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
-
Best and easiest Google Depersonalization method
Hello, Moz hasn't written anything about depersonalization for years. This article has methods, but I don't know if they are valid anymore. What's an easy, effective way to depersonalize Google search these days? I would just log out of Google, but that shows different ranking results than Moz's rank tracker for one of our main keywords, so I don't know if that method is correct. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | BobGW0 -
404s in Google Search Console and javascript
The end of April, we made the switch from http to https and I was prepared for a surge in crawl errors while Google sorted out our site. However, I wasn't prepared for the surge in impossibly incorrect URLs and partial URLs that I've seen since then. I have learned that as Googlebot grows up, he'she's now attempting to read more javascript and will occasionally try to parse out and "read" a URL in a string of javascript code where no URL is actually present. So, I've "marked as fixed" hundreds of bits like /TRo39,
Algorithm Updates | | LizMicik
category/cig
etc., etc.... But they are also returning hundreds of otherwise correct URLs with a .html extension when our CMS system generates URLs with a .uts extension like this: https://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGARS/90-RATED-CIGARS/FULL-CIGARS/9012/c/9007/pc/8335.html
when it should be:
https://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGARS/90-RATED-CIGARS/FULL-CIGARS/9012/c/9007/pc/8335.uts Worst of all, when I look at them in GSC and check the "linked from" tab it shows they are linked from themselves, so I can't backtrack and find a common source of the error. Is anyone else experiencing this? Got any suggestions on how to stop it from happening in the future? Last month it was 50 URLs, this month 150, so I can't keep creating redirects and hoping it goes away. Thanks for any and all suggestions!
Liz Micik0 -
Is there any way to prevent Google from using structured data on specific pages?
I've noticed that Google is now serving what looks like host-specific video cards on mobile for our site. Is there any way to control which videos are included in these lists without removing the structured data on those clip pages or user pages? We don't want to noindex those pages but we don't want content from those pages to appear as video cards. 1kzPW
Algorithm Updates | | Garrett570 -
Where has Google found the £1.00 value for the penny black? Is it Google moving beyond the mark-ups too?
Hi guys, I am curious, so am wondering something about the Penny Black SERPs.
Algorithm Updates | | madcow78
Apparently Google shows a value of £1.00 Penny Black SERP From where does it come from? It's not the value Penny Black Value SERP The Wikipedia page hasn't any mark-up about it, actually it has the Price value mark-up of 1 penny Penny Black Wiki Markup Among the rare stamps, also the Inverted Jenny shows a value Inverted Jenny SERP But it's clearly taken from USPS and it's the cost of a new version of this rare stamp USPS Inverted Jenny Indeed, the mark-up matches that value USPS Inverted Jenny Mark-up I've been looking on-line for a new version of the Penny Black, but couldn't find anything.
The only small piece of information that I've found to correlate one pound with the Penny Black is on the Wikipedia page, but the point is: is Google able to strip those information from that piece? It's not a mark-up, it's not a number and mostly it's not a simple sentence like "The penny black cost was of £1.00" It reads "One full sheet cost 240 pennies or one pound sterling". Penny Black Wikipedia particular Is it Google moving beyond the mark-ups too? Thanks, Pierpaolo 9Cm3MOs.jpg f7XYNtF.jpg 5PpwapB.jpg hYUJswI.jpg 7kbIC4Q.jpg jnu1Gbe.jpg Wzltg0t.jpg2 -
Google sets brand/domain name at the end of SERP titles
Hi all, I am experiencing that Google puts our domain name at the end of the titles in SERPs. So if ia have a title: "See our super cool website", Google would show "See our super cool website - Betxpert.com" in the SERPs Well. This is okay. Apart from the fact that i myself often put the brand name in the title AND the fact that Google mispells the site name. The brand is BetXpert with a upper case X...so when i get a SERP with "See our super cool website - BetXpert - Betxpert.com" I am annoyed 🙂 Any one out the know how to tell Google the EXACT brand name, such that they do not set a value the site owner does not want to have? -Rasmus
Algorithm Updates | | rasmusbang0 -
Can Google penalize a country keyword
Hello again guys Thank you for your previous help with www.kids-academy.co.uk - we are slowly getting there! I wanted to ask something I cannot seem to find an answer to, can Google penalize you by country? By this I mean; Search term
Algorithm Updates | | LeanneSEO
Nursery franchise UAE Page 1
Nursery franchise UK Nowhere to be found! The page in question (well a section of the site) has been optimised for UK, however, as they do have a sister site in the UAE, it mentions those areas too. The pages I have been working on are now ranking reasonably well to say there is a long way to go, but for long tailed keywords NOT including anything to do with the UK. There are no naughty backlinks with the anchor text to do with the UK, the server is hosted in the UK, it is a .co.uk URL (no geotagging but I would like to know if this is of any use with this type of URL, everything says no, but it cant harm can it?) - is it possible Google due to bad practices in the past have slapped a penalty on the specific keyword area? Not something I have come across previously but I am scratching my head over here! Time for a brew break 😄 Thanks in advance guys! Leanne1 -
Does a KML file have to be indexed by Google?
I'm currently using the Yoast Local SEO plugin for WordPress to generate my KML file which is linked to from the GeoSitemap. Check it out http://www.holycitycatering.com/sitemap_index.xml. A competitor of mine just told me that this isn't correct and that the link to the KML should be a downloadable file that's indexed in Google. This is the opposite of what Yoast is saying... "He's wrong. 🙂 And the KML isn't a file, it's being rendered. You wouldn't want it to be indexed anyway, you just want Google to find the information in there. What is the best way to create a KML? Should it be indexed?
Algorithm Updates | | projectassistant1 -
Google changing the casing in SERPs of our domain name in Title tag!
I've added NOODP and NOYDIR metas to our pages... but Google is still somehow showing the correct title tag that is on the page, but is changing the CASING of the | Domain.com portion. In some instances, they are still showing a different title tag all together. Why would they be ignoring the <title>tag on the page and placing an uncased version of our domain name at the end?</p> <p> </p> <a download="MxQjo" class="imported-anchor-tag" href="http://imgur.com/MxQjo" target="_blank">MxQjo</a></title>
Algorithm Updates | | CareerBliss0