Has the keyword planner search volume metric gone crazy?
-
I use the search volume found in keyword planner to score and weight my keywords in a similar way as Rand showed us in this WBF.
This week I've found that in many cases suddenly the singular and plural version of the keyword have the same search volume. This seems crazy to me as singular and plural is not the same, the intent is different but more importantly they behave very differently from each other when looking at their track record in Adwords (impressions, clicks, conversions, CTR, CVR etc...all different).
For example, here's a screenshot of 4 keywords (singular and plural versions of 2 phrases) with search volume captured a couple of months ago.
Now here's another screenshot of the same keywords taken from Keyword planner today.
Any ideas why this would be happening? Does it makes sense to you? It just seems buggy to me.
Thanks!
-
Well, it's annoying.
We actually got some feedback from our Adwords support saying "the Engineering team is looking to improve/change this behavior as feedback indicates it is confusing for customers. But for the moment, no details yet on what/how it will change."
So let's see, I suppose the more complaints they get from the PPC community the more likely they are to roll things back.
-
Another thing on the subject I noticed is:
For some phrases it will report the aggregate search volume, thus equal s.v. for the singular and plural. e.g. tel aviv hostels and tel aviv hostel show each a s.v. of 1300.
But "Jerusalem hostel" (s.v. reported - 880) and "Jerusalem hostels" (170) don't!!!
So W.T.F. Google trying to do here? Make us realize that they really really don't want us to use k.w.p. data? First take away the broad s.v. data leaving only the lesser valuable data of the exact, then having the bucket aggregation .... What's next? Don't they want us to show the true potential in Google searches to digital marketing clients??? Kind of hard when you have to either give false inflated numbers and say that there is no true accurate number these are all estimates that might even be very far from the real numbers.
-
Hi,
It is the same with Hebrew search phrases same s.v. for singular and plural.
The odd thing is that the search results for each are different. So I don't understand the logic here on Googles side, if you look at them as the same meaning, why are the search results different? they should aslo be exactly the same!
-
Couldn't agree more!
-
Thanks E_F. I've not heard anything back from Adwords support in Europe yet.
Wouldn't it be great if Google would also explain why they changed the methodology as the tool is no longer fit for the purpose it was originally designed for?:-)
-
Finally got a reply from the Adwords support team:
“there was a recent change in how average monthly searches are calculated in Keyword Planner and it is now expected that search terms that are close variants to each other will show the same aggregated search volumes” -
Yes I saw those articles and they're reporting similar findings as this post. Although nothing official yet from Google so I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for this to be a bug...Will be on the lookout for an official update note...
-
Breaking news on SEW is that Google made a change to the tool last week to combine search variants.Articles belowInstead of showing individual keyword estimates per KW or KW phrase, it now lumps in the data together which means that it will show identical estimates for both both. It's no longer possible to see individual estimates to check highest/lowest volumes anymore. All the data has been changed retrospectively alsohttp://www.thesempost.com/googles-keyword-planner-now-combines-keywords-for-search-volume/https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/06/29/googles-keyword-planner-tool-just-became-even-more-inaccurate/Adwords Keyword Planner now seems to combine many search variants, including:
- plurals with non-plurals for any word in the keyword phrase
- acronyms with longhand version e.g. SEO + search engine optimiZation + search engine optimiSation
- stemming variants: -er, -ing, -ized, -ed etc keywords (ie. designer, designing, designed)
- words that can be spelled with or without space (ie. car park and carpark)
- words with and without punctuation (ie. kid toys and kid’s toys)
-
If I had to guess, it seems to be an issue with "close keyword variations" which Google use for matching keywords to search terms in Adwords and the planner tool now somehow sums up the total search volume for all these variations. Which makes it looks like search volume has doubled or tripled or more depending on how many variations you're looking at.
Our PPC team is pushing for answers from our GG account manager but so far they say they are not aware of any changes to the tool and "believe the information to be accurate".
Will update here if we learn anything new.
-
Hi there
I'm seeing crazy inflated keyword volumes from Adwords KW Planner too. I keep a record of the extracts for these 300 KWs so have files going back to Sept-15
Not the same issue as with plural/singular highlighted by the other but...
-
an inflated "Avg. Monthly Searches (exact match only)" number in June versus all other previous months by 6x in some cases e.g. avg monthly searches for a particular KW was 2,400 up to April and now it's gone to 14,800.
-
And also, Google have also retrospectively updated each of the 12 previous months average search query volumes by keyword.
Here's an example attached. Hope you can read it
Out of the ~300 KWs I track, 40 keywords have 2x'd and higher their average monthly keyword volume. 81 KWs have increased average monthly search volumes by 50%
To me it looks like either it's either a bug (or new method) in how Google count average monthly searches or they haven't updated their KW volumes in this tool in the last 12 months.
-
-
Definitely some odd ones - I think Google may be conflating certain keywords, and removal of the ability to see exact match vs. phrase/broad match is definitley an issue, too. In any case, we're sorta stuck with their data. Moz is collecting some additional search volume information via clickstream sources and including that in our buckets for KW Explorer, but that only applies to the US (and won't give precise numbers since we can only get sampled data).
-
correction..."masters in accounting" vs "masters of accounting". It's Monday and the Warriors lost.
-
We're seeing this as well. It doesn't seem as simple as plural vs singular.
"MBA" & "Master of Business Administration" now have the same search volume. "MBA" had 110,000 before and "Master of Business Administration" had 2,400. These variations also have 110K searches/mo now: "Masters Business Administration", "Masters of Business Administration", "Master in Business Administration". Seems like they are bucketing those as the same keyword but then "masters in accounting" is different than "masters in accounting".
-
Yes you're right, the example I provided is not as crazy as what I've seen in our other markets (countries) and I'm fine with Google using buckets as long as I can understand the relative search demand of a keyword compared to another. I don't think we should take the search volumes given by Google as gospel but it's been helpful in the past as a comparison tool.
So what about this - here is a list of plural and singular versions of keywords in Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. Something has definitely changed and in many cases relatively small keywords suddenly look huge.
If you run the keyword variations in Google Trends you'll see that they don't have the same search demand. I also had a look in Adwords for the plural and singular version of one of our biggest keywords, this is what their impressions look like over time and now they have the same search volume in keyword planner.
I haven't seen this in all countries but it seems to be happening in the US as well (if you have old search volume data lying around, have a look and see if you get the same increase for the less popular version).
If Google has decided that plurals and singulars are the same and that search marketers should treat them as such, I can learn to live with that as long as I see consistency in this approach (which I don't, France for example still shows different search demand for singulars and plurals). Google should also show the same SERP results for these keywords, which they don't and I believe this is because the intent is (slightly) different between plural and singular search.
I think this is a bug, perhaps I have overlooked this but I can't recall seeing the option "Only show ideas closely related to my search terms" before in keyword planner and if this is a new feature it might be what's breaking the tool. Just guessing here of course but the reality is that turning this setting on/off changes absolutely nothing for me.
So what do you think? Is this an issue for anyone else?
Thanks for your insights and suggestions.
-
The numbers you received in your second screenshot are the same ones I'm getting, and they're pretty similar to what I see in Moz's Keyword Explorer (which bolsters AdWords data with clickstream serach data). I don't know that AdWords is going crazy though - the first screenshot you showed had keywords in the 4-600 range that now show ~1,000 searches? That's not a massive swing, and we know Google uses buckets, even though they show numbers (as Russ Jones pointed out here: https://moz.com/blog/google-keyword-planner-dirty-secrets).
It wouldn't surprise me if these keywords are just on the edge of the buckets Google's defined, and thus swing between one volume number and another.
-
Are you referring to the setting in the keyword planner called "keyword option" and the choice "Only show ideas closely related to my search terms"? Is this a new option in the tool?
Anyway, I get the same result regardless if this is on or off.
It definitely would make sense if there was a setting where I could choose to look at exact match only but I can't seem to locate it. (EDIT: and Google has not changed the definition of search volume in the tool: "The average number of times people have searched for this exact keyword based on the date range and targeting settings that you've selected.")
-
I think the biggest difference is in the match type of the keywords. In the end they're used broad in this case which would make sense that the singular and plural could be the same. Usually when you would have an exact match you're going to see a difference in volume.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Proper use of location in keywords
¿If I want to track keywords in a specific location, do I need to write the keyword with the location or only the keyword? For example: If I want to track the results of the keyword "hair salon" in a specific city, should I write "Hair salon in (city chosen) or only hair salon.
Keyword Research | | reginadelafuente0 -
National keyword results v local keyword results
If the keyword contains the location term like "SEO company London" is it better to use the wider results over local? Additionally, some best practice examples of national v local result tracking would be great 🙂 Darren
Keyword Research | | SEODarren0 -
To switch high-ranking keyword for one with higher volume?
I have a client who already ranks very well for the keyword "odor removal service" (#3 average rank). I'd like to use this as my primary keyword phrase, but the search volume is not very high (avg. monthly search of 90). A similar keyword phrase like "odor eliminator" has a search vol. of 4400 and the same competitiveness. Even its long-tail derivatives like "natural odor eliminator" still have a much higher volume (360) and would be a more accurate description of the service. In cases like this where you are already ranking well for a relevant keyword (but are still not generating much traffic), is it worth losing that keyword ranking in the hopes of ranking better for a keyword with higher volumes. Just to be clear, I'm not referring to a secondary keyword, but to the main keyword phrase around which we'll be building primary and secondary related keywords. Thanks for any feedback.
Keyword Research | | Mike_E0 -
Identifying Keywords - Longtail
I need some clarification as to how exactly keywords work. I learned that I should focus on more specifically targeted long-tail keywords. However I am uncertain of how this actually works. Say I decide to use the longtail keyword "online dyslexia test for children". Will my page only be found by people when they enter that exact search term or will it also be found when people search for any of the other terms containing the same words? For example like all the phrases below: free online dyslexia test
Keyword Research | | EJDekkers
online dyslexia test
online dyslexia test children
dyslexia test online
dyslexia test
dyslexia testing
dyslexia test for children
dyslexia tests for children
free dyslexia test for children
test for dyslexia in children
dyslexia online test
testing for dyslexia in children
free online dyslexia test for children
free dyslexia test
online test for dyslexia in children
online dyslexia test free
dyslexia tests online
online dyslexia testing
test for dyslexia for children
how to test for dyslexia in children online
online testing for dyslexia
dyslexia online test for children
child dyslexia test
dyslexia test online free
free dyslexia test online
how do you test for dyslexia in children Also if I have a page that I optimize for "online dyslexia test free" can I create another page for "free dyslexia test online" or will this be creating competition? In other words are these both unique keywords that will independently rank. Last question about keywords is are they still important and what is the search volume you should be targeting with your keywords. (Allot of my long tail keywords only have around 20 monthly US searches) Thanks! Joy0 -
E-Commerce keyword question
We sell ItemA. One of the phrases that brings people to our site is "ItemA for sale". Should I just try to target "ItemA" or should I try to get "for sale" in there? I have seen a few other variations such as "on clearance" or "to purchase" as well. Can I just focus on "ItemA" or do I need all of those variants as well?
Keyword Research | | EcommerceSite0 -
Location-based Keyword Targeting
We are located in Denver, Colorado. I want the majority of the site to be focused on Denver keyword terms but I also think we should branch out to other cities around Denver, as well as around the keyword "Colorado." What's an appropriate way to do this? I've seen site that have a page for every city in the area but it looks terrible and doesn't really fit into the site. How do I cross link to these new city pages (I don't want them in the main navigation)?
Keyword Research | | kylesuss0 -
Evaluating Competition of a Keyword
I'm curious about how others evaluate the competition of keywords when putting together an SEO program: Do you place any faith in the competition listing in the Google Keyword Tool? Do you find value in SEOmoz's Keyword Difficulty tool? What other tactics or processes do you perform?
Keyword Research | | EricVallee340