Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

markosaric.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 182 posts

Re: 13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

#161

Post by ThePhysicist »

sigwinch28 wrote: post #129
ThePhysicist wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so easy, as anonymization is also considered a processing activity (there is still a debate around this but the legal opinion around this seems to solidify), so you cannot just say "I'm anonymizing this data so I can collect it without asking". You will need a legal basis for processing your customers information. Also, the ePrivacy directive (and the upcoming ePivacy regulation) impose additional constraint…

I feel like you've moved the goalposts on me since the parent was referring to GDPR, and so was I, and now you've brought up the ePrivacy stuff. Furthermore, it only counts as processing under the GDPR if anonymisation was performed as a step on some data already covered on the GDPR. Ergo, if the data originally collected qualifies as anonymous data, then processing it is not covered by the GDPR.

I think OPs question was if you can really collect "anonymous" analytics data from a client device without asking for consent, which you cannot really answer based on the GDPR alone. Yes, anonymous data is exempt from the GDPR, but the question is just if a HTTP request to a tracking service that contains the IP address and user agent of a persons' browser can be considered anonymous already (in most cases not). Some companies like Matomo (and Fathom, Simple Analytics, Plausible, ...) argue that you can collect tracking data without consent if you offer an opt-out to the user, I haven't been able to find a legal basis for this though. Even Microsoft asks you for consent before enabling their anonymous telemtry collection in Windows now.

Re: 13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

#162

Post by m90 »

GordonS wrote: post #154
ThePhysicist wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to adhere to the ePrivacy directive, which specifies, among other things, how you are allowed to identify users on their devices (e.g. using cookies).

I don't have a link on hand, but I posted about this recently in an HN article about Fathom. There is an ePrivacy Directive ammendment that specifically prohibits the use of hashing identifiers (e.g. IP address, browser, OS) to work around cookies, even it a timestamp is introduced to limit the life of a hashed ID. I'm a privacy advocate myself, yet find this a bit OTT - but that's the ePrivacy regulations, and I thi…

I think this is the document you are referring to: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/document.cfm?action=..., Revision of Article 5(3)

Re: 13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

#163

Post by bzb3 »

gorhill wrote: post #149
lightswitch05 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the domain in question is ms.markosaric.com. Which is a CNAME to custom.plausible.io. uBlock Origin is able to block based on CNAMEs, but it is not a default configuration. PiHole V5 blocks based on CNAME as well, and it is actually enabled by default. I run a little blocklist project [1] and I've had custom.plausible.io blocked in my list since April 8th [2]. So, although I didn't have ms.markosaric.com blocked…

> uBlock Origin is able to block based on CNAMEs, but it is not a default configuration It is a default configuration.

But this doesn't work on Chrome right?

Re: 13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

#164

Post by vntok »

superkuh wrote: post #145
vntok wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also is completely useless because of the tens of thousands requests random bots and hacking tools do each day on most websites, the many network hops for mobile users, the utterly impossible task of counting time spent per page (on active tab), conversion tracking and so many data that web logs aren't designed to collect or present in any useful way.

They're actually pretty useful for me despite, and even because of all the things you mention. I don't know why a corporation couldn't achieve the same as my single person plus a bit of perl. I guess for-profit organizations just have unique goals that can't be met unless they're acting unethically.

Being able to reflect on what works and what doesn't is actually the ethical thing to do so that the business' decision makers don't spend time, money and human resources on efforts that are at best useless and at worst detrimental to the company.

Employees or (worse) freelancers who deliberately retain data and keep it away from the company are utterly unethical in that they prevent the company to assess their actions and to take adequate measures based on them, including firing them if they cost but don't provide.

Re: 13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

#165

Post by [deleted] »

b112 wrote: post #79
onion2k wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like the analytics auto hate behavior. It's not "auto hate", it's 25 years experience of making web stuff. I used to track users. I can read Apache logs by sight alone. I was an Urchin stats user before Google bought them. I had hit counters . I realised a long time ago that massive data gathering didn't really help me. I had a ton of data and no idea what to do with it. If you launch a site and find the enga…

Often I try to help sites with more generic, borked issues. Your comment about "Oh boy, will they tell you" brought one to the fore. I sent the following to a site. Do you think I received a response? A reply? Either they don't actually read emails from customers, or they employ a person which became 'confused', and their eyes glazed over, once they failed to understand the message. (Note that I sent to about 5 email…

[deleted]

Re: 13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

#166

Post by ascar »

reaperducer wrote: post #142
sandworm101 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> revenue is much more likely to correlate to unique visitors That's the bit I don't understand. Why does an advertiser not value a customer seeing an ad twice, or for a longer time? In fact I would say that those customers are much more valuable because their multiple views bookend an extended period of viewing an ad. If I view a website at home in the morning, then again while at work, I have been exposed to that…

You're on to more than you think. In traditional media, it's pretty much an axiom that people have to see the same ad at least seven times in order to get the message. There is no sin in showing the same advertisement more than once. It's why, for example, advertisers pay extra to have their ad appear at both the beginning and end of a commercial break on television. It's called "bookending." When digital advertising…

I always thought this was mostly to prevent fraud. If you pay for multiple views by the same user, it's much easier to generate revenue from fake views.

Re: 13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

#167

Post by ksec »

reaperducer wrote: post #142
sandworm101 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> revenue is much more likely to correlate to unique visitors That's the bit I don't understand. Why does an advertiser not value a customer seeing an ad twice, or for a longer time? In fact I would say that those customers are much more valuable because their multiple views bookend an extended period of viewing an ad. If I view a website at home in the morning, then again while at work, I have been exposed to that…

You're on to more than you think. In traditional media, it's pretty much an axiom that people have to see the same ad at least seven times in order to get the message. There is no sin in showing the same advertisement more than once. It's why, for example, advertisers pay extra to have their ad appear at both the beginning and end of a commercial break on television. It's called "bookending." When digital advertising…

I dont know why either, but to me viewing traditional TV with same ads every 15 min or 30 min is not an annoyance, but doing it on Youtube or Website is god damn annoying. To the point where I think the brand is trying too hard and I have negative feelings with it.

There are huge difference in Online / Digital Media consumption compared to traditional media like Tv and NewsPaper. And may be I am old I tend to value the latter a lot more.

Re: 13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

#168

Post by [deleted] »

GordonS wrote: post #154
ThePhysicist wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to adhere to the ePrivacy directive, which specifies, among other things, how you are allowed to identify users on their devices (e.g. using cookies).

I don't have a link on hand, but I posted about this recently in an HN article about Fathom. There is an ePrivacy Directive ammendment that specifically prohibits the use of hashing identifiers (e.g. IP address, browser, OS) to work around cookies, even it a timestamp is introduced to limit the life of a hashed ID. I'm a privacy advocate myself, yet find this a bit OTT - but that's the ePrivacy regulations, and I thi…

[deleted]

Re: 13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

#169

Post by ksec »

lightswitch05 wrote: post #137
jamescridland wrote: post #123

1. the OP works for Plausible 2. The OP uses a non-standard call to Plausible which probably isn’t in many block lists 3. It’s in mine

So, the domain in question is ms.markosaric.com. Which is a CNAME to custom.plausible.io. uBlock Origin is able to block based on CNAMEs, but it is not a default configuration. PiHole V5 blocks based on CNAME as well, and it is actually enabled by default. I run a little blocklist project [1] and I've had custom.plausible.io blocked in my list since April 8th [2]. So, although I didn't have ms.markosaric.com blocked…

So Web Site owners are now back to Self Hosting with their own domain name and possibly with non default tracking javascript name?

Re: 13% of my website visitors block Google Analytics

#170

Post by itsjzt »

salicideblock wrote: post #68

Seeing that Plausible Analytics is not using cookies and instead hashes fields including IP address - the measure of "unique site visitors" could be a proxy for false uniques by Plausible Analytics. For example, an user visits once via his data connection and once via wifi - Plausible may see different users where Google's cookie will pin it as one user. Another interesting result is the 16% of total page views - I d…

Afaik if you visit the site from your phone and laptop on same wifi they will count as 1, which wouldnt be the case with google' way
Post reply on HN