When Google released Google Analytics, they allowed webmasters to use near-enterprise level analytics for free. However, there are a lot of things you need to tinker with in order to get some of the data you need from it.

1. Tracking clicks on links. Every time you put a link to anything external or a download on a page, make sure you add onClick=”javascript: pageTracker._trackPageview(’/link/linkname’); “. Always know where your visitors went.
2. Tracking user groups. If you’re sending people to a landing page, and you want to know where they go from there, segment them by using onLoad=”javascript:pageTracker._setVar(’Segment/Subgroup’);”. This will help you know what different groups are doing, and split-test user behaviour.
3. Tracking full referred URLs. You’ll often get visits from forums or blogs that append their URLs. That’s not much use to you, so to make sure you know where people actually came from, set up a filter with the following settings:
   • Name: Full Referrers
   • Type: Custom filter - Advanced
   • Field A -> Extract A: Referral > (.*)
   • Field B -> Extract B: -
   • Output To -> Constructor: User-defined > $A$1
4. Exclude internal visits. Add a new filter, with the “Exclude all traffic from an IP address” setting. Then add your own IP address, and repeat for any other IPs you don’t want to be included. Make sure you escape any full stops, with a forward slash, like this: 63\.212\.171\.
5. Tracking across multiple domains/subdomains. If you’re running a very large site, or a site that spans multiple domains, you’ll need to be able to track visits across those sites. Fortunately, we have a way of doing that. Firstly, we set up the following filter:
   • Name: Full URI
   • Type: Custom filter - Advanced
   • Field A -> Extract A: Hostname > (.*)
   • Field B -> Extract B: Request URI > (.*)
   • Output To -> Constructor: Request URI > /$A1$B1

   Now you’ll see URLs in your content reports that look like this: www.example.com/index.html, help.example.com/more.html and so on. Next, we tweak the analytics code slightly, so it looks like this:

   <script type="text/javascript"><!–
   var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "<a target="_blank" href="https://ssl" mce_href="https://ssl">https://ssl</a>." : "<a target="_blank" href="http://www." mce_href="http://www.">http://www.</a>");
   document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src=’" + gaJsHost + "<a target="_blank" href="http://google-analytics.com/ga.js" mce_href="http://google-analytics.com/ga.js">google-analytics.com/ga.js</a>’ type=’text/javascript’%3E%3C/script%3E"));
   // –></script>
   
   <script type="text/javascript"><!–
   var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-xxxxx-x");
   <b>pageTracker._setDomainName("none");
   pageTracker._setAllowLinker(true);</b>
   pageTracker._trackPageview();
   // –></script>

   That will make the code work across all our (sub)domains. Finally, whenever you link from one domain to the other, make sure that you stick this piece of code into the link: onclick=”pageTracker._link(this.href); return false;”. Alternatively, if you’re using forms to jump between domains, use this code instead: onSubmit=”javascript:pageTracker._linkByPost(this)”.

6. Tracking ecommerce transactions. Yes, Google Analytics has a full ecommerce module built in too. To turn it on, go to the account settings, and change the Ecommerce Website button from No to Yes. Now, on your receipt page, add the following code, with the fields below being filled from the order.

   <script type="text/javascript"><!–
   var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
   
   document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src=’" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js’ type=’text/javascript’%3E%3C/script%3E"));
   // –></script>
   
   <script type="text/javascript"><!–
   var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-xxxxx-x");
   pageTracker._trackPageview();
   pageTracker._addTrans(
   "1234", // The ID for the whole transaction
   "Mountain View", // The affiliate name, if there is one. If not, put as your name
   "11.99", // Total transaction value
   "1.29", // Tax
   "5.99", // Shipping charges
   "San Jose", // City
   "California", // State
   "USA" // Country
   );
   
   pageTracker._addItem(
   "1234", // The ID for this single part of the order
   "DD44", // Product SKU
   "T-Shirt", // Product Name
   "Green Medium", // Category
   "11.99", // Price
   "1" // Quantity
   );
   
   pageTracker._trackTrans();
   // –></script>

   The last part (pageTracker._addItem( to the closing ); is repeated for each extra product or order in the transaction. And now you’ve got ecommerce tracking!

7. Tracking exact keywords for AdWords. The problem with the keyword reports for your paid search campaigns, is that they only show the keyword that was triggered, not the exact keyword the person actually typed in. If you want to get that, you’re going to have to create the following two filters…
   • Name: PPC Keywords 1
   • Type: Custom filter - Advanced
   • Field A -> Extract A: Referral > (\?|&)(q|p)=([^&]*)
   • Field B -> Extract B: Campaign Medium > cpc|ppc
   • Output To -> Constructor: Custom Field 1 > $A3

   Field A Required, Field B Required and Override Output Field need to be set to Yes.

   • Name: PPC Keywords 2
   • Type: Custom filter - Advanced
   • Field A -> Extract A: Custom Field 1 > (.*)
   • Field B -> Extract B: Campaign Term > (.*)
   • Output To -> Constructor: Campaign Term > $B1,($A1)

   Again, Field A Required, Field B Required and Override Output Field need to be set to Yes.
   Now when you look in your reports, you’ll see the actual keyword the searchter typed in, in brackets next to the keyword that was triggered. Cool, huh?

8. Making the site overlay tool useful. There’s a basic flaw in the way the site overlay works. Unfortunately, it groups all clicks on a URL togeter, so if you’ve got two links to the same URL, it’ll report the total data for both, rather than for each link individually. To get around this, leave the first link to the URL in question as it is, but add &location=x to the end of each additional link (where x isthe number of that link, so the first extra link would be 1, a second would be 2 and so on).

Around the web a search for Vista alone will yield many an article about the terrible experiences people have had, how much better Windows XP is, and how it’s just junk.

It isn’t.

I’m saying this as ever, as a new user to the system, and as a Mac OS X and Linux user too. I’ll wager many of those proponents of the ‘Vista sucks’ message are either those who need/want to drive up visitor numbers/advertising revenue and those willing to read that message to confirm a half baked belief that will vindicate them as right. But this isn’t about what is right or wrong, just the facts. Just the facts Jack.

I purchased an Acer Aspire M1640 the other week as I had decided that I needed to have Vista to develop sidebar gadgets as part of my work. Also the Dell was getting somewhat long in the tooth. So I bought my first new PC ever. I bought it pre-built as it worked out cheaper, quite a lot cheaper. £279 bought a Core 2 Duo E4700 system (2.6GHz), 2GB RAM, 250GB HD, Vista Home Premium license, DVD+/-RW, etc. A good solid middle of the road base unit.

 
The Vista desktop definitely isn’t lipstick on a pig!

I can only liken the situation with Windows Vista to that of when Windows 95 came along and replaced Windows 3.1/11 for Workgroups. For the first time in history 95 worked somewhat different to how Windows had up until that point (centered around the MS-DOS Executive/Program Manager) and suddenly that was out and a more Mac/Amiga alike desktop came along with the desktop being fundamentally very similar. Windows 95 also made the 386 history and it really did deserve a Pentium machine with 8MB of RAM — this was quite a big thing in 1995 when a 486 with 4MB was more common.

 
Flip3D is a gimmick and Compiz has it roundly beat but it’s pretty.

Vista, particularly the Windows Explorer has changed quite dramatically from the Explorer that has evolved from 95 through to XP/2003; and some people are very resistant to change. I work on websites that have a few customers who sadly are not very forgiving of any change, even when it’s for the better.

The start menu goes a bit further than XP did and one thing that got me right away was the lack of the Run command by default. It’s easily added back but then you start using that instant search facility (much better in location/immediate use than Apple’s Spotlight but this in part related to the horrible Dock concept, IMHO.)

Searching for a file based on a meta-tag

You then realise not only can you tap in Word and enter to run Word, but us old school types who have found it easier to do Start + Run and tap in winword and enter will find that works as well.

 
Instant search also finds applications by filename, not just shortcut name!

It even takes parameters. So instant search is search as well as the run command combined.

The start menu also no longer folds out to reveal forever expanding menus that head to the right of the screen. It all works in place. Again takes time to get used to but it is better, but then I like the new KDE 4 Kicker menu! Some don’t.

In terms of speed, so far no problems at all. It boots quicker (and I have loaded up most of what I need) and the applications open quicker. Word 2007 took an age for example (compared to 97-2003) on my P4 Dell with XP but on this it’s open in seconds. Certainly I have better hardware now, but even so, the oft mentioned bloat does not appear to be causing problems at all.

 
Adding tags to files is a breeze

I will be continuing my observations but what certainly is clear is that particularly in the SP1 era, Vista is actually a great improvement over the slightly anaemic looking XP in comparison. It seems better thought out and has broken away from those conventions first established in Windows 95. This is a good thing.

 
Windows Explorer gets a needed update for a world hooked on data and lots of it. It’s very nice and better than Mac OS X’s Finder.

I’ve never hated the Mac OS X interface but I have never adored or loved it, mostly because I cannot stand the Dock which is an awful way of managing windows but with Vista it felt very much like what I already knew but with good improvements. In many respects it has a lot of the things that I like about KDE 4.1 about it.

Tune in for more