Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

The End Of Keyword Reports?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 gabs

gabs

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 141 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 10:32 AM

All my tests here in the UK are going  straight to https on desktops.. I haven't checked mobiles yet but it's really not looking good.

 

On in Analytics realtime I'm seeing 75% [not provided] :( 

 

Is this the end?

 

Hattip too 

http://www.threadwat..._medium=twitter

 

 

http://www.notprovidedcount.com/ is saying almost 74% is now not provided. 

 

 

 



#2 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1599 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 10:39 AM

Well I'd send that info to matt cutts.  When he first introduced "not provided" he told us it wouldn't affect more than 10% of queries.  In my reckoning it jumped above that figure right away.   

 

Now it is ridiculously above that figure.   Nobody has grilled him on this issue.  I'd grill him.   I also don't recall users screaming about keywords as a privacy issue when this first came out.  Users had privacy issues...but it wasn't about keywords.  I'd grill smilin matt on that one too.  ;)



#3 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13528 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 10:54 AM

This has caused a panic in seo-land.

 

Google Redirects All Traffic To HTTPS, Driving [not provided] To 100%.  http://www.threadwatch.org/node/21472 from Joe Hall

 


My buddy Ryan Jones recently tipped me off that Google seems to now be redirecting all traffic to the HTTPs version of their site. What does this mean? It means that keyword data found in Google Analytics is now going to be 100% [not provided]. 

I warned SEOs when they first started with the HTTPS keyword encryption that this would one day happen, and many thought I was just overreacting. Now lets see whos over reacting when they can't run a valid analysis.

Please go and run your own test and let us know in the comments what you are seeing.



#4 gabs

gabs

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 141 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:16 AM

Post PRISM http://searchenginel...searches-172487



#5 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2526 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:11 PM

Good.

#6 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 01:08 PM

This is a very dangerous situation.  @earlpearl started a great discussion here too --> The Crushing Impact Of Not Provided

 

One more attempt by g##### to induce FUD's (fear, uncertainty & doubt) in the hearts of it's competitors --> SEO's, Webmasters, Website Owners.

 

g##### doesn't play fair.  We need to stick together and develop strategies that STOP! g#####'s attacks on us.

 

Make no mistake --> g##### Is Trying To Put Us Put Of Business!  We are the competition.

 

It's time to end the complacency and willingness to let g##### do anything they want to us.  (Hey g##### - nothing personal, just business. ;) )

 


Edited by chuckfinley, 23 September 2013 - 01:10 PM.


#7 WPMuse

WPMuse

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 84 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:38 PM

Follow the money -- bet g##### starts charging for that data which will whack the Mom and Pops that are still hanging on by their bat toes once again.  The last straw was when I saw honest businesses with quality sites go to page 5 and beyond and get outranked by junk sites.  Most of these small businesses cannot afford big AdWords budgets -- and with the last "upgrade" their conversions are even less -- imagine that!?

 

For a company that started out claiming the mantel of "do no evil" they've sure put a lot of good folks out of business and don't even want to admit any collateral damage has take place.  And contrary to what some of the condescending "experts" out there claim -- there was unintended collateral damage.  Many of the sites effected certainly didn't deserve to be banished completely while being replaced with sites that clearly don't meet the stated "quality" standards.

 

I tell clients to nurture your customers, market and fans -- build a site for them.  Find other sites to partner with and build a following. You cannot consider any search engine a partner with your best interest at heart and you need to consider whatever organics you do have bonus territory.  

 

Until the economy regenerates, if that ever does happen, many small businesses don't have a dime to spare for AdWords or paid analytics.  I used to love online because it was an equalizer -- small could complete with big.  That's no longer the case -- the deepest pocketbooks win.  Thank you g#####...



#8 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4610 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:57 PM

Well the expected (Joe Hall was not alone in seeing this coming) has happened as Google withholds all queries from referrer strings under cover of hiding searches from the NSA... what was surprising was the suddenness, I guess the NSA excuse was simply too good to pass up... utter excrement but general public relations gold.

Fortunately, for me, Google search traffic is only ~25% of total traffic. However, as mobile devices and other SEs default over to https the future of utilising certain data mining information is increasingly barren. My recent weeks descent into the deep dark included testing a few alternative methods of obtaining query data. Several actually work extremely well, however, on advice of my law-type-person I shall not be going live with any. Sigh.

Instead, on reading of Google's greedy grab, I've gone to full marketing press on my apps (apps are not just for mobile devices!).
* every single Google referred visitor is being shown an ad offering free app downloads or, in return for a charitable donation, a free thumb drive with a number of great free programs/apps including mine.
* every RSS feed item is being followed by the above offer.
* every newsletter will include the above offer.
* etc.

Might as well see how many Google (and other) visitors can be encouraged to become direct return customers. It would be pure delightful revenge if some to many of those currently using Google (and other SEs) as a navigational tool to get to my sites instead came direct via app.

Fortunately, the click tracks and behaviours associated with each prior query from each major SE are already known, which can narrow down the 'guessing' in the short term. In the longer term as query formation migrates/evolves not knowing the beginning point of a search referred visit will increasingly hurt. The tracks themselves will need to be elevated in analytics importance and investigation... never enough time, never enough time...



#9 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:10 PM

The tracks themselves will need to be elevated in analytics importance and investigation... never enough time, never enough time...

 

Translated --> "We're screwed!"


Edited by chuckfinley, 23 September 2013 - 06:10 PM.


#10 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:22 PM

@earlpearl does a good job of explaining what's next for Local here --> Everything Changed Today

 

Black_Knight makes a very relevant comment here --> Paid Ads



#11 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2060 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:57 PM

"do no evil" :D



#12 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 10:52 PM

"do no evil" :D

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  x10,000!!!

 

"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil.

 

Larry - Sergey :banana_wgun: :banana_wgun:   :banana_wgun:

 

:moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon: :moon:
 


Edited by chuckfinley, 23 September 2013 - 10:57 PM.


#13 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2060 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 12:07 AM

Here's another Google conspiracy for you.

iamlost mentions above "Google withholds all queries from referrer strings under cover of hiding searches from the NSA"

and in this thread http://www.cre8asite...f-not-provided/

EGOL asks "I wonder where WordTracker is going to get their data. Can they pay ISPs to sniff and tell for data that they filter on the way to google"

I reply: "If they go all https it will be hard"

It's something that can be done. ISPs could spy on search queries and sell them to say WordTracker. Now with all https queries that will be encrypted. Where do they now get data. Yahoo and Bing? Hardly relevant today.

So Google, under cover of "protecting our privacy", is killing the keyword supplier people or will now be the sole supplier.

 

Is Sergei Russian? Hmmm  ....must be a communist plot.


Edited by bobbb, 24 September 2013 - 12:11 AM.


#14 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2526 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 02:15 AM

You can still ge the keyword volume data from Google Adwords, from their search results (plus Google adwords) and to specific landing pages optimized around specific keywords. The algo will respond to links and anchor text as it ALWAYS HAS. Reports can still be run for keyword ranking.

 

Clients will no longer see keywords in their analytics, which is actually better because now I will own all referral traffic and not just some stupid keywords that were isolated under a service approach that had frankly died and had no value. Of course there will be huge culls in the industry for those souls that were providing a service just on keyword ranking, but there was a cull with penguin and pada, which was needed too.

 

(clearly I'm not as close to the whole local search dimension and everyone's situation will be affected in a different way but for mei it's good).

 

G.



#15 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 01:51 PM

I was just thinking ..... :D

 

What could possibly go wrong with g#####'s new approach here?  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .............

 

Could we possibly see massive quantities of junk pages with unnatural links trying to determine what ranks (based on the keywords targeted with that page and anchor text) and how much traffic?

 

Maybe g##### is buying more of what it's trying to get rid of.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ............................................. has that ever happened before? :D



#16 KeywordFirestorm

KeywordFirestorm

    Unlurked Energy

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 07 December 2013 - 09:32 PM

Rand Fishkin has a good video that is along the lines of what I am doing to deal with the not provided issue.

 

http://moz.com/blog/...teboard-tuesday

 

It's a lot of work but there is not much choice if you are looking to understand what keywords are driving your traffic.



#17 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 04:49 AM


Spyfu provides rankings of keywords that they generate based on their algorithm.  You can add any keywords you want them to track.  Their reports provide keyword ranking and the landing page that the search result points to.  Also, their reports provides tons of other info that is useful.

 

This is the future of keyword research and it will be a "Big Business."

 

In that Whiteboard Tuesday, he says he's planning to develop a tool like Spyfu's.

 

Spyfu has been at this for a long time.  I've used their tool since 2008.  I'd use them.


Edited by chuckfinley, 08 December 2013 - 04:52 AM.


#18 send2paul

send2paul

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2905 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 02:35 PM

Interesting. I watched Rand's Whiteboard video and I got the impression that Adwords were being used in one way or another at almost every stage. So I guess if you don't have Adwords you may well have a hard time implementing that particular action plan?

 

Rand's Point C: "How do I analyse & understand how searchers perceive my brand/content and search for my stuff" interested me as I thought this was essentially what the whole conversation was about - not knowing which keywords people used to find a page with?

 

Anyway, briefly, (as my din dins am ready!), there was no mention of using Entry & Exit link data to try to ascertain how someone arrived/left a page/website. I'm not quite sure what I mean, but if they used Keyword X to arrive to your page and then clicked on and Adsense Ad for a Keyword X orientated ad - then your Adsense data would tell you what word that was?

 

Does that make sense or am I just hungry and confused? :)



#19 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1599 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 03:30 PM

I went back and reread Rand's post.  I think its helpful...but in my realm's of local search its not very helpful.  Not in the sense that Rand didn't take a good hard stab at this..but it isn't reflected in how local works.

 

1.  The thing about much of local is that the G maps visibility sucks up a lot of traffic.   Currently there has been a split out between maps/the_pac visibility and organic...but there is no way to know if google will revert to meshing the two down the line.  The other thing is they'll apply that map perspective to many keyword variations.   To the extent that the maps/pac  visibility picks up a lot of traffic the simple thing is that the page that shows in the Maps/Pac is usually always the same page.

 

By example for one smb I had looked at keyword traffic to the home page  during 6 months before "not provided" came into being  (2011).   For one smb, with lot of visibility, and a lot of maps presence...the home page was the recipient of over 3,000 keyword phrases.    3K.    Its hard to break down data when faced with that phenomena.   Its harder w/out keyword data.

 

2.  I've said this before.  I think WMT is irrelevant for local.  Besides that I just don't trust the info google sends to webmasters where you don't have a 2nd way to check its accuracy.   They can create something like WMT and state assertively that these are ESTIMATES.   I find that to be another way to control the flow of info that is dealt out to webmasters.

 

WMT is not granular down to a local region.  At its most granular its national.  That makes it worthless for local smbs and local search.   Theoretically WMT should catch phrases that are innately local made by local residents ie Denver doctor,   Dallas HVAC maintenance etc.   How many people in detroit are going to search for denver doctors or Detroit hvac maintenance?  Not many.

 

but our review of this data from wmt is dramatically off from any historical data and/or adwords data.   I think its bunk crap.   I look at wmt as google feeding us garbage.  At least on the local basis.

 

3.  We have used adwords extensively for years.  We use it on all our accts.   The adwords campaigns are pretty extensive.  It turns out that ROI works for us.   Besides that the information is invaluable in our experience.   I love it.   

 

It doesn't tell me though how much traffic we are getting organically.  I simply am not going to know it anymore....at least not until some bigger more forceful entity is going to force google to start giving keyword data to webmasters again.   They have all the information and we don't.

 

 

In our experience the best thing about adwords on a local or regional basis was the informational part.   We combined adwords data on impressions and clicks with our organic traffic.  If we were really ambitious we'd take the analytics data and further break it down by geography....primarily looking at the traffic that came from our region.

 

We would start with the impression data for the tight killer search phrases with the most intent and which drove the most traffic and highest conversion rates.   Then take the clicks from adwords and the clicks from organic.   Add those two together and we could see how much or what percentage of the market we were grabbing or dominating, or losing.  We did that by dividing the combination of clicks from organic and ppc by the total impressions for those phrases in our region.

 

Absolutely great data.  It drove us to improve organically on certain key phrases where we didn't have dominant serps..as we could see how great traffic and "dominance" was when we had tremendous serps visibility and/or multiple pages at the top of serps for certain phrases.

 

We can't do any of that anymore.    How sad!!!!   google stole the data.  They have it and we don't.  (%^(%)##@#^ F ' em.  



#20 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1599 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 12:01 PM

Writing this is as much for me to help me articulate vague thoughts and tie them to conditions our smbs face.

 

I was checking the data on an smb this morning and among other things noticed a large drop in google traffic and overall traffic between last year same time period and this year.   I also noticed overall conditions for the smb.

 

Its local.  The business has a comprehensive adwords campaign that covers virtually all relevant convertible traffic in our market region.   The campaign runs 24/7.  We view the impression data as a proxy for "DEMAND".   The industry is highly dependent on search.  It has been for years.  Before that it was pretty dependent on the Yellow Pages.  In those regards conditions haven't changed much.   Sales and revenues are tied to "INTENT"  People who are thinking about the service are likelier to purchase.

 

Since August google traffic and direct traffic have dropped significantly.  I see a similar drop in impressions from adwords.  It looks to me like a significant drop in demand from same period last year.   We've experienced that before.

 

Yet, overall sales have been higher and revenues higher.  We've boosted activity by a significant "call to action campaign" visible on the website.  "call to action" is a broad phrase.  Its a discount program.   Our sales staff sells hard on it and its been quite successful.

 

With the large drop in demand we've seen a drop in google traffic and a drop in "direct traffic".  (I do believe a lot of the direct traffic is actually miscategorized or moved to that categroy from apple and IOS browsers.   I'm pretty sure its search traffic.

 

We've lost search traffic....and demand has fallen off.   Yet total leads are virtually identical from last year, and they picked up during the period of the "call to action".

 

Search traffic was typically strong on a couple of head terms but its also been majority long tail.

 

Of course I can't track the search traffic AT ALL.

 

This totally irks me and it does make it difficult to operate.   I saw an article Donna tweeted from SEJournal and it completely describes how I feel.   Here is the link and here is some of the relevant content: 

 

Search marketing and organic SEO has provided these auto dealerships the leads they need at a much lower price – as low as $15 per lead, he said. However, the keywords that are driving the traffic and conversions are crucial to not only the success of the SEO campaign, said Allibhai, but also important to reporting on search marketing's ROI comparatively. So the lack in keyword data has been an issue, he said.

Allibhai added that keyword data hasn't just helped the auto dealers plan the content strategy, but is also responsible for how their websites are built so they have "out-of-the-box SEO value."

Michael Bruh is Acronym's president and COO. Bruh says the keyword is still the closest proxy to intent, and no company is better at understanding that value than Google – as the search engine itself uses queries to serve up the most relevant results. And this is what brands need to be able to do as well, Bruh said.

michael-bruh-acronym-150x150.jpg?1386732

When "(not provided)" became an issue, Bruh said Acronym knew it had to do something different to find the keyword-level data that was out there and make it available to brands.

While other companies may say it's OK to deal with SEO performance at the page level and estimating the value of a keyword, said Bruh, "we're saying it's not OK. For large enterprises, it's not OK. You can't deal with dynamic keyword lists – hundreds of thousands of keywords – and not know exactly, not estimated, but exactly what that keyword was for that visit and that conversion."

Bruh mentioned the sentiment among some of the larger enterprises performing SEO is the same, and skeptical at best when it comes to putting their businesses in the hands of Google and its promise to reward sites focusing on creating great content – a directive that's fuzzy to many brands, Bruh said.

While Bruh doesn't disagree with the strategy of creating the best web content possible for the audience, he said keyword data is essential in finding those content gaps that need to be filled.

 

In operating our own business we have far far far fewer tools.  I can't assess traffic.   This business has lost some traffic to a "authoritative" site that google pushed to higher rankings per a comment Matt Cutts made about algo's late last spring.   (I have huge reservations whether this site/page is authoritative or representative of something entirely different).    

We have had to lose traffic by keywords.   I just can't tell.   I'm pretty much screwed on working on this information    Google totally has all the information.  We now have none of it.   

Its an astonishing theft of information from our business and those of all others with some dependence on search.   Google is way too strong...and the US govt isn't doing anything to oppose this.  Its a shame.  Its hitting commerce everywhere.   Its worse than a shame...but since this isn't a private thread...I'll keep from ranting any further than that.



#21 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2060 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 12:32 PM

I hear what you are saying but it is not "theft of information" because it was never ours to start with. It was/is data that was/is entered on a Google site.

 

I would like this data too - even though I sell nothing - it would help me "tune" my pages.... and you are completely right "Google is way too strong".

 

If Google had the ethics of when they started in the "do not evil" era they would see keywords as a fair trade for scraping our data. In the little economic/financial training I took, I don't remember a column or section labelled ethics or fairness or doing what's right. They are now just another big company. The Goldman Sachs of search engines.

 

I do remember those terms or something like those in marketing but when you are that close to a monopoly marketing 101 or 102 is irrelevant.

 

Gov't needs a kick in the ASP to do anything (other than waste time and money) I deny ever saying this. As a matter of fact I never said it.


Edited by bobbb, 16 December 2013 - 12:33 PM.


#22 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5419 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 12:35 PM

When Google turned off search query data I was really disappointed.  I loved that data.  Really enjoyed seeing where the traffic was coming from. 

 

It helped me make money.  Was like following a blood trail. 

 

I grieved about it for a while... but... now I am back to normal.

 

I do miss that information, but I have the philosophy that... "The worse the conditions get, the better I will compete against most other people".   So, I kinda enjoy that the data isn't out there anymore.



#23 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4610 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 03:10 PM

As I've mentioned many times before (just about every thread with 'local locale' earlpearl :)) my sites are non-local targeted in nature, although SEs often return pages that mention a locality.

I agree with EGOL that I miss the 'blood trail' of query terms. Initially for the:
* understanding that one could derive from matching query and clicktrack(s),
* adaptation/change in search terms over time,
* areas requiring additional or new content,
* etc.
But increasingly, the missing query terms are primarily a pita for contextual delivery of content.

Example: a long page on widgets includes a section on types, i.e. smooth, rough, and a section on their history. If the search query was something like 'smooth widgets' or 'types of widgets' then the section on types would be shown at the top of the page and history would be shifted down; or vice versa. Indeed for the 'smooth widgets' query content on smooth could be shown before rough...

When developing this shifting page content system I had looked on search traffic as the low hanging fruit; after all a query came with the visitor! On the backlink traffic side I had to invest a great deal in scraping and term/entity page/link/landing page context association for DB lookup understanding the probable context of referred traffic...

With a growing DB of visitor fingerprints a minority of search referred traffic can be identified from prior visits and an historical context inferred...none of which helps with the search majority that is first time or otherwise unidentified traffic. I had just begun to see Google search value start to rise dramatically ...and then it went largely back to mediocre (compared with other traffic sources) ...gone with the query string. Remaining methods of prying the query loose in real time are illegal/immoral/fattening...

At least I'm not bound to Google by some hideous Faustian-Mephistophelean bargain ... those in Local could really use a real life defender à la Benét's The Devil and Daniel Webster...

Prior reference:
---Visitor Identification, December 2011.

---Personalised Selling Is A Competitive Advantage, December 2011.

---Context First, May 2011.

---Do Not Surrender Context, It Is Too Important, December 2012.

---Separate Content From Structure And Serve On Context, March 2013.

 

What Google has done by withholding the query term is withhold the context of the visit. And that is not simply selfish and greedy but restricts Google referrants to non-contextual results - except for any AdSense ads...


Edited by iamlost, 16 December 2013 - 03:12 PM.


#24 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1599 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 06:49 PM

@IamLost   (okay...I'll stop posting...."this is abt local sites"   if you stop posting  "my sites aren't local". )  :D

 

but I do post that because there are significant differences.   Frankly the situations and phenomena that affect local sites don't necessarily coincide with general information sites, other products sites, and many many different sites.   They are all different and google treats them differently on many levels.  

 

Also I enjoy reading your posts though sometimes I don't comprehend what you are writing.   But I enjoy them nevertheless.  ;)

 

I suppose I can get to EGOL's mindset.  EGOL is confident that with keyword data missing he can outperform his competition.  I think I can do that also.  I'll outwork, out think, out write, out get links. etc etc.  I've done it before...and I'll do it now without current data.   I suppose I could move in that direction in mindset.

 

But I also believe in a certain way we are "competing with google" and how google presents information and sites and how google is ever more pushing its ads and ads income.   It also populates serps and rankings with ever newer sites that it announces apply to newer algos.

 

I don't necessarily buy into that "google speak" about its algo's.  I'm not convinced that some of what google announces in various ways doesn't open the door for "deals" google makes with content providers wherein google might reference a new algo...but I suspect there could be payments wherein certain sites are paying google for organic placement...and google is describing "a new algo" that it could point to if one questioned the serps values of these sites and their serps.

 

But that is another story and it will take a little homework and a lot of screen capturing   ;)

 

So I do believe I/we can outwork and out think and out perform our competition...but I doubt we can beat google in that regard.   After all they see all the information that arrives with clicks...and they have filtered some of it.   Now only they see it  (the keyword data) and none of the rest of us see it  (excepting people who pay them through adwords).  

 

They do send us a lot of other information but they are now the monopoly controller of "intent information" with regard to search.  As much as the other information they pass on is interesting and helpful  (devices, screen resolutions  (that is a dandy piece of info), locations, etc..     They know the intent information is what drives search traffic and what drives a lot of sales and revenues.

 

Ah well...time for the rants to die down.   I think I've bored myself listening to my whining.  ;) 



#25 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2060 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 11:21 PM

.but I suspect there could be payments wherein certain sites are paying google for organic placement

If someone could prove that it would be explosive.



#26 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2526 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 05:00 AM

Oh to be lost in the ivory tower

#27 alexisnicholson

alexisnicholson

    Unlurked Energy

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 09:32 AM

All my tests here in the UK are going  straight to https on desktops.. I haven't checked mobiles yet but it's really not looking good.

 

On in Analytics realtime I'm seeing 75% [not provided] :(

 

Is this the end?

 

Hattip too 

http://www.threadwat..._medium=twitter

 

 

http://www.notprovidedcount.com/ is saying almost 74% is now not provided. 

Have you synced Google webmaster with Analytics , the keywords that are saying Not provided are Organic keywords , you can identify them with Google  webmaster and design strategy accordingly. 



#28 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2060 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 03:32 PM

Done that but am wondering if the organic keywords we see are not other than Google. Bing and Y! still  show them in the referer field. I see too large a difference between impressions and the KW counts.

 

I would have to process my logs for a same period as WMT


Edited by bobbb, 27 December 2013 - 03:33 PM.


#29 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4610 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 05:21 PM

There are two very big very critical differences between the old query string and the new empty query string plus GoAn WMT:

1. the old query was individual, specific, and in real time.

2. the new query is

---not in real time and neither identifiable nor actionable in regard to that individual searcher

---the WMT data is clumped and partial aka not complete. It is the illusion of usefulness - as is all WMT product.



#30 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1599 posts

Posted 03 January 2014 - 02:32 PM

I agree with IamLost on the wmt data.  I think its worthless.  I do believe its google bunk shoveled out to the "believers" all as part of its effort to disconnect webmasters and every commercial entity from keyword data.

 

Our largest smb (the one with the most web traffic) lost about 5% of its traffic compared to 2012.  Ultimately I can't pinpoint on a keyword basis/ how are we ranking basis.  I used to be able to do that.  We used to identify phrases that needed help, work on them, get higher rankings and get more traffic.

 

Can't do that anymore.   Google does have that data and we don't.  Nor do our competitors.   We lost search traffic and we lost search/direct traffic from the previous year.  (direct often or even primarily being misdirected search traffic)  most of that direct was mobile safari traffic representing apple's blocking of that data.

 

Regardless we lost it and we can't figure out ways to address it.

 

We did lose traffic to a "google authority" site, that Matt Cutts spoke about last summer.   Its been in effect for longer than that.  But frankly I've seen other examples of things in effect before the announcement came out.

 

The particular "authority site" is something akin IMO to the farmer content sites that google took down a while ago.  It has thin content.   It does have links to commercial sites in that category (ours being one of them).  Its pages are full of ads.  Its one of hundreds or thousands of pages by this url across the web....all written the same way...with thin content and links to commercial sites.  Its landing pages are full of ads.   That is thousands or 10's or 100's or millions of visits to this commercial site with landing pages chock full of ads.

 

These "authority sites often rank highly...sometimes they dominate serps.   sometimes they don't.   They are of a type of url wherein others could compete for that position.

 

The whole thing smells to me like a rat.   A paid deal in the serps.   But I have to look at it in many more ways before going public.

 

Meanwhile we got a "big chunk of traffic" from that site.  But how much did we lose?   2 times as much?  4 times as much?  8 times as much?    I simply don't know.

 

serps themselves are trickier these days for local sites.   No doubt.  Personalization and localization make for very different versions of serps delivered to users depending on location and search history.   I don't contest that.  I accept that logic.  If I'm searching for "local services" or goods proximity often weighs a lot in those decisions.  Now if I need a heart surgeon with a technique and experience unique to the globe or region...that is different.  If I'm searching for shoes or pizza delivery, or a coffee shop, or a place to buy a bathing suit or to get a massage or a tanning salon...I do want places that are close.  

 

But our local service depends on intent and keywords....and google has that info and we don't.   Therein lies the problem...for us...but not for google.


Edited by earlpearl, 03 January 2014 - 02:34 PM.


#31 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2060 posts

Posted 03 January 2014 - 03:52 PM

 It is the illusion of usefulness - as is all WMT product.

The WMT keyword reports are not total krap. Yes in real-time  the  new query is now useless. Anything you can get from WMT is in the state "too late"

Am looking at it now.
For top queries I can probably tell what page they go to. Clicking one item does tell me to what resource it goes. There's a filter which could be useful.

I was wrong with the Top Pages report. You do see the KW each page brings in but the counts do not add up so it is partial and there's no filter so it's search the haystack.

It's not like having all this info in your own database and searching your way with your tools.

It's limited but now, today, it's better than what I can get from analysing my log files. It's something (morsels) which is better than nothing.



#32 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4393 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 06:06 AM

The end? Maybe a new beginning?

http://googlewebmast...ot-rounded.html



#33 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1599 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:43 PM

The end? Maybe a new beginning?

http://googlewebmast...ot-rounded.html

One commentator in that article stated that google still didn't give granular results.  I've spent a lot of time analysing wmt numbers against our adwords data and our impressions pre not provided and post not provided.  

 

I'll take a very hard look at the data post their change.  I'm not optimistic about granular detail.   I'm of the firm belief that google simply doesn't want anyone to have that detailed data except for themselves.

 

From a local perspective wmt is still a weak predictor of data as it takes data from a national basis not a local basis.   A lot of phrases with local geo modifiers tend to have most of their searches in those areas.   Of course when you search for a geo phrase that is duplicated in different nations the data can be very weak.  After all if people are searching for Portland pizza's, doctors, or lawyers do they want them in Oregon or Maine???   

Only google knows.  ;)



#34 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4393 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:47 PM

I am not having much luck myself with the WMT stuff. I decided to look at all search phrases where I am first but CTR is low. Turns out they are all image results - I am not really first at all! Also interesting to see how few people want an image result for some search phrases.



#35 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5419 posts

Posted 10 June 2014 - 09:06 PM

New tool at moz to "guess" at what you are missin'

 

http://moz.com/blog/...n-moz-analytics





RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users