20 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
20 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

The Verdict Is In...New Google Keyword Tool Is Worthless

by Steven Wagenheim
16 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Well, I've been doing a bit of experimenting with the new Google keywords
tool since they deep sixed the legacy tool and my final verdict is in.

It's worthless.

I have no idea what Google was thinking but I find this tool totally useless.

I might was well use Wordtracker for all the good this piece of crap is.

What do the rest of you think?

I'm making a poll to see how we stand.
#google #innew #keyword #tool #verdict #worthless
  • Profile picture of the author Marhelper
    I have to go with poor as I miss the old interface. Why fix what isn't broken?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2683526].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
    Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

    Well, I've been doing a bit of experimenting with the new Google keywords
    tool since they deep sixed the legacy tool and my final verdict is in.

    It's worthless.

    I have no idea what Google was thinking but I find this tool totally useless.

    I might was well use Wordtracker for all the good this piece of crap is.

    What do the rest of you think?

    I'm making a poll to see how we stand.
    It's closer to accurate than the legacy tool was for keywords that I rank #1 for. Not 100% accurate but there are lots of keywords that the search volume was grossly overestimated for before and now they are much closer to being accurate.

    Legacy tool had lots of keywords showing much higher search volume than they actually had.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2683530].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author giseo
    why worthless?
    Signature

    Tired about blogging about tedious subjects like blue widgets and four slice toasters? Learn how to have fun and profit blogging about a continually growing massive multi-billion industry. Find out how to do it for only $5 here!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2683534].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Its good. You just need to get used to the new interface and learn the tricks to get it to give you what you need. Plus I am much more comfortable getting low numbers that are more reliable than higher numbers that were ridiculously off.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2683604].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Clyde
    It's good and def. more accurate but still too buggy to be out of Beta IMO.

    The Matcy-type filter for example, doesn't work most of the time.
    Logging in using various accounts will give different results for the same keywords.
    etc
    Signature

    Generate Unlimited Number of Micro Niche Keywords, Multi-threaded EMD Finder PLUS More!



    50% OFF WSO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2683622].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author inter123
      I think most people are going to dsiagree with Mr Steven Wagenheim. The tool is more accurate then the one before. In the old tool, you would see it give 27,000 or any other large number for a keyword, spend time ranking for it, only to discover 10 visitors a day. At least this one is more correct with the number of searchers.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2683844].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bluenetworx
    I find it worthless at the moment, its thrown me off a lot, I am now trying to figure out what is a good volume to aim for. I used to think 1000+ exact matches was good, not I am not sure and am thinking 500 is ok with this new data. From what I can gather the figures are about 1/3 what they used to be.

    Any thoughts?
    Signature
    Affiliate Marketing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2684011].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dellco
      I find it next to worthless, because all my traffic and rankings simply do not corroborate at all with this tool. Not even close. None.

      Some are too low, while others are way, way too high.

      There is a keyword where it says (local) Searches are 14,000 a month; well, a 2nd position ranking I have for it only gets 3000 (global) UVs a month....for years. There is a very huge difference there. And furthermore, this keyword is also number 2 at Bing/Yahoo and in all the international Google SERPs.

      There is another where it says the keyword only gets 73 local searches a month, well, this one gets a few hundred - at position 5.

      So my verdict is: Almost worthless. The worst part is, many software base their numbers from this tool, although you won't find them exactly the same either.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2684061].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
        Originally Posted by Dellco View Post

        There is a keyword where it says (local) Searches are 14,000 a month; well, a 2nd position ranking I have for it only gets 3000 (global) UVs a month....for years. There is a very huge difference there. And furthermore, this keyword is also number 2 at Bing/Yahoo and in all the international Google SERPs.
        The #2 spot usually gets around 20 to 25% of the search traffic. So
        14,000 x .25 = 3500. That's pretty damn close to how much you're getting. So in that example, the keyword tool is right on.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2685508].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dellco
          Originally Posted by Jacob Martus View Post

          The #2 spot usually gets around 20 to 25% of the search traffic. So
          14,000 x .25 = 3500. That's pretty damn close to how much you're getting. So in that example, the keyword tool is right on.
          That 14,000 is just US local search, the global search is supposedly 50,000.

          Notwithstanding traffic from Yahoo/Bing....

          In almost three years, I have never exceeded 3500 uniques/month. The proof is in the pudding.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2685703].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
            Originally Posted by Dellco View Post

            That 14,000 is just US local search, the global search is supposedly 50,000.

            Notwithstanding traffic from Yahoo/Bing....

            In almost three years, I have never exceeded 3500 uniques/month. The proof is in the pudding.
            Do you use webmaster tools? And if so, what CTR are you getting and how many impressions are showing?

            For most of the keywords where I rank, webmaster tools is fairly accurate numbers with regards to the keyword tool. Not 100% accurate but better than they were on the legacy interface.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2685766].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Steve Razz
              I’m trying to get the New Google Keyword Tool to match MNF5 and or MS. Even with the options set for United States and verified on all three tools there still seems to be 25% to 70% variance (more with MNF5). All set for Exact Match, Local Monthly searches, United States Only.

              I figured most keyword utilities get there data from Google so why would there be such a difference?

              What sucks is there is no consistency to the numbers, it’s not like you can just divide the data by 4 and move on - there’s just no making sense of it.

              I actually found a great keyword to target, MS showing 98 local searches a day (aprox 3K/month) MNF5 shows 16K/month and Google keyword tool shows 7600/month, the opposite of most other results, was expecting Google to be in the low 100's. I just don’t get it.

              What are you experienced folks using these days to assess keyword data??
              Signature
              http://www.micrtoner.org
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2688008].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Jacob Martus
                Originally Posted by Steve Razz View Post

                I'm trying to get the New Google Keyword Tool to match MNF5 and or MS. Even with the options set for United States and verified on all three tools there still seems to be 25% to 70% variance (more with MNF5). All set for Exact Match, Local Monthly searches, United States Only.

                I figured most keyword utilities get there data from Google so why would there be such a difference?

                What sucks is there is no consistency to the numbers, it's not like you can just divide the data by 4 and move on - there's just no making sense of it.

                I actually found a great keyword to target, MS showing 98 local searches a day (aprox 3K/month) MNF5 shows 16K/month and Google keyword tool shows 7600/month, the opposite of most other results, was expecting Google to be in the low 100's. I just don't get it.

                What are you experienced folks using these days to assess keyword data??
                Use Google keyword tool. Even if it's inaccurate, it's still the most reputable source to get your data from.

                And for nearly all of the keywords where I rank, keyword tool is very close to accurate. I like the new tool. It's much better than the old one IMO.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2688041].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Texjd
    The new interface does suck compared to the old version. Part of it is we are all used to the old one. But on any given day the display is wierd and I get tired of fooling with it.

    The numbers have never been accurate, using history for future results will never be dead on and it's impossible to measure. Every keyword can have it's unique up and downs plus google will tell you that it's just a guide.

    In adwords it's totally off in numbers and cpc. Just ran a new test for a client and tracked the differences and it was totally off. Had a very healthy budget so I could go for the top three positions and it did come close on one of three keywords in cpc and numbers but missed the other two by a country mile.

    Always use multiple sources for counts (that means other search engines too) and don't rely on exact numbers. Just go for the terms that get good numbers from all sources.

    Every day can be a new day on the Internet so don't get caught up in exact numbers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2685585].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Brian
    Regardless of data accuracy, I prefer the simplicity of the old KW tool.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2685759].message }}

Trending Topics