9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Google Search Console isn't always that accurate - Moz

by timokeefe
4 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Moz has looked into the accuracy of several Google Search Console metrics and found:
  • Impressions are inaccurate
  • Clicks are proportionally correct, but not necessarily correct in raw count
  • Internal links seem to accurately represent what Google knows, but are not necessarily that up-to-date with the site
  • Their home page's internal link count was completely wrong
  • Search console did not handle their 301 redirects very well

Moz's article can be found here.

I'm personally not sure that these findings are too important, as I think most people use Google Analytics as their main source of truth. That said, it's still interesting to see Google's software put to the test.
#accurate #console #google #moz #search
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    The only thing I don't like about that article is they threw Moz tools into a lot of the comparisons.

    So did they really pick examples which were random or did they hand pick ones that showed their tools in a good light? We don't know.

    That, and they did not share any of the actual sites used, so there really is no way to verify any of their findings. They might be telling the truth. They also might be blowing a bunch of smoke up our arse to try to get a few more sales.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10999937].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author timokeefe
    Yeah they do that quite a bit. It does make me question the validity of what they're doing, especially when the conclusion of the study points towards using Moz. That said, they do mention their competitors in parts of it as well, so I do still give some credence to what they're saying.

    Rand does actually have a Warrior account, so it's not completely impossible that he'd respond to a PM asking what sites were used .
    Signature

    I'm part of the Warrior Forum team, hit me up with any suggestions that could help improve the forum!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11000037].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by timokeefe View Post

      Yeah they do that quite a bit. It does make me question the validity of what they're doing, especially when the conclusion of the study points towards using Moz. That said, they do mention their competitors in parts of it as well, so I do still give some credence to what they're saying.

      Rand does actually have a Warrior account, so it's not completely impossible that he'd respond to a PM asking what sites were used .

      The mention of their competitors is actually what made me question the whole thing. They mention Majestic and Ahrefs in the context of "percent of live links", not total live links.

      Anyone that has used all 3 will tell you, Moz trails far behind in the number of links it finds. The only way they could make Moz look at all competitive with the other two was to use some number that no SEO cares about: percentage of live links.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11000398].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author timokeefe
    I have to admit I didn't read that part too closely, but yeah that makes sense.
    Signature

    I'm part of the Warrior Forum team, hit me up with any suggestions that could help improve the forum!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11000911].message }}

Trending Topics