Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 7:45:32 GMT
The uncover a culprit and it has to do with the way clicks are tracked. GSC tracks a click based on the URL in the search results lets say you click on pageA.html. However lets assume that pageA.html redirects to pagea.html because you were smart and decided to fix the casing issue discussed at the top of the page. If Googlebot hasnt picked up that fix then Google Search will still have the old URL but the click will be recorded in Google Analytics on the corrected URL since that is the page where GAs code fires.
It just so happened that enough cleanup had taken place recently on the first site Europe Cell Phone Number List I tested that GA and GSC had a correlation coefficient of just . So I went in search of other properties that might provide a clearer picture. After analyzing several properties without similar problems as the first we identified a range of approximately . to . correlation between GSC and Google Analytics reporting on organic landing pages. This seems pretty strong. Finally we did one more type of comparative analytics to determine the trustworthiness of GSCs ranking data.
In general the number of clicks received by a site should be a function of the number of impressions it received and at what position in the SERP. While this is obviously an incomplete view of all the factors it seems fair to say that we could compare the quality of two ranking sets if we know the number of impressions and the number of clicks. In theory the rank tracking method which better predicts the clicks given the impressions is the better of the two. this wasnt even close. Standard rank tracking methods performed far better at predicting the actual number of clicks than the rank as presented in Google Search Console. We know that GSCs rank data is an average position which almost certainly presents a false picture. There.
It just so happened that enough cleanup had taken place recently on the first site Europe Cell Phone Number List I tested that GA and GSC had a correlation coefficient of just . So I went in search of other properties that might provide a clearer picture. After analyzing several properties without similar problems as the first we identified a range of approximately . to . correlation between GSC and Google Analytics reporting on organic landing pages. This seems pretty strong. Finally we did one more type of comparative analytics to determine the trustworthiness of GSCs ranking data.
In general the number of clicks received by a site should be a function of the number of impressions it received and at what position in the SERP. While this is obviously an incomplete view of all the factors it seems fair to say that we could compare the quality of two ranking sets if we know the number of impressions and the number of clicks. In theory the rank tracking method which better predicts the clicks given the impressions is the better of the two. this wasnt even close. Standard rank tracking methods performed far better at predicting the actual number of clicks than the rank as presented in Google Search Console. We know that GSCs rank data is an average position which almost certainly presents a false picture. There.