Google exact search no longer working?

[Conrad Stuart]

I am a little alarmed because I, like most marketers on here, use the "quotes" or exact phrase search option when searching in Google to assess competition for a keyword.

I just tried using it many times, and the results are completely skewed?!? Terms that should have just a few thousand exact phrase competing results now have hundreds of thousands. Does anyone know if they have done anything to this feature? This is the easiest and fastest way I know of to check for competition, and I fear I will be lost without it.....

Any input is much appreciated, thanks!

[AlexKaplo]

It's working fine for me...

[Conrad Stuart]

Thanks for letting me know, still not working for me, I don't get it at all. At least I know now its not discontinued or anything!

[Cosmo Demopoulos]

Boy I sure seemed to be getting some (more than usual) bizarre results last night.
Look forward to additional responses - I could have posted this thread!

[artwebster]

I have certainly noticed that if a country is part of the exact phrase it seems to be ignored. I don't do many searches for exact phrase because of the number of sites that seem to 'seed' their content with variations.

[Conrad Stuart]

Has anyone else noticed a dramatic increase in competing results for the exact phrase search in Google? Searches that I know should have like 1-3k competing now have 50-100k plus. This totally messes up my formula for finding great KW's! Any comments would be appreciated.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by CSH5813

Has anyone else noticed a dramatic increase in competing results for the exact phrase search in Google? Searches that I know should have like 1-3k competing now have 50-100k plus. This totally messes up my formula for finding great KW's! Any comments would be appreciated.

Respectfully, searching for competing sites using quotes really isn't very productive or useful. It doesn't paint an accurate picture of actual "competition" at all. It's really just a myth that has perpetuated and been taught by possibly lazy people for far too long, just trying to make a buck off the unsuspecting.

Quotes, no quotes, whatever. Your competition is nowhere near 100k, 50k, or even 3,000 pages. Relying on that sort of data just leaves a whole lot of missed opportunities on the table.

Of course, it's probably better for me and my clients and students if IMers in general DON'T know the best way to do KW research in Google. It gives us all a leg up.

[thegoddessofeleven]

Yesterday, I was reasearching long tail keywords using Google's exact phrase search and found one with only 1,400 competing sites. Two hours later, it had over 8,000. I know I didn't mistype it, because I copied-and-pasted from an Excel spreadsheet both times.

Interesting...

[Wakunahum]

Yesterday I was doing some searches in quotes and was getting HIGHER results than without quotes. Something is screwed up at least on some of the dataservers of theirs.

[Emailrevealer]

Interesting. I was on the phone with someone in CA, I was in Denver and we were getting vastly different results from exact searches in quotes. The results varied bu 10s of millions.

[Fernando Veloso]

Ah that's funny, Portugal results are different today for some keywords (and no " involved here): from 300.000 to 75.000 and another one from 3.400.000 to 7.400.000. Maybe a major update going on?

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Respectfully, searching for competing sites using quotes really isn't very productive or useful. It doesn't paint an accurate picture of actual "competition" at all. It's really just a myth that has perpetuated and been taught by possibly lazy people for far too long, just trying to make a buck off the unsuspecting.

Boy, do a lot of marketers have a low opinion of marketers lately...

That myth may be the result of the lazy preying on the ignorant (not stupid, ignorant - two totally different things).

It may also be the result of the lazy clamoring for a magic button that they can apply without thought. How many threads in this forum alone ask the question about how many searches vs. how many competing sites?

I'm not disagreeing with your point, just the motive assigned to the teachers of using this means of measurement.

To my mind, depending on the topic and how difficult information is to find, if you can't crack the top 100 results, you don't exist. For 'easy' topics, like the pest price on a whatchamajiggy, you might need to be on the front page to have a chance. In that instance, your only real competition is the current listings on the front page.

[Steve Crooks]

True, to a point. The real competition is in the top 10 of Google or even the top 5 so largely the rest of them are irrelevant. If the top 10 are made up of Amazon, ebay etc then we will a hard time getting into the top 10 for that keyword even it only had 50 competing sites with phrase match.

If the top 10 are made up of squidoo, ezine articles and other blogs etc then we stand a good chance of hitting the top for that keyword phrase even if it has 5 million competing pages in phrase match.

The thing about using phrase match and looking at the total competing sites is that it gives us a good indicator only of the level of interest from webmasters for this keyword. A low count potentially means it is a keyword that has not been exploited and could be ripe for further investigation. Couple that with a good number of exact searches and it definitely has some potential.

Can't say I have noticed a problem with Google's phrase matching but nothing would suprise me when it comes to Google.

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Respectfully, searching for competing sites using quotes really isn't very productive or useful. It doesn't paint an accurate picture of actual "competition" at all. It's really just a myth that has perpetuated and been taught by possibly lazy people for far too long, just trying to make a buck off the unsuspecting.

Quotes, no quotes, whatever. Your competition is nowhere near 100k, 50k, or even 3,000 pages. Relying on that sort of data just leaves a whole lot of missed opportunities on the table.

Of course, it's probably better for me and my clients and students if IMers in general DON'T know the best way to do KW research in Google. It gives us all a leg up.

[Conrad Stuart]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Of course, it's probably better for me and my clients and students if IMers in general DON'T know the best way to do KW research in Google. It gives us all a leg up.

Respectfully, why don't you enlighten us all then? Of course, competing results is only a part of good KW research, but it can be used as an effective gauge of competition when coupled with checking the PR, links, etc of competing results.

No offense but that last little paragraph either sounds like a plug for your coaching services or outright smug cockyness over all who do not possess your knowledge. Just thought you should know how you come off.

[thegoddessofeleven]

Originally Posted by Steve Crooks

If the top 10 are made up of squidoo, ezine articles and other blogs etc then we stand a good chance of hitting the top for that keyword phrase even if it has 5 million competing pages in phrase match.

What if the page we're trying to rank IS an ezinearticle or squidoo lens (rather than a full-blown website)? Is it still so easy to out-rank other ezinearticles and squidoo lenses?

[Wakunahum]

Originally Posted by Iglooian

Who said it's not working - it's working for me.

The argument is that they are not giving correct numbers as opposed to it totally not working. In mine, many quotes are giving higher counts than without. That's a messed up number in my opinion.

We all get different results from different dataservers, so it's a fact that what might work for you at the moment doesn't work for me.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by CSH5813

Respectfully, why don't you enlighten us all then?

I've enlightened the forum many times, and posted in many threads here on the subject of effective keyword research, the myth of checking for competing pages using quotes, the myths of the effectiveness of checking for a ratio of search volumes to competing sites, how the Google KW Tool is inaccurate for organic search and and how to get much more useful numbers, how paid keyword services like Wordtracker aren't to be relied upon when targeting Google, the myth of what makes up your "competition" for a keyword phrase and so forth.

Here are just a few threads, including a free step-by-step:

Conflicting methods of analyzing keyword competition

Strategy for keywords

Here's a little-known Wikipedia gem I also shared:

Keyword Research 2.0 - The Winning Way To Do Keyword Research

I offer it here, free of charge, over and over again. I am happily enlightening everyone here, at no cost whatsoever. Some people will pick up on it, some won't. Some will buy into it, try it, and reap the benefit. Others will ignore it or reject it and not even bother to try it and not find a potentially more effective way to improve their research.

Originally Posted by CSH5813

Of course, competing results is only a part of good KW research, but it can be used as an effective gauge of competition when coupled with checking the PR, links, etc of competing results.

Respectfully I disagree that any mere count of number of pages returned for a keyword phrase is an effective gauge of competition. What it can effectively do is falsely convince someone to abandon a potentially profitable niche of keyword because they don't understand their "true" competition. Instead they're relying on misinformation they've been taught too many times without better guidance.

"Oh, this keyword has 846,000 competing pages and this other one only has 97,000 competing pages so obviously the second one is the best one for me to target!"

No, not really.

Originally Posted by CSH5813

No offense but that last little paragraph either sounds like a plug for your coaching services

No offense taken, and I don't provide coaching services here.

Originally Posted by CSH5813

or outright smug cockyness over all who do not possess your knowledge.

Yes, you are correct, it would be smug cockiness.

Originally Posted by CSH5813

Just thought you should know how you come off.

Thanks. I'm not too worried about how I come off on this particular topic, because there's just too much bad and useless information out there -- instead of trying to correct it, maybe I should just reap the benefit.

If I wanted to be smug and cocky and lord my knowledge over others, I wouldn't give it away for free to fellow Warriors. How could I be smug or cocky over something that I hope everyone here in these forums will come to know and use and be effective with?

I teach keyword research to my clients and students. Frankly over the past 15 years I've personally honed and adapted my keyword research to a level that exceeds what most others do, in my own opinion (and in judging by the results). They may be lazy, they may not understand, or worst of all, they've been misled with useless or ineffective information. I often get bugged because for so long so many of my students or clients say:

"My gosh, I never knew how to do keyword research until you showed me. I've bought many courses and e-books and videos on the subject, but they've all said the same thing like check your competitors by searching with quotes or pick searches that have at least 3,000 monthly in the Google KW Tool or you should take a ratio of sites to number of searches to find a winning keyword... but now I see that's just a waste of time and money".

I bothers me that people spend so much money on such useless information and bad advice. I've given out solid advice on keyword research here in these forums for free. Not a single dime. It's all out here, even my Google Traffic Estimator Formula which I had previously only provided at my live seminars or in individual training.

But like I said, maybe I should just not bother trying to help folks get on the right track. Lord knows I've been told before by some people that I'm flat wrong because I don't subscribe to what they've been taught by six different e-books.

But that's okay I guess, you can lead a horse to water...

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Steve Crooks

The thing about using phrase match and looking at the total competing sites is that it gives us a good indicator only of the level of interest from webmasters for this keyword. A low count potentially means it is a keyword that has not been exploited and could be ripe for further investigation. Couple that with a good number of exact searches and it definitely has some potential.

I disagree. A low count of these so-called "competitors" in Google deserves no more consideration than one with a higher count.

KW 1: 84,900 "competitors"
KW 2: 176,00 "competitors"
KW 3: 251,000 "competitors"
KW 4: 412,000 "competitors"
KW 5: 629,000 "competitors"

Which do you reject? Which do you pursue? I contend that, when the rubber meets the road, it looks a WHOLE lot more like this:

KW 1: 10 competitors
KW 2: 10 competitors
KW 3: 10 competitors
KW 4: 10 competitors
KW 5: 10 competitors

Focusing much attention at all on raw page counts can sometimes lead people away from potential good keyword phrases. My advice is to focus on the quality of the competition, not the quantity.

Besides, what good is knowing that there are eleventy billion pages indexed by Google for a particular phrase when you can only get 1,000 of them anyway?

[jimmorris]

Steven probably said the rawest most true statement about people singularly looking at competition figures ALONE:

"Focusing much attention at all on raw page counts can sometimes lead people away from potential good keyword phrases. My advice is to focus on the quality of the competition, not the quantity."

That statement couldn't be any more true.

This thread alone proves it with SO MUCH wiggle in the way Google updates what we supposedly look at as the competing number of pages.

So one day you make a judgment on selecting a keyword over another one based on whatever search count and competition count you come up with from looking on Google and then to find out a week later that the competition has increased by 50,000 (because you are using phrase match).

The problem is that this singular competition number is a skin deep number and if you are actually wanting to look at factors that are truly relevant, let's talk about:

1. Age of domain - if there are 10+ year old sites on Google for a particular phrase, your 3 month old domain may not stand a chance without some heavy link building.

2. Link popularity - how many links are there pointing in toward a given site and more particularly, a given WEB PAGE. These are two separate and distinct figures and I'm more interested in the latter figure. Then, if I want to dig even deeper to uncover the real truth of the matter, I can dig at the keyword level to find out...

3. Link reputation - this goes a hell of a lot deeper and this actually tells you how many inbound links a site has and what type of keyword phrases are used in the anchor text of a site's various inbound links. If you find a number of web pages ranked in the top 10 for a keyword without an inbound link using the actual keyword phrase, then I would not say the competition is very stiff at all (but you may be going up against an authority site like Wikipedia, ebay, squidoo pages that rank really well).

You can do #1 and #2 with a free FF/IE plugin that actually overlays extra data right within your Google.com search results as you are looking at the competition and if you're not using this to judge the competition right from looking at Google search results, then you're really missing out on the extra rich data you should be seeing. I explain it and show it in this video (and no, this is not my tool I'm pimping):

Created by Camtasia Studio 5

(NOTE: plays in IE better than FF which makes it skip for some reason)

The video then forwards to the site you can get the plugin.

Finding out the number of links along with the actual keyword phrases used in a sites inbound links actually requires paid tools unless you break up the task on a free site that I believe I mention in the second video along with another FireFox plug-in
that allows me to filter down a pages backlinks even further.

When it comes down to it and you look at the plain truth in reality when applying the above additional factors, 90% of sites are not optimized and most aren't doing any sort of active link building or even knowing how to create sticky content in Google that attracts natural links to get the kind of quality traffic or conversions a site owner looking for.

So when you consider the 90/10 rule, most of the competition is all up in your head when you are guided by a singular number that is given to you by the great Google, who, in its infinite wisdom is ALWAYS UPDATING. And that's one of the biggest reasons why that one number can't be counted on (and you can throw in there counting on the search count and the number of backlinks).

And yes, need I mention that you really NEVER went to use Google for checking backlinks because they are notorious for withholding valuable backlink information. Yahoo is much more revealing when you consider NicheBOT.com has 179 official backlinks, at least where I am:

link:http://www.nichebot.com - Google Search

Then you go over to Yahoo and they show over 100,000:

Site Explorer - Search Results

Sorry, I quoted low, because a few days ago it was 108,00, not 180,000+.

Anyways -- so if you see the comparison there, that really tells you how stingy Google is to show this backlink information so that's exactly why I use Yahoo in the video.

Gosh, now I sound like I'm on a soapbox about this stuff.

Apologies, I get a little passionate, but anyways... looking at competition should ultimately be a multi-dimensional project that really is an eye opener when you dig a wee deeper.

When you dig deeper instead of just scratching the surface, you truly uncover the weaknesses of the sites in the top 10 and can literally plan an attack to mount the top spot with a reasonably non-complex plan.

Thus, digging deeper at the real roots of what your competition is like can actually be quite inspirational and hope that fuels an interest to never look skin deep again.

[anth.elias]

Wow between Steve and Jim I think we have a very good lesson in SEO, and not that I can't also vouch for Jim but for Steve I know for sure they he knows what he is talking about, when he writes I read and devour.

[jimmorris]

Wait a minute :P

We're not done yet, here's video 2 for some deeper analysis and a greater understanding of how truly weak the competition is on a keyword (other than maybe being an aged domain)...

Created by Camtasia Studio 6

[Will Edwards]

Hi Stephen

I have read your previous posts and found them very enlightening. You talk a lot of sense & it has certainly made me think.

Perhaps somewhat ironically, when I started and knew nothing about Bum marketing and the usual stuff taught about KW research, I optimised my site for the phrase 'personal development' and managed to get a page 1 ranking pretty-much by doing what you suggested i.e. treating the 1st page as my competition.

These days I have slipped down to page 3 for that term on the google.com engine but am still on page #1 for the google.co.uk engine. I am much less-precious about that ranking now because I realise that it's not usually how people find my site.

For another project I am working on, I have a page #2 ranking for a long tail that I optimised for. Your post has made me realise that it's the big KW I need and looking at the top 10, I also realise it's doable.

It's nice to hear a fresh perspective - I don't ever get into the SEO forum, but perhaps I should!

Many thanks

Will

[Will Edwards]

Hi Jim

Just wanted to say thanks also for your post. I watched the videos and got the tools - very useful stuff!

Will

[webdesignservice]

Thanks for sharing the video Jim, it helps. As what Will said that tool is great.

That's the reason why i am always coming back here at WF, I learn new stuff

KUDOS for fellow warriors.

[jimmorris]

My pleasure Will and webdesign -- whatever helps in making that
light at the end of the tunnel a little brighter (cuz it wasn't for me
for at least 4 years).

And Will, it sounds like you came to an enlightened understanding
about what you thought was a coveted keyword to rank for, but
realized that it was just not up to the muster you expected it to
be.

I hate keywords like that, especially when we think the COUNT or
REAL TRAFFIC is going to be a lot higher than the keyword database
we used told us it would be.