Search volume discrepancies between keyword tools
-
I'm feeling like I'm basing all my research time on tools that I cannot necessarily trust.
Between Google keyword planner, Keywords everywhere chrome extension, and Moz keyword explorer, I'm getting wildly different results on 2 simple keywords related to colleges with baking & pastry arts degrees.
"baking college", "baking colleges"
So Keyword planner won't give me any search volume for those 2 words, I don't even see them in the results. Instead, it decides I really meant "baker college" which has 33,100 global searches. I tried telling it use only closely related terms, but it keeps giving me "baker college" and refuses to show me the terms I asked for. Stubbornly useless.
Keywords everywhere says both of these keywords bring in 33,100 searches. It does not tell me those searches were for "baker college." Totally misleading.
Moz keyword explorer says baking college as 0-10 volume, baking colleges has 101-200 volume. So at least it's not trying to give me "baker college" numbers. Perhaps I can trust this, but it's not convenient to upload hundreds of various keywords at a time to pull the volume numbers like I do with the other tools.
With Keyword planner making assumptions and grouping unrelated terms together, and Keywords everywhere using those numbers without pointing out the assumptions, I feel like I can't trust anything without taking time to dig into the discrepancies, which is impossible with hundreds of keywords.
Do you know of any good search volume tools that don't force or hide assumptions?
Thanks.
-
Hi there,
Thanks for the question! I can certainly speak to Keyword Explorer's numbers and how we arrived there. We use a number of sources for our volume data, including Keyword Planner, but oftentimes you will see large discrepancies because our data goes through a disambiguation process. As you noticed, Google Keyword Planner currently bundles similar keywords into one overall volume metric. Most people want specific data rather than a grouped number, so we strive to separate out the individual keyword volumes. You can read more about that here: https://moz.com/blog/google-keyword-unplanner-clickstream-data-to-the-rescue
The trouble is that often times you will have one keyword that is responsible for upwards of 95% of the traffic. So, when the data is separated out, it makes the less-trafficked keywords look suspiciously low when in fact their traffic volume is more accurate in our tool.
We have a few additional articles that discuss our volume data compared to Keyword Planner:
https://moz.com/blog/google-keyword-planner-dirty-secretshttps://moz.com/blog/moz-keyword-explorer-vs-google-keyword
I hope that helps clarify things!
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
-
How does Moz gather the Keyword for my campaign in Moz Pro?
Looking at my campaign on Moz Pro and I was wondering where the keywords are generated from as I did not put these in. Can someone please explain?
Moz Bar | | House-Doctors0 -
Negative difficulty and priority scores in keyword report
Hello! We have recently tracked a number of keywords into Moz's Keyword Explorer, but for a number of them the difficulty and priority scores are all -2. We don't rank currently for these so does anybody know what is causing the difficulty to be in negative figures? Thanks!
Moz Bar | | A_Q1 -
Keyword explorer tool - keywords by domain functionality
Hi, We have issues with the new searching for keywords by root domain functionality in keyword explorer. We are based in Australia and need rankings for google.com.au, which is what we have set up within our MOZ campaign ranking reports. The explorer tool rankings are way off and not accurate for our site's actual rankings. Also, many of the top, high volume keywords that we are tracking and for which we rank on first page for are not even appearing when I do an explorer search using our root domain. Is the root domain functionality within keyword explorer providing results based on google.com rather than google.com.au? Does this mean that if we are outside the US that we can't use the tool as it is not accurate? Cheers, Damien
Moz Bar | | Devenish0 -
KW Explorer is Working to Disambiguate Keywords Google Merges Together
Hey gang, Russ Jones from Moz has been doing a ton of heavy lifting work to try to get around the new problem posed by Google AdWords recent change to merged-keyword volume data. But, we're fighting back against this obfuscation in Keyword Explorer. I'm sharing two emails (slightly edited) from Russ about what we're doing here: Introduction to the Problem: Google Adwords Keyword Planner is the primary source for keyword search volume (how often a keyword is searched monthly on Google) for much of the search marketing industry. While Google has grouped together highly-similar terms for a while (especially misspellings), in June of 2016 they dramatically increased this keyword-grouping. This means similar phrases like "keyword rank", "keyword ranking" and "keyword rankings" would all be reported as having the same, combined search volume, rather than their individual search volumes. If you were to take Google's numbers at face value, you might think there are 3,000 searches per month for these 3 terms, when in reality there is only 1,000, divided amongst the 3 terms. How we are addressing it: Moz's Keyword Explorer uses a blend of data sources, not just Keyword Planner, to build our volume metrics. This gives us a distinct advantage in that we can adjust the volume of words that deviate dramatically in one data set verses another. Take for example the phrases "keyword rank", "keyword ranking", and "keyword rankings". While Google Keyword Planner might report all of these as having 1,000 searches per month, Moz Keyword Explorer can detect that these numbers are significantly higher than what our models would predict given our other data sets. We can then adjust the volume accordingly. Moreover, given our huge keyword data set, we can also identify grouped phrases (like these 3) and divide the volume proportionally to what we see in our other data sets. Thus, we address the grouping problem from multiple directions. Here's email #2 from Russ, detailing more of how we're attacking this: I have been working pretty much non-stop on this keyword volume disambiguation problem (finding the real search volume of individual keywords when Google clumps several together). I think I have settled on a pretty good solution and am working on getting it all in. For example... Google Keyword Volume for the phrases "briefcase for women" and "briefcases for women" are both at 3600 because they have been lumped together. My disambiguation script says the singular (briefcase for women) should be 2731 and the plural should be 869. Google Trends roughly agrees with this, showing that the singular is searched more than 2x the plural: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=briefcase%20for%20women%2C%20briefcases%20for%20women&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4 Basically, Keyword Explorer should already be providing some more accurate/segmented numbers than AdWords, and in the future, we'll get even better thanks to our clickstream data and our evolving models. Any questions, let us know!
Moz Bar | | randfish15 -
National or local tracking of keywords
I manage an account with +20 locations and have used the default National tracking on keywords, but realized that we might see higher rankings if I choose local tracking. If any of you have any experience in this, please tell the world!
Moz Bar | | peterpumkineater0 -
New Spam Analysis Tool Results Questions
First off, I am incredibly excited about this tool. Secondly, I have a slew of questions, but the ones that are lingering for me are as follows. There are a few URLS that we used to control which are showing up in our list as spammy. The websites no longer exist as of roughly a week ago and I presume they still show up simply because of the last indexing. That being said, if a website doesn't exist anymore, yet the link is showing up in our GWMT or MOZ, is it still necessary to disavow? Is that overkill? http://alcoholdrugrehablosangeles.com/ is an example of a website we used to control and I have removed. My second lingering question is if there are a handful of links that are registering as spammy, and I presume it is due to lack of content/duplicate content, and I move that content to its appropriate place on another website and 301 that domain to its new home, will the "spam score" carry over?
Moz Bar | | HashtagHustler0 -
Moz Rank Tracker - showing deleted subdomains results for entered keywords
We have recently deleted subdomains because they were causing duplicate page errors but now the Moz rank tracker is showing the subdomain key word results even instead of the exact url we entered. So for example wine cellar is showing up for a deleted subdomain (winecellar.vigilantinc.com) instead of the entered exact url of (vigilantinc.com/winecellars/) Please advise. Thanks!
Moz Bar | | KristyFord0 -
Where is the Crawl Tool we had before Research?
Hello, I can't seem to find the crawl tool for other domains that aren't in our campaigns. We've lost it 😞 Thanks, Romeo.
Moz Bar | | RomeoMadrid1