Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Wordtracker Vs Keyword Discovery
Posted 28 March 2006 - 08:25 AM
Posted 01 April 2006 - 01:59 AM
At first I thought I should use only use keywords that show up in Wordtracker and Keyword Discovery, but now I think Keyword Discovery is the way to go and I'm not even checking Wordtracker any more. Here's what I figure...
Keyword Discovery's database is so much broader than Wordtracker's and I think there really is something to this idea that Dogpile is usually only used by web savvy folks. Most of the world doesn't even know about Dogpile. They know AOL and MSN. The best keywords are going to be different and the same keywords are going to have different numbers because different types of people are searching on different SEs. Please correct me if I don't know what the heck I'm talking about cause I'm relatively new at this.
Also, KD's information spans the course of a year which seems incredibly important to me. KD gives me data with a history so I can make an intelligent decision based on something that might not happen right away but promises good things down the road. Wordtracker makes me think here and now and that's it.
So just because Wordtracker doesn't show any hope for a particular phrase I have in mind doesn't mean people aren't searching for it. It just means Dogpile type people aren't searching for it in the last 90 days. I can go to KD with that same phrase and get a more accurate picture of what is happening in the big world over the last 12 months.
So should I really be concerned if KD has a huge demand for a keyword that Wordtracker has only little demand for? Seems to me they just can't be compared because they come from such different sources. Again, I'm new so PLEASE tell me if I'm off.
If my site is on the Super Bowl (popular culture + seasonal material) then KD would suit me best. If it was on search engine optimization (web savvy people and non seasonal material) then Wordtracker would probably be a more accurate tool for me.
I've learned not to look at the KEI or the "occurences" since I can't seem to figure out how in the world Google API comes up with that number in the first place. Don't answer, I don't want to know... Okay, I do want to know but you all have done a wonderful job communicating (in another thread) that it's not about how many pages that a keyword has but about how many pages are optimized for that keyword.
A question for you all, though.
I've got some strange KD keywords that show great numbers but give me a headache trying to figure out why any real person would really be searching for such a thing. These keywords also spike in popularity within one month and don't exist for the rest of the year. I don't know anything about the bot checking stuff but I wonder if that's what is going on. Anyone know of a good thread that might help me spot for bad keyword apples?
Now it's 1:54 am and even though you all are really, really great, I'm afraid I must leave you. Good night.
Posted 01 April 2006 - 05:56 AM
That question took 54 minutes to ask...
Posted 01 April 2006 - 07:07 AM
I still use both to compare the results, then go with what is okay according to both. Yesterday I came across a term that didn't agree with both of them and went with wordtracker.
KEI can give you a rough idea if the search term is good. (A very ROUGH idea!) Take into account the search term 'vitamin supplements'. It has an excellent kei rating, but after doing an analysis with intitle, inanchor, etc. it was not worth a penny to me.
I finally developed a formula where I plug in the information into an excel worksheet and it spits out a score to me that is accurate. And thankfully I added a relevance factor that can change the formula as the value of certain things change over time like title tags, url, header, etc.
Posted 01 April 2006 - 07:48 AM
You may be seeing what others have recently noticed and commented on in this thread
I don't have an answer for you. But you can rest assured that someone from Keyword Discovery will be stopping by before too long to give us the low down.
Other than that, I think you've got it just about right. The sample size does have a large impact and the sources being used to gather data also has a large bearing. It sounds to me like you've got your eye on the right pie, so no need to change the way you're doing things.
Posted 01 April 2006 - 09:01 AM
Okay, Okay, I don't know what I actually did to make that an hour long post and that is sad. Think of all the web pages I could have been spitting out????
Thanks for the welcome.
Posted 03 April 2006 - 11:05 AM
Have you checked the "Measuring keyword competition" thread pinned at the top of the [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showforum=30]keyword research forum[/url]? You may find that one helpful.
Posted 03 April 2006 - 12:57 PM
QUOTE(Randy @ Apr 1 2006, 01:05 PM)
And hour long posts!
Posted 04 April 2006 - 09:31 AM
"A man with one watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never quite sure." ~Lee Segall
Neither KD nor WT claim to provide 100% data, and each use a different mechanism for collecting the information and then presenting it. As a result, it is often an "apples to oranges" comparison. Personally, I like KD. A lot.
- cleaner, more intuitive interface
- bulk KW import
- historical data trends
- each phrase displayed (no aggregation)
- changing data sources over time biases historical data. (This is also a strength, because to try to correct for this would take me FURTHER from the raw data).
- free sample/cheaper with the daily rate
- small sample space
We tend to use proprietary tools for generating a list of "seed terms", then use these terms in KD to then expand/prune the list based on the popularity numbers. For PPC, this is a good thing, since the bidding might be different for variations of the same phrase. KD seems to fit the way we work better than WT.
Posted 12 June 2007 - 01:17 PM
It is better to use a variety of sites, The main point is to find the best keywords for your topic. If you can get an advantage over your competition by using another site then its worth it.
WT and KD are great but I think you have to pay too much for the informaiton when its free on sites [removed]. I guess you have to be able to justify the expense but with the advertising budgets that I have worked with its not.
Edited by Jill, 14 June 2007 - 11:12 PM.
Posted 12 June 2007 - 01:51 PM
Maybe it's just me, but personally, I'm less concerned with how much a particular tool costs in money up front as I am concerned with the quality of the data it returns.
For instance, Overture's data is skewed to the point of uselessness by automated queries and webmasters checking up on their own search terms. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time with it, particularly not when there are affordable one-week subscriptions to WT available. (Yes, KD is probably better, but if money is really tight, a one-week sub to WT is a good choice, I think.)
I've never heard of the other tool, but I'd want to know a lot more about where they get their data and what they do to clean it up before I'd consider it a reliable source of keyword data. It doesn't matter to me how long they've been around or how many keywords they have in their database. What matters to me is how accurate that database is. Unfortunately, at the moment, I don't see any info on their site that would give me a warm fuzzy feeling about that.
Frankly, one of my most valuable commodities is my time. The time I would waste chasing bogus keywords if my research was based on skewed data is worth far more to me than the relatively minor cost of a week of WT.
No tool can offer 100% accuracy, of course, but IMO, KD and WT come closer than most if not all of their competitors. Both KD and WT offer free trials, and the price of a week or a month of WT is reasonable (and, when you get down to it, so is a month of KD, especially considering the relative cleanliness of the data to which you get access).
A web business owner who believes he/she can't afford even $30 for something as important as keyword research should probably rethink his/her budgetary priorities, IMHO.
Posted 30 October 2007 - 07:02 PM
My issue with KD is that the sites that I am competing with are targetting (as far as I can tell) keywords that KD says have very few people searching for. And yet despite this these sites boast 50,000 unique visitors or more each month. Although I appreciate this isn't conclusive evidence to prove that KD's counts are way off I am still extremely dubious as to its accuracy.
Perhaps I will just have to do what people seem to be suggesting and judge these terms relative to each other rather than as accurate predictors of total searches being carried out. Fingers crossed more people are searching for them than KD predicts.
Posted 30 October 2007 - 10:33 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users