# Incorrect email analytics metrics

**URL:** <https://forum.ghost.org/t/incorrect-email-analytics-metrics/63900>\
**Category:** Bugs\
**Created:** [October 2, 2026, 3:31pm UTC](https://forum.ghost.org/t/incorrect-email-analytics-metrics/63900 "2026-10-02T15:31:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Homesteadhorizon](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex015/user_avatar/forum.ghost.org/homesteadhorizon/32/41684_2.png) [@Homesteadhorizon](https://forum.ghost.org/u/Homesteadhorizon)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2026, 3:31pm UTC](https://forum.ghost.org/t/incorrect-email-analytics-metrics/63900/1 "2026-10-02T15:31:46Z")

</div>

Hi,

I’m looking for clarification around the accuracy of Ghost’s newsletter click tracking and how click data is represented within member analytics.

Over the past few weeks I have noticed several instances where newsletter click activity appears to be attributed to members who, to the best of my knowledge, did not actually interact with the email. In one particularly clear example, one of my own test accounts was recorded as clicking links multiple times within the same hour despite the account not being accessed and the device associated with it not being available to me at the time.

After contacting support, I was advised that these clicks may be generated by email security systems, link scanners, or other automated services that follow links before messages reach the recipient. I understand that this behaviour exists across the email industry and that Ghost may not receive sufficient information to definitively determine whether a request came from a human or an automated system.

**My main concern is not that automated link scanning exists, but that Ghost appears to present those events as confirmed member engagement, which makes it difficult to understand what the reported CTR and member-level activity actually represent.**

Currently, newsletter reporting appears to present these interactions as member clicks and includes them within click-through rate metrics. For smaller publications, this can have a significant impact on reported engagement figures and can make it difficult to determine what level of engagement is genuine.

I have now observed this behaviour across multiple newsletters rather than a single campaign, which has reduced my confidence in the accuracy of the analytics available through the dashboard.

## What did you expect to happen?

I would expect one of the following:

- Known or suspected automated link-scanning activity to be filtered before being included in click metrics.
- If filtering is not possible, analytics to clearly distinguish between verified member clicks and tracked link requests that may include automated activity.
- Clear guidance within reporting explaining exactly what newsletter CTR represents when automated activity cannot be separated from genuine user engagement.

I appreciate that email analytics will never be 100% accurate, but I would expect the reporting to help publishers understand the limitations of the underlying data.

## Steps to Reproduce

1. Create and send a newsletter.
2. Include one or more tracked links within the email.
3. Deliver the newsletter to test accounts and regular subscribers.
4. Review the newsletter analytics and member-level click activity.
5. Observe instances where members are shown as clicking links multiple times despite no known user interaction.
6. Compare this against test accounts where access can be independently verified.

## Setup Info

### Ghost Version

Ghost(Pro) (latest version at time of posting)

**Node.js Version**  
_N/A_

**How did you install Ghost?**  
_N/A_

**Provide details of your host & operating system**  
Ghost(Pro) hosted by Ghost. Accessed via Google Chrome on Windows 11.

**Database type**  
Managed by Ghost(Pro) (database type not user-accessible)

**Browser & OS version**  
Google Chrome (latest version) on Windows 11

**Relevant log / error output**  
`Copy and paste any relevant log output. Use backticks to format this into code.`