Hacker News Reader

Comment by josefresco | Hacker News Reader

I build websites for small business, and since the beginning have used Google Analytics. What used to be a valuable tool that I would eagerly tell my clients to utilize, has now become an overly complex nightmare I loathe to install and rarely recommend to my clients. I recently had a client ask to use StatCounter.com (my reaction: "they're still around?!?") and it was refreshingly simple, much like the original Google Analytics.

I'm sure the new GA is super powerful, but most people just want to see how many "hits" they got, what content is most popular, and where the visitors came from. Google would do well with a simplified Analytics service just for small business.

Once you go down the optimization route, if your Google Analytics isn't super valuable it's an easy bloat to eliminate.

View on HN

Another vote for plausible here. After reading what you described, I thought that’s exactly what you need. It’s cheap, especially if you have a lot of sites. It tells me more than I need to know and is wonderful as far as page weight and performance.

I switched to plausible.io for my small business and couldn't be happier. Maybe take a look at them

I wrote my own little thing that just counts page hits/referrers, but only keeps aggregates for older data (e.g. the hourly data is kept for a week, daily data for a year, weekly data for 10 years, and only yearly data kept forever). It also keeps track of how long the page took to load, and how long it took to generate on the server if the page provides it, and that's it. I can make a new project/page and get a tracking snippet for it in one second, and then I barely ever even look at the stats, which saves even more time. But should something crazy happen, I would like to be able to, and that's all I need really.

plausible imo is the way it should be. Embed the script, done. Bonus: No cookies & cookie banner. They even have instructions on how to circumvent adblockers.

Using a different analytics service misses the entire point of the article.

The point is that we shouldn't be using analytics _at all_.

I'm not sure if I agree with that or not yet - I have to think about it more. My gut says that's right.

I also like goatcounter for simple analytics - just what I need and nothing more. I can also vouch for plausible and really like their product too

GA4 is actually the simple version of GA. Lots of stuff is hidden. So it looks lol Google did exactly what you wanted )‘simplified Analytics service’). However, if you want an even simpler solution: Matamo is totally free as well.

GA4 which I've migrated about 250 clients to (that was a ton of fun /s) simplifies some things, but complicates others. I know of the alternatives but run into anther issue relating to cost: Most of my clients are not willing to pay (more) for analytics which is why GA remains the default (free) choice. Do I raise prices for everyone and include an analytics alternative? Or do I stop using GA and only give (alternative) analytics to clients that pay extra? I'm leaning towards the latter.

Don't suppose you've noticed Analytics or Google Tag Manager slower than before? I've noticed when our page loads, lingering sluggish connections related to GTM, even when there's no tags apart from analytics. Prior to GA4 I never noticed this.

Also Google seems desperate for Analytics users to send their user/customer data to Google, via "Google Signals" and User-id. Google wants this normalized. They use a murky mix of ambiguous settings and labels in Analytics to present the case for these data collection features to be activated. I recall a Google Ads account manager sent a direct email to my non-technical boss with steps for moving from UA to GA4. "You need to do these steps" it read. Step 3 was "enable Google signals". They implied it was required for GA4 when it isn't. I thought that was grubby. "Used car salesman" grubby.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com