3 ms·
If that's the case then there are a lot of sites that are willfully ignoring the correct snippet. Perhaps this was something new that they added recently - or p
by jeresig 14y ago
If that's the case then there are a lot of sites that are willfully ignoring the correct snippet. Perhaps this was something new that they added recently - or perhaps there's a frequently-incorrect snippet that's copied?
- thezilch 14y agoHonestly, it could be either. Though, I can't recall anything different after the move off urchin.js -- years ago [0]. What's worse is those that call "private" methods directly; for example, some use _gaq._link(...) over _gaq.push(["_link", ...]), which unravels a mess really quickly if you want to provide surrogates for all the methods exposed by _gaq [1]. [0] 2010, Dec 09 11:12:41 -0800 commit on a site that would be most likely "with the times" [1] https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/gajs/methods/ https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...
- yahelc 14y agoNo, it's not particular new or regularly misimplemented. It's usually implementing cross-domain tracking that breaks things, not regular use of GA, because it does `return false` in an onclick handler. I have some fixes for that here: https://github.com/yahelc/GA-Better-Crossdomain-Tracking https://github.com/yahelc/GA-Better-Crossdomain-Tracking
- jeresig 14y agoThe issue you outline is tangential (but still important). The issues I'm seeing are actual exceptions occurring where sites are missing the reference to the GA object, not issues with _link tracking and redirects.
- yahelc 14y agoCan you provide live examples? `_gaq.push([]);` shouldn't result in any errors with Ghostery. I'm curious as to what's happening.