<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Analytics “Not Provided” Is Getting Worse</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 21:06:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Levi</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/comment-page-1/#comment-1246677</link>
		<dc:creator>Levi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=16163#comment-1246677</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Honestly i&#039;ve been using Stat Centric these days instead of Google, but I logged into my account recently and saw this problem has indeed increased dramatically. I think you are missing the point perhaps. These (not provided) entries are a result of google encrypting search keywords for anyone logged in to their google account. You will see this issue with any analytics provider. I see the same problem when I use Stat Centric although the (not provided) entry is not shown. I don&#039;t think this has anything to do with Google wanting to charge for analytics. This is about people paranoid about privacy and Google&#039;s greed to get you to use their PPC service, which does provide keyword data. Yup they are concerned about your privacy except when you click on their paid ads.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Honestly i&#8217;ve been using Stat Centric these days instead of Google, but I logged into my account recently and saw this problem has indeed increased dramatically. I think you are missing the point perhaps. These (not provided) entries are a result of google encrypting search keywords for anyone logged in to their google account. You will see this issue with any analytics provider. I see the same problem when I use Stat Centric although the (not provided) entry is not shown. I don&#8217;t think this has anything to do with Google wanting to charge for analytics. This is about people paranoid about privacy and Google&#8217;s greed to get you to use their PPC service, which does provide keyword data. Yup they are concerned about your privacy except when you click on their paid ads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/comment-page-1/#comment-1240934</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=16163#comment-1240934</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I, too, have noticed this trend, and we manage a network of roughly 20 in house and 40-50 external sites across our business.

I am toying with the idea of ditching all analytics for one of our in house sites. We have a good metric: sales. Its the only stat that matters. We can track basic visitor numbers in the backend, the only thing that&#039;s holding it back is advertisers want to see Google stats.

So we must persist. 

The withheld figures aren&#039;t too much of a problem - the content accessed generally points to the ballpark, and webmaster tools (as another commenter points out) also sheds some light.

One of our clients also uses another stat tracker, which gives this info even on logged in Google users.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I, too, have noticed this trend, and we manage a network of roughly 20 in house and 40-50 external sites across our business.</p>
<p>I am toying with the idea of ditching all analytics for one of our in house sites. We have a good metric: sales. Its the only stat that matters. We can track basic visitor numbers in the backend, the only thing that&#8217;s holding it back is advertisers want to see Google stats.</p>
<p>So we must persist. </p>
<p>The withheld figures aren&#8217;t too much of a problem &#8211; the content accessed generally points to the ballpark, and webmaster tools (as another commenter points out) also sheds some light.</p>
<p>One of our clients also uses another stat tracker, which gives this info even on logged in Google users.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Headington</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/comment-page-1/#comment-1225799</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Headington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=16163#comment-1225799</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Nick,

I found your blog while doing some research on this for a blog post for our website (check it out soon!) the NP numbers for our client aren&#039;t anywhere near as bad as yours but it is defintely a growing problem.

One thing to add to the discussion though is that I don&#039;t think ANY analytics provider can ever get you the data back can they? I read quite a bit about this a while ago and discovered that G does all sorts of redirects to strip off the referring phrase so you will never be able to get it back. Unless you know otherwise?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Nick,</p>
<p>I found your blog while doing some research on this for a blog post for our website (check it out soon!) the NP numbers for our client aren&#8217;t anywhere near as bad as yours but it is defintely a growing problem.</p>
<p>One thing to add to the discussion though is that I don&#8217;t think ANY analytics provider can ever get you the data back can they? I read quite a bit about this a while ago and discovered that G does all sorts of redirects to strip off the referring phrase so you will never be able to get it back. Unless you know otherwise?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Stamoulis</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/comment-page-1/#comment-1211983</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Stamoulis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:07:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=16163#comment-1211983</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Andy,

Thanks for much for sharing your thoughts and for reading!

Take Care,
Nick]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Andy,</p>
<p>Thanks for much for sharing your thoughts and for reading!</p>
<p>Take Care,<br />
Nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Harris</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/comment-page-1/#comment-1211149</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:19:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=16163#comment-1211149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Nick (first time here),

Although I could be said to be biased (disclaimer: being one of those low cost alternatives providers), we have discovered that most websites, even when losing data (yes, Google blocks us from seeing those keywords sometimes too), still have enough data to work on.  It&#039;s not perfect and doesn&#039;t give the full picture, but it&#039;s enough to find room for improvement with websites and SEO.

For example, if previously, a website had 100 people enter it on a &#039;widgets&#039; page, then for most of those 100 it would have been possible to see the keyword phrases used.   Suppose 30% of those get blocked in analytics - that&#039;s still 70 people where you could see the keyword phrase typed, how each of them navigated through the site after landing, and (where relevant) what company they were from.  That&#039;s still a decent amount of data.   If it showed you that many of those 70 went no further than the landing page (or got stuck elsewhere) then that&#039;s still useful information.

Focusing particularly on small businesses, what we find is that our analytics users (within those businesses) are so busy (in their work) that they are content to use the data that analytics gives them because it at least tells them something they can fix.  Yes, if they had 100% of the keyword phrases etc. then it could help more but in our experience they&#039;ve got plenty to be focusing on without complete data.

Having said all that, perhaps it&#039;s only a matter of time before Google starts blocking even more.  After all, it works in its favour if end users can&#039;t see where there is wastage (PPC being a particular money burner in the wrong hands).

When it comes to analytics in general, we are, unfortunately years away from the point where most businesses (especially small businesses) view strong analytics as being as routine activity as checking email, writing a Word document etc.   I have to confess to being surprised at how many years it&#039;s taking for the mindset to change.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Nick (first time here),</p>
<p>Although I could be said to be biased (disclaimer: being one of those low cost alternatives providers), we have discovered that most websites, even when losing data (yes, Google blocks us from seeing those keywords sometimes too), still have enough data to work on.  It&#8217;s not perfect and doesn&#8217;t give the full picture, but it&#8217;s enough to find room for improvement with websites and SEO.</p>
<p>For example, if previously, a website had 100 people enter it on a &#8216;widgets&#8217; page, then for most of those 100 it would have been possible to see the keyword phrases used.   Suppose 30% of those get blocked in analytics &#8211; that&#8217;s still 70 people where you could see the keyword phrase typed, how each of them navigated through the site after landing, and (where relevant) what company they were from.  That&#8217;s still a decent amount of data.   If it showed you that many of those 70 went no further than the landing page (or got stuck elsewhere) then that&#8217;s still useful information.</p>
<p>Focusing particularly on small businesses, what we find is that our analytics users (within those businesses) are so busy (in their work) that they are content to use the data that analytics gives them because it at least tells them something they can fix.  Yes, if they had 100% of the keyword phrases etc. then it could help more but in our experience they&#8217;ve got plenty to be focusing on without complete data.</p>
<p>Having said all that, perhaps it&#8217;s only a matter of time before Google starts blocking even more.  After all, it works in its favour if end users can&#8217;t see where there is wastage (PPC being a particular money burner in the wrong hands).</p>
<p>When it comes to analytics in general, we are, unfortunately years away from the point where most businesses (especially small businesses) view strong analytics as being as routine activity as checking email, writing a Word document etc.   I have to confess to being surprised at how many years it&#8217;s taking for the mindset to change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Stamoulis</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/comment-page-1/#comment-1203069</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Stamoulis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=16163#comment-1203069</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Bob,

Thanks for your comment and for reading.

Exactly, are there any LOW cost good quality alternatives?  A product such as Ominiture tends to be out of the reach for most small businesses...

Thanks,
Nick]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Bob,</p>
<p>Thanks for your comment and for reading.</p>
<p>Exactly, are there any LOW cost good quality alternatives?  A product such as Ominiture tends to be out of the reach for most small businesses&#8230;</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Rustici</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/comment-page-1/#comment-1202847</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Rustici</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:06:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=16163#comment-1202847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m confused here for a moment. What value will dropping the free Google Analytics get you? This issue of not getting data from secured searches will be the same with &quot;for fee&quot; systems like SiteCataylst, right?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m confused here for a moment. What value will dropping the free Google Analytics get you? This issue of not getting data from secured searches will be the same with &#8220;for fee&#8221; systems like SiteCataylst, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gina McCrae</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/comment-page-1/#comment-1200821</link>
		<dc:creator>Gina McCrae</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:53:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=16163#comment-1200821</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve found that Google Webmaster Tools will provide you with a report on &quot;queries&quot;. While not keywords, these will give you an indication as to how users are finding you, and the pages they hit once they do.

Our top &quot;keyword&quot; is &quot;Not Provided&quot; as well; I don&#039;t know if making Analytics more convoluted than it already was is a strategic priority of Google - if so, they&#039;ve succeeded thus far.

Oh, and Craig - they do already have a paid for service, GA Premium. I suspect your prediction is correct, which is unfortunate.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve found that Google Webmaster Tools will provide you with a report on &#8220;queries&#8221;. While not keywords, these will give you an indication as to how users are finding you, and the pages they hit once they do.</p>
<p>Our top &#8220;keyword&#8221; is &#8220;Not Provided&#8221; as well; I don&#8217;t know if making Analytics more convoluted than it already was is a strategic priority of Google &#8211; if so, they&#8217;ve succeeded thus far.</p>
<p>Oh, and Craig &#8211; they do already have a paid for service, GA Premium. I suspect your prediction is correct, which is unfortunate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: craig wright</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/google-not-provided/comment-page-1/#comment-1200782</link>
		<dc:creator>craig wright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=16163#comment-1200782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve not run into it yet, but your findings are a bit worrying! Looks like Google is heading towards a paid-for service for Analytics, which may hit small businesses hard, especially in the current climate. 

It will also be difficult for SEO copywriters who don&#039;t have the budget to invest in expensive analysis programs (like me!!). I&#039;ll be very interested to see what other low price or free options become available.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve not run into it yet, but your findings are a bit worrying! Looks like Google is heading towards a paid-for service for Analytics, which may hit small businesses hard, especially in the current climate. </p>
<p>It will also be difficult for SEO copywriters who don&#8217;t have the budget to invest in expensive analysis programs (like me!!). I&#8217;ll be very interested to see what other low price or free options become available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
