Google's new Opt-In Data Sharing initiative

[danlefree]

Logging in to my Google Analytics account this morning, I found that I am being asked to "Opt-In" and start sharing my traffic data with Google.

I know this has been a long-theorized development here at WPW, so I figured I'd toss this subject up for discussion.

Google presents a Data Sharing FAQ for those who want to learn more about this initiative - I was reading through it, and I found the last question to be particularly intriguing:

How will it affect me if I choose not to share my data but other companies do?

If you do not share your data, you will not be able to use benchmarking may not have access to specific ads-related features such as Conversion Optimizer.

First off, that has got to be the first typo I've seen in any Google documentation (granted, I don't read much of it) - secondly, is it worth the proverbial Devil's bargain to share your conversion metrics (ironically, with the company which is already holding it all for you) in exchange for benchmarking?

I'm not considering it any time soon - but what do you think?

[doj464]

One of the companies I work with will absolutely not use Google analytics - they don't want to give Google the Data. The theory is that once you give Google your data, all you have to do is set up your conversion values, and you are giving Google your profit margins etc. They can then milk your profit margins.

I think that Google will be putting together an index of conversion rates, where you will be able to see how your site compares against your industry standard. In addition, Google will probably use that in their Adwords Algorithm, assuming a better conversion rate means a better quality site. They would add that to their quality score.

Me personally? I pretty much trust Google right now. Their bread and butter is not just their searchers, it's also their advertisers. They have many chances to screw people, advance in different industries etc. , and yet they haven't. There is a certain method to their "madness", and it doesn't include intentionally messing you up.

It does mean however, that their algorithm will hurt certain people (SERP's, paid search etc.) who don't deserve it, and Google's customer service sucks.

I'd be willing to give up my stats to Google in exchange for being able to measure how my site performs in contrast to other sites in my industry. (The only problem is tracking phone numbers... except that they now own grandcentral.com!)

[DrTandem1]

If the data is so important to google, they should compensate you for it.

[deepsand]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[incrediblehelp]

This is called Google Benchmarking just so everyone is clear. I think it is worth it if the data you get from Google Benchmarking can help you increase your business initiatives.

[arthurakay]

Google Analytics is basically a promotional tool... they offer it for free hoping that you'll pay for other services like AdWords.

I think incrediblehelp has is right - it will be worth sharing your data if it helps you increase business. That being said, if it's no help at all, then what's the point.

Here's the other thing... how do we know if Google wasn't (or still is) just taking our data anyways, regardless of our decision to give it to them. With all of their secret data centers, it's possible that they've been looking at our data all along...

[nelsonez]

I have always thought that this new benchmarking initiative, through Google's Adwords program, is just another variable that they will be able to use for their "organic" ranking algorithms. Just more additional quality factors and traffic factors that they can apply to their natural rankings. I know Google and many others here have suggested that the Adwords algorithm is completely separate from their "organic ranking" algorithms but I still am not completely convinced.

I know this is anecdotal but all of our clients that have Adwords campaigns also have the highest "organic" rankings as well in Google.

Anyone else think that this might be the case?

Eric

[bobitza]

Originally Posted by arthurakay

Here's the other thing... how do we know if Google wasn't (or still is) just taking our data anyways, regardless of our decision to give it to them. With all of their secret data centers, it's possible that they've been looking at our data all along...

Of course they've been. It just now they have the "paper on hand" to justify it. You signed to share your data ... buzz off!

[Akashic]

Originally Posted by nelsonez

I know this is anecdotal but all of our clients that have Adwords campaigns also have the highest "organic" rankings as well in Google.

Anyone else think that this might be the case?

Eric

Nope, I don't. Our sites that do best with organic results are the ones that we have never had anywhere near Adwords.

On saying that, they do have adsense ads on them

[zycon5000]

Originally Posted by nelsonez

I have always thought that this new benchmarking initiative, through Google's Adwords program, is just another variable that they will be able to use for their "organic" ranking algorithms. Just more additional quality factors and traffic factors that they can apply to their natural rankings. I know Google and many others here have suggested that the Adwords algorithm is completely separate from their "organic ranking" algorithms but I still am not completely convinced.

I know this is anecdotal but all of our clients that have Adwords campaigns also have the highest "organic" rankings as well in Google.

Anyone else think that this might be the case?

Eric

Our company has always thought that too. That is, regardless of what is said in the new "Data Sharing" FAQ, we still believe that Google does in fact use the data to manipulate organic results. If bounce rate is high, for instance, your site trust would go down; if people only spend 1 minute at the site, trust would also go down, etc. Of course, we don't have any proof of such, but it is our strong opinion. Needless to say, we will not be participating in the data sharing program at this time.

In terms of the Adwords/Natural correlation, it does SEEM that way, although I've seen cases where this does not apply. I have read about indirect relationships where if you're advertising in Adwords, more people will go to the site, and if properly targeted, those people will remain even longer at the site. As such, since this is tracked, Google considers the site to be more trustworthy. Not sure if any of this is true, however.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by zycon5000

If bounce rate is high, for instance, your site trust would go down; if people only spend 1 minute at the site, trust would also go down, etc.

Why should this be taken as a truism?

Might it not be the case that the visitor immediately finds all that he needs on the landing page itself? Or, that once there, he heeds a "call to action" which leads to a non-recorded event?

[zycon5000]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Why should this be taken as a truism?

Might it not be the case that the visitor immediately finds all that he needs on the landing page itself? Or, that once there, he heeds a "call to action" which leads to a non-recorded event?

Well of course this is very true as well. I was just providing a hypothetical based on discussions in the past.

[SandOtter]

Personally, I like Benchmarking. It may not provide actionable info but it's a nice little data set to show to my clients. Makes them appreciate my work. I would like to see Google be much more specific as to industry categories. A comparison of the Pet industry or Construction/Maintenance was the closest match to my dog kennel fencing client as I could find. As far as comparing similar sized sites, what's the metric used...page views, $$$, visits???

I must admit, I hadn't considered the more devious potential of Google using conversion results for a quality score. But, don't they have all that info already? The only thing we're agreeing to by opting in is to anonomously share the info so Google can tabulate aggregate statistics, right?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by SandOtter

I must admit, I hadn't considered the more devious potential of Google using conversion results for a quality score. But, don't they have all that info already? The only thing we're agreeing to by opting in is to anonomously share the info so Google can tabulate aggregate statistics, right?

Google has only as much data as ones web site transmits to them, by way of the GA/Urchin Scripts.

As one can use GA without using their conversion script, and some users do not, they do not gave conversion data for all.

Still, they really don't need permission in order to use that which they do have if that's what they decide to do. And, who's to know if they do?

[zycon5000]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Google has only as much data as ones web site transmits to them, by way of the GA/Urchin Scripts...

Still, they really don't need permission in order to use that which they do have if that's what they decide to do. And, who's to know if they do?

Very true. But still, why give them more than you have to, lol? Has anyone here opted in to this data sharing initiative, or are we pretty much all against it?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by zycon5000

Very true. But still, why give them more than you have to, lol? Has anyone here opted in to this data sharing initiative, or are we pretty much all against it?

As I understand it, the issue is not one of giving them "more," but that of permitting them to use what they already have and might get in the future.

In that regard, the concern has been raised as to whether or not Google can really be trusted to 1) not use such data if permission is withheld, and 2) to use such data in a manner that is wholly client agnostic and neutral.

[djarotstudio]

As I understand it, the issue is not one of giving them "more," but that of permitting them to use what they already have and might get in the future.

Yup. Agreed. The next point might be: is Google can be trusted?