14 ms·

Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking G

Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc and blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance).

pikzen 11y ago
>which is the only way they make money other than ads. Yeah. > So, you use the site resources Yeah. >don't see ads Yeah. > don't add to their user/page view numbers. Yeah. >Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc Yeah. Well you know what ? I wouldn't be doing this if ads provider didn't abuse my trust and displayed popup ads. I wouldn't be doing this if ads were actually targeted (lol jk). Early ads providers fucked it up for everyone. Not only do I hate the very principle of ads, I go out of my way to avoid them. And most of all, I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't Google Analytics. Use piwik, use whatever you want as long as it's selfhosted and doesn't report to <gigantic database of users> and I will allow it. After all, I have no way of knowing if you're selling my data back anyways. It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. You want stats ? Use your own server.
- untog 11y ago
  It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. If you really wanted to take a principled stand you just wouldn't use those web sites. Ad blockers are just lazy activism.
  - marrs 11y ago
    What has choosing what you download got to do with making a principled stand? It's like some people think that blocking ads is bad manners. I don't get it.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      It is bad manners. It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are seen, then there's no reason to continue paying.
      - nfoz 11y ago
        I would pay the premium for newspapers without ads. In fact, I do -- I support news organizations that aren't driven by advertisement. If you can't find a business model that doesn't antagonize me, then you haven't found a business model that I care to support. If capitalism is failing to provide us with even basic methods of producing quality works, then that's a problem we should tackle at a larger scale.
        kbenson 11y ago
        But this isn't about you choosing to pay for a source without ads, this is about people choosing the source with ads, and then removing them. Those are entirely different things.
      - marrs 11y ago
        You're talking about the newspaper like it somehow has a right to exist. It doesn't. It is a business and whether it succeeds or fails depends on the value it adds to its customers. In this case its customers aren't the consumers, they are the advertisers, and from what you're saying, it sounds like the consumers are prepared to go to great lengths to rid themselves of the adverts, which suggests that the customers aren't getting much value from the newspaper. If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money they would have otherwise wasted.
  - DanWaterworth 11y ago
    > Ad blockers are just lazy activism. Activism for the lazy; sounds like a good deal.
  - gpvos 11y ago
    The sites are being lazy and/or cheap by using GA. They can use piwik instead. As long as they are lazy, I have an equal right to be lazy.
    - bhouston 11y ago
      uBlock also blocked piwik last time I checked.
      - gpvos 11y ago
        That's a pity. This gives me an extra reason not to use blocklists maintained by anyone but myself. (I currently don't use uBlock, but RequestPolicy + NoScript, but am considering switching.)
    - untog 11y ago
      Not really, GA offers a lot more features than Piwik. But either way, that doesn't stop ad blockers being lazy activism.
      - gpvos 11y ago
        Well, then the sites should buy a service that gives them more features. If the existence of GA means there is no market for such products, then GA should go away. I have no problem with lazy activism.
  - blumkvist 11y ago
    More like hypocricy and self-entitlement.
- Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
  I agree absolutely. That's why I use piwik on my sites. Unfortunately, uBlock blocks piwik all the same.
  - VieElm 11y ago
    > uBlock blocks piwik all the same Good. I don't want to contribute to your analytics. I don't want ads. I just want to browse the web without being tracked. I don't care if that means you can't pay for your site, other sites will spring up that can without annoying users with ads and without tracking them.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      But you're only blocking ads and analytics? You're not making any effort to avoid the sites that track?
      - baddox 11y ago
        Why avoid the sites that track if it's trivial to visit those sites without getting tracked?
        DanBC 11y ago
        Some of the ad-block using crowd say that this is not about getting the content and avoiding the ads - it's just about avoiding the ads. I've started asking people who use an ad-blocker if there are any sites they no longer visit.
    - Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
      The "other site" in the area I'm operating in is Google. So the situation is more like "other sites will continue to dominate by cross-subsidising from their core business, namely annoying users with ads and tracking them". Is that really what you want?
      - danso 11y ago
click170 11y ago
It's not like GA is the only way to gather statistics, there are other vendors and even the access logs for your server itself. I'm not willing to let Google follow me everywhere on the internet and if that is detrimental to the sites I visit then they are welcome to block me if they detect that I'm blocking GA.
DatBear 11y ago
>blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance). What? How does that even work? If GA goes down, their site just stops working until it's back up?
- gpvos 11y ago
  Actually, because of this, I tend to temporarily disable blocking at the moment of payment, because there are too many redirects and reloads happening at that time to reliably use a blocker. It partially defeats blocking, but at least they aren't tracking me during regular browsing.
- bhouston 11y ago
  The travel sites I saw blocked didn't fail because of GA blocking I believe, but they were depending on various other scripts. I believe they just had messy code that relied on callbacks from third party scripts -- some of which were blocked by uBlock.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Might be worthwhile finding a different online travel company, if they can't get this right I can't imagine what else they'll stuff up when you make a booking!
- ryan-c 11y ago
  I used one site which would throw an javascript exception and break because it called part of google analytics from some other function that was needed to make the site work. I ended up opening it up in a private browsing session, and I've got my script blocker disabled there. Yes, the site would be unusable if GA went down.
gpvos 11y ago
Too bad for them. They should use same-domain analytics instead. Otherwise they have no chance with me.
- bhouston 11y ago
  They also block the popular on-domain analystics including piwik, or at least they did.
  - gpvos 11y ago
    That's not so good. I actually don't use general block lists, but build my own from scratch, starting from a block-all situation.
    - tshaddox 11y ago
      It's pretty good. I'd rather not have a JS snippet tracking me at all, regardless of which domain it's on.
sbierwagen 11y ago
By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. Well too bad. Maybe they should take the radical step of actually looking at their server logs.
- jedberg 11y ago
  When you run a website, you have two choices: spend a bunch of time implementing log analysis and paying for all the storage necessary, or using GA, which already exists and is free. If log analytics isn't my core business, why should I spend time implementing it?
  - gpvos 11y ago
    No, you should buy something that does log analytics for you without shafting your viewers. The existence of deceptive-but-gratis services like GA means there is almost no market for proper analysis software, which is a scandal.
  - marrs 11y ago
    And if you choose GA, you accept that some people will block it, the same way they might block your javascript, your cookies, your css, your images, or anything else they don't want to download.
  - baddox 11y ago
    If those are your only two choices, then you'll presumably choose the better of the two, right? So what exactly is the problem?
    - jedberg 11y ago
      Depends on what variable you're optimizing for. If you're optimizing for cost, then you're right, the choice is clear.
  - TylerE 11y ago
    Not to mention that GA much more elegantly handles the case of N > 1 webservers behind a front end.
Too 11y ago
Many sites? I've been blocking GA through ghostery for years and haven't had any problem ever. Only problem with Ghostery i've noticed is blocking Adobe Typekit and some other UI-framework i can't remember the name of, and that is extreeemly rare. Besides, as many others have said, if a site is stupid enough to rely on a third party server for analytics that is their problem, not mine, there are plenty of good analytics alternatives that can be hosted by yourself easily, and there are plenty of good websites out there that i can visit instead if one is not working without GA.
bcg1 11y ago
Sounds like those sites need a better architecture if those things are so strategic to their business.
junto 11y ago
There is a very good reason why GA is free to use. It involves building profiles of your users for Google's benefit. Don't be surprised or upset if some of your users don't want to participate in that privacy shit storm.

pikzen 11y ago

>which is the only way they make money other than ads. Yeah. > So, you use the site resources Yeah. >don't see ads Yeah. > don't add to their user/page view numbers. Yeah. >Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc Yeah. Well you know what ? I wouldn't be doing this if ads provider didn't abuse my trust and displayed popup ads. I wouldn't be doing this if ads were actually targeted (lol jk). Early ads providers fucked it up for everyone. Not only do I hate the very principle of ads, I go out of my way to avoid them. And most of all, I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't Google Analytics. Use piwik, use whatever you want as long as it's selfhosted and doesn't report to <gigantic database of users> and I will allow it. After all, I have no way of knowing if you're selling my data back anyways. It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. You want stats ? Use your own server.

untog 11y ago
It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. If you really wanted to take a principled stand you just wouldn't use those web sites. Ad blockers are just lazy activism.
- marrs 11y ago
  What has choosing what you download got to do with making a principled stand? It's like some people think that blocking ads is bad manners. I don't get it.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    It is bad manners. It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are seen, then there's no reason to continue paying.
    - nfoz 11y ago
      I would pay the premium for newspapers without ads. In fact, I do -- I support news organizations that aren't driven by advertisement. If you can't find a business model that doesn't antagonize me, then you haven't found a business model that I care to support. If capitalism is failing to provide us with even basic methods of producing quality works, then that's a problem we should tackle at a larger scale.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        But this isn't about you choosing to pay for a source without ads, this is about people choosing the source with ads, and then removing them. Those are entirely different things.
    - marrs 11y ago
      You're talking about the newspaper like it somehow has a right to exist. It doesn't. It is a business and whether it succeeds or fails depends on the value it adds to its customers. In this case its customers aren't the consumers, they are the advertisers, and from what you're saying, it sounds like the consumers are prepared to go to great lengths to rid themselves of the adverts, which suggests that the customers aren't getting much value from the newspaper. If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money they would have otherwise wasted.
- DanWaterworth 11y ago
  > Ad blockers are just lazy activism. Activism for the lazy; sounds like a good deal.
- gpvos 11y ago
  The sites are being lazy and/or cheap by using GA. They can use piwik instead. As long as they are lazy, I have an equal right to be lazy.
  - bhouston 11y ago
    uBlock also blocked piwik last time I checked.
    - gpvos 11y ago
      That's a pity. This gives me an extra reason not to use blocklists maintained by anyone but myself. (I currently don't use uBlock, but RequestPolicy + NoScript, but am considering switching.)
  - untog 11y ago
    Not really, GA offers a lot more features than Piwik. But either way, that doesn't stop ad blockers being lazy activism.
    - gpvos 11y ago
      Well, then the sites should buy a service that gives them more features. If the existence of GA means there is no market for such products, then GA should go away. I have no problem with lazy activism.
- blumkvist 11y ago
  More like hypocricy and self-entitlement.
Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
I agree absolutely. That's why I use piwik on my sites. Unfortunately, uBlock blocks piwik all the same.
- VieElm 11y ago
  > uBlock blocks piwik all the same Good. I don't want to contribute to your analytics. I don't want ads. I just want to browse the web without being tracked. I don't care if that means you can't pay for your site, other sites will spring up that can without annoying users with ads and without tracking them.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    But you're only blocking ads and analytics? You're not making any effort to avoid the sites that track?
    - baddox 11y ago
      Why avoid the sites that track if it's trivial to visit those sites without getting tracked?
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Some of the ad-block using crowd say that this is not about getting the content and avoiding the ads - it's just about avoiding the ads. I've started asking people who use an ad-blocker if there are any sites they no longer visit.
  - Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
    The "other site" in the area I'm operating in is Google. So the situation is more like "other sites will continue to dominate by cross-subsidising from their core business, namely annoying users with ads and tracking them". Is that really what you want?
    - danso 11y ago

click170 11y ago

It's not like GA is the only way to gather statistics, there are other vendors and even the access logs for your server itself. I'm not willing to let Google follow me everywhere on the internet and if that is detrimental to the sites I visit then they are welcome to block me if they detect that I'm blocking GA.

DatBear 11y ago

>blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance). What? How does that even work? If GA goes down, their site just stops working until it's back up?

gpvos 11y ago
Actually, because of this, I tend to temporarily disable blocking at the moment of payment, because there are too many redirects and reloads happening at that time to reliably use a blocker. It partially defeats blocking, but at least they aren't tracking me during regular browsing.
bhouston 11y ago
The travel sites I saw blocked didn't fail because of GA blocking I believe, but they were depending on various other scripts. I believe they just had messy code that relied on callbacks from third party scripts -- some of which were blocked by uBlock.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Might be worthwhile finding a different online travel company, if they can't get this right I can't imagine what else they'll stuff up when you make a booking!
ryan-c 11y ago
I used one site which would throw an javascript exception and break because it called part of google analytics from some other function that was needed to make the site work. I ended up opening it up in a private browsing session, and I've got my script blocker disabled there. Yes, the site would be unusable if GA went down.

gpvos 11y ago

Too bad for them. They should use same-domain analytics instead. Otherwise they have no chance with me.

bhouston 11y ago
They also block the popular on-domain analystics including piwik, or at least they did.
- gpvos 11y ago
  That's not so good. I actually don't use general block lists, but build my own from scratch, starting from a block-all situation.
  - tshaddox 11y ago
    It's pretty good. I'd rather not have a JS snippet tracking me at all, regardless of which domain it's on.

sbierwagen 11y ago

By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. Well too bad. Maybe they should take the radical step of actually looking at their server logs.

jedberg 11y ago
When you run a website, you have two choices: spend a bunch of time implementing log analysis and paying for all the storage necessary, or using GA, which already exists and is free. If log analytics isn't my core business, why should I spend time implementing it?
- gpvos 11y ago
  No, you should buy something that does log analytics for you without shafting your viewers. The existence of deceptive-but-gratis services like GA means there is almost no market for proper analysis software, which is a scandal.
- marrs 11y ago
  And if you choose GA, you accept that some people will block it, the same way they might block your javascript, your cookies, your css, your images, or anything else they don't want to download.
- baddox 11y ago
  If those are your only two choices, then you'll presumably choose the better of the two, right? So what exactly is the problem?
  - jedberg 11y ago
    Depends on what variable you're optimizing for. If you're optimizing for cost, then you're right, the choice is clear.
- TylerE 11y ago
  Not to mention that GA much more elegantly handles the case of N > 1 webservers behind a front end.

Too 11y ago

Many sites? I've been blocking GA through ghostery for years and haven't had any problem ever. Only problem with Ghostery i've noticed is blocking Adobe Typekit and some other UI-framework i can't remember the name of, and that is extreeemly rare. Besides, as many others have said, if a site is stupid enough to rely on a third party server for analytics that is their problem, not mine, there are plenty of good analytics alternatives that can be hosted by yourself easily, and there are plenty of good websites out there that i can visit instead if one is not working without GA.

bcg1 11y ago

Sounds like those sites need a better architecture if those things are so strategic to their business.

junto 11y ago

There is a very good reason why GA is free to use. It involves building profiles of your users for Google's benefit. Don't be surprised or upset if some of your users don't want to participate in that privacy shit storm.