Comments on: Keyword Research Tools Give Accurate Traffic Volume? I Don’t think so…

By: Leo

Leo — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:34:55 +0000

Give me a few..I will respond to this in a sec

By: Anonymouse

Anonymouse — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:06:17 +0000

I forgot to mention, the article is 300 words. I don’t know if there is any potential for long tails but….no backlinks, only 300 words and…. I’m speechless.

According to the Big G, this phrase should only get 12000… and that’s not an even exact search.

By: Anonymouse

Anonymouse — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:03:29 +0000

could any of the data be underestimated?
I’ve stumbled upon an ezine out for almost 3 years and it has gotten 75k+ views, with no backlinks recorded by yahoo or google.
the thing is, it ranks #10 now.
I wonder if this niche is more competitive than I thought (it’s a primary keyword, but still…)
or did the article climb up the ranks a few times.

How would you go about finding out the exact patterns of a page for it’s rankings, or is that too analytical for keyword accuracy?

By: SeeYouGuys

SeeYouGuys — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:47:06 +0000

Hi, Leo,

I think that you neglected one important fact. Those tools measure search volumes, not the actual clicks. The truth is that only approximately 50% of all searches result in any clicks and traffic (that´s from some Nielsen study, I can´t remember anything more).

If google says that the term was searched 800k times a month that actually means that these 800k searches resulted in 400k clicks out of which wikipedia got its 40% (or less) which is 160k.

I also suppose that using a search term “internet marketing” is simply wrong idea. If you were an internet marketer (I know you are:-)) even a newbie would you click the Wikipedia´s result (though being the first in Google SERP)? You know that it only gives you some general blurb on this topic. And those people who search for “internet marketing” most probably are willing to learn how to market something on the internet, which they know Wikipedia is not going to teach them.

My opinion is that people are getting used to wikipedia to that extent that they tend to ignore its 1st SERP position results in many topics. Maybe the CTR of wikipedia´s page (first in results) is much lower than 40% due to this saturation.

Oh, yes, btw – great content you have here…

By: Leo

Leo — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:28:04 +0000

No…I always look at the market and the competition (what they are offering) first. I try to get in the mind of the searcher. Why are they searching for this? What else would they buy? (possible vertical markets). Once I think I have a bead on the intent of the searcher and only then, do I start to match them up with a product.

Of course, there are tons of ways to do this and you just need to find the way that works best for you…

By: 1tu

1tu — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:06:40 +0000

Do you ever approach keyword research from the standpoint of finding a product first and then seeing if you can find good keywords to dominate and send traffic to the offer?

By: pinoydeal

pinoydeal — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:12:33 +0000

im not using anything that is my problem. i guess i have to choose one of your methods or probably try all of them. thanks and this is really a good post.

By: onlinemarketing

onlinemarketing — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:54:31 +0000

Hey Steve, Thanks for the link. In regards to phantom keywords, I had something similar happen to me a while back. I was ranking for an XXX rated long tail keyword that was actually getting me traffic on a particular site. I wasn't sure what this was about. It wasn't on my page or any part of my site. However, it was showing up in google's webmaster tools and was driving roughly 20 visits a day, which at the time, was about a fourth of my traffic. I should state that the theme didn't have anything to do with pornography. What was the deal?

I started doing a little research and realized that one of my commentators had a link that was going to a page that wasn't porn but strongly hinted at it. Anyway, I deleted the comment and the keyword vanished. Pretty weird right? My hunch is that somehow keywords can come via neighborhoods that we link to, sometime erroneously. That is just a theory though. I can't figure out any other way to explain it.

Once again, I am not stating the compete is accurate but could be used as a means to verify traffic.

In regards to automatically saving your information in the comment box and link luv, it appears that a couple of my plug-ins may not be playing nicely with each other. I am going to try to figure that one out next week when I have a moment.

By: steve, Mr Trade Show

steve, Mr Trade Show — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:38:27 +0000

hi Leo,
I just read another blog post about compete.com and thought it was too good to not link to here, though you can be the final judge of that.
As I said above, I think compete.com is real cool. But I question if the keywords part is accurate. Anyway, another blogger wrote a post about compete.com reporting her number one keyword is jesus, which appears no where on her blog or in her own stats.
http://www.all-about-content.com/2008/11/jesus-on...
~ Steve, Mr. Trade Show
PS. Man, I wish the comment form below would remember my info!

By: onlinemarketing

onlinemarketing — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:57:26 +0000

Hi Ajith,

It is funny how different those numbers can be across the board, right? As far as the premium compete.com account, I am not sure if it is all that and a box of chocolates. I do know this though…there is not one research tool that will give you a bonafide 100% accurate look-sie. That said, I doubt I would become a premium member. (I do use their credit system though to mine keywords)