A client asked: "Are you guys aware of any recent changes to Google noquery traffic? I am seeing some chatter around this." Is he referring to "not provided" traffic?
-
I'm not sure what my client means by this question. I assume he's talking about "not provided" traffic. Is there something I'm missing?
Thanks for reading!
-
excellent link. Thanks for sharing.
-
I just logged in and actually did have it set up already haha I guess it's time to learn a little more about it. Certainly not as robust as GA and I'm assuming this is only Bing data?
Our pages that drive traffic all usually rank well on Google but Bing doesn't look like it has nearly the same numbers, even relative to each other.
-
Don't feel dumb, I only recently started using it myself. Yes it's called their "webmaster tools" and is pretty decent. I'd recommend checking it out.
-
I feel dumb for asking this, but Bing has a Google Analytics alternative?
-
So what I get from that is that tools using adwords data are fine for keyword research, but that actual visitor analytics is not going to reveal much anymore.
-
Bing?
-
I'm very concerned about losing all of that insight, not only for reporting but for making decisions based on the traffic were getting from which keywords. Does anyone have any alternatives or suggestions?
Here's a good article going over the change - http://searchengineland.com/post-prism-google-secure-searches-172487
-
Interesting link. Thanks
-
Yes I would say they're referring to (not provided) which is currently SKYROCKETING at unprecedented levels. I would wonder why they are asking this question and what exactly they are expecting you to do with GA keyword entry data. I would personally try to get to the root of this question.
They may just be testing your knowledge of SEO or they may be wondering how you are going to research keywords and prove that your targeted phrases are gaining visitors. This should be something you can address if so.
But look at this:
-
I am not sure your client fully understands what is meant by this, and indeed I am not sure I fully understand. However, as I see it, there is an increasing trend for your Google Analytics to report no information when it reports to you, making it harder to get decent view of where your traffic is coming from.
To quote an article: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2290098/3-Ways-Ecommerce-Websites-Can-Grow-or-Maintain-Organic-Search-Traffic
"Those with their sleeves pushed up working day-to-day on SEO know the reasons why this is happening – searchers who are logged into Google accounts, Firefox users, and most mobile searchers pass "no query" when they click on organic-search links – causing analytics systems to report it without a query."
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
-
One keyword gone in Google SERPs - Fred?
I have an ecommerce site. One keyword, which I use to rank #1 for on Google years ago, I'm now completely gone from the SERP's as of a couple weeks ago. I'm scratching my head here, my other keywords don't seem to have changed much recently. Around mid-March of this year, which seems to line up with the Fred update, I noticed I went from page 3 to middle of page 1 for a few days with this keyword. It was a very happy few days. Then it slipped down and down and hovered around page 6. But as of a couple weeks ago, it's now gone. Before the Fred update, I changed a bunch of product pages within the keyword category that had duplicate content because they were kits of items arranged different ways. So instead of repeating the individual item descriptions over and over in the different kits, I changed the descriptions on the kits to links to the individual items within the kits. After the Fred update, at the end of March, I set all these kit item pages that I reduced to very thin content with just links to noindex. My theory is that the Fred update reset algorithmic penalties for a couple days as it was being introduced. So the penalty of duplicate content that I may have had was lifted since I took out the duplicate content, and I made it back to page one. Then as Fred saw I now had a new penalty of thin content, I got hit and slid back down the rankings. Now that I updated the pages that had very thin content to be noindex, do you think I'll see a return of the keyword to a higher position? Or any other theories or suggestions? I remember seeing keywords disappear and come back stronger years ago, but haven't seen anything like this in a long time.
Algorithm Updates | | head_dunce0 -
Where has Google found the £1.00 value for the penny black? Is it Google moving beyond the mark-ups too?
Hi guys, I am curious, so am wondering something about the Penny Black SERPs.
Algorithm Updates | | madcow78
Apparently Google shows a value of £1.00 Penny Black SERP From where does it come from? It's not the value Penny Black Value SERP The Wikipedia page hasn't any mark-up about it, actually it has the Price value mark-up of 1 penny Penny Black Wiki Markup Among the rare stamps, also the Inverted Jenny shows a value Inverted Jenny SERP But it's clearly taken from USPS and it's the cost of a new version of this rare stamp USPS Inverted Jenny Indeed, the mark-up matches that value USPS Inverted Jenny Mark-up I've been looking on-line for a new version of the Penny Black, but couldn't find anything.
The only small piece of information that I've found to correlate one pound with the Penny Black is on the Wikipedia page, but the point is: is Google able to strip those information from that piece? It's not a mark-up, it's not a number and mostly it's not a simple sentence like "The penny black cost was of £1.00" It reads "One full sheet cost 240 pennies or one pound sterling". Penny Black Wikipedia particular Is it Google moving beyond the mark-ups too? Thanks, Pierpaolo 9Cm3MOs.jpg f7XYNtF.jpg 5PpwapB.jpg hYUJswI.jpg 7kbIC4Q.jpg jnu1Gbe.jpg Wzltg0t.jpg2 -
Google traffic drops (October 24th 2014) - Penguin 3.0?
Hi All My client's site http://www.carismaautodesign.com took a bit of a knock around 24th October 2014. Google organic traffic down by ~32%. I am trying to understand if site has been hit by a Penguin refresh (3.0) - and if so why?
Algorithm Updates | | seowoody
If it was, it would appear to be a false negative as the site and backlink profile is clean. The content is perhaps the only area in question... as it's more of a brochure site, therefore content is relatively thin and promotional rather than in-depth/editorial. For example, the gallery pages are very similar in structure, with the images and specification text being the only variation, click on any of the vehicle interiors to see what I mean - http://www.carismaautodesign.com/gallery/mercedes/viano/ You will see the specification text is unique per vehicle interior, but not hugely; Then how could it be? The interiors all contain the same elements just a variation in seating, leather colour, stiching, wood finish etc. Question: Do you think... a.) This IS NOT a Penguin issue but something else (please ellaborate)
b.) This IS a Penguin issue but a false-negative, so do nothing, this will bounce back with next Penguin refresh
c.) This IS a Penguin issue related to content. Merge all gallery pages into one page per vehicle (i.e. one Mercedes Viano Interior page, with all 19 interior galleries as part of the page - thus building one stronger page with more intro text and simple bulleted specification per gallery)
d.) This IS a Penguin issue related to something else (please ellaborate) Thanks,0 -
Does having a few URLs pointing to another url via 301 "create" duplicate content?
Hello! I have a few URLs all related to the same business sector. Can I point them all at my home domain or should I point them to different relevant content within it? Ioan
Algorithm Updates | | IoanSaid1 -
Is there a direct correlation between google places and organic listing ?
Basically, I have examined several examples that the sites which are included in Google places are not listed in organic results in page 1. For example, If my site is listed in google places. is it going to affect my ranking for the same keyword?.
Algorithm Updates | | Abith0 -
Google+ Local Optimization
What are the recommended ways to optimize the Google+ places page for clients. Do services like louder voice and customer lobby help? I'd love to get the group's opinion on what strategies are working for them on local optimization.
Algorithm Updates | | SEO5Team0 -
"We've processed your reconsideration request for www...." - Could this be good news?
Hey, We recently had a Google Penguin related links warning and I've been going through Google WMT and removing the most offensive links. We have requested resubmission a couple of times and have had the standard response of: "
Algorithm Updates | | ChrisHolgate
Site violates Google's quality guidelines We received a request from a site owner to reconsider your site for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. We've reviewed your site and we still see links to your site that violate our quality guidelines. Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes. We encourage you to make changes to comply with our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results. If you find unnatural links to your site that you are unable to control or remove, please provide the details in your reconsideration request. If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support.
" On the 5th September after spending another couple more days removing the most prolific offenders we resubmitted the site again and again got the automated response saying they had received our request. A week later on the 13th September we got a slightly different response of : "
We've processed your reconsideration request We received a request from a site owner to reconsider how we index your site. We've now reviewed your site. When we review a site, we check to see if it's in violation of our Webmaster Guidelines. If we don't find any problems, we'll reconsider our indexing of your site. If your site still doesn't appear in our search results, check our Help Center for steps you can take. " I left it another couple of weeks to see if we'd get a slightly more in depth response however so far there has been nothing. I'll be honest in not being entirely sure what this means. The e-mails says simultaneously 'We've now reviewed your site' (as in past tense) but then continues with "If we don't find any problems" which suggests a future tense. I’m unsure from reading the e-mail whether they have indeed reviewed it (and just not told us the outcome) or whether it’s just a delayed e-mail saying that they have received the reconsideration request. Of course, if I received this e-mail off anyone other than Google I would have thought I was still in the dog house but the fact that it differs from the standard ‘Site violates Google’s quality guidelines’ message leads me to believe that something has changed and they may be happy with the site or at least happier than they were previously. Has anybody else received the latter message and has anybody managed to determine exactly what it means? Cheers guys!0 -
Google Cached Pages
I made some on-site changes to a site last week, in particular their page titles. This was all done on the same day at the same time. Now, one of those pages, got re-indexed on August 8th and has my updated changes, which also helped with my ranking. The other page I made changes to still shows a cached version from July 27th, which is before I made the changes. Why wouldn't google have an updated page from August 8th for both pages, not just one?
Algorithm Updates | | MichaelWeisbaum0