Below is a snapshot of my actual Vital Viral Stats at end of a 24 hour hour period of promoting heavily through the traffic exchanges
The second snap shot is what my Stats for the last 24 hour according to VitalViral exchange sites at 11:30am today..after 24 hours of promoting
Now here is what google analytics say my stats are for a 24hour Period this snapshot was taken at 11:30 this morning also
Has you will see there is a huge diffrents in the 2 numbers
Vital Viral says : 1311
Google Analytics says: 619
Thats a diffrents of 629 Vistors that never made it my site..
even if all my traffic came from Vital Viral TE which they didn't they don't even come close the numbers that vital viral claimed..
So I took a closer look at my stats and noticed that vital viral took my traffic away from some of my well known TE that do Provide real Google stats which mean Google and my ads never saw the incoming traffic..
So Today I stopped all my Vital Viral and Ran everything personal Myself manual by hand for the same amount of time which was 8 hrs of solid promoting..
And I belive we will see a huge difference in my stats so in short DON'T USE VITAL VIRAL IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE TRAFFIC EXCHANGES !!! The numbers just dont add UP you will be losing time a possiable useful vistors..
Hi Gabriel
ReplyDeleteWould you like me to help explain these numbers to you here or would you like to do it privately? Because I'm betting that I can show you exactly (well, pretty close) how these numbers stack up.
Regards
Troy
Well, no response in 24 hours so I will respond here.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it would be good if you looked up the difference between a HIT and what Google Analytics defines as a VISITOR. That alone accounts for the vast majority of the difference between the 1311 you quote and the 619. Had you quoted what VVP told you for UNIQUE HITS (which is available to you, you just didn't bother to quote it) you would have been saying that the total unique hits to your page was 702, not 1311.
What you also fail to mention (deliberately or you just don't understand) is that 20% of your total hits went to your VitalViralPro campaign - this is after all how the system works.
So in summary, the only dispute is that VVP says you had 702 unique hits to your page, Google says you had 619 visitors. This is also simple to understand though impossible to quantify EXACTLY.
VVP measures hits as being non-unique if they occur in the same 1 hour window. Google Analytics measures them as non-unique if they visit again ANY time. Hence GA will always show a lower figure - how much lower can't be quantified now.
But I guess uniques isn't a concept you're familiar with or measure given the quality of some of your traffic sources you used (e.g. one source sent you 199 hits of which only 28 were unique (and that's measured within 1 hour, taken the GA way it would have been lower still).
I don't really need to worry about defending myself to you - it's like a 3 year old telling me how to read. But since you continue to circulate this on the traffic exchanges, I thought people should be given some information to judge for themselves how much credibility to give you.
I read your post and i have read your email So You claim you can get the stats to match. so you can prove to me and your users your stats are real and i will get the results I'm looking for
ReplyDeletejust read and think thanks...
ReplyDeletePS I don't use GA (I have no need to) but thought I would give it a go and just (once again) satisfy myself that VVP tracking works as it should and make sure GA page views did indeed match VVP total hits.
ReplyDeleteAnd as soon as I did I realised it's a script with no contingency for doing ANY tracking if the visitor doesn't have javascript enabled or uses a script blocker!!!
Do you know how many traffic exchange users block scripts, how popular 'noscript' is with firefox traffic exchange users?
Of course not. This didn't occur to me either before because I don't use GA but as the expert using and quoting statistics from GA to bash VitalViralPro Gabriel, you should have realised this.
So I think that's case closed as far as GA is concerned. You will never prove what you seem so intent on proving using GA. You will have to use good old image counting. And then we can watch you prove 1 = 1. Good work.