Hi All!

Continuing my series of discussions about the various keyword scores we use here at Moz (previously: Keyword Difficulty & Keyword Opportunity)... Let's move on to Volume.

Volume in Moz's tools is expressed in a range, e.g. Bartending Certification has volume of 201-500. These ranges correspond to data we have suggesting that in an average month, that keyword is searched for a minimum of X to a maximum of Y (where X-Y is the volume range). We use clickstream data as well as data from Google AdWords and then some PPC AdWords campaigns we run and have access to when we build the models for our volume data. As such, we've got very high confidence in these numbers -- 95%+ of the time, a given keyword's monthly search volume on Google will fall inside that range.

If you want to see all the nitty gritty details, check out Russ Jones post on Moz's Keyword Volume and how we calculate it.

As far as a "good" volume score -- higher is usually better, as it means more demand, but lots of keywords with low volume scores can also add up to strong traffic when combined, and they may be more relevant. Capturing exactly the audience you want that also wants you is what SEO is all about.

p.s. When Keyword Explorer or Moz Pro gives you a "no data" or "unknown" volume number, it may just mean we haven't collected information from our clickstream providers or AdWords crawls, not that the keyword has no volume (though it sometimes means that, too, we just don't know yet). One way to verify - see if Google Suggest autofills it in when you type in the search box. If it does, that's usually a sign there's at least some volume (even if it's only a few searches a month).

Hi Folks! You might have seen my discussion on What Is a Good Keyword Difficulty Score, and this is a continuation of the same vein. Keyword Organic CTR is probably my favorite score we developed in Keyword Explorer and Moz Pro. It looks at the SERP features that appear in a set of results (e.g. an image block, AdWords ads, a featured snippet, or knowledge graph) and then calculates, using CTRs we built off our partnership with Jumpshot's clickstream data, what percent of searchers are likely to click on the organic, web results.

For example, in a search query like Nuoc Cham Ingredients, you've got a featured snippet and then a "People Also Ask" feature above the web results, and thus, Keyword Explorer is giving me an Organic CTR Score of 64. This translates directly to an estimated 64% click-through rate to the web results.

Compare that to a search query like Fabric Printed Off Grain, where there's a single SERP feature - just the "People Also Ask" box, and it's between the 6th and 7th result. In this case, Keyword Explorer shows an Organic CTR Score of 94, because we estimate that those PAAs are only taking 6% of the available clicks.

There are two smart ways you should be using Organic CTR Score:

1. As a way to modify the estimated volume and estimated value of ranking in the web results for a given keyword term/phrase (KW Explorer does this for you if you use the "Lists" and sort based on Potential, which factors in all the other scores, including volume, difficulty, and organic CTR)
2. As a way to identify SEO opportunities outside the normal, organic web results in other SERP features (e.g. in the Nuoc Cham Ingredients SERPs, there's serious opportunity to take over that featured snippet and get some great traffic)

OK, so all that said, what's actually a "good" Organic CTR score? Well... If you're doing classic, 10-blue-links style SEO only, 100 is what you want. But, if you're optimizing for SERP features, and you appear in a featured snippet or the image block or top stories or any of those others, you'd probably be very happy to find that CTR was going to those non-web-results sections, and scores in the 40s or 50s would be great (so long as you appear in the right features).

Either can work well - subfolders are a fine solution for many. There's a slight bit more advantage in country-targeting with TLD extensions, but you lose a lot in link equity and ranking ability, so it's a tradeoff you'll have to choose between.

Hi Shop-Sq,

A) I think merging the domains is almost definitely the right move, so long as you do it right (get the redirects nailed, don't have any performance issues, update the links correctly, etc).

B) I don't believe there's any penalty coming for shopping sites that also happen to host forum content or blog content. The only risk is if a lot of the site becomes (or is) cruft, meaning low-engagement/low-value content Google doesn't want in its index or searchers never click on/stay on.

C) We have not seen what your developers describe. Some forums haven't done well, others have done quite well (e.g. Moz's Q+A has benefited a lot over the last few years). I don't believe any hiccups you encounter will be because the types of content are unique, but rather because of technical issues, missteps, or content that doesn't help searchers and doesn't perform in Google (and all three should be avoidable).

D) Yes. We/I still recommend subfolders over subdomains. More strongly than ever actually. We've got some new evidence that Google judges content on a subfolder level, hence subdomains may not inherit all the rankings abilities of subfolders/other subdomains on the same domain.

I'm surprised at how well this still works, but it does:

1. Use an incognito browser window to remove account personalization
2. Use a query string like this: https://google.co.nz/search?q=your+keyword+terms&gl=us

With 2) above, you're removing the geographic bias of any particular region/IP address by searching in Google New Zealand, then re-geo-locating the search to the US. This will give you non-geo-biased results.

If you want to see how specific results look from a particular region, there's two semi decent options:

A) Use Google's Ad Preview Tool: https://adwords.google.com/apt/anon/AdPreview?__u=1000000000&__c=1000000000
B) Use the &near parameter, e.g. https://google.co.nz/search?q=your+keyword+terms&gl=us&near=seattle+wa

Yeah - I'd say the inability to customize the titles and meta descriptions is a dealbreaker by itself. That said, it shouldn't be impacting indexing -- could be that Google's crawled those pages but determined they don't have enough unique content, enough link equity, enough positive user/usage signals, or a combination of these, to keep in the main index.

At this point, though, I would probably consider migrating. Wordpress is still my first choice for the customization abilities, but Hubspot's a good one, too.

Thanks for the heads up Mirabile! Sad to see -- hopefully Squarespace fixes this soon and re-enables fully customizable Title & Meta Descriptions to the other page types.

Our scores for DA are only calculated on the root domain, but that doesn't mean different subdomains inherit all the ranking abilities of the root domain they're on. In fact, quite the opposite is true, which is why we still strongly suggest using a single subdomain on your root domain to host all the content, rather than splitting things up on multiple subdomains.

Hi - it certainly looks like there's a number of issues around basic SEO friendliness and accessibility that need addressing on that site, but I'm surprised that SquareSpace's CMS doesn't allow for/enable that. Can you edit the source code on the pages? Or contact their support to look into it?

BTW - I'd also suggest making the homepage title more friendly. Currently, it looks like SEO spam - just keywords jammed together without spaces and without the name of the business. All the page titles have inherited this problem throughout the site.

I might suggest reading https://moz.com/blog/visual-guide-to-keyword-targeting-onpage-optimization and https://moz.com/blog/on-page-seo-8-principles-whiteboard-friday which contain a lot more detailed information on how to think about keyword targeting and on-page SEO.

Hi Sandi - Moz won't know about all the links to your site. We don't crawl as fast or comprehensively as Google, so Open Site Explorer will always be showing a sample set rather than a complete picture of every link.

Hi Naracci - it's possible that the Mozscape index (which certainly doesn't have perfect coverage, but rather a more representative crawl coverage) hasn't seen all the links to your site. As you get them from more notable domains and pages, though, we should pick them up and you'll see that reflected in your DA/PA scores.

Hi Marina - Moz and Google have different data -- we don't use exactly the same data sources as Google, so you should expect to see some differences in suggested keywords and in volume (Google makes an estimate, while we use a ranged bucket).

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).

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.

Should be all fixed now. Sorry about that - we're launching a new index, and there seems to be some hardware issues. We're trying to reverse engineer the source of the problem. On the plus side, a new index should be out soon.

I have to agree with Russ. I think the old KW Difficulty model was making that keyword look stronger than it is, and the new one, while maybe a bit low, is more accurate. I'd also suggest, as Pete did, that using any keyword in isolation is unwise. Compare scores for similar terms you might target in the same sector, against the same sorts of competitors, and use that relative data -- KW Difficulty, and indeed PA, DA, and keyword volume, are all far more useful as comparative metrics than absolute ones.

Hi dbomestar - thanks for the comment and the passion. Totally get where you're coming from. A few thoughts/responses:

• Yes - we are going to add a new, more comprehensive SERPs analysis view (may be a few months away, but we'll get there). I agree that a quick view of lots of metrics that matter is useful and high value. I'll  also ask our designer to find a way to make that view compact so it can all be seen at the same time. In the meantime, an export to CSV and viewing in Excel can replicate a lot of that.
• US vs. International - I'm glad to say that, in the next few days, we'll have International volume data functioning, and we've already got International SERPs analysis and other metrics active in KW Explorer (using the dropdown next to the keyword entry). That should get to parity (actually, better than parity as the other data points will be better/more accurate) in KW Explorer vs. the old tool.
• For rankings and SERPs Analysis, plus on-page comparisons/reports, I'd also suggest tracking keyword rankings inside Moz Analytics. There's a lot of features in that tool (also part of the Moz Pro subscription) that may serve the functionality you're seeking.

I know it's frustrating to lose the old tool, but I promise we'll keep investing in this new one and, within a few months, it will be vastly superior on all fronts to what KW Difficulty was. My apologies for the interim -- I totally get your desire to not have that waiting period between one going away and the other rising to the level you need. Unfortunately, it's the way software goes -- we need the engineering bandwidth available to focus on making the new thing better, and that means taking bandwidth away from maintaining the old tool.

Hi Augustus - I think there might have been a problem with your free trial signup. It looks like your account (at least the one associated with this profile) isn't in a free trial state according to the subscription data I see. If you email help@moz.com, they should be able to assist.

Hi ATP - we're working on getting the UK volume data (along with other countries) into KW Explorer, hopefully before we shut off KW Difficulty. I believe we may be extending that June 2nd deadline.

In the meantime, I'd recommend using AdWords' KW Tool and selecting "United Kingdom" in their country dropdown. KW Difficulty's data comes from there as well (via GrepWords).

Thanks! Check out https://moz.com/blog/can-seos-stop-worrying-keywords-focus-topics-whiteboard-friday for more info on exactly that topic. Basically, I'd suggest targeting all the keywords that target the same searcher intent together on a page, and split up any that have different intent/search goals to different pages.

Hi - thanks! Glad to hear it. As far as accuracy in the UK - the SERP data is accurate, but volume is still US-centric until we make some updates. Those should be happening relatively soon (next few months).

As far as UK vs. GB, I believe the rankings can be slightly different.

Each keyword you add to a list does count toward the 300 limit (or whatever limit your account has). That's because for each, we need to do a SERP crawl to get the metrics and analysis.

If you upload a list with 100 keywords, we'll do a data fetch for each, and you'll have 200 queries remaining for the month.

Unfortuntately, we don't have this feature yet in KW Explorer, but you can get it at SEMRush, Spyfu, Keycompete, Searchmetrics, and others. We hope to have this ability in the future.

Hi Mark - yes! If you're using the New Zealand select in the drop down for engines, those other scores should be accurate.

Cheers!

Thanks @Chrwald - I'm going to ask Dr. Pete to take a look at these.

Hi Christian - can you send over some examples of Difficulty scores that were 40+ and are now <5. That seems very fishy and we can look into it.

In general, the new tool should be vastly more accurate and useful than the old one. Volume data in the old KW Difficulty tool comes from Grepwords, which we'll be using for non-US volume in the new tool as well, hopefully very soon, so you should see that fixed before the old KW Difficulty disappears.

Yeah - some important things to keep in mind about volume in KWE:

1. It uses United States volume only right now (if you search by default in AdWords, you may be getting global search volume unless you choose "US")

2. It's modifying that data with actual clickstream numbers to give greater accuracy

3. It normalizes trend volume, so if Google has a big spike or dip, they'll show that one number, whereas KWE tries to estimate the monthly average data.

Hi Gyorgy - you can use the old KW Difficulty tool, but the search volumes there aren't accurate for non-US either, and the difficulty scores are less accurate, too. I'd suggest using KW Explorer if you want all the other scores (those are accurate) and AdWords KW Planner in the meantime.

We're prioritizing UK, Canada, and Australia volume data very soon - hopefully will be in the product in the next 60 days.

Hi Kev - yeah, totally agree that we need to make that more clear. We'll get to work on that asap.

And yes - Potential takes into account whatever metrics it can; when those are absent (like volume), it uses a low volume bucket (I think 0-10) so as not to overstate. Often when we don't have volume, it's either a very new keyword or a very uncommon one.

And yeah - we don't cover the UK yet, but hope to in the future.

It will likely be a few months at least before we can broaden outside the US, and maybe some more before we get to non-English languages. Sorry about that! We will get there; just need to do a lot of work to make it happen.

Totally agree. We're looking at making it more integrated with OSE very soon. Thanks Gavo!

Hi Dan - yeah, I think what you're describing makes good sense. You can use the non-geo-specific term to get an idea of broad popularity and in most cases, you'll be able to rank well in your local geography (assuming Google thinks there's local intent) for the broader term with a page targeting the regional one.

e.g. If I search for Patent Attorneys from my office (which is in Seattle), Google biases to show me patent attorneys who are in Seattle. Very similar to the results I get if I search Seattle Patent Attorneys (though some variation is always present).

If my schedule allows it, I'd be happy to present. I typically fill up ~1 year in advance these days (crazy, I know), but if you have 2017 plans, hit me up! rand@moz.com.

Hi Stephen - certainly! There's actually a bunch of detail in the blog post, and Dr. Pete will be writing another post next week that includes more depth on how we calculate each metric and why we chose the algorithms/formulas that we did.

These metrics are somewhat new - Difficulty we obviously had before, but it's been upgraded and improved to be more accurate and have a better range. Opportunity is based off Dr. Pete's prototype tool from Mozcon last year. Importance is a user-modifiable score that we saw in almost everyone's Excel spreadsheets and thus, wanted to re-create in the app, and Potential is a wholly new combination of all the metrics to help you prioritize.

Hi Charles-Olivier,

Thanks so much! We're very excited to get this first version launched. Re: French - the database won't be nearly as comprehensive for suggestions as it is in English. That's not to say it's useless, but the tool is certainly English-language-centric at this first launch. In the future, we hope to add support for other languages and regions, too.

p.s. Québec is one of my favorite cities in the world; if there's ever a great marketing conference there, tell them to invite me! Would love to visit again.

Yes! If you've got a high-level Moz Pro account, you'll get 15,000 queries per month. Go nuts!