Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Google is revealing all the numbers!
Insane.... Hope its not a glitch and they keep it that way, its so helpful!
Did anyone else notice this?
No 1 [ exact match ] terms we hold have nothing like the volumes claimed [ not even close ] , even allowing for variances on regional G filters.
Oops .... i stand corrected , you sort them by broad , exact , phrase and negative
... but still looks way to high
[edited by: Whitey at 5:09 am (utc) on July 9, 2008]
Note, there's a thread about this in the Adwords Forum [webmasterworld.com] for discussions related to advertising - so we can focus on organic search discussions here.
[edited by: McMohan at 5:25 am (utc) on July 9, 2008]
the figures I see does not match much accurately with my original stats.
What about if you apply CTR %'s e.g. No1 position = 20% of searches approx .
Does it come close for you?
Now, if only the data download links would work I'd be a happy camper. I can't get the frame to print either. It is possible to get a space-delimited text file by highlighting all of the framed phrase content, but it would be a major pain to try to use.
What's really good to see, though, even if I have to use ball-point pen to write them down, are numbers for infrequently searched but very important phrases in B2B markets like big-ticket, large company hi-tech widgets, where the buying cycle might be a year or two or three. The data simply falls through the cracks on other engines and tools.
It's amazing how much time this info would have saved in organic targeting (and yes, the companies buy AdWords too, so Google wouldn't be undermining itself by giving away such data).
I'm seeing some glitches in the tool right now. Sometimes the green bars show up... sometimes they don't. I'm looking forward to getting some downloaded info to compare with other data I have.
For organic search the separation of exact match and broad match will help a lot.
Wonderful day!
Aji
If you can trust the numbers
Early days yet, and I need to do more checking, but I don't trust it - AT ALL.
Biggest margin of error so far :
3 word term estimated at 40,500 / month (exact match)
We have 1st organic place, plus top AdWords spot.
Total impressions according to AdWords is 138
Total paid and non-paid clicks 91.
That's over 290 times real demand - about 10 times worse than Overture ever was.
Now, if only the data download links would work I'd be a happy camper
Working now.
I'm wondering if it's not still beta though - I don't get the new tool every time I go there, sometimes I get the old one. Easy to tell at first glance; they added a captcha to the new tool, and there wasn't one on the old.
If there are inaccuracies I can only think of two reasons
(a) their data set is too small and (like Wordtracker) they are multiplying the numbers they have to scale for the whole of the web as they see it. Depending on the demographic of users we could get inaccuracies because they don't have a wide enough sample.
or
(b) they are deliberately making it vague or even over-estimating to encourage bidding wars.
When it comes to funky data, this may be at least a partial clue:
If you access the Keyword Tool from within an ad group, the search traffic statistics will factor in your campaign's country and language targeting (if you target a region or city, only the country will be reflected). If you use the standalone or external Keyword Tools, your country and language selections will influence these statistics.[adwords.google.com...]
I follow several industries and I know the keywords and traffic levels by heart. When I use this tool I can not recreate the data that I have personally seen across my network of sites for years. Even accounting for the differences between broad match and exact match, the numbers are just off.
The really weird thing is that depending if I use Google Trends or Google Adwords it tells me different keywords are the highest traffic keywords.
The paranoid, skeptic in me is thinking google is purposely diluting the accuracy of the data. The more grounded side of me is thinking that they are just not using the right data sets.
Not sure if I am using a different URL for one of them or something.
But I also think that Google really does want to help the average webmaster. They feel that improving the Internet as a whole will benefit everyone involved. Call that "enlightened self-interest" if you will, but I'm not suspicious of everything that happens in Mountain View, and I sure don't see Google as my enemey.
I commented on this a few years back. The whole playing field that Google and webmasters generate is a fascinating paradox. First, we do need each other. Second, our self-interests are sometimes in conflict. This is what game theorists call a "competitive-cooperative" environment. It's a good idea to stay conscious of both sides of the paradox. If you get too far in either direction, you end up making foolish moves or missing out on good things.
