Profile

Cover photo
William Vicary
Works at 3WhiteHats Limited
Lives in Camborne, Cornwall
138 followers|40,873 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideosReviews

Stream

William Vicary

Discussion  - 
 
Can anyone help to unpick what's going on here?

We have a client, lets call their domain clientdomain.com.

They have a separate subdomain, lets call that subdomain.clientdomain.com.

They've just migrated to a new platform on subdomain.clientdomain.com which has frustratingly included a historic classic Analytics code. The main domain still contains their GTM container which remains untouched.

So we've now got:
subdomain.clientdomain.com - classic analytics (gaq code)
clientdomain.com - universal analytics via GTM

As expected our filtered subdomain.clientdomain.com (and unfiltered) views now contain a ton of self-referrals from the main domain.

However, oddly, our clientdomain.com Analytics view also contains a large number of self referrals, the entire clientdomain.com website is using the GTM container which utilises Universal Analytics and should (in theory?!) exclude any self referrals via our Referral Exclusion lists.

To add additional madness to the situation, the self referrals on the clientdomain.com view follow this pattern:
- Full referrer: clientdomain.com/page.html
- referrer path: /page.html
- page (secondary dimension): /page.html
- hostname: www.clientdomain.com

Looking at the recording I can see at subdomain.clientdomain.com that the flow goes similar to this:
- https://ssl.google-analytics.com standard request with the expected typical variables
- And then additional a request to
https://stats.g.doubleclick.net/r/collect with CID that MATCHES the clientdomain.com code.

To me it seems like the hit to stats.g.doubleclick.com here is causing issues? This feels like very unexpected behaviour going on, as if the Classic Analytics code is seriously conflicting with the Universal Analytics across different pageviews which sounds crazy but I can't see any other reasoning...

To add:
I don't see any referrals from subdomain.clientdomain.com on clientdomain.com filtered view which I would expect as the referral exclusion lists are being appropriately used on the main domain's universal analytics implementation.
1
Jeff Lukey's profile photo
 
Hi +William Vicary​,

It's probably sessions where users start on the main site then go to the subdomain (starting new session with main site as referral) before returning to the main site.

If the classic code is setting cookies to the top level domain then the main site will honour the session on return as it can read the old cookies (doesn't work other way around).

You could check by creating a segment in a catch all view to find sessions with self referral, landing page on subdomain site but that also visits main domain. Note down a couple of CID values in user explorer report looking at one day of data only (or keep tab open), then go to you main domain only view. Apply a segment for self referral and then try to match the CID and compare journeys. Note the landing page will look like the main site but attribution gets pulled through from full journey not filtered section.

Regards,

Jeff
Add a comment...
 
Can anyone confirm how the Adwords Conversion Tagging differs from Google Analytics Tagging (and imported into Adwords?).

We always use Google Analytics imported goals and generally report with a mix of last click (Adwords) and Attribution modelling (Analytics). However I've been doing some research into how these differ and I believe they work like this:

Google Analytics Goal Imported into Adwords:
- Last Non-Direct Click (i.e if the last non-direct click wasn't adwords it would not be pulled in).

Google Adwords Conversion direct in Adwords:
- Last Adwords Click (Effectively)

So the attribution path below:
- Organic > Display > Adwords > Organic

Imported from Analytics: No conversion recorded in Adwords
Direct in Adwords: Conversion recorded in Adwords (as no understanding of the other paths are available).

Can anyone confirm this? I've read mixed messages and Google's documentation is vague around this.
5
Liam Holmes's profile photoWilliam Vicary's profile photo
3 comments
 
+Liam Holmes Thanks for the confirmation.

Whilst the numbers look higher, they aren't necessarily higher (and if anything are artificially inflated). I'm not trying to suggest you are doing this to hide true performance from a client but without really approaching attribution modelling properly the client isn't seeing the true results from the various marketing channels but it's catch 22, if you then report based on Analytics data they see lower numbers and don't understand how the two relate. The same happens with say remarketing campaigns, people throw around excellent view-through conversions when in reality, a) the user more often than not would have ignored the ad and b) the attribution model, especially with the likes of Floodlight or Google Adwords conversions pixels are heavily skewed and jumping on the back of direct conversions. 

Even the largest media agencies rely heavily on Floodlight pixels and rarely do they report on the full attribution modelling as it would likely look poorly on their results. Using a clear Attribution model within GA (or Adobe or whatever) taking account for all elements of the marketing funnel and providing analysis of how each channel is contributing to that funnel I think is vital but too often ignored.

And don't get my started on brand + non-brand combined reporting!

Anyway, rant over, that went offtopic quickly! Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.
Add a comment...

William Vicary

Feedback for Google  - 
 
UX Improvement Request:

Does anyone else find it infuriating that there is no easy method of enabling macro's when creating a tag forcing you to either cancel your tag creation, fill a field with a temporary macro to then leave the tag, enable the in-built macro required and go back to create the tag as you were intended. (Similarly if you add a manual macro at another step of the tag creation stage the other fields do not have that new macro within the drop down list until refresh!).

I must bump into this every time I create a fresh container, very frustrating!
4
Allan Kerr's profile photoSimo Ahava's profile photoWilliam Larsen's profile photo
3 comments
 
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback. As the UX designer for GTM I love (and need) to hear these points of frustration. I can't say much but I've noticed this problem and appreciate the fresh reminder of its annoyance. Thank you!
Add a comment...

William Vicary

General Questions  - 
 
I have an install where jQuery is loaded after gtm.load and I want to set a customDimension for product availability as this website has a very short product lifetime and I have a feeling their old products are getting a significant number of essentially useless visits which I feel are likely detracting from the user experience on the website.

My current work-around was to implement a customMetric which was sent on gtm.load as an event, however I've just realised that this won't really expose the report we want (as, from what i can tell undefined == 0 when it comes to customMetrics and running a custom report only shows hits on products with availability, when we want both ideally).

I feel the only option is to send a customDimension and as it has to be hit level this has to go alongside the pageview, my concern is I don't want to delay the pageview tag until gtm.load as we'll likely miss out on a good number of pageviews. (I think gtm.dom is a good compromise here)

Ideally I don't want to push anything into the dataLayer for this website (development expense required) but I know that's the perfect solution.

To add further problems this makes use of jquery contains: parameter that isn't easily duplicated natively!

Our code is similar to the below:
function getQuantity(){

if ($('.prodDesc p:contains("Quantity Remaining")').length)
return $('p:contains("Quantity Remaining")').first().text().split(":")[1].trim();

  if ($('.prodDesc p:contains("Product Sold")').length)
      return 0;
  
return undefined;
}

Any thoughts?
1
Simo Ahava's profile photoWilliam Vicary's profile photo
3 comments
 
This is working perfectly, thank you Simo - I really need to read up on my JS - way too reliant on jQuery!

I did see the event secondary dimension but it wasn't quite what I was hoping to achieve, being able to see the traffic levels before/after in a simple view (with a dimension) is much more helpful I feel.
Add a comment...

William Vicary

Migration to V2 Questions  - 
 
Noticed a change in functionality when moving to GTM V2 and making use of the new version of gtm.linkClick trigger.

It seems the gtm.linkClick trigger now requires http/https to be at the beginning of the URL to trigger, we've had to fall back to the gtm.click trigger to track any mailto: clicks or any links starting // rather than http/https.
1
Chris Martin's profile photoWilliam Vicary's profile photo
6 comments
 
Thanks for your thoughts +Chris Martin I've just disabled jQuery events with gtmSonar (amazing by the way +Simo Ahava) and everything fires as expected - now to understand why every non http URL is being affected by jQuery....!

Thanks again!
Add a comment...

William Vicary

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
We know that it’s often helpful to visualize data trends in a spreadsheet, so you can now add miniature charts, or sparklines, into individual cells in Sheets.

Find out more about the types of charts available and get instructions for using the SPARKLINE function in the help center: http://goo.gl/2rWeIF. 
90 comments on original post
2
1
Add a comment...

William Vicary

General Questions  - 
 
We have a bit of a strange problem, we have a client that has just migrated to GTM and we've moved over their Google Analytics to the GTM platform. Following this move we are seeing huge amounts of additional direct traffic from internet explorer 7,8 and 9.

We are using the Classic Analytics with Enable Display Advertising Features (this wasn't in the previous build) other than that there isn't any settings selected (this is a very basic GTM Analytics install for now). The client is using manual _gaq entries but I don't believe this should have a effect?

Initially I thought that this was because the domain cookie had changed and it would settle over time, however these are NEW sessions, traffic is up by similar levels they aren't just new users!

This is in IE versions 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0. 

Has anyone seen this? Have any idea on what could be causing it?
3
1
William Vicary's profile photoTyson Kirksey's profile photo
8 comments
 
Yes, we do have adRoll tags (although not currently running campaigns).  I'm going to find other sites with adRoll tags and try to verify. 
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
138 people
Stewart Roode's profile photo
David McGuire's profile photo
Charlie Williams's profile photo
Favorite Son's profile photo
Jon Silk's profile photo
Sam Osborne's profile photo
William Vicary's profile photo
Stafford Sumner's profile photo
Ark's profile photo

William Vicary

Partners Support  - 
 
+Elisabeth Yates We've received another request to link directly to our client account without prior access from a "Agency Development Manager" in your UK Acquisitions team.

Whilst I appreciate they have a job to do receiving an email to the effect of "Currently, the following account in your MCC are eligible for support. I have sent an access request to the account" is jumping the gun a little. If that email was "Currently, the following account in your MCC is eligible for support. If you would like I could send an access request?" it would be totally fine but sending a request BEFORE even touching base just feels like slimey sales pushing for their targets (which I'd say is more an issue with the relationship with Capita than with the rep's themselves).

I just want to flag this as a serious concern, these requests for access go directly to clients and understandably confuse them - this is the third time this has happened and the third time we've said we'd like no further requests to be made which apparently fell on deaf ears as a new rep comes on board!

This is very frustrating and a touch worrying.
10
William Vicary's profile photo
 
+Elisabeth Yates I presume from the silence here that this may not be the best avenue to raise this issue (given there was no response to my last post either).

Could you confirm what the best place would be to raise a complaint of this sort?
Add a comment...

William Vicary

Partners Support  - 
 
We are concerned about members of Google's team namely job roles of 'Agency Development Manager' adding themselves to our clients accounts without first asking prior permission.

This is the second time we've had such unexpected requests and our clients also receive the requests and it naturally confuses them. We're paid to work for our clients and do not require support from frankly a team at Google that seemingly have the sole purpose of inflating their client numbers/spend to hit their targets.

The account management team from Ireland are super useful but this just feels like a waste of our time.

To quote an email from (unnamed) Google representative:
'we need to keep on top of your best practices and customer care so you maintain your partners badge.'

This feels like a threat to me and it does not sit well, can someone please shed some light here?
7
Jane Cragg's profile photoChristopher Rose's profile photoWilliam Vicary's profile photoImran Sq's profile photo
6 comments
 
+William Vicary I don't think there is a problem with the post, you are raising a valid concern especially if you have advised them of no support being needed:

For me it snowballs into other concerns - are people who access campaigns with 0 permission breaching some sort of data law?

Is giving top-level access to a 'sales' team who scan accounts with 0 permission a breach of competition law?

Intellectual property, strategy and performance data are all other things that can be taken IF reps are able to access accounts without permission - and if what you say is true about auto linking, maybe there exists a  bigger problem that causes damage to a campaign (i.e your keywords and setup being used in competitor accounts) - that is what I was thinking of when saying it was unfair to tarnish all with the same brush.

If linking in without permission is illegal or games a commission plan - I hope you can help put a stop to it before anyone tries mess with my campaigns :-D
Add a comment...

William Vicary

General Questions  - 
 
Does anyone have a preferred extension for implementing GTM with Magento? 
1
Add a comment...

William Vicary

Shared publicly  - 
1
Add a comment...
 
#GPBatSignal I'm looking for some more information on the Website Call Conversions and how this works when implemented.

Specifically, how do the phone numbers work? On Google Search Ads the number is replaced by an 03 number, is this still the case with Website Call Conversions? It would seem strange to users to replace a 0870/0845/01/02 number on a website with an 03, especially if there is a delay in doing so (which is typical with other providers)?
1
Oliver Kingston's profile photoWilliam Vicary's profile photoAdam Wordes (MCMNet)'s profile photo
3 comments
 
+William Vicary That's the reason we don't use call conversions. We feel users don't really want to dial an (often) 0330 number as most users won't know its a Google forwarding number. It could be an anonymous premium line for all they know. And 0330 just looks ugly...
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
138 people
Stewart Roode's profile photo
David McGuire's profile photo
Charlie Williams's profile photo
Favorite Son's profile photo
Jon Silk's profile photo
Sam Osborne's profile photo
William Vicary's profile photo
Stafford Sumner's profile photo
Ark's profile photo
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Camborne, Cornwall
Contact Information
Work
Phone
02033974123
Work
Occupation
I'm the Technical Director at 3WhiteHats Limited - a Digital Marketing Agency in Cornwall
Skills
PPC, SEO, PPC, Analytics, Digital Strategy, Link Building, PHP
Employment
  • 3WhiteHats Limited
    Technical Director, 2010 - present
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Links
Contributor to
1 review
Map
Map
Map