites rank so well for competitive queries but not for non-limiting query variations? Why aren't the sites that are crushing us for 'real estate' also crushing us for 'real estate' variations (to be clear...the top sites are crushing us for both)? Is it anchor text? Is it social signals? Is it offline signals, co-occurrence, or citations? What about internal linking and site structure? I realize it's likely a mix of all this, but I'm hoping we can drum up some new ideas here. FYI, on Bing we also rank very well for 'real estate' variations, but leap up to 31st for 'real estate'. Thoughts?
Competitive Research | | RyanOD0 -
Link vs Subdomain Language redirect
Hi all, I'm managing a website that uses a redirect to show different languages to the users. I mean when a user access the site from any country it sees the full domain but when it access it from Italy, France or Germany it goes to domain.com/lang=FR or IT. I see that other sites use a technique to redirect to it.domain.com or fr.domain.com but I have doubts about which one is better. We do an aggressive link building strategy and we have a lot of links to the root domain across the various languages. Is it better to do the link building to the it.domain.com and fr.domain.com, depending on the language source of the link instead of the root? I'm seeing that some of our competitors are doing this but I'm afraid is going to spread the link juice across many subdomains and lose power to the root. Thanks in advance
Competitive Research | | nunob.staredition0 -
Majestic gives me a 24 situation and 24 trust flow. Seomoz just a total number of 7\. How come the difference? My ranking is still bad, so is Majestic crawling faster then google?
Hi, my total domain value number on SEOmoz is 7. In Majestic it is 24 situation and 24 trust flow. My ranking is still bad (page2) and my competitors have a lower trust/ situation flow in Majestic. But in Seomoz the're better. Is the conclusion that Majestic is more up to date then Google itself and that Seomoz is more inline with the google crawling? Because Majestic doesnt reflect my ranking. (ps I started with the domain for a month, and I only have some history in registration)
Competitive Research | | remkoallertz0 -
Page quantity vs no crawl errors.
Which one is better: Have a ton of pages but accept crawl errors or; Have a lot less pages with no crawl errors. Let's say I have a product catalogue with 10 regular pages and 500 product pages (same page with content and title defined by url parameter like 'id'). It seems that even with a different product name, product description, price, color etc, I get dupplicate content crawl errors. I also know I could use a link tag with cannonical rel attribute to fix the crawl errors but I would lose indexing on 499 pages. In this case is it better SEO wise to have: 510 pages with 499 dupplicate content crawl errors or; 11 pages with 0 crawl errors?
Competitive Research | | escteam0 -
.biz vs .com
searching for a domain for a new branch of business, the original .com domain was no longer available yet the same domain with a .biz was. Question, how does google treat and rank .biz vs .com, same? less?
Competitive Research | | AmazingUniverse560 -
SEOmoz total links fluxuations
I'm analyzing my clients and competitor back links and are noticing alot of up and down fluxuations. For example last month we had 1400 back links, last week 1350 back links, and today 1450 back links. Also, one competitor went from 25,000 to 2,700 in the space of a few weeks. My question is how can I explain to the client that their back links are going down when they are paying for a back link building service (100 back links per month). Thank you for your time.
Competitive Research | | SharpKiwi0