Timeline for Google Analytics 4 (GA4) upgrade
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2022 at 18:04 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
They've got an English version.
|
| Sep 21, 2022 at 16:26 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
And that makes four.
|
| Sep 5, 2022 at 15:40 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
The Danish authority got cross about Google tracking schoolchildren.
|
| Sep 4, 2022 at 10:21 | comment | added | Florian F | An alternative: matomo.org | |
| Sep 4, 2022 at 2:46 | comment | added | bad_coder | Thanks for posting, "Dieser kurze Datenverarbeitungszeitraum ist ausreichend" (translated: "this short time during which [Google] processes the IP is enough"...) says it all for me. | |
| Sep 3, 2022 at 13:39 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Quoted the ICO.
|
| Sep 3, 2022 at 11:07 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 | @trlkly There are many, many other analytics providers, even if they don't want to self-host one of the half-dozen free software implementations (which run on Windows Server, or in Linux containers!). Maybe Google Analytics has something special that justifies using it, but nothing I've seen in the Site Analytics (20k or moderator) is GA-specific stuff. | |
| Sep 3, 2022 at 3:08 | comment | added | trlkly | I suspect this is perceived by management as Google's problem, as they would be the ones who would get in trouble. It's not like they're doing this out of altruism. They're just trying to find a way to get analytics back without breaking the law themselves. | |
| Sep 2, 2022 at 21:17 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarified a sentence.
|
| Sep 2, 2022 at 20:02 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 | You can't "fill in the data gap" like this, anyway. The class of users who clicks "Accept all cookies" is not typical of your audience. That missing data is missing. | |
| Sep 2, 2022 at 20:01 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 | At this point, I don't even know why I bother. I wonder whether I'll get directed to send an email to [email protected] again. I wonder whether they'll close the ticket, having responded to just one point, and not respond to my reply. I wonder whether anyone at the company actually cares about their users' right to not have their metaphorical library records sent to one of the world's largest surveillance corporations – or is our exercising of choice to inconvenient for you? | |
| Sep 2, 2022 at 19:56 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Increased rant length, pointlessly.
|
| Sep 2, 2022 at 17:23 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 | I haven't included the formatting from those quotations; quite a bit of it is underlining-for-emphasis, which Stack Exchange's markup doesn't support. I recommend reading the original rulings, which are – like the text of GDPR itself – quite clear on these matters. | |
| Sep 2, 2022 at 17:20 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Whoops! Put the wrong quotation in the wrong place; sorry.
|
| Sep 2, 2022 at 16:48 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added my own words.
|
| Sep 2, 2022 at 16:30 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some more; and I think I missed the juicy bits from the January ruling, so I might edit that.
|
| Sep 2, 2022 at 15:57 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some EU organisations' words.
|
| Sep 2, 2022 at 15:34 | history | answered | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |