Archive for the ‘Google’ Category

Google Analytics – Integrating AdSense Stats (Update)

Monday, May 4th, 2009

In my previous post, I mentioned some of the issues I encountered while integrating Google AdSense into Google Analytics.

After fixing the code snippet, all stats are successfully reported into Google Analytics. I also noticed that the statistics (finally) seem to match between the AdSense and Analytics portals.

. . . well, kind of. The “total revenue” and “ads clicked” seem to match perfectly in both portals. However, the page/unit impressions seem to be way off. I imagine there’s actually a difference in what AdSense and Analytics are trying to report. . . but Google hasn’t made it obvious what the difference is.

I’m happy with the reports, for now. We’ll see how I manage to use the information as the data continues to gather over the next few months.

Google Analytics – Integrating AdSense Stats

Friday, May 1st, 2009

For those of you who don’t already know, I run a handful of blogs and websites on which I display Google AdSense advertisements.

I should start by saying that I love the Google AdSense program. I have no shame in saying that I’m constantly trying to find ways to make money online, and offering ad space on my blogs and websites is easy. In fact, it’s basically free money. By optimizing my blogs and websites and posting relevant content, I make more than enough money via AdSense to support my web development costs.

However, I have also been a critic of the AdSense user interface. When I heard that Google was integrating AdSense stats into Analytics, I jumped at the first chance to see what I could do.

Two days ago, I added the new code for each of my sites. I waited patiently for a day to see what the stats would show. . . only to find that they didn’t show anything. My first reaction: WTF?

After a bit of digging, I found the source of the problem: I had added the code snippet in the wrong place.

Google (in yet another UI mis-step) tells you to add the code snippet at the top of the page in the tiniest text they could fit onto the page. See if you can (at first glance) find the part where Google tells you to put this code at the top of the page:

Google Analytics/AdSense Code

Now, imagine that you have 10, 20, or 30 sites listed. . . each with their own code snippet. Google does a poor job of making it obvious that the code needs to be at the top of the page. Yes, they say it, and I should have actually read the text carefully, but good UI design dictates that something this important be in larger text and probably bold.

If Google really wanted to go the extra mile, they could check to see if the snippet was installed correctly, just like they do with the regular Analytics snippet.

Long story short, I’ve updated my code snippets and I plan on checking the stats over the weekend.

One thing I haven’t mentioned is that for my primary domain (you don’t have to add an extra snippet for this domain) the Analytics stats don’t seem to match what AdSense has in its own portal. I’m not sure how to account for the differences (they’re small, but important), so the answer must be one of the following:

  1. Google AdSense stats are not accurate
  2. Google Analytics stats are not accurate
  3. None of Google’s stats are accurate

My bet is that Google AdSense has the correct stats – though I guess it’s impossible to know for sure. I base that guess on the fact that Google has clearly spent more money on the AdSense/AdWords program, and thus the stats are more likely to be tracked as accurately as possible.

I’m curious to see what experiences other AdSense provides have had with their Analytics integration. I may update this post in a few weeks when I have more data to review.

CADIE: a bad April Fool’s joke

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

Google… are you kidding me?

CADIE was released to the world today, and has what may be the worst website I’ve seen ever. Period.

While that might be kinda funny to some people, I thought it was just annoying.

A list of reasons why:

  • If you’re using Internet Explorer and have the JavaScript debugger enabled, you’re greeted by a JavaScript error! D’oh! (also true using Firebug in Firefox).
  • Using the W3C HTML Validator, the site has 290 errors and 55 warnings. A colossal failure.
  • Background music? What website since 1996 has used a background song? If it’s meant to be ironic, then it’s an epic failure.

I did however laugh at the Chrome with 3D link… that was amusing. As was the suggestion to use INTERCAL rather than actually helping you learn a programming language.

All things considered, here’s some food for thought: Since Google just laid off 200 employees, I hope they didn’t spend too much time, money and resources on CADIE because that would really be a bad joke.

JavaScript Documentation Tools

Tuesday, March 10th, 2009

JavaScript documentation is a pain in the ass.

I’ve complained about this on my blog before, but I’ve spent the past week or so trying to test the handful of JavaScript documentation tools that are available and I’m actually starting to get mad. Why? Because there’s little standardization, and you have to be a computer scientist to get some of the tools to work.

Working on a Windows machine seems to further tie my hands, as (again) the tools all seem to use command line processes. While this isn’t a major handicap, I’m lucky in that I know what I’m doing — the average (or beginner) programmer is going to quickly get lost.

In an ongoing effort to explore my options as a JavaScript developer, here’s a review of the tools I’ve tried so far:

JS Doc Toolkit

After downloading the ZIP file, it’s pretty basic to extract. The project uses JAVA to walk the filesystem, parse your JS files, and build your documentation. The readme file is pretty self-explanatory, and walks you through using the command line (Mac, Linux, or Windows). I wrote a simple .BAT file to do the work for me… and I’m now a double-click away from fresh documentation.

YUI DOC

I’m already very critical of YUI, and I personally think this tool just sucks.

Not only do you have to know Python to run YUI DOC, but it doesn’t even work with the current version of Python! Are you kidding me? It needs to run on v2.4.3 – when v2.6.1 and v3.0.1 are available. That’s just retarded, and because I don’t feel like installing an older version of Python onto either of my machines (I have Vista and MacOSX) I simply gave up.

I also don’t like the output on YUI’s own documentation site, so I’m not really crying about this.

jGrouse

jGrouse is another JAVA-based tool which runs on top of the ANT platform.

Honestly, I had a hell of a time installing and running jGrouse. I had to re-install JAVA on my machine because I didn’t have the SDK with tools.jar installed… oy vey.

Once I finally got jGrouse running, I noticed that it didn’t pick up most of the comments I already had written for JS Doc Toolkit. Boo urns.

ScriptDoc

Here’s a framework you don’t have to install – it comes builtin with the Aptana IDE!

I haven’t been using the Aptana IDE much, but I might start. The interface is slick, and the fact that it has ScriptDoc builtin with the IDE is gravy.

Lessons Learned

If I weren’t doing a bunch of .NET development side-by-side with JavaScript, I would absolutely be using Aptana… and ScriptDoc. It’s by far the easiest documentation tool available, and clearly the best choice for Windows users.

JS Doc Toolkit is a close second, and (for now) the option I’m going with.

I have to say that it really bothers me that JavaScript documentation is not standarized at this point. Not only is setting up a tool a pain in the ass, but many of the tools want your documentation parameters in a specific order – which is just confusing. The parameters aren’t standardized across all of the documentation tools, which is even more confusing and frustrating if you want to change tools.

UPDATE (6/25/09): New post on Ext-Doc tool.

Google’s Hypocrisy on UI Design

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

This has been driving me crazy for a while now, and I just had to say something.

A colleague of mine recently forwarded me a link to the Official Google Blog post about eye tracking studies they used for their universal search results. Very interesting stuff, and I don’t doubt the technique is effective.

However, Google is far from perfect in actually applying their UI “brand” on each of their applications. It’s irritating, at best.

The Official Google Blog has another post describing what goes into their Google-y UI brand. It’s a fairly generic and utilitarian list, but I suppose it’s accurate across their web applications.

What really starts to irritate me is the lack of effort Google has put into a bunch of their web applications, mainly with regards to graphic design. If you know anything about me, you’ll know I never claim to be good as a graphic designer (I’m a developer… big difference). That being said, Google has done a great job with applications like Google Analytics — but they completely failed on other applications like Webmaster Tools and Adsense. Even the AdWords portal looks really basic.

Let’s be honest — the tools I specifically just mentioned (Webmaster Tools, AdSense, and AdWords) are all about reporting; thus, the UI doesn’t exactly need to be eye-catching. All three applications are (from a development perspective) technically complex; they all rely heavily on AJAX, and they pull data from god-only-knows how many Google servers and databases.

But with all of the resources Google has, why can’t they at least make the UI for their tools look nice? I’m not even talking about smooth Photoshop layouts, just something that doesn’t suck.

Beyond just basic graphic design, the navigation for AdSense and AdWords is less than intuitive (Webmaster Tools is okay…). For a company that boasts about how they nail the UI in universal search, they really messed up.

AdSense has, in my opinion, one of the worst reporting portals of a web application that I’ve even seen. The data Google lets you see is almost worthless, and the reporting formats are terrible. You mean they couldn’t create useful (and cool) Flash graphs/reports like they have in Analytics? Are you kidding?

Don’t even get me started on why Webmaster Tools isn’t just bundled together with Analytics. I mean come on… they really ought to just be one tool.

I’m basically just ranting at this point… but does anyone agree? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!