Article
What Is Vibe Coding? How I Built a Google Analytics Alternative With AI After a Decade Away From Coding
Not long ago, I realised I wanted a better understanding of my blog’s traffic.
I like clean and accurate data. But traditional analytics tools like Google Analytics come with serious downsides: inaccurate numbers (due to blocked consent requests and various tracking blockers), the need for a cookie banner, and questionable transparency around privacy.
That is why I decided to build my own analytics, with pure, unfiltered data and full respect for the privacy of my visitors. And since we are living in 2025, I built it with the help of generative AI.
When it comes to programming, I have always considered myself an eternal beginner, ever since I started with web development at the age of 12. But AI has opened up skills and opportunities for me that I never imagined I would have. I have already written here on my blog about how AI helps me improve my coding skills, explaining its steps and decisions along the way. Thanks to that, my horizons have expanded far beyond what I thought possible. One of the results is my own custom-built analytics tool.
There is a name for this way of working with AI: vibe coding. What is vibe coding? It means building software by describing what you want to an AI assistant in plain language and letting the model write the actual code, while you guide, test and correct it. The term was coined by Andrej Karpathy in February 2025. I am not a professional developer, yet this is exactly how my own analytics tool came to exist.
How vibe coding actually works: defining the goals and first prompts
When building a project like this today, you really need to have a clear idea of what you want it to do and why. Just saying "I want my own analytics" is not enough.
So we started by defining exactly what I wanted to measure: daily traffic, traffic sources, purchases of my premium articles, and a deeper analysis of visitor types (humans vs. suspicious activity vs. bots).
At first, creating the initial tables and charts seemed easy. But it did not take long before the first real challenges emerged.
The issues I had to solve
The first SQL queries we used were slow and inefficient. They dragged the whole website down. We gradually tuned them, replaced wasteful LIKE comparisons with exact matches, and optimised the logic to only process the data we really needed, and suddenly, it started to fly.
Join the Library
Full access to my findings, personal stories, and what I learn from the people I meet.
Join the Library · €29.99 per yearGet the full article by email and feel free to reply if you want to discuss it further.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
What is vibe coding?
Why is Google Analytics inaccurate?
Is it possible to build web analytics without cookies?
What percentage of web traffic comes from bots?
Can someone with limited programming experience build custom analytics using AI?
How does privacy-first analytics work without tracking individuals?
What were the biggest technical challenges in building custom analytics?
How do you build your own web analytics?
What is a good free Google Analytics alternative?
Is self-hosted analytics worth it?
Is Google Analytics GDPR compliant?
Related articles
This is a serious issue, and it is high time we start acting responsibly.
Employees have the best AI models available at work, the connectors are hooked up, and colleagues already use them. And they still do not. AI adoption fails even when the tools are already there. It is not about time or AI skills. It is the inertia of old thinking.
The same task, two models. Fable 5 against Opus 4.8. On paper Fable is the better model, with a larger context and stronger specs. And still it lost. Opus handled the task with a single round of checking for 721,000 tokens, while Fable needed nine rounds and burnt through 2.78 million tokens. The difference was not in the model, but in how I set the task. And I know it, because I measured it.
More articles
A few weeks ago I installed a small local AI model on my laptop that watches a live camera feed. I turned the webcam on in the dark, and in near total darkness it recognised me and the objects in the room. That such things exist, I have known for a long time. What opened my eyes was the accessibility. I installed it in one prompt, free, and it runs entirely on my machine, sending data nowhere.

I once wrote about building my own privacy-friendly analytics tool. It had bot detection from the first version, yet it was not enough. Direct visits took a strangely high share of my traffic. When someone claims that 20% of their visits are bots and 80% are humans, I used to think the same. Today I would say the opposite ratio is closer to the truth. This is how I got there.

I have Heidegger and my notebook beside me. I am asking where all of this is heading, where artificial intelligence is taking us.
Seventy per cent. That is where the first AI output begins, even when you give it the full company context and the best examples from the past. We are talking about the kind of output that cannot be defined programmatically. It is more complex. Often it is creative work. On one repeated type of output I reached eighty per cent within a week. Every further percentage point is harder than the one before.
For a long time we treated the internet as the main road. The place where work and relationships happen. Yet most of what we see on it today is, or soon will be, AI-generated: text, images, profiles and comments. The internet is turning into an online game full of bots, where you cannot be sure that a human is on the other side of anything. So I ask: was the online world the main road, or only a temporary detour that part of us will return from, back offline?
A few days ago I interviewed a senior marketer. An experienced man, years of practice. I asked him about AI. He said he barely uses it. He had one bad experience with the output and decided he was too senior for it to add value when it is not perfect. I know the other side too: professionals who automate everything that can be automated.
Europe does not have the capacity to face a full-scale, mass drone war of the kind we see in Ukraine. Three dependencies weaken it: China supplies the physical material for defence systems, the United States supplies capabilities Europe does not have, and twenty-seven states cannot agree how fast, or who pays. Rearmament plans exist, but they are being carried out slowly.
AI produces the graphic, the newsletter and the product page faster than a person. What is left for the one who used to do it is the judgement, knowing whether the output is good. But most people have worse judgement than AI. And whoever cannot judge quality cannot delegate either. How do you tell whether yours is the judgement a company relies on, or the kind it can replace?
In April, in the first part of this series, I wrote about an AI prediction system I had started building on my own machine. At the time the software was a few hours old and the prediction record was empty. The record since then has shown one thing: the system does not yet understand the market it is being asked to forecast. It can pull macro context, book value, earnings. But it cannot put those together into something that helps it understand the price.

Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.

