Home/ Questions/Q 625767
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-13T19:20:43+00:00

From an old answer I have recently learned that Google Analytics, besides the traditional

  • 0

From an old answer I have recently learned that Google Analytics, besides the traditional tracking code, offers so-called “asynchronous tracking”. From the documentation, it seems like asynchronous tracking is to be preferred over the traditional tracking:

Unlike a traditional installation, asynchronous tracking optimizes how browsers load ga.js so its impact on user experience is minimized. It also allows you to put your Analytics snippet higher in the page without delaying subsequent content from rendering.

The documentation mentions no drawbacks from using asynchronous tracking, which makes me wonder why this is not the default tracking method. Are there any pitfalls around asynchronous tracking that one should be aware of, or should I go ahead and make the switch on all installations?

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    Async tracking was only released 2 months ago. They’re just beta testing it before they unleash it on the entire web. They only trouble I’ve heard people have is with something Google calls out on its installation page:

    We’ve determined that on most pages, the optimal location for the
    asynchronous snippet is at the top of the <body> section. While it is
    customary to place JavaScript code in the <head> section, placing the
    asynchronous snippet there may trigger a parsing bug in Internet Explorer 6
    and 7 on some pages. The easiest solution to this problem is to place
    it at the top of the section.

    • 0