SEO And If Recent Inaccuracies Keyword Planner Were Not Such Bad News?
While the data provided by Google on keyword search volumes lost in reliability, the tools used them must reinvent themselves. And it is perhaps a boon for them …
Knowing queries search volume in Google obviously helps to develop SEO strategy, and decide what content to produce. The Keyword Planner, a partner in AdWords tool, called in French the “Keyword Planner”, provided this information free of charge to everyone. But this summer, Google decided to change the rules and modified this tool. Now you need a paid account, having already made Adwords campaigns to benefit the figures, if the proposed data refer to slices of much less accurate volumes. And even with a paid account, Google now includes several keywords to include some of its variants. And sometimes, for some queries, the engine gives no volume. Singular and plural forms can be grouped, as acronyms.
For free accounts, Google admits that “some of the keywords that you entered and close variants were grouped on the same line.” Specifically, in the example above, the displayed search volumes are the same for “SEO” and “Search Engine Optimization”. Note also in this example that no slice is displayed for “inaccuracies”.
Even with a paid account, it becomes difficult to know how many words are grouped behind estimates displayed by the tool, when available. In short: the Keyword Planner has lost much … in reliability. What question the tools, many who used this data source.
A Historic Well Worth
The publishers of these solutions have had to roll up their sleeves to see how they could react. Unhurriedly, as most of them have a history from the Keyword Planner, this allows them to calmly deal with the coming months. “We do not worry about too much for the next six months, at least, for our history, we will continue to provide relevant volumes, including seasonal variations. For some keywords, and trends previously observed volumes will be the same in the future, “explains Cédric Messoumian, which manages Ranks.
This is true for the words that will not experience an unpredictable event, and for already known and followed requests. But the tools do not always have the history of all the keywords they currently follow, especially if they have enriched their base lately. so it must still explore new ways to continue to update the volumes. And the most obvious data sources do not prove the most reliable, or easier to use.
The Track, Complicated The Webmaster
This is obviously the alternative data source that comes to mind quickly: Search Console . It appears sometimes very precise impressions for many keywords. But before using these data, it is necessary already that SEO tools publishers have access to search their client consoles or can convince them to gain access.
This is not the only problem. Those who already have large amounts of data archived from the Webmaster have quickly realized the limits set by this tool. “This is yet data from Google, and one can also question their reliability,” argues Alexander Sigoigne, CEO and co-founder of MyPoseo. In addition, continuing this leader, “the average positions provided by this tool are not always easy to exploit” … Indeed: just a page, shown in 5th average position in the console, has passed from time to time 2nd page of results for its number of impressions is difficult to use. Especially since Google does not always indicate precisely these jolts in its results, and customization, geo location can also seriously move pages in terms of positions … and so complicate the use of impressions provided by the tool.
And if a site is number 1 on the request, with great constancy, for a long time? “This is already based on assumptions cascades” observes Alexander Sigoigne, who said he had seen the case … and so found that the Webmaster traced a different position from that observed average in the long term. This is not the only oddity he observed: “Sometimes, the indicator displayed for Monday is not the same if you look at the Tuesday or Wednesday, Google changes the lift information,” témoigne- he said. “Anyway,” he concludes, “there have always been differences between search volume given by the Keyword Planner, impressions of the Webmaster, and the number of real time a query is entered in the . engine for a month vagueness existed before: Google had the freedom to say that the volume was 190 or 490 … the latest changes have amplifies an existing problem. ” Cédric Messoumian Ranks among advanced another problem Webmaster Tools, which “at best only provide information on a tiny fraction of the 100 million keywords” that his tool now monitors.
Other Data Sources, And Already Found Solutions
The work of editors is to determine what data back, which probably will push the already very healthy to ask questions. Obviously, it is above all to Google they look, because it is the only one to know the actual search volume queries. Apart Webmaster and the Keyword Planner, publishers also looked at Google Trends, “a horror to operate” for some, “a track to study” for others … But the data may also not come from Google : there including those from the observed online panels, which can provide many statistics. This is for example the path chosen has to explore openly the famous American publisher Moz.
It is the selection and treatment, and the combination of all these data sources that will develop the formula (magic) showing again freshly calculated volumes of keywords. Yooda, Ranks, MyPoseo … all are looking for the formula, and the first publishers should begin to draw their solution in a short time: it is more a matter of days to weeks or months for some.
Apart Moz, SEMrush also already developed its own solution. The data provided by this tool for the volumes are indeed not those of the Keyword Planner. This service follows the French market for a number of keywords (6 million) less than other French players did not want too go into details, but developed years ago a method which allows him to not do everything based on data from Keyword Planner. Why choose this difficult path? “It was in order to create something new, without depending on Google and its Keyword Planner” was limited to explain Natalya Zhukova, the ambassador of France in the tool that poses the mystery the methodology and the data used.
For its part, Yooda is expected soon to announce a solution that allows it to assign search volumes for new keywords. Having, like its competitors, explored many avenues, the editor Montpellier quickly realized that “no solution was perfect.” “It will be more expensive for us, but we are confident,” said Lionel Miraton, responsible web marketing and training with this actor. “The Google Webmaster track was rejected, at least for the moment,” he said. The solution uses Yooda history, “another source of data” (the publisher does not want to reveal), and “expertise in statistics.” Lionel Miraton expressed particular course of volumes will be estimated, “especially for the key to the least volatile volumes words.”
A Bad For A Good
“Ultimately, what we propose will be better than before, and more refined. So it will be good news for the user,” said the employee of Yooda, who appreciates, in passing, that the quality of data by publishers become an issue – it is true that before the data were the same for everyone, and a race to the amount of keywords followed was observed. In short, these changes to the Keyword Planner ultimately represent “an opportunity,” admits the head of web marketing Yooda.
The other good news for customers is that each tool will be able to offer its own solution, which will help them to better differentiate from each other. What give new elements of comparison, that can weigh in the choice of users. “This will accentuate the special features because the players already have their own formula to calculate the click rate and estimate the traffic SEO or SEO Visibility” is also noted Cédric Messoumian of Ranks. Have distinct methods will help publishers better mark their difference and relevance of their singularity as may convince prospects that retain customers. A bargain, then.