There was a point in time when reviewing web analytics was an inalienable part of my daily routine. Every night, I would patiently wait to login to my analytics platform and see “what, when and how” benchmarks. And the best part was that I rarely had known what to expect: the depressing red color and diving stats charts or cheer-leading green spikes. Thankfully, the Awstat analytic platform rarely let my personal blog down – it consistently churned out upward trending triple, if not quadruple, numbers. In other words, it was a pretty joyful experience up until the day when our technology guru showed up at the doorsteps of a server with a dose of skepticism and Google Analytics JavaScript.

The very next night, Google Analytics unmercifully ruined my “web analytics” experience via massive downgrading of almost all applicable benchmarks and metrics. And in many instances, the difference reported by both platforms was staggering: for example, Awstat could report 6,971 visits for the month of March whereas Google Analytics showed paltry 840 visitors. Needless to say it was tough to digest, let alone accept, the sudden loss of the web traffic. But what could cause such chasm, and which platform was telling the truth?

Awstat visitor stats for March

Google Analytics stats for March

Let’s get some technical definitions out of our way and here is how I, not a technical type by any measure, think about it.   There are two methods to collect web data: logfile tracking and page tagging.

The logfile method is used by Awstat platform to compile and interpret data. Basically, a server will record a transaction every time when someone/something sends a request to view files. Google Bot stops by? Check.  Someone views a photo or reads posts? Check. In other words, whatever hits your server, it will be on a record regardless of browsers, disabled cookies, JavaScript and what not. After that, Awstat will attempt to sort these transactions: number of visits, number of unique visitors, time spent on site, keywords etc.

Google Analytics platform is using page tagging method. It records data and visitor transactions on a website itself and stores data on a third party server.  G.A. relies on a visitor’s browser and JavaScript to identify and process information about your visitors. Someone views a photo or reads posts on your web site? Check. A search spider drops by to index your web pages? Sorry, no record here. Did your visitor have cookies and JavaScript on his browser? Consider him/her missing in action. So when rejection notices are handed out to spiders, spammers and unfortunate 5% of people who disabled JavaScript on their browsers, Google Analytics produces a report with quite a few metrics to consider.

So with the technical stuff out of our way, let’s focus on the visitor statistics. Which method produces the most accurate reports? None if we are talking about the absolute numbers. Both methods will miss or overstate visits. While the logfile method records everything, its data filtering and sorting process is not 100% bulletproof. For example, a logfile based analytical platform has to deal with search spiders which are not always easy to identify due to their ever expanding numbers.

JavaScript based Google Analytics is also not without some issues: G.A. reports often show HUGE drops in numbers. Some webmasters ran sample tests comparing Google Analytics, server and Drupal logs, subtracted possible robot hits, admin page views and other web noise and still ended up with a huge difference in the numbers. One guy took even simpler testing approach: he asked friends to visit a test website and compared his statistics with a G.A. report – needless to say that the Google report massively underreported the number of visits.

Google Analytics vs Logfile stats

With all that said, I prefer to use Google Analytics with an occasional peek into the Awstats reports. I found Google Analytics to be very “web report” friendly: there is multitude of charts, stats, metrics and custom reporting options. The Awstats reports also provide plenty of useful information, but they are not as flexible or encompassing compared to G.A.

At the same time, I don’t fully trust the visitor stats reported by both platforms. Actually, I no longer care about the absolute numbers, unless there is the $ sign attached to them (and even that is questionable with G.A.) What I do care about is an upward trend in the visitor metrics. And if both platforms confirm an uptick movement, then it might the right time to shake off skepticism and do a victory lap around your desktop. Done? Now back to work to keep that upward trend going!