Copernic strategy

Anyone using this? Comments?

[WordSmith]

I have been using Copernic 2000 for a while now to see what I'm up against in terms of ranking. I enter a new search on my keyword and Copernic gives me the results, by rank, engines found on, keywords hilighted. I then go check out source code etc. to see what they do to rank better. In theory by searching lots of engines it should give good results. However, I'm a bit worried cos sometimes the results are a bit junky compared to say goto.com or a pay to click engine.
Is Copernic really giving me an overview, or is there a flaw I havent considered to this strategy?

[Woz]

Wordsmith,

Copernic tells you in which SEs each result was found, and from what I can gether, averages the score.

You could try [zworks.com...] (not my site! (darn it!!)), a metasearch engine that collates results from various SEs and tells you each SE position for each page.

Quite Handy for my uses..

Onya
Woz

[georged]

The thing about Copernic is that it chucks away duplicate sites from different engines, I like to look at it as an overall guide to how well I'm optimising across the board, kind of what rcjordan called 'one-size-fits-all' SEO.

[WordSmith]

Thanks for that, its interesting but I think I'll stick with Copernic. I like the averaging, as it should give me a better page that ranks with lots of engines. I also like that its a desktop tool, so the results are right there saved, plus if you give them money you can do scheduled searches and stuff.
I used webferret before, but Copernic is much better. At the moment Im just learning this biz, but my main tools are:
Copernic, Good Keywords, The Collective, Xenu, Analog, some analogx stuff and websnake. Tried WPG but found it a bit annoying, all those rules and regulations. I dont really like doorways and all that stuff, in the belief that a good quality page with relevant content should stand up by itself.

[eljefe3]

I use Copernic also but I've found that it gives equal weighting to all the search engines ( I believe that webcrawler doesn't produce the same amount of traffic as yahoo!) and google still hasn't been added into the mix.

[tedster]

I also use Copernic but as a backup. I find a lot of insights by using two meta-search engines that focus on top ten results -- IXQuick (also no Google results!) and the one mentioned above, ZWorks (does have Google)

It's great to see how MANY top tens various sites have in one glimpse, and get a very quick one-size-fits-all report card on my own stuff.

[WordSmith]

OK, I did some testing, I'm getting worried about the validity of the results now.
Test keywords: "internet marketing"
Copernic's #1 is some site that builds web sites for bed and breakfast places. First believable result is WilsonWeb at #3. However when I run these thru the tools at SEW, they dont even show top 50 for those keywords?
Am I missing something here?

[eljefe3]

Hmmm...I just did the same search and internet.com came in at #1 with top 10 listings at hotbot, AV, and Yahoo! Wilsonweb came in at #6.
I have noticed that in the past sometimes the results from SEW tools don't give 100% accurate results (which do though). I've also seen where Copernic results don't match what I look for in the specific SE.

[georged]

I agree wholeheartedly, WordSmith and eljefe. I have seen erroneous results from every bit of result-checking kit I've got (WPG, SubmitWolf, Copernic, all so-called pro versions). Always worth checking manually if it ranks well according to the software.

[WordSmith]

I'm not getting bent out of shape about this, but just hope that the technique I'm using is roughly valid. I dont expect any sort of exact correlation.
Say, maybe one of you pro's could explain how you decide who ranks higher than you, and what to do about it?
I've been having lots of fun running the "internet gurus" thru Search Engine Watches tools, seeing "links" come up as #2 or 3 in the reputation, and in some cases a hundred or more errors in the HTML. Guess they just feed off the free advertising, I mean affiliates...
Oops, getting off topic.