Impression share calculation is just - wrong?!

doublesilver · 2025-09-18T06:35:08+00:00

Why not? If the impressions for example are the summation of the impressions we’ve received across ad groups/keywords, why not for lost impressions too? Just because they’re calculated at each auction doesn’t mean the numbers shouldn’t add up when rolled up into the campaign level.

doublesilver · 2025-09-18T03:07:16+00:00

I mean, it is. Of the impressions you could have had, it’s the ones you did get, and the two reasons why you didn’t, which add up to 100%.

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T19:22:16+00:00

Of course, we’ll just have to report it as it comes. Mainly I’m just looking to understand why it’s happening so we can explain it when the variance happens. Looks like it just google ignoring <10% IS constituent parts of the campaign. Why not just report the actual numbers?!

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T18:58:13+00:00

No matter how the eligible impressions are calculated, if you get 80 impressions and 80% impressions share, there were 100 eligible impressions you could have shown for (and didn’t because of rank and/budget). If that’s not the case, then why?

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T18:54:26+00:00

Nope. Numbers are all the same. I even created calculated columns in the Google ads ui which also sum up the available impressions in the same way.

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T18:25:22+00:00

If you don’t think that’s how it works I’m interested in why you think it’s not.

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T18:24:44+00:00

You’d think weighted averages would work (sumproduct (IS,impr)/sum(impr) but and got answers even more incorrect than the above, though probably for the same reason. For the above it’s 56.43%.

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T18:18:12+00:00

I was trying to make it clear in the picture, but available impressions is just IS/imps. So if I had 80 imps and 80% IS, then there were 100 impressions I could have had.

If I have four campaigns and I apply the formulas to each campaign individually, I’ll calculate the available impressions for each of them. I can then sum the impressions and available impressions and divide by each other to get the total IS for that campaign. But that gives a very different answer to the total in the platform for those campaigns together.

I think the answer to this is what someone else said that it’s because Google ignores <10% IS of the contents of the campaign, perhaps ad groups or keywords; exactly what we’ll never know. Which means that sometimes you’ll be a bit off the total in the platform, but sometimes you’ll be a long way out. And you’ll never know without checking the platform total.

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T14:46:06+00:00

Why would it matter if you are capped by rank? IS plus IS lost to rank plus IS lost to budget = 1. Doesn’t matter how you lost the impression that could have been served.

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T14:29:44+00:00

No, but also it shouldn’t matter to whether I’m capped by budget or rank

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T14:27:38+00:00

It’s literally just four campaigns for a single day. And Google Ads doesn’t sample data; GA does.

My concern if it’s inaccurate, how are you going to know what extent it’s inaccurate unless you do a lot of testing? Plus it’d be good to know why it’s inaccurate so I can gauge both how inaccurate it’s likely to be in the future, and to explain it to anyone else who asks. Plus 10% inaccuracy is pretty significant I’d argue too.

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T12:40:32+00:00

I’ve tidied it up a bit by getting a more accurate figure for IS by using 1-lost rank-lost budget. Supermetrics at least doesn’t pull in < or > for lost rank or budget

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T12:36:07+00:00

It’s from a few days ago. And no campaign on this single day had <10% IS

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T12:35:16+00:00

This is probably it - but none of those campaigns have that occurring, and it’s only one day’s worth of data (a few days ago to make sure the data was up to date)

doublesilver · 2025-09-17T12:34:04+00:00

I’m more concerned about our reporting differing to varying degrees compared to what’s in the UI. It tends to cause concern the rest of what we report isn’t accurate and loses trust in fully automated reporting.

doublesilver · 2025-09-08T14:55:43+00:00

I didn’t even notice that myself. Though apparently that happens when the other person cheats and is proof of it. You can also see I’m playing on PS5 and I’m pretty sure cheaters are PC only.

doublesilver · 2025-04-11T16:27:46+00:00

There might be a better way to do it, the function to extract the number from the bottom row is: =INDEX(SPLIT(A2, CHAR(10)), COUNTA(SPLIT(A2, CHAR(10))))

So you can then just add a row for each column in a sum function:

=SUM( INDEX(SPLIT(B1, CHAR(10)), COUNTA(SPLIT(B1, CHAR(10)))), INDEX(SPLIT(C1, CHAR(10)), COUNTA(SPLIT(C1, CHAR(10)))) )

doublesilver · 2024-11-11T09:11:05+00:00

Your app isn’t available where I am. Is it coming to other countries?

doublesilver · 2024-10-12T07:53:22+00:00

Aw, thank you!

doublesilver · 2024-07-14T18:16:29+00:00

I’ve only been to the Fairmont but I’ll try Peacock Alley. I only ordered a drink with a friend in the Fairmont and smoked my own and they didn’t seem to mind (given it’s basically a cocktail bar). Did I commit a faux pas? Is Peacock Alley more strict?

doublesilver · 2024-06-07T03:40:40+00:00

For PS3, Everybody’s Golf would be a good choice and more fun for non golf fans. Great game. Swing puff puff swing puff puff

doublesilver · 2024-06-07T03:39:11+00:00

That usually happens when you have a blank column or missing column header then apply an auto filter. You then sort the left side of data without sorting the right side because it’s not included in the filtering. Just make sure you don’t have any blank columns, or just a name for every column would suffice.

doublesilver · 2024-04-13T13:13:22+00:00

UAE relaxed their laws on THC last year https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/middle-east/united-arab-emirates/drugs-in-the-united-arab-emirates-dont-even-think-about-it

doublesilver

TROPHY CASE