August 7, 2018

Is Google Rigging Its Analytics?

Filed under: Business Moves,Economy — Tom @ 4:59 pm

Google Analytics is supposed to tell website owners where their traffic is coming from.

The three main categories of traffic are search engines, social media, and referrals.

This post is about referrals.

Without divulging other sites’ identities, I can assure readers that several sites which have linked to BizzyBlog.com or specific BizzyBlog posts in roughly the past year are not showing up at all in referral traffic, even though posts from those sites used to show up all the time.

Several of these sites have sufficiently high Alexa and other rankings that it is inconceivable that a post linking to BizzyBlog would get ZERO identified referral clickthroughs.

But that’s what’s happening.

Note that I referred to identified clickthroughs.

Recent BizzyBlog referrals have been predominatly from “Google.com.”

But if the source really is Google.com, those clickthroughs should almost always be showing up as part of BizzyBlog’s search engine traffic.

It’s reasonable to believe that these “Google.com” results represent clickthroughs from sites whose identities Google is masking.

Why? This may be occurring because the sites being masked are center-right sites which present news and viewpoints the PC crowd at Google does not like. That said, it may also be happening to other sites not considered “trusted” across the political spectrum.

I can easily rattle off the names of a half-dozen sites whose certain clickthroughs to BizzyBlog aren’t showing up as clickthroughs to BizzyBlog, even though I know they have linked to this site in their heavily-trafficked posts.

This potentially matters for several reasons:

  • If a site which is generating referral traffic isn’t shown as generating referral traffic, it immediately affects its perceived importance.
  • If Google (and perhaps other search engines are burying such referral traffic), this exclusionary tactic may be filtering its way into published site rankings, some of which which take referrals into account.
  • It may even be that excluding genuine referrals negatively influences search engine results. My experience in the past year has been that known high-traffic blogs aren’t as visible in search results as they once were. Perhaps Google’s apparent rigging of its analytics partially explains why. Google’s apparent manipulation may be feeding a self-perpetuating cycle designed to hurt center-right or perhaps all sites it doesn’t “trust.”

This appears to be yet another example of a Big Tech tactic designed to marginalize alternative sites and viewpoints.

I should also note that the top referral source to BizzyBlog (after “Google.com”) is a center-right  site which uses Google’s Blogspot as its platform. How convenient.

What I’ve noticed merits further investigation.

I’ve notified two particular sites whose referral traffic into BizzyBlog has inexplicably completely disappeared.

I suggest they take my concerns seriously.

Share

5 Comments

  1. Is this essentially Google’s version of Facebook and Twitter shadow banning?

    Actually, doesn’t this also affect revenue to the affected site from advertisers? A reduction of referrals, reduces the potential number of clicks and traffic a site would get. If so, isn’t this a restraint of trade forbidden by Federal Law? Maybe you need to get a lawyer and sue these jerks?

    Secondly, I renew my call for all concerned parties to dump google, facebook and youtube. There are alternative service providers to these maliciously run liberal controlled web hosts. This is the perfect opportunity to do to them exactly what they wished upon those whom they banned. Competition is the last thing they want, being greedy liberals and we should give it to them. After all, they created the need for alternatives, give them exactly what they asked for by their banning. Can you say the word “fungible”, say it Zuckerburg, fungible. Wait until the alternatives pile up, lose users, your stock price drops and then you will understand fungible.

    Comment by dscott — August 9, 2018 @ 5:44 pm

  2. Secure alternatives to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/13/secure-alternatives-to-facebook-instagram-and-twitter.html

    Comment by dscott — August 9, 2018 @ 5:49 pm

  3. I think at the very least the unreported but existing referrals lower a site’s search engine rank and eventually hurt its traffic and its revenues. But it may be more direct than that in cases where a site wants to be bought or merge. Why buy something that’s not generating referrals (even though it is, but Google is masking it)?

    Comment by Tom — August 10, 2018 @ 1:20 am

  4. And yeah, we need to reduce our used of those platforms, if not stop. I read someone claim that if everyone put Adblockers on their browsers, Google would be seriously wounded. Good idea.

    Comment by Tom — August 10, 2018 @ 1:21 am

  5. Journalists or Activists? CNN,
    Which Admitted They Were Responsible
    for Getting Alex Jones Deplatformed from
    YouTube, Apple, and FaceBook, Now Admits
    It’s Also Pressuring Twitter to Deplatform Him

    http://theothermccain.com/2018/08/11/how-cnn-and-other-fakenews-media-are-now-working-to-silence-dissent/

    Why? Isn’t it obvious that these journalists wanted to convey the idea that I must be a special case, “controversial” in some way that made me different from other accounts which had not been banned?

    The fact of the matter was (a) that I was simply more effective than some others in calling attention to obstreperous leftists on Twitter, and (b) that I had made influential enemies as a result of this.

    Keep in mind that I was hate-listed by the SPLC long before it became routine for them to traffic in such dangerous libel. Circa 1999, the SPLC decided that “neo-Confederates” were a menace and, because I had then just recently been hired by The Washington Times, my name got mentioned in their account due to my previous association with the League of South. Now, it is a mistake to get down in tall grass discussing all the so-called “evidence” involved in the kind of smear campaigns the Left pursues against its chosen enemies. However, after more than a decade of being an independent blogger, don’t you think that if I were a “white supremacist” (as the SPLC has called me), that I would have published something that would suffice as proof of this?

    bolds mine

    Comment by dscott — August 12, 2018 @ 10:23 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.