can i trust by google keyword planner for seo campaign?

by abede
29 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hey
i'm looking for new keywords ideas for my site, but i want to ask you guys,
can i trust by google keyword planner about search volume or it's wrong?

thank you genius friends.
#campaign #google #keyword #planner #seo #trust
  • Profile picture of the author Indus Uno
    You should do some research on your competitors and prepare the list of keywords then use Google Keyword planner to know its search volume which will give the idea for choosing the right keywords which are useful for your website to generate leads & potential traffic 7 customers.
    Here is the same forum thread which will helps you - http://www.warriorforum.com/search-e...st-google.html
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11062837].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sparrow
    I don't trust any of Googles data

    I've rank for many big money keywords and never saw anything close to the volume of traffic that is predicted

    In fact the ones that were very low to no data gave me more visitors

    I only use Google Keyword Planner as a keyword generator and forget about the other data total waste of your time

    I just build content and sites around groups of relevant keywords, this is where it is at these days

    Search volume worked in the early days today it is a distraction in addition puts you in the middle of the competition
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11062874].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Arif42
    Obviously Google keyword planner is the the best for keyword research. You can trust on it for search bolume. Moreover you can check the per keyword search volume by searching them in the google searching box. and also you can use keyword everywhere to find out the exact volume.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11062889].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SERPTurbo
    It's not 100% accurate, but it will give you a rough idea of what to expect from certain keywords.

    Also after the recent updates, it only gives you a range of volume anyway, so instead of showing that a keyword gets, for example 5000 searches per month, it shows 1-5k, meaning anywhere from 1 to 5k searches per month.

    You have to advertise on Adwords regularly to get the more specific data.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11062903].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rayhan10
    yes google planner is the best method for seo campaign.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11062983].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dburk
    Originally Posted by abede View Post

    Hey
    i'm looking for new keywords ideas for my site, but i want to ask you guys,
    can i trust by google keyword planner about search volume or it's wrong?

    thank you genius friends.
    Hi abede,

    Yes the Keyword planner shows you accurate search volume data, I have used it, and it's predecessor, for years and it has proven to be very reliable data.

    Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

    I don't trust any of Googles data

    I've rank for many big money keywords and never saw anything close to the volume of traffic that is predicted

    In fact the ones that were very low to no data gave me more visitors

    I only use Google Keyword Planner as a keyword generator and forget about the other data total waste of your time

    I just build content and sites around groups of relevant keywords, this is where it is at these days

    Search volume worked in the early days today it is a distraction in addition puts you in the middle of the competition
    Hi sparrow,

    I have to disagree with your assertion that the data is not reliable.

    First let me point out that search volume does not equal traffic to a website. Those are completely different metrics, so if you thought they were the same that may be why you feel the data is not accurate. Search volume is just that, search volume only, it is not click volume, nor does it indicate what share of the click volume that any particular website might achieve. While traffic volume depends on search volume, to a degree, it is not even remotely close to being the same thing.

    There are many factors that will effect the organic impression share that you might receive, for one, your web page isn't likely to rank on the first page for every search, this is due to personalization, localization, recency and other dynamic factors that will cause you web page to intermittently rank at different positions in the SERP.

    Once you understand what the data represents you have to conclude it is accurate, especially if you are a heavy advertiser with all the impression share data at your finger tips. The search volume data is accurate, you can trust Google on this as I have independently verified it thousands of times.

    HTH,

    Don Burk
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11062994].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sparrow
      Don

      I'm not mistaken what the search volumes represent

      The real issue here is the click metrics floating around those search volumes they are unreliable if you try to make a correlation

      I pulled this from searchengineland about a study that just about everyone believes, if your on page one and position #1 you will receive about 33% of the traffic that goes to Google Search
      "Chitika Insights examined tens of millions of online ad impressions in which the user was referred to the page via a Google search."
      the top listing in Google's organic search results receives 33 percent of the traffic, compared to 18 percent for the second position, and the traffic only degrades from there:
      I've been on page one for many many high search volume keywords along with other SEO individuals in the same position

      We don't find the correlation of predicted clicks vs search volume to be even close

      In addition every niche varies, there is too many variables

      This is what Abede and just about everyone who uses those metrics expect to see when they achieve a #1 placement in Google

      So if you use the search volume metrics in that respect then in my opinion they are not accurate, because they are reading the data wrong

      I know I've tested it over millions and millions of my own top placements, I've done the testing, the clicks don't add up to the predictions

      Ed
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063013].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dburk
        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        Don

        I'm not mistaken what the search volumes represent

        The real issue here is the click metrics floating around those search volumes they are unreliable if you try to make a correlation
        Hi Ed,

        Agreed.

        To be fair, the AdWords Keyword planner doesn't display click metrics, just search volume. So whatever click metrics you are looking at, they are outside the scope of search volume metrics which is the data reported in the Keyword Planner Tool.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        I pulled this from searchengineland about a study that just about everyone believes, if your on page one and position #1 you will receive about 33% of the traffic that goes to Google Search
        I don't know if just about everybody believes that or not, none of the experienced marketers that I know would ever buy into that flawed conclusion. Anyone who has spent much time analyzing web marketing data understands that CTRs vary wildly based on the nature of the search term, the content of the text snippets, level of specificity in the search intent, level of commercial intent, competitiveness level, and the mix and makeup of competing ads that might appear on the SERP.

        Every experienced marketer knows that branded search terms tend to have much higher CTR than generic search terms on average, and no two websites will have the same mixture of search terms in their organic traffic. Trying to apply aggregate data from unrelated websites is an act of futility, in my opinion.

        Furthermore, if the search term is informational in nature the organic listings tend to get higher CTR rates. Conversely, if the search term is high in commercial intent, the ads tend to get the bulk of the clicks, all 10 organic listings combined may not even reach 20% CTR. So trying to lump all search terms into a single aggregate average is an act of futility for a marketer.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        I've been on page one for many many high search volume keywords along with other SEO individuals in the same position

        We don't find the correlation of predicted clicks vs search volume to be even close

        In addition every niche varies, there is too many variables

        This is what Abede and just about everyone who uses those metrics expect to see when they achieve a #1 placement in Google
        I assert that they shouldn't expect that. Not ever. If someone ever did see a correlation it would be nothing but mere coincidence, there is no study that shows a consitent and reliable correlation across wildly varying website traffic and search terms. It just doesn't exist and seems foolish for a real marketer to make such an obvious mistake.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        So if you use the search volume metrics in that respect then in my opinion they are not accurate, because they are reading the data wrong

        I know I've tested it over millions and millions of my own top placements, I've done the testing, the clicks don't add up to the predictions
        I agree. Search volume and click through rates are 2 completely different metrics. It would be unwise to imply there is any sort of reliable correlation between them, no matter how many flaw studies try to make that assertion, the data just doesn't support those conclusions.

        In conclusion, I assert that the data from the Keyword Planner is on the whole very accurate, and that people that try to apply some sort of broadly applicable correlation between search volume and CTR are making a flawed assumptions.

        Don't blame the tool, that provides accurate data, for someone's flawed assumptions. The Tool is accurate, the way some people use it, not so much.

        HTH,

        Don Burk
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063799].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sparrow
          Don

          you don't have any arguments from me on this

          there is no study that shows a consitent and reliable correlation across wildly varying website traffic and search terms. It just doesn't exist and seems foolish for a real marketer to make such an obvious mistake.
          Don the problem is there is studies all over the internet saying different that you and I don't buy into

          Multiple pieces of propaganda are floating around from reputable sites such as searchengineland and others including reputable agencies (Chitika) publishing such assumptions of their studies

          this is where the problem lays these studies from very reputable sites have published this correlation

          people DO make that assumption of search volume will correlate into a predicted click result when they rank on page one

          your looking at this in the purest sense of search volume

          just about everyone who is not experience in this industry buy into search volume as an indicator of success for clicks of their rankings

          I don't! as you do as well

          I personally get much better click results than the search volume you see in Google for keywords I target with low volume

          I see traffic coming into my sites using my own tracking software identifying which keywords in Google search they originated from, which Google no longer provides in their Analytic's package and many times I get way more than I see in keyword planner

          Bottom line to this is people DO make the assumption of success using search volumes without regards to intent and many other factors

          All you have to do is read the replies in this thread and you will see what I mean about their understanding of search volume

          We might be in the minority of this understanding of search volume, but the masses here in the Warrior Forum really are misinformed

          So I think the message here is really about can you rely on the search volume as a predictor of success for getting traffic to your website if you rank #1

          Obviously NO! as you pointed out too many variables enter into the picture and even more so with how the search results are delivering the information today

          Ed
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063879].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author dburk
            Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

            Don

            you don't have any arguments from me on this

            the problem is the propaganda that is floating around from reputable sites such as searchengineland and others including reputable agencies (Chitika) publishing such assumptions of their studies

            this is where the problem lays

            people DO make that assumption of search volume will correlate into a predicted click result when they rank on page one

            your looking at this in the purest sense of search volume

            just about everyone who is not experience in this industry buy into search volume as an indicator of success for clicks of their rankings

            I don't! as you do as well

            I personally get much better click results than the search volume you see in Google for keywords I target with low volume

            I see traffic coming into my sites using my own tracking software identifying which keywords in Google search they originated from, which Google no longer provides in their Analytic's package and many times I get way more than I see in keyword planner

            Bottom line to this is people DO make the assumption of success using search volumes without regards to intent and many other factors

            All you have to do is read the replies in this thread and you will see what I mean about their understanding of search volume

            We might be in the minority of this understanding of search volume, but the masses here in the Warrior Forum really are misinformed

            So I think the message here is really about can you rely on the search volume as a predictor of success for getting traffic to your website if you rank #1

            Obviously NO! as you pointed out too many variables enter into the picture and even more so with how the search results are delivering the information today

            Ed
            Hi Ed,

            I think we are mostly in agreement.

            Search volume is only one side of the organic traffic equation, perhaps the most predictable side of the traffic equation because we do get very accurate data from Google.

            The other side of that equation is the CTR, that is much less predictable and until you have a reliable CTR you cannot make anything close to a reliable prediction.

            I think you are correct in that many readers of this forum treat CTR as if it is consitent and reliable data when derived from aggregate data across multiple unrelated websites. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Aggregate data is mostly useless.

            Google's search volume data, however, is not aggregate data from multiple websites. It is very specific data, from a single website, for a specific search term. As such, it is accurate and as reliable as any other type of data could be in this business.

            To use the search volume as an indicator of how much traffic your own listing might achieve you need a lot more information. Including the nature and intent of the searchers that are using the search term, along with data about your text snippet performance as compared to your competitors text snippets and ad text where applicable. In other words, your specific CTR, for that specific search term, is needed to be anywhere close to a reliable prediction.

            The point I was making was to answer the OP's question about the accuracy of search volume data. It is accurate.

            Search volume is only half of the traffic equation, the other half of the equation takes a lot more work to find a reliable metric, that will apply to your specific organic listing. Don't use aggregate data that is unrelated to your own search term or text snippet, that is where this issue, as you described it, lies.

            I just wanted to correct the notion that Google's data is inaccurate it isn't.

            Perhaps the common flaw of trying to apply aggregate data to use as an anticipated CTR should be blamed? Wouldn't you agree?

            Aggregate data from unrelated websites, targeting unrelated search terms, is useless data, I suggest that no one should every try to use that data to predict the performance of a specific website. The Google search volume data, now that is reliable and can be used, as long as you are using it in combination with other reliable (specific) data.

            For clarification:
            • Google Search Volume = Accurate, Highly Specific, Safe to Use
            • CTRs Based On Aggregate Data = Nonspecific, Not Safe For Use In Specific Predictions

            HTH,

            Don Burk
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063918].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sparrow
              The point I was making was to answer the OP's question about the accuracy of search volume data. It is accurate.
              I just wanted to correct the notion that Google's data is inaccurate it isn't.
              HI Don

              In the purest sense yes

              unfortunately when you answer in that respect, it is always misinterpreted by the un-informed

              so I chose to take a different tack, because of the nature of the audience who ask and reply

              search volume is so unpredictable of the results individuals will get in reality as we both agree

              let's look at this from another angle

              why do people ask or even use search volumes as part of their strategy for attaining placement for search results

              we call it wishful thinking of the masses
              (we are the minority)

              in my opinion search volumes should not be part of the equation for choosing groups of keywords to rank for

              since Google has been putting authority sites at the top by default since 2007 I constantly see many sites without even those keywords in their content

              many times just an image and no content at all

              the perfume and jewelry industry is notorious for this

              so why be concerned about those search volumes at all

              in my opinion keywords should be selected for the intent of the visitor and outcome you wish to happen instead of wishful thinking of search volumes

              Don, I do a good amount consulting and when I steer individuals towards keyword groups that would better serve them without fail I get this answer

              "why would I waste my time creating content around keywords with such low search volumes"

              I get this kind of answer all the time similar to a knee jerk response

              Don I am in total agreement of your intent, but unfortunately the mis-informed are just looking for an excuse to justify using search volumes as part of their strategy and wonder why their results are lack luster

              I took the other path and just made a broad statement not to trust the Google data to be the foundation for their strategy for all the reasons we discussed over several posts

              In my opinion if the search volumes did not exist people would start thinking out of the box and looking more at visitor intent and just maybe the quality of content on the web would be a higher caliber

              but since search volumes are on everyone's minds as a primary factor for choosing keywords you get the blind leading the blind

              to put this to bed

              Google's Keyword Planner is a PPC tool as we both know it

              Some individual a long time ago made a correlation of search volume and clicks and since then this correlation has stuck around and doing injustice to those who are serious about ranking #1 and getting traffic to their web pages

              I'm just doing my part to help break that lemming mentality to those that are willing to at least listen and ask questions to help them get out of that incestial circle of misinformation

              Ed
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063955].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fastreplies
    Originally Posted by abede View Post

    can i trust by google keyword planner about search volume or it's wrong?
    No, simply because it based on floating data, like trying to read tea leaves for Loto numbers.
    One day 1000 people work with keyword, next day no one

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063108].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Shams Sikder
    It's not completely accurate, but it's probably the best free source for keyword research. However, there are some better paid research tools out there, especially for long tail keyword research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063161].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Arvind Kumar
    i usually use another tool like semrush or kwfinder along with keyword planner for finding any keyword or an SEO campaign..though Keyword planner is good it is better to verify things using another good keyword tool as well....!!!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063301].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ronitak
    Yes, Keyword Planner is only the best tool which you can trust for getting keyword ideas for your website.
    It tells about the search volume of our particular keywords which helps us to focus more on our primary keywords.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063376].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MNolte
    Yes, google keyword planner can help you to find out basic ideas about keywords and related keywords. But for best ideas and results you should go with other tool like semrush, ubbersuggest and answer the public for long tail keyword ideas. In search volume option of keyword planner, you will find the search volume range like 10-100 or something like this. And in my point of view, this data isn't wrong.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063422].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author daisylyp
    have you tried? how expensive is it ?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063423].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sinGN
    yes, Google keyword planner is the best tool to find keywords.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11063450].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dburk
    Hi Ed,

    I guess I was taking the opposite approach of giving people the truth and correcting them on the part that was in error, in my opinion.

    The Google data is the only part of the equation that is typically accurate in the scenarios that you have listed. It is the only trustworthy data applied within those scenarios, and I wouldn't want to give people the wrong idea about what is true and what is not true.

    Instead, I chose to point out that the Google data is indeed accurate, however trying to use aggregate data from someone else's website for terms other than the same ones you are targeting is completely worthless and should not be attempted.

    All data used for your marketing decisions should be in my opinion, specific and germane to your specific use case. I believe that to be highly useful advice. As such, Google Search volume is both accurate and highly specific which makes it useful when applied properly.

    You seem, to me, to be inferring that since many people are using that accurate data incorrectly that the data is somehow at fault. I strongly disagree with that assertion.

    The search volume data is accurate. It is the flawed and often unrealistic CTRs that many people use that is the true issue in this discussion. It doesn't matter how reliable and accurate data is, be it search volume, or any other data, if you are using it in a formula that combines non-specific data from unrelated aggregate sources it is useless for any kind of data driven decisions. This is true for any and all data analysis.

    If we are not honest with people about the true corrupting factor (irrelevant and inaccurate CTRs) and instead falsely blame it on the search volume data which is the only portion that is truly accurate and reliable in the examples given, how can they learn and benefit from our discussion.

    Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I think there are many people that read this forum with the IQ to get it. Google data is accurate, but those CTR figures cited are not. If you can workout how to get reliable and specific CTR data you can indeed use the search volume data to predict traffic.

    I think most people that are trying to make this calculation are not looking for a precise prediction, but more of a general idea of what to expect so that can estimate the value of ranking a particular keyword against the cost of the SEO promotional activity needed to reach that ranking. It's purely a cost/benefit analysis and only useful when you plug-in the correct data. Google data is accurate, however the CTR figures cited are irrelevant and not applicable to the specific use case we are discussing.

    You cannot use a CTR based om aggregate data from non-specific search terms on unrelated web page listings. Those CTR metrics based on aggregate unrelated web page listings are irrelevant and unreliable, the Google Search volume data is both accurate and reliable for predicting traffic if you can workout a reasonable accurate CTR for your listing.

    How someone would go about finding a reasonably accurate CTR is another discussion, so I won't go into that here, just pointing out that Google Data is accurate and can be used to predict traffic if you have the other side of the traffic equation (CTR) figured out.

    HTH,

    Don Burk
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11064013].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sparrow
      Don

      I guess this is where we disagree on our intents

      first Google Keyword Planner is a PPC tool

      not to be confused with using it for organic listings, this point we agree

      Google never designed this tool for organic search

      as far as is the data correct, if you use it for PPC yes

      but if you try to make any correlation for organic listings it was never designed for this

      when you said the search volume was accurate the issue I had was you did not qualify why

      Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I think there are many people that read this forum with the IQ to get it
      the majority of people try to do otherwise, very well known personalities and very well known websites that have very large followings have made statements that say otherwise including backing it up with millions of bits of information proving their point

      all you got to do is look it up facts are facts these statements have been made and the mis-informed are repeating it without thought

      if you would of qualified your statement I don't think we would of had this conversation but you only gave a partial answer and then later we fleshed it out

      I on the other hand did not
      I made a broad statement that search volumes for organic search search volumes are not a prediction of potential clicks

      I've rank for many big money keywords and never saw anything close to the volume of traffic that is predicted
      when I say predicted, this is what very well known SEO Masters and very well known sites such as searchengineland and many more very reputable websites say that people believe

      people believe what they read because of their reputations

      that is why I said I would not trust any data from keyword planner

      as we both know this is a PPC tool not a organic search tool

      we can find multiple examples all over the web from very well known individuals and websites that many hang on every word they say about how they use search volumes

      it's all over the internet including this forum how they are using the search volumes wrong for organic search

      I know from your sig you specialize in PPC, and in that aspect what you say is totally correct in addition your correct about how keyword planner search volumes are being misused
      your 100% correct on this

      where we differ is how we said it

      saying that search volumes are accurate without qualifying it matters, that piece of missing information is extremely important to mentioned and I don't think I saw anything mentioned that search volumes and keyword planner was designed as a PPC tool

      I on the other hand knew exactly what the OP was referring too

      this is the SEO forum specifically for organic search
      so it makes sense the OP wanted to know if the search volumes are accurate to use for SEO purposes, which they are not at least we can agree on that point

      this forum has a PPC community and if the same question was ask there then it would be relevant

      since this is a SEO community then search volumes for SEO in my opinion are not accurate for predicted clicks

      I think that is pretty straight forward, neither one of us are making misleading statements the context of our answers are different

      I don't see this as an argument

      I saw this as, relative to organic search search volume this is not accurate for SEO reasons considering where the question was posted

      you responded in a pure and academic sense and later qualified click prediction cannot be correlated regardless on who or where it says you will get a percentage of clicks from search volume

      we are both saying the same but different

      all both of us can hope the people who posted or reading this thread will be wiser in the long run as a result of us kicking this around

      I hope you understand this is a discussion and not a battle of wits

      it's been a pleasure discussing this with you because you understand the truth

      what I did not want to happen is that if you said search volumes are accurate the mis-informed would take your words as it is accurate for SEO and traffic reasons, it just plainly is not it is a PPC metric nothing more

      I hope we agree on that point

      Ed
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11064088].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dburk
        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        Don

        I guess this is where we disagree on our intents

        first Google Keyword Planner is a PPC tool

        not to be confused with using it for organic listings, this point we agree

        Google never designed this tool for organic search

        as far as is the data correct, if you use it for PPC yes
        I agree the tool was designed to be used by advertisers that are doing PPC advertising on the AdWords platform, more specifically Search advertising. For that reason it is important to Google and all advertisers that the Search Volume data be accurate. I have no argument with you there, and I think anyone that is well informed agrees.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        but if you try to make any correlation for organic listings it was never designed for this
        To be clear, I am not inferring a correlation with organic listings, I am asserting, just as Google does, that this is in fact the true and accurate Organic search volume. It's not a correlation it is one in the same.

        If it wasn't actual organic search volume then advertisers, like me and others would have a major problem with this tool. Organic search volume is precisely the data this tool reports because that is where Google Search ads run, on the Organic Search Result pages. So it has to be accurate, for advertisers to find it useful.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        when you said the search volume was accurate the issue I had was you did not qualify why
        I fail to see why it would need to be qualified. It is what it is, no qualification necessary.



        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        the majority of people try to do otherwise, very well known personalities and very well known websites that have very large followings have made statements that say otherwise including backing it up with millions of bits of information proving their point

        all you got to do is look it up facts are facts these statements have been made and the mis-informed are repeating it without thought
        I am not sure what statements you are referring to, I could find no particular statements cited, or quoted, in any of your replies, just a vague reference to statements that supposedly everyone believes because they come from a popular person, or website.

        I'm sure that with so many people saying so many controversial things that at least a few of them are likely to be wrong, I just cannot speak to statements that were neither quoted nor specifically cited. So I will leave that up to you to do if you think they are wrong, or if you want to argue that they are right.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        if you would of qualified your statement I don't think we would of had this conversation but you only gave a partial answer and then later we fleshed it out
        I am still at a loss as to why you think that my statement would need to have been qualified in any way, I think it stands on it's own, no qualifications needed.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        I made a broad statement that search volumes for organic search search volumes are not a prediction of potential clicks
        I agreed, and supported the portion of your argument that drew any conclusion based on aggregate CTR data. I just disagreed with the assertion that the Search Volume data was not accurate.

        Random, non-specific aggregate CTR data could not be useful in any calculation to predict traffic, however the search volume is indeed useful in calculating traffic provided you have relevant and accurate CTR data specific to your organic listing.


        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        when I say predicted, this is what very well known SEO Masters and very well known sites such as searchengineland and many more very reputable websites say that people believe

        people believe what they read because of their reputations
        Again, I have know idea which particular statements you are alluding to here. I have to say that I have found SearchEngineLand articles for the most par are pretty reliable, though there are many different authors on that website, so I can not vouch for all of them. All I can say is that I must have not seen the articles you are referring to or I would have publicly challenged them if I thought it was inaccurate.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        that is why I said I would not trust any data from keyword planner
        Again I will assert that the search volume data is indeed accurate and can be trusted. And that the CTR data is what was at fault in your original example.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        as we both know this is a PPC tool not a organic search tool
        I agree it is a tool designed for PPC advertisers, but I also assert that it shows us accurate organic traffic volume, which is precisely what it is intended to do, to show accurate organic search volume to advertisers that wish to place ads on those same organic search result pagers.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        we can find multiple examples all over the web from very well known individuals and websites that many hang on every word they say about how they use search volumes

        it's all over the internet including this forum how they are using the search volumes wrong for organic search
        I agree, many people, including many "well known individuals" to this day use data incorrectly. You will get no argument from me on that assertion.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        I know from your sig you specialize in PPC, and in that aspect what you say is totally correct in addition your correct about how keyword planner search volumes are being misused
        your 100% correct on this
        Yes I do specialize in Search Engine Marketing, but not exclusively. It is one of several specialties.

        Just to clarify, I have asserted that the search volume is accurate, but what some people are using it for is not valid or practical because the other data that are trying to use, namely invalid CTRs is causing flawed conclusions.


        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        saying that search volumes are accurate without qualifying it matters, that piece of missing information is extremely important to mentioned and I don't think I saw anything mentioned that search volumes and keyword planner was designed as a PPC tool
        Again, what I said I believe to be accurate on it's face, no qualification needed.

        It does not change anything that the Keyword planner Tool was designed to be a tool used by advertisers. It still shows us organic search volume. No qualifications are needed, it's the same organic search volume that SEO specialist are interested in, it just happens to have multiple potential applications.

        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        I on the other hand knew exactly what the OP was referring too

        this is the SEO forum specifically for organic search
        so it makes sense the OP wanted to know if the search volumes are accurate to use for SEO purposes, which they are not at least we can agree on that point

        this forum has a PPC community and if the same question was ask there then it would be relevant

        since this is a SEO community then search volumes for SEO in my opinion are not accurate for predicted clicks

        I think that is pretty straight forward, neither one of us are making misleading statements the context of our answers are different

        I don't see this as an argument


        I saw this as, relative to organic search search volume this is not accurate for SEO reasons considering where the question was posted
        I totally disagree with that premise.

        It is the same data, it is provided by the same tool, regardless of how you might be applying it.Organic search volume is organic search volume, it doesn't change for SEO, nor does it change for PPC. It is always the exact same data regardless of why or for what purpose you seek it.


        Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

        you responded in a pure and academic sense and later qualified click prediction cannot be correlated regardless on who or where it says you will get a percentage of clicks from search volume

        we are both saying the same but different

        all both of us can hope the people who posted or reading this thread will be wiser in the long run as a result of us kicking this around

        I hope you understand this is a discussion and not a battle of wits

        it's been a pleasure discussing this with you because you understand the truth

        what I did not want to happen is that if you said search volumes are accurate the mis-informed would take your words as it is accurate for SEO and traffic reasons, it just plainly is not it is a PPC metric nothing more

        I hope we agree on that point

        Ed
        Just in case I wasn't clear enough in my earlier response...

        I do not agree with the assertion this search volume data is inaccurate for SEO. I flatly assert that the data is the data, regardless if your interest is for SEO, or PPC. Your intended use of this data does not change the accuracy of the data.

        It is just as accurate for SEO as it is for PPC, It has to be because it is the exact same data.

        I think where we probably agree is that many people in SEO are using this data incorrectly, in particular whenever they try to combine it with irrelevant CTR data that has no relevance to a specific search term. In those cases the Search volume is accurate, but the invalid CTR metric is applied making any calculation just as invalid.

        The OP made no reference to where he might be getting his CTR data from, nor even that he was intended to use search volume in combination with CTR data. So I did not presume to pre-judge his intent, on to give him a non-qualified answer that the search volume is indeed accurate, as you and I both know that it is, right?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11064247].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sparrow
          I am not sure what statements you are referring to, I could find no particular statements cited, or quoted, in any of your replies, just a vague reference to statements that supposedly everyone believes because they come from a popular person, or website.

          Here some examples of CTR articles that I am referring to a very simple search to do, this was only a few I quickly collected in less than a minute, but they are all over the place and people believe them because of their reputation along with the inability to independently verify it's only natural to do so


          https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/st...-traffic-study

          https://moz.com/blog/google-organic-...-rates-in-2014

          http://www.smartinsights.com/search-...s-by-position/

          http://www.seobook.com/google-serp-ctr-data-search-rank

          http://www.infront.com/blogs/the-inf...google-results

          https://www.advancedwebranking.com/cloud/ctrstudy/

          http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/05/10/google-ctr


          I was hoping we could of come to more common ground

          I made my statement based on my studies

          For a period of time I had over 10 million pages up in Google most in top positions

          The niches ranged from mortgages, insurance, real estate, grants the list goes on

          Most of them very valuable keyword groups with very high search volumes

          In addition I worked with other SEO individuals some even had more pages than I did

          We all agreed one thing about the CTRs they don't match up to the predictions vs the search Volumes

          What we also found peculiar was the low search volumes for many many keyword groups exceeded Googles Search Volumes

          How so?

          All together we had over a few hundred million pages up to pull data from

          As an engineer you never believe the facts till you test them again and again till they repeat

          We did this with custom software we built

          So when I made the statement of not trusting Googles Search Volume I did so not lightly

          What I found interesting about this discussion is your statement

          The search volume data is accurate, you can trust Google on this as I have independently verified it thousands of times.
          How could you verify data that is gathered across multitudes of server farms and protected by Google which in return you have to trust Google as accurate

          That has always been the Dark Horse in this equation being able to verify Google's Data, everyone else has had to make correlation studies along with cause and effect results

          Kudos to you if you succeeded your the first who has admitted they have actually confirmed Google's Search Volumes are accurate

          At one time you could trust Google, but since 2007 and Vincent's Change in place with their position to serve brands first

          My trust of their data is suspect considering all the data and tests our group has conducted


          The OP made no reference to where he might be getting his CTR data from, nor even that he was intended to use search volume in combination with CTR data.
          This is a SEO thread and it is directed to SEO questions otherwise he would of asked somewhere else for his particular needs

          Also his title states it

          can i trust by google keyword planner for seo campaign?
          It's only natural it's about SEO

          I guess we both have beaten this dead horse long enough

          It looks like we are at the proverbial phrase

          Is the glass half full or half empty

          Ed
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11064587].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author dburk
            Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

            Here some examples of CTR articles that I am referring to a very simple search to do, this was only a few I quickly collected in less than a minute, but they are all over the place and people believe them because of their reputation along with the inability to independently verify it's only natural to do so


            https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/st...-traffic-study

            https://moz.com/blog/google-organic-...-rates-in-2014

            Comparison of Google clickthrough rates by position [#ChartoftheDay] - Smart Insights Digital Marketing Advice

            Google Keyword Click Data by Search Ranking Position

            Value of Organic First-Page Results

            https://www.advancedwebranking.com/cloud/ctrstudy/

            Why You NEED to Raise Organic CTR
            Hi Ed,

            I noticed you totally skipped over my advice about aggregate data from unrelated websites being useless for predicting traffic on your own website. I'm pretty sure that is why your own studies have failed to predict results with any degree of accuracy. The point is that traffic sources and CTR are unique to each website. To imply otherwise is a fallacy.

            Also I noticed that none of the articles cited are actually from the SearchEngineLand website. Though I'm sure you can find at least a couple of linkbait articles there that make inaccurate claims.

            This is not a new discussion. This topic has been beaten to death on the Warrior Forum over the years. Authors that write articles for a living need to create stories that are controversial, or that spark arguments. One of the common methods is to twist the results of a study to falsely imply that they mean something other than the truth. How else are they going to get people talking about their articles? Controversy brings attention, that is the point of these linkbait articles.

            They have been debunked over and over.

            Here is the core fallacy in most if not all of the articles you cited:

            These articles incorrectly equate "percentage of clicks", or "percentage of traffic" with CTR (Click Through Rate). That seems to be intentional since the article would be a snoozer otherwise.

            Let me correct that fallacy here, CTR is a percentage of impressions, not a percentage of clicks, nor is it a percentage of traffic. Oops... that is a huge error for the authors of these articles.

            These authors have been criticized endlessly for this major error, yet people like you keep pointing at these previously debunked claims of CTR. They are wrong, they are false, they are deliberately misleading, and a common linkbait tactic for these notorious linkbait authors.

            I repeat... percentage of clicks is not the same metric as CTR. These authors know that and they lied to get people talking about their articles. Else they would have to admit that they made a mistake.

            Please allow me to post a more credible article from a slightly more credible website (some of your links were from websites that are notorious for linkbait articles that create fake controversies):

            Organic Click-Thru Rates Tumbling; Only 52% Click On Page One, Study Suggests

            Note that in this article it points to one of the same studies cited in at least 2 of your links however this article correctly points out that nearly half of all SERP impressions do not result in a a click at all. The truth is only 52% of the searches resulted in a click on Google searches and far less on Bing.

            Oops... those linkbait authors accidently forgot to mention that, or account for it in their fake CTR claims.

            Another thing that the authors of those articles with bogus claims failed to mention is that the average website doesn't have anywhere near the same level of branded search traffic that the very large accounts within the study do. So the CTR of a new website relying on organic traffic from generic keywords will typically be a fraction of the CTR for these large accounts.

            When you remove the large portion of branded traffic the average CTR for top organic positions drop from 18% down to a 7-15% range.

            But the nightmare for SEO folks that relied on those bogus 33% CTR claims doesn't end there. It gets worse.

            The study included large accounts that rely heavily on traffic from informational search queries. The organic CTR for search terms with high commercial intent is even lower, because traffic from search terms with high commercial intent is twice as likely to go to paid ad listings rather than organic listings.

            So for some generic keywords with high commercial intent you might expect CTRs lower than 5% when you reach the top organic listing. I bet that when you use the true CTR data from these aggregate data studies it is more in line with your own data, right?

            So, who are you going to believe, a repeatedly debunked linkbait author, or you own data?

            The common thread in all of the articles you linked to is that in each case they all mislabel the data. In every case that I reviewed the author incorrectly labeled clicks or traffic as CTR. Those are not the same and the root of why these articles are so deceptive, controversial, and yet so easy to debunk.

            To clarify, the studies those linkbait authors cite are not in error for the most part. It is the author's deliberate mislabeling of the data that is typically the major flaw, and the source of all the controversy. When you label the data correctly, it becomes less controversial, and less effective as linkbait.

            Let me again assert that aggregate data from unrelated websites is not useful for predicting traffic on your own website. The source of traffic is different for each website, and the CTR will vary based on the traffic source and your text snippet, in addition to the variations in ad positions due to personalized search results. Not to mention the level of competition from sponsored listings. Relying on exaggerated CTR claims only serves to exacerbate this challenge.

            All these things need to be taken into account when analyzing your data.

            Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

            I was hoping we could of come to more common ground

            I made my statement based on my studies
            It isn't the studies that are at question, it is the false conclusions derived from mislabeling the data in those studies, usually done on purpose by linkbait authors that are hoping to stir up a controversy.

            Again, who are you going to trust, your own data, or the mislabeled and now debunked fake CTR claims?

            Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

            For a period of time I had over 10 million pages up in Google most in top positions

            The niches ranged from mortgages, insurance, real estate, grants the list goes on

            Most of them very valuable keyword groups with very high search volumes

            In addition I worked with other SEO individuals some even had more pages than I did

            We all agreed one thing about the CTRs they don't match up to the predictions vs the search Volumes

            What we also found peculiar was the low search volumes for many many keyword groups exceeded Googles Search Volumes

            How so?
            I just told you how so. The evidence right there in black and white. Article after article with mislabeled data. You cannot ignore the basic math or the fact that the data is mislabeled. The truth is the truth. A close examination is al it takes to reveal the truth.

            I suggest that you don't trust linkbait authors that manufacture fake controversies over your own data.

            The linkbait authors have everything to gain by mislabeling the data, and Google has everything to lose by reporting inaccurate data. Yet it seems that you have chosen to accept the linkbait fallacies (that are heavily debunked) over easily verifiable data provided by Google.

            The very studies you point to provide evidence that the exaggerated CTRs are wildly inaccurate. Just look at the data rather then the invalid conclusions drawn from mislabeled data. I say "Trust the data, not the linkbait authors."


            Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

            All together we had over a few hundred million pages up to pull data from

            As an engineer you never believe the facts till you test them again and again till they repeat

            We did this with custom software we built

            So when I made the statement of not trusting Googles Search Volume I did so not lightly

            What I found interesting about this discussion is your statement

            The search volume data is accurate, you can trust Google on this as I have independently verified it thousands of times.
            How could you verify data that is gathered across multitudes of server farms and protected by Google which in return you have to trust Google as accurate

            That has always been the Dark Horse in this equation being able to verify Google's Data, everyone else has had to make correlation studies along with cause and effect results

            Kudos to you if you succeeded your the first who has admitted they have actually confirmed Google's Search Volumes are accurate
            Hardly the first, and it isn't hard to verify data on servers that you own and/or control.

            So... while I cannot verify data that did not pass through servers that I control, I can and do verify data from servers that I do control. Google's search volume has always been in line with the data that I control so yes, I have indeed verified this data as I am sure many thousands of other advertisers and marketing analysts have done.

            More importantly, the CTR data provided by dubious authors have already been repeatedly debunked, even by the data within the very studies cited by those same authors. So lets place the fault with where it actually lies.

            Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

            At one time you could trust Google, but since 2007 and Vincent's Change in place with their position to serve brands first

            My trust of their data is suspect considering all the data and tests our group has conducted
            Again, you can only arrive at that position by ignoring the true data (or mislabeling and misapplying it).

            Let's let the data speak for itself. If you want to refer to some credible study and argue a conclusion that is based on mislabeling and distorting data, that is your prerogative. I will be happy to point to the specific errors in the conclusions. However, I do not see how you or anyone reading this thread could ever benefit from blindly following a linkbait author's fake controversy. Do you somehow profit by discrediting Keyword Planner data?


            Originally Posted by sparrow View Post

            The OP made no reference to where he might be getting his CTR data from, nor even that he was intended to use search volume in combination with CTR data.
            This is a SEO thread and it is directed to SEO questions otherwise he would of asked somewhere else for his particular needs

            Also his title states it

            can i trust by google keyword planner for seo campaign?
            It's only natural it's about SEO
            I have no argument with you on this assertion, I am 100% in agreement. All of my replies have been specifically in context with SEO and the OP's original question.

            I think where we seem to disagree is on the ideal of accepting fake CTR data from linkbait authors that are literally paid to distort concepts into fake controversies.

            Please take a closer look at the actual data from those studies, apply the proper labels and let me know if you draw the same conclusions. You may find that we are actually on the same page if we are looking at the same data without the mislabeling of CTR.

            Please apply some of that same skepticism that you have toward Google 's data onto the source of the controversy, which i believe are those false assertions made by linkbait authors that are literally rewarded for creating fake controversies. The deception is quite obvious once you start checking their dubious claims.

            My only goal here is to debunk this long standing myth, every time it gets promulgated on this forum. Yes, it is tedious, but shining a light on the truth has it's own rewards. I hope you can see it.

            HTH,

            Don Burk
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11064944].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sparrow
              My only goal here is to debunk this long standing myth, every time it gets promulgated on this forum. Yes, it is tedious, but shining a light on the truth has it's own rewards. I hope you can see it.

              The very studies you point to provide evidence that the exaggerated CTRs are wildly inaccurate. Just look at the data rather then the invalid conclusions drawn from mislabeled data. I say "Trust the data, not the linkbait authors."

              These articles incorrectly equate "percentage of clicks", or "percentage of traffic" with CTR (Click Through Rate). That seems to be intentional since the article would be a snoozer otherwise.

              It isn't the studies that are at question, it is the false conclusions derived from mislabeling the data in those studies, usually done on purpose by linkbait authors that are hoping to stir up a controversy.

              Again, who are you going to trust, your own data, or the mislabeled and now debunked fake CTR claims?
              AGREED!!

              regardless of how we said it

              you trust your own data

              I trust my own data

              it doesn't match the clickbait

              but in general the mislead don't understand this as you and I do

              they still believe the clickbait

              Ed
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11064968].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author abhishek singh
    Google is the most used Search Engine. As we all know, Google always keeps itself up to date. So, Yes you can trust google keyword planner for your SEO campaign or if you have still had doubt about google keyword planner then there are a lot of other keyword planners you can use for your SEO campaign.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11064525].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    I agree with Don in this thread. The data is pretty accurate.

    All you have to do is run PPC campaigns on a few hundred thousand keywords over the past decade and you can see that.

    You have to remember the data they are showing is the average monthly search volume for the past 12 months. It doesn't mean you will see that amount of searches every single month. Some months might be drastically above or below that number.

    Things change in the market place. Sometimes it might drop off completely, but because it is a rolling average of the past 12 months, it will take months for you to accurately see that reflected in the search volume the Keyword Planner reports unless you look at the trends for every specific keyword.

    Stuff like this can happen to individual keywords...



    The opposite trend can also happen.

    And I don't know how anyone can say it is accurate for PPC but not for SEO. That makes zero sense. The search volume is the search volume. Period.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11064772].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author adwordsamurai
    I wouldn't! Not exclusively anyway. For what it's worth I do a great deal of research in via customer visits, customer surveys and "wordstream" can be helpful.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11064952].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AlexFurfaroSEO
    All tools have their flaws. Check out a number of them, see the numbers theu spit out, work on a project and compare. That's the only real way to get a good gauge on which ones work and which ones are off.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11065014].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author davidricherd
    Yes you can trust because Google Keyword Planner is best SEO tools for keyword research & analysis for your website.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11069839].message }}

Trending Topics