Google Launches Web Traffic Analysis Service

segphault writes to pass along that Ars Technica has an interesting article about the recently released Google Analytics. Analytics is Google's new traffic analysis service that helps you to know everything from "how your visitors found you [to] how they interact with your site." Analytics is also built to integrate with AdWords if you are already utilizing that service.

Urchin

[pubjames]

Did they do this based on their acquisition of Urchin? Are Urchin staff now working on this instead? Does this mean the death of Urchin software?
 

Urchin

[mysqlrocks]

When I heard that they had purchased Urchin back in March I was wondering how long it would be before they came out with a service like this. I'm sure this will be a lot better than a lot of those free "stat counter" services out there.

Is this the future of google?

[Anonymous Coward]

This looks like google is relying less and less on their PageRank algorithm and more and more on data that they spy from users.

It seems to me that the page rank is too easilly manipulated so they are resorting to the alexia toolbar method.

Already they are pusing their toolbar hard (even for firefox where is has limited appeal). This says even more to me that they are using the stats from the toolbar and now these stats to monitor user browsing behavior, which it will use to better their search results.

No different than Google ads.

[brunes69]

If you have a Google ad on your page you are already giving them all this information.

Re:Big Brother-esque (again)

[batknight23]

Frightening indeed. One large entity--whether it be a corporation or a government--collecting massive ammounts of data scares me to no end...

Further thought to chew: Once Google has eaten all the worlds content, secrets, and privacy... Government(s) will (are?) have a field day getting court orders to tap that index in new and ever more creative ways.

Re:Big Brother-esque (again)

[decipher_saint]

Isn't that the point of this service; detailed information gathering?

This is no different from many other counter services already provided on the web (well, it has more robust reporting considering it's free).

I do loathe the fact that it's a remote JS file, that has to change.

Re:shameless MS plug?

[ZachPruckowski]

The concept behind that line seems to be a disclaimer. He doesn't want to get sued for saying that there are bugs, which there aren't, but isn't sure where the errors come from. So he is saying "Hey, there are bugs, but they could be Google, or Linux, or Firefox, or some combination of them", which seems fundamentally sound from a CYA perspective. It isn't a straight M$ plug either. The bugs could be caused by google, and there are more alternatives to Linux and Firefox than Windows + IE. The author simply didn't have the time or resources to check it on all 10-15 browser/OS combinations, and is noting what he used.

Death knell for Web Side Story

[Slashdoc Beta]

This is the end of Web Side Story and similar analytics tools as we know it. Obviously webmasters will flock to Google's free (and probably superior) tools. Google simply takes the $400m market and redistributes the money back to publishers. Amazing.

Re:Big Brother-esque (again)

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Asketh the AC:

So how is this different from DoubleClick?

Well, obviously DoubleClick are evil. Google do no evil, so this time it's completely different, and it's OK to run someone else's JavaScript on your web site.

</sarcasm>

Rather this than rely on DMOZ etc.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Disclaimer: I'm as sceptical as the next guy about having any big organisation collecting massive amounts of data about some area of the Internet, and Google are clearly the biggest potential abusers of that information.

However, right now the text that appears for a web site I help to run if you find it in Google isn't written by either Google or us, it's written by some anonymous editor at DMOZ. Those editors are notorious for not giving a damn what the webmasters of sites they link to (or don't link to, or link to but misleadingly) think; indeed, we have been blocking all referrals from DMOZ with a 403 since they rejected an update request that by their editor's own admission was in both their readers' interests and ours.

Moreover, whether or not you're listed on DMOZ seems to have an absurd effect on your site's PageRank. It would be a welcome change for Google to construct their index independently, using only their own analysis of relevant factors directly related to the site in question, rather than relying on outside sources with dubious ethics.

Re:Big Brother-esque (again)

[Pieroxy]

Well, when I do service my car, the garage has a full access to everything in the car. They could put a tracker and I wouldn't notice it in a century.

It is a question of trust. If you decide to use their service, you will need them to have access to your pages (through JavaScript). If you don't trust them, just don't subscribe.

My DSL Provider has a lot of information about myself as well, and I trust them with it. If my trust vanished, I'd switch (well, in France you have actually a lot of choice).

My bank ... well, I think you get the point.

Man I wish I'd bought stock!!!!!

[frankcow]

This is honestly going to rock the world of web analytics. I've been dealing with some of the major vendors lately, this move will herald some serious changes in how they do business. I'm still struggling to understand the implications!!!

Re:Interesting tidbit in the TOS ...

[md27]

All this says is they can say you use their service. I don't think you really need to worry since they won't proclaim you as a customer unless you're massive, like Microsoft or Yahoo or something they're not gonna care enough to talk about you.

No encryption here?

[Michael Iatrou]

Gmail will force you to use https but if you want to sign in to Google Analytics, you provide the same credentials with no encryption.

Re:Big Brother-esque (again)

[op12]

It is a question of trust.

Not only a question of trust. It's also a matter of Google's reputation. Much like in the recent backlash at Sony, people are not going to sit idly when a company does something stupid. Google has much more to lose by pulling a stunt like that than the gain it would provide. Plus, you could always just rip the snippet out of your page if it does something undesirable.

So nu?

[neodiogenes]

Yahoo's had this service ever since they bought out Overture -- and yes, it's also free if you're a big enough advertiser to make it worthwhile. And yes, it adds a javascript snippet to the advertisers' websites. You've probably visited hundreds of these sites already without knowing they were collecting third-party data. Sheesh. Add "Google" to any news story and all the world goes nuts. Personally, I'd wait until Google work out all the bugs before relying on it. It's still GIGO even when it's Google.

Re:Big Brother-esque (again)

[lo0ol]

No "sane webmaster should willfully inject foreign JavaScript on his website"? I'm guessing you've never ran ads on your website before. That's the norm. Nearly every ad network has their code in JavaScript. Heck, chances are if someone is using Google Analytics they're ALREADY using Google AdSense on their site- who's to say that Google hasn't done the same with AdSense? People haven't said anything about the evils of AdSense yet really.

My point is that it is about trust, as a previous poster said. A heck of a lot of companies do business in the exact same way. If you don't trust Google with your site, then don't use it (and get a license of Urchin for yourself- that is extremely solid software; I'd say the best in the business).

Re:Big Brother-esque (again)

[NanoServ]

By your argument, it would seem unwise to install and use Firefox. It's a foreign piece of code (even though you can monitor its source code if you want, but who has the time for that?). It has the power to snoop through personal files on your computer and report the information back to mozilla.org. Since it has a huge user base and now an automatic and seamless update system, some malicious behavior could get installed into the program and we'd all be screwed without even knowing it.

But the thing is, that doesn't happen. If Google attempted this, the behavior would quickly be discovered (because, although *you* aren't reviewing the .js file constantly, *people* are reviewing the .js file constantly) and Google would get some seriously bad PR. There's no incentive for them to risk their image like that.

Re:for the slashdotted crew

[Anonymous Coward]

it also tracks browser features so that web developers can make informed design decisions. Analytics will tell you the screen resolution and connection speed of your visitors, as well as whether or not their browsers support Flash and Java.

Damnit no. How many times does this need to be explained?

You know my screen resolution? Great. I a) surf non-maximised, b) surf with a sidebar open, c) use two monitors, or d) all of the above.

You know my connection speed? Great. I'm now using my favourite P2P application, so my web browsing only gets a fraction of my available bandwidth.

You know that my browser supports Flash and Java? Great. I have them installed for the stupid little games people email me on Fridays. I don't want Flash or Java as parts of web pages, just as content delivery mechanisms.

This isn't even taking into account that it's impossible to measure these things to a known degree of accuracy. Sorry, the web isn't built to allow these kinds of things. You can make educated guesses, sure, but you have no way of knowing how close those educated guesses come to the truth, which makes them, for all intents and purposes, useless.

None of these things allow web developers to make informed decisions. One of the fundamental principles of web design is that your designs have to be flexible enough to take into account all kinds of different constraints. Not surprisingly, wannabes don't want to go to that kind of effort, so they prefer to stick their heads in the sand and pretend like these numbers mean something. "95% of people have a 1024x768 screen, so I don't have to bother with making my design work for lower resolutions" and other such inanity. Grow the fuck up.

Google is Freakin Smart

[rhyder]

I am amazed time and again as Google finds segments in the market and exploits them. Now they are after web analysis, and not only do they provide a service, but they gain insight into how their competitors send traffic to your site. This is even better than just hosting, as you will get many people and companies that pay for hosting elsewhere, but will use GA to analyze traffic/logs.

Google is web-omnipresent

Anyone else concerned about Google?

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Google is everywhere it seems, collecting data. Does this concern anyone else besides me? I use gmail and I notice that Google search now recognizes me. I can log out, but then I'm out of gmail as well. I've been doing more searching on A9 as a result. Of course, searching A9 means Amazon knows what I'm looking for, but at least I get a discount.

But really, is Google getting to be too pervasive? It seems their future plans are really ambitious. Sure, the company's motto may be "do no evil" but that's not necessarily the motto of every employee there. Maybe I'm just paranoid...

Re:Big Brother-esque (again)

[advid]

Just like AdSense, then?

The way I look at this is:

1. I already have Google ads on my website.
2. So Google already knows everything about my visitors.
3. Thus, subscribing to this program just means that I can see that information as well.

If you want to worry about privacy and "big brother", complain about AdSense. This is a simple extension, at most.

Re:for the slashdotted crew

[dallask]

just give them time and we can zoom in on the house of the script kiddie who generated 32,000 hits to your admin pannel with a brute force password attack script...

I cant fu3king wait!!!