|Any value in very old keywords data?|
| 8:26 pm on Feb 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Took a trip down the memory lane this morning: found an old file saved from Analytics back in 2009 (just before I stopped using it) that contained the list of 500 KWs that brought most traffic back then.
What a depressing picture! I do realize that this was all before the animal updates and all, but it's just an illustration of what an uphill battle this it: I got down to #25 and found not a single one better than at page 10, and most are simply gone!
Those that I can still find are clobbered by host crowding (wasn't that supposed to be fixed by now?) and utter junk, including non-working pages and even whole expired domains. There are some good pages on Page 1 that I understand how they rank better, but move beyond Page 1 and it's just a trash bin of Internet. It looks like G has completely given up on quality control of anything that's off the Page 1, perhaps because so few people go there.
But anyway, this is not just a rant, there was a question in there somewhere (...pausing to collect his thoughts...) I was just wondering if anyone thinks it's a good idea to start working reconsideration request angle if you find yourself ranking below expired domains? I mean, is there a particular algorithmic advantage that a page from an expired domain may have over an actual working page on my site if my site does not have some sort of a "manual action", whatever that is, taken against it?
So, can you use old KWs data under assumption that the content that was deemed worthy to rank for the KW is still there and still relevant, to draw a conclusion that there's some underlying issue with the site as a whole that can (potentially) be addressed by sending an RR? Can you be ranking at pages 10+, lower than junk, if you're simply, say, lacking backlinks or some other aspect of normal site development is lacking?
By the way, I'm not certain at this point what sin to confess to, so this RR idea may be a moot point until I dig up some dirt on my own. So, I guess, a different way to sum up my ramblings from above is this: "are there non-RR-worthy site development issues that can make you rank so low if you still have the same content, still relevant to the same KWs"?
Thanks for your input!
| 10:05 pm on Feb 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I do think that the value of keyword data decreases over time as consumers search differently and their vocabulary changes. However when you consider the keyword data from Google traffic is evaporating more and more each month, I'd say it is wise to archive any and all keyword data.
| 11:41 pm on Feb 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I think goodroi is right. I occasionally look at some keywords over at Google Trends, to check if they're still relevant. For some of those, you can quite clearly see the trend that they're becoming less popular.
Also, I find that Google sometimes demotes pages for certain keywords without rhyme or reason. For example, a page that was doing extremely well for a keyword early last year suddenly dropped like a stone for a few months, and then returned again without explanation. I made no changes to the page during that time. Simply no explanation.
| 4:03 pm on Feb 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Nothing actionable comes to mind, but you could compare the old data to the new data and see how things have changed overtime. Who knows, it could spark and idea.
| 6:46 am on Feb 28, 2013 (gmt 0)|
The new keywords data is more important than the old one. It reflect the changing of users' search trend.
| 6:04 pm on Feb 28, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@fantasticode: thanks, I do realize that the current set provides perhaps some better actionable value. I am, however, thinking of KWs that don't really reflect trends as much. I do have (and had even more of in the past) quite a few perennial KWs that could perhaps be seasonal and yet they would return every year, as the seasons changed. One other thing that strikes me as important looking at some old KWs is that some of them did manage to survive through eHow and Amazon moving in and completely dominating the turf via host crowding. It just looks a bit weird that some KWs would survive in a climate like this and yet they do. There are no KW-targeted link campaigns I ever did for any of them, the pages are not optimized for any keyword and the ones that survived are no better linked internally than the ones that didn't. So, what makes them stick - that's the bit of a mystery I would love to unravel.
The actionable piece that I would love to get from all this is how to make more of those KWs to survive the inevitable eHow plague.