Skip to content
This repository

Analytics position #65

Closed
VanTanev opened this Issue August 18, 2010 · 9 comments

4 participants

Ivan Tanev Paul Irish Alex Pilon Dustin Cass
Ivan Tanev

Google advice that the analystics code should be positioned before the . Supposedly it has to do with aquiring more accurate data (as the script becomes available faster), both for pageviews and duration of visit.

Should we comply with this?

Paul Irish
Owner

The advantage to placing it in the head is that you will track a users' pageview even if they leave the page before it has been fully loaded.

To me, I wouldn't want that counting as a page view.

I can imagine some cases where very customized analytics is in place and I want that level of control and visibility. But I don't think this is the 80% case.

Paul Irish
Owner

added to documentation ticket.

Alex Pilon

I have recently had a few sites "unverificate" due to the analytics not being correctly positioned in the page.

I feel the amount of time between the loading of a page from head to foot (and thus positioning the analytics code at the bottom for more accurate tracking) is rather negligible. If that sort of discrepancy is worry, I would think a better solution to be implementing some sort of "engaged" views tracking, such as tracking an event on a page load.

I definitely think the analytics code positioning should be re evaluated based on their guideline and in the light of sites having there verification status obstructed because of it.

This also can effect the linking of webmaster and analytics accounts.

Paul Irish paulirish reopened this October 31, 2011
Paul Irish paulirish closed this October 31, 2011
Paul Irish
Owner

what's "unverificate" ?
Is this a google analytics thing? where can i find out more about it?

Alex Pilon

http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/docs/tracking/asyncTracking.html

"Unverificate"/"deverify". This happened to a site I had in which I had a Google webmaster tools profile linked to the analytics profile. I think they were linked via GA code, however at some point Google told me the verification was invalid and the solution was to move the code to the head tag as outlined in the asyncTracking best practice. I will attempt to get the message I got again and screen cap it for you if you'd like.

Paul Irish
Owner
Dustin Cass

They advocate a Split Snippet in their documentation, in which they simply initialize an array in the head. If doing this is okay, then putting the entire thing at the bottom of the page should be fine as long as the _gaq array (with options) is initialized before any of the ga code.

For the record, I'm in favor of keeping the code where it is for the same reason that @paulirish mentioned above, barring any account verification issues.

Alex Pilon

http://minus.com/mDbxKvFwj

This is the error message received when trying to verify a site using GA in which the async snippet is not in the head. There is of course the work around of using one of the many other verification methods, however I think that the code should be where it google says it should be.. The snippet is async now anyway. At the very least, something added to the documentation about this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.