3 ms·

Then you would expect for Chrome to show a higher number of GA blocking "users". But that's not the case: the article mentions that the percentage of users bloc

Then you would expect for Chrome to show a higher number of GA blocking "users". But that's not the case: the article mentions that the percentage of users blocking GA on Chrome is on par with Safari. And I don't know what you mean by "serious". The most common crawlers (Google, Baidu, Yandex, etc) identify themselves as bots on the User-Agent very clearly. Personally, those are the ones that I'd call the most "serious". And also the ones which I've seen generating the most on servers.

ben0x539 7y ago
I meant bots with sufficiently sophisticated adversarial motives (ad fraud? blog comment spam? automated wordpress exploitation?), who I'd expect want to avoid being recognized as such.
- epidemian 7y ago
  Ah, I see what you mean. Those are serious-ly malicious bots then! But yeah, completely agreed; those can be a PITA on sites with user-generated content. But, is your experience that these kinds of bots cause much traffic? Because, from what I've seen, they can make a mess with fake accounts, fake content, fake clicks, etc, but as far as traffic goes, they were completely dwarfed by search engine crawlers and real users' traffic. Thanks for the clarification :D
  - ben0x539 7y ago
    Mhm, we have a bunch of non-crawled content that sees a significant minority of request volume from disguised bots. Overall, it is definitely dwarfed by traffic from real users, but it still forces a lot of work to prevent the bots from gaming metrics/analytics.
elondaits 7y ago
The net is full of unidentified bots scraping content or looking for vulnerabilities (contact forms , wordpress logins, etc). On many occasions I had traffic issues and had to check logs and these were very hard to block, because they ignore the robots file, don’t advertise themselves in the User Agent and use a large pool of IPs.
- luckylion 7y ago
  I don't know why this comment is downvoted, it mirrors my experience. I'm responsible for a few domestic high traffic websites and have done some analysis from log files to find suspicious traffic, i.e. user agents saying they are chrome but not loading images or css files, having many page views (i.e. 50 where our average user has 2) etc. It wasn't foolproof but the false-positives where < 10% in my random checks. These bots made up ~10-15% of page views.

ben0x539 7y ago

I meant bots with sufficiently sophisticated adversarial motives (ad fraud? blog comment spam? automated wordpress exploitation?), who I'd expect want to avoid being recognized as such.

epidemian 7y ago
Ah, I see what you mean. Those are serious-ly malicious bots then! But yeah, completely agreed; those can be a PITA on sites with user-generated content. But, is your experience that these kinds of bots cause much traffic? Because, from what I've seen, they can make a mess with fake accounts, fake content, fake clicks, etc, but as far as traffic goes, they were completely dwarfed by search engine crawlers and real users' traffic. Thanks for the clarification :D
- ben0x539 7y ago
  Mhm, we have a bunch of non-crawled content that sees a significant minority of request volume from disguised bots. Overall, it is definitely dwarfed by traffic from real users, but it still forces a lot of work to prevent the bots from gaming metrics/analytics.

elondaits 7y ago

The net is full of unidentified bots scraping content or looking for vulnerabilities (contact forms , wordpress logins, etc). On many occasions I had traffic issues and had to check logs and these were very hard to block, because they ignore the robots file, don’t advertise themselves in the User Agent and use a large pool of IPs.

luckylion 7y ago
I don't know why this comment is downvoted, it mirrors my experience. I'm responsible for a few domestic high traffic websites and have done some analysis from log files to find suspicious traffic, i.e. user agents saying they are chrome but not loading images or css files, having many page views (i.e. 50 where our average user has 2) etc. It wasn't foolproof but the false-positives where < 10% in my random checks. These bots made up ~10-15% of page views.