Keyword surprises and goodbye lewinsky!

[Brett_Tabke]

Poor monica, she has fallen all the way down to 9896 under "lewinsky". Even last month she was still in the top 500.

history is at #16 for the week. What, is it history month for someone?

[Brett_Tabke]

Look at the top 15 kw's for wen the 24th, compared to this morning

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Veranda, Arial"></font>

 
 27th                          24th 
 #:Count:Keyword    #:Count:Keyword  
 1:3349 download    1:2614:  online    
 2:2767 online      2:1959:  download  
 3:2608 mp3         3:1852:  lyrics    
 4:2016 music       4:1768:  music     
 5:1791 games       5:1615:  internet  
 6:1770 lyrics      6:1606:  map       
 7:1761 internet    7:1560:  info      
 8:1682 sitescope   8:1524:  games     
 9:1536 software    9:1401:  mp3       
 10:1527 car        10:1357: picture  
 11:1417 computer   11:1329: car      
 12:1415 cheats     12:1319: history  
 13:1358 game       13:1287: software 
 14:1300 search     14:1284: world    
 15:1180 pokemon    15:1274: state    
 

</font></blockquote>

[fantomaster]

Brett: without knowing which SEs are actually being covered by your tool, it's really hard to compare your results to others available on the net, both free and commercial.
If you don't want to divulge this information, I guess everybody will understand - however, your info is bound to remain ghettoized ("proprietary", "unverifiable") that way. Not sure whether you want this to happen.

Don't get me wrong - you're doing a great job, and there's no arguing with "FREE!". But "free" isn't everything, of course, except for those who can't or won't afford a commercial solution: verifiability is just as important if you're working within a professional framework, e.g. if you want to advise clients to opt for one keyword phrase rather than another, and if you want to show them why you're saying so.

[Brett_Tabke]

Show me a keyword reporting system that does reveal references? The better ones I am aware of, do not (wordtracker, searchterms.com). I'm not entirely against the idea of saying which engines (except 1 particular one that no one else has) these are coming from. I just don't think that info actually adds much to the value of the kw's at all.

And if Free isn't good enough, show me a better kw system (free or pay) and within 60days, this system will be better.

Phrases will be added shortly (some time this week), and I will be doing the 'relative strength' thing, and the 'keyword suggestion'...etc.

[rcjordan]

re: "history"
I think you'll see it stay in the top, it's a quasi-travel term.

[fantomaster]

Brett: Sorry to correct you, but Wordtracker actually *does* tell you which engines they are drawing from.
(Not sure whether this info is restricted to subscribers - one of which I happen to be -, but it's there.)
As for bettering others, I suggest you take a look at what WT is actually offering their users by way of online data base research, search modes, email report generationg, etc. etc. (I'm talking their premium services here,
not the free weekly report they're sending around.)

Again: not knocking your stuff, but I'd suppose you'd agree that there's a big difference whether you're
referencing AltaVista and Inktomi or Kanoodle and GoTo, to give a random example (not implying you are doing either!) - or, make that "Major Player #1 + Major Player #2" versus "Minor Player #1 + Minor Player #2", if you will.

[Brett_Tabke]

I'll consider it...