AdWords is now Google Ads. Our new name reflects the full range of advertising options we offer across Search, Display, YouTube, and more. Learn more

2.1K members online now
2.1K members online now
Learn how to set up goals and Ecommerce tracking, verify accuracy of attribution traffic sources, and discuss funnel visualization, Multi-Channel Funnels, the Goal Flow Report, and Enhanced Ecommerce
Guide Me

E-commerce transactions not showing up in non-'User-ID' reports

Visitor ✭ ✭ ✭
# 1
Visitor ✭ ✭ ✭

With all e-commerce transactions we pass a user-id.

We have 2 views in GA: 

  • one view with 'User-ID Reports' disabled
  • one view with 'User-ID Reports' enabled

The transactions show up correctly in the report with User-ID Reports enabled but not in the regular report... That's strange since I can find a lot of post on the opposite situation... 


Anyone any ideas?


E-commerce transactions not showing up in non-'User-ID' reports

Visitor ✭ ✭ ✭
# 2
Visitor ✭ ✭ ✭

Ok, we got some sort of fix, but we are quit unsure if this is the 'clean' thing to do.


I'll explain what happened. Before we just used the ga.js implementation for tracking e-commerce transactions. Since we now also have recurring transactions we needed another solution for passing on transactions. We found a way using the Measurement Protocol (

In our request, just like we did in the ga.js version, we passed the uid (user id) along with the transaction. But that had as a result that the transactions were only showing in 'User-ID Reports' enabled reports. Before when using ga.js they showed in all views as one would expect.


I thought the solution would be to also pass a cid parameter, but that didn't go well. It recorded the transaction twice in the 'User-ID Reports' enabled view and still not in the other regular views.


What we do now, and that works, is doing the request twice. One time with only the uid parameter, and a separate time with only the cid parameter. However it works, it feels not right to have to pass the same transaction twice.


So I feel like we are missing or overlooking here... Maybe this explanation does ring a bell with someone?