I manage a GA360 account where we are dual tagging UA/GA4 using Adobe Launch as the connector. Currently we are seeing a large % of traffic being captured as new users (i.e. between 65-99%). This is significantly off as we generally average around 45% new users.
Would anyone have any recommendations on how to troubleshoot this?
We've checked and the cookie expiration is correct, so I'm unsure where/what else to investigate.
Related
My question is more of a conceptual one, but in my specific case I am using Google Analytics 4. If the question is unclear, here it is in scenario form: Some guy visits my site x.com after a google search. He closes the tab, does another google search, and arrives at my other site y.com. How do I know it's the same person? I don't think there's anything I can do with User ID's in this situation. How would I solve this?
This isn't without fault, but if you are implementing it via Google Tag Manager, you have more control over the data being sent and on top of that, if you are transporting the data via Google Tag Manager server side container.
You would use a single server (but possibly different containers) or use BigQuery and either use the templateDataStorage API call or the BigQuery API call.
Essentially, the first time you see a google cid or an IP address or combination of user agent and ip address you would store it in the server or in a BigQuery table as a key and create a random associated value next to it.
At each time, across all your sites, you would check to see if the IP address or CID or combination of user agent and ip exists in the server or in the BigQuery table, then output the random value as a custom dimension and if not, it will create one.
Actually you probably wouldn't.
Presumably you could try fingerprinting, but depending on your legislation that might not be quite legal, and it tends to work a lot better in a lab than in real life. Also browsers start to implement anti-fingerprinting measures such as trimming the user agent, and denying access to browser properties such as installed plugins.
I have heard of experimental approaches to recongnize users via usage patterns - e.g. how do they move their mouse etc. I am not aware of any actual product that uses this, and I am not convinced it is a useful (or even legal) approach.
But in general, when it comes to cross-domain detection for unrelated visits (moving from domain to domain works via link decorators, and even that is affected by browser protections) you have the combined power of browser vendor against you, who try to make this harder (either for genuine concerns about privacy, or to establish themselves as the single gatekeeper for user identity. E.g. Google has a huge user base that is almost constantly logged in to Google accounts or Android smartphones, which helps with identifying users all over the web).
My app uses Firebase for authentication and I'm having trouble understanding the discrepancy between the number of authenticated users (1027) and the number of installs (4800):
This suggests that a lot of people installed the app but very few logged into it. If so, why would anyone go to the trouble of installing but not using it? Or am I reading Analytics wrong?
Stack Overflow isn't really the right place to ask about human behavior. There could be any number of reasons why someone installed an app and deleted it without even signing into it.
We also don't know if you allow users to delete their accounts after signing in, which could also explain a difference.
We don't know if your users have multiple devices, which would each count as different (anonymized) users in Analytics, but the same user account in Authentication.
There could even be robotic crawlers trying to use the app, especially if it's a web app.
If you're having problem reconciling what you see in the console, you're probably better off contacting Firebase support to see if something is wrong. But something is probably not wrong at all. Consider instead putting some effort into instrumenting your app with more analytics events to figure out exactly how people are using it, and where they might be falling off before they ever sign in, or if they sign in with multiple devices.
I received an answer from Firebase Support and here's what they said:
The active user calculation in our dashboard is based on the user_engagement of your user who access your application while the app is in foreground state. With that, the active user count is not based on the total count of your authenticated user because we track it using the user_engagement event. This is expected that there would be greater number of active users than your authenticated user count if your user didn’t authenticate and they’re using the app within foreground state.
I turns out that the number of 4800 is the number of "engagements" by the app's users, not the number of users. If the user logs in, then goes to another page, that's two engagements. Firebase Analytics is a great way to analyze what people are doing in the app. I love it!
My employer has recently switched to using Skype for Business. Aside from a somewhat painful user experience on the Mac, its not so bad. However, several of us have noticed that certain employees can join meetings without being listed amongst the attendees. I don't mean anonymously- I mean the attendee count doesn't even register the additional bodies.
Is this some kind of audit feature that allows certain users the ability to secretly join a meeting? Or perhaps its just a feature that allows someone to slip in late without disturbing the flow? Or maybe just a bug?
I don't mean to sound paranoid but this activity only seems to occur for division heads, which is why several of us have taken notice.
The short answer is yes.
But "normal" people can't do it directly, as the only type of participant that can be hidden is a UCMA trusted application, using a trusted application endpoint.
For "normal" Skype clients to connect hidden, is to connect to a UCMA trusted application endpoint that does a B2BUA call into the conference.
You can see an example of this in Microsoft's UCMA reference Call Center application.
This question is not related to ASP.NET specifically, but more web applications in general.
I am building a web application wherein I am registering a user. As of now I am taking in very basic credentials like First Name, Last Name, etc of the user. In this website I am giving some information for free for any user who has just registered so that the user finds my website authentic and that it is not a fake website. After that, to get more information, the user has to pay.
The information my site provides will get obsolete after sometime. So, when a new user registers, he/she will get the new information that gets updated; but the old users have to pay to get the same new information.
My problem here is once the information gets obsolete the same person can re-register with a different set of credentials and get the new information. I want to avoid this from happening.
So my question here is this: what information should I request from the user, or extract from the user, to check that the same user is not re-registering? Or any other way to make this possible.
I am thinking of getting the IP address of the machine from which the person is registering and use it to check. But the user can use a different machine to re-register.
I am completely lost here and not getting the solution. I even checked on the Internet but could not find an answer.
Please let me know if you need any further information from my side.
You will not find a technical way to prevent users from registering multiple times. They can simply use another device, IP, another email account and different credentials.
What you can do is asking them to send you hard to fake "offline" information, like a credit card number or a photo of the ID. Some users may still be able to register multiple times this way, but probably not indefinitly. You will however lose many possible clients this way who are unwilling to provide such information for a test account, so this is likely not the solution you want.
My advice would be one of the following two:
Limit the information/service you give out to free users, so that even if they register again they will gain something when they pay.
Try to bind them to their account in a way where they would lose something if they threw it away. This may for example be providing user rewards for activity (real or virtual) or increasing their experience based on their history. Take SO for example: If you registered again, you would lose all your reputation. The users will think twice if this is worth the new content.
After reading all of the above, i think a good solution could be to let the user identify himself through facebook or linkedin. Few people will have a second account.
I think you cannot put any users like that because every thing can be duplicate
There are some ways for which the user must have payment mode or identity details like passport or it is windows application you can have finger scanner it will be definitely Unique..
You can do this (with limitations) with the use of cookies. Setting a cookie on the users device will allow you to determine who the visitor is and that they have already registered.
The limitations are that cookies can be deleted or blocked and are only valid for that specific user agent - the user could use a different device or a different browser on the same device. A lot of people don't really know about cookies though and how to delete them.
By tying this technique with a requirement to provide a valid email address you can make it a hassle for somebody to register more than once as they will have to create a new email account and then delete their cookies.
Whether this will stop enough people depends on your site and your requirements - if you're giving money away then this technique is not nearly good enough. If you just want to discourage the practice of multiple accounts it may be enough.
Your only way out is to have SOMETHING the existing user gets as a "gift?" or added value to maintain just one account. If you can identify items of value to your subscribers and offer to "give" it to them provided their account "attains" one or more status, then you'll get some control. Take stackoverflow.com for example, I don't need a second account.
Identifying by facebook or linkedin is a good option, but if you are giving such services. which are very beneficial for the users, so they dont mind on creating multiple accounts on even facebook or linked in.
So what i think is to set some reward type stuff with each user, and increase the services as they get increment in rewards.once they are good in rewards and are capable to use multiple services, this increases the probability that they will not create another account.
Is there any limitation in Tridion that would stop more than one physical user sharing a single Tridion account for logging in?
Tridion as far as I know wouldn't end the other session or log a user out if both logged on at the same time, for instance.
Our client is getting close to their licence limit and is looking several users sharing a single account. From a business perspective they'll lose the ability to really know who changed what - but there's no workflow in place.
Is this in breach of the Tridion licence to do this?
Cheers
Tridion is a stateless application, so although there is authentication there is no concept of log-in or log-out. You could have problems if different users of the account tried to change the same item at the same time (have seen this in training session where a single account was used).
Yes, it would be a breach of the license conditions - typically this is done on a named-user basis, unless unlimited users were allowed (which would probably mean you wouldn't need to do this anyway).
You're right that it would probably work from the software point of view.
But I think we can guess the answer to your license question. After all, it sounds like they are looking at doing this to avoid paying money to SDL for the actual amount of users that they have.
I'm not a lawyer but that doesn't sound like a good idea...
AFAIK SDL Tridion uses sessions bound to the browser, so it doesn't matter from that point of view how many of those session use the same user account. There is no option of loggin out, or ending a session for that matter either.
So yes multiple users can use the same user account but they pose themselves a risk. If user A checks out an item and starts working with this, user B (using the same SDL Tridion account as user A) can also open that item and will not get it in read-only mode (like you would if you were using a different account). So the versioning and locking of items are now bypassed and rendered useless.
Lastly this is indeed violating the license agreement as specified in the contract (unless there is an unlimited number of users granted in the contract).