Anyone who uses the Google Keyword Tool on a regular basis may have noticed some changes recently. The main one being the significant decrease in search volume results. Surprisingly enough, it has been kept relatively quiet considering the impact. Google made no announcement of the change and although there are lots of blog and forum posts about it, I just felt that the situation didn’t get the reaction it really deserved.
But then again perhaps like us, others have been waiting to see what the impact of all this means because at this point in time, there is still ongoing debate about whether the changes are beneficial or not. There seems to be two schools of thought – those who think the changes have resulted in more accurate data and those that think the old results were more accurate.
The changes came through at the beginning of September and we personally didn’t even realize until some time closer to the end of that month. I think that was the case with a lot of people. Unless you are constantly comparing search volume numbers for your keywords you probably wouldn’t have even have noticed the difference. The changes basically involved a rather dramatic decrease in the number of results for the Global and Local Monthly Searches.
As we already mentioned, there was no real announcement from Google regarding this change, in fact, about all we got from them was a paragraph left by a Google employee on one of their forums which read as follows:
“If you use both the previous and updated versions of the Keyword Tool to search for keywords, you may notice differences between the tools for statistics on Global Monthly Searches and Local Monthly Searches. This is because the previous version of the Keyword Tool provides search statistics based on Google.com search traffic and traffic from search partners, while the updated version of the Keyword Tool provides search statistics based on Google.com traffic only. We’ve updated these statistics based on user feedback, and hope you find them helpful for keyword selection.”
If we want to see examples of the difference in volumes we only need to look at a couple of keywords like ‘bathroom supplies’ for instance which has gone from 5400 local monthly searches to only 880. And another – ‘golf clubs’ which has moved from 165,000 searches to 33,100. As you can see, these are not simple statistical errors but massive differences in search volumes.
Even one of my brothers who has just started building a website has noticed a significant decrease in one of his major keywords which went from 120,000 down to 18,000.
So is it more accurate?
Well we did a little test since we are ranked no.1 for quite a number of keywords so decided to run a check on a few of of those keywords to see how they compare. Here’s the results for our data in September using our traffic results from Google Analytics data and comparing it to the local monthly search volumes (exact match) from the Google Keyword Tool data:
Keyword 1
Our traffic – 1623
Google Keyword Tool estimate – 1900
Keyword 2
Our traffic - 1726
Google Keyword Tool estimate – 4400
Keyword 3
Our traffic – 713
Google Keyword Tool estimate – 720
Keyword 4
Our traffic – 487
Google Keyword Tool estimate – 480
As you can see, the Google Keyword Tool results compares quite well with those few keywords so perhaps it is more accurate. If this is the case, then this is excellent news. It means we won’t be sitting wondering why we aren’t getting all that traffic even though we are ranked no.1 in Google. It also means that when we build a website, we will know the exact traffic numbers before hand. There won’t be any nasty surprises after we’ve spent months trying to build up our websites.
However, at the same time it means that anything we may have done in the past may be all for naught as we realize they will never generate the traffic numbers we were expecting. We have over 20 websites and not all of them have performed as well as we expected them to. Mind you, they would probably do better if we put a bit more effort into them but even so, had we had more accurate data to begin with , then we might not have lost motivation earlier on when we realized we weren’t getting the traffic numbers we were expecting.
So I see this change as being beneficial because it looks like we can build websites with more confidence as having more accurate data means we know what to expect in traffic volumes once we hit the no.1 spot in Google.
Would love to hear what our readers think about this change and if you see it as a positive or negative change.
Tagged with: google keyword tool • google keyword tool changes
Filed under: Traffic
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
We are
Wanda & Paula - 2 friends who successfully operate a number of online internet businesses. In fact we have over 20 blogs and websites making money. We have learnt a lot over the years particularly in the area of natural search, SEO
and traffic generation. If you want to make a living online then we are here to
help. 
I know that in the forum I frequent there’s been quite a bit of conversation about the new numbers. They certainly do look more accurate according to your statistics, which can only be a good thing.
Kelly @ Quality PLR Zone’s last post…Christmas Gift Giving PLR 1
It’s definitely looking good. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing really. On the one hand I think it is great that we can finally have accurate data and build our websites with this in mind. On the other, I just think about all the work we have put in over the years based on inaccurate data.
Hi guys.
I have done a fair bit of analysis of this myself over the last few weeks and really haven’t found a solid answer. Google Webmaster Tools give a better picture of the accuracy as it shows impressions on the first page rather than just traffic. Even being ranked at #1, you are only going to get 40-50% of the traffic through to your site.
From this alone, the traffic and search details you have provided actually shows the new tool is underestimating for those examples.
On some search terms the old data (which Market Samurai was still showing) was pretty much spot-on to what GWT was showing, on many the new tool is a lot more accurate.
Here are some of my own stats which does backup the accruacy of the new tool (these all have a US location and GWT set to Web Only):
Keyword 1 – WMT = 170; GKWT = 170
Keyword 2 – WMT = 1300; GKWT = 880
Keyword 3 – WMT = 1300; GKWT = 720
Keyword 4 – WMT = 1900; GKWT = 1600
Keyword 5 – WMT = 590; GKWT = 590
Keyword 6 – WMT = 5400; GKWT = 5400
Keyword 7 – WMT = 3600; GKWT = 3600
Keyword 8 – WMT = 2900; GKWT = 2900
I’m not too concerned. If it scares some of the SEO snipers off the lesser searches terms that I know still gives great traffic, the more for me!
Troy’s last post…Use Google Webmaster Tools to Find Up and Coming Keywords
It may not be underestimating. We may just be really good at attention grabbing titles that makes people want to click through to our site. Who knows really? But even if they are underestimating then I definitely prefer that to overestimating. I’d rather receive more traffic than I was expecting than less.
Google Webmaster Tools will tell you your CTR.
I agree that underestimating is better but I was just trying to say that traffic isn’t the same as searches. You need the CTR to put it into context.
Troy’s last post…Use Google Webmaster Tools to Find Up and Coming Keywords
Totally agree Troy.
Can’t say that I’ve noticed this change. I’m usually only looking for new keywords so never notice if the figures on older keywords change. Certainly looking at your data and also Troy’s it would seem that we are now getting more accurate information.
As an aside – thanks for introducing me to Secrets of a Millionaire Mind. I wasn’t lucky enough to win but promptly bought it through a local online book store and am just loving it.
Dawn’s last post…Oct 9- Culturelle Probiotic- Lactobacillus GG- Culturelle Dietary Supplement
Glad you like the book Dawn. It’s definitely worth reading for anyone who wants to increase their income.
Personally, I prefer the new numbers, if they are actually more accurate. When I am working with Google, then I’m generally most interested in what Google’s actual search volume is, and not that of Google plus search partners volume. Likewise, if I am working on my numbers in, say, Bing, then I am interested in Bing’s actual volume because I am targeting this keyword in this particular search engine.
Lately, I’ve been devoting time to other search engines, in addition to Google, just to see how much effect trying to build my ranking in other search engines will affect the traffic/income for my sites. So far, I’ve been pleasantly surprised.
I think you are right to focus on other search engines Tammie. We tend to think that Google is the be all and end all and forget about the others but I’ve noticed that some of the other engines (particularly Bing) can be easier to rank for and can generate quite a bit of traffic.
I can see the wisdom in targeting Bing (the only other search engine worth considering), but what does focusing on other search engines actually mean? Isn’t the ranking procedure – optimize on-page SEO then get lots of backlinks, essentially – basically the same for all/both search engines? Or is there actually something different one can do to get ahead in Bing?
Okay, so now I don’t have to wonder why I’m not getting as much traffic as I thought I would for a particular keyword. Totally makes sense to me. I’m happy about the change.
Lisa Stoops’s last post…Exercise Equipment Review PLR
I’m happy about it too Lisa. It’s actually a really good feeling to know that we can build our websites with confidence now based on the new data.
Thanks for the great review, I haven´t had this checked out so far but seems I need to take a closer look at it.
Monja’s last post…Comment on Why did I never consider to buy a Mac before by admin
My view is that if the new data is more accurate then it is clearly beneficial to have it
)
It does raise some issues about the viability of many campaigns which people may have started on the back of the old data though. It is interesting to note that many courses out there have been using the old figures as guidelines and I can understand it if people are getting frustrated when they aren’t pulling in the traffic they were expecting.
I cannot understand people who are still complaining and wanting Google to still show the old figures though (perhaps they are in denial?)
It was definitely a big reality check though and shows why IM is not the easy path many people think it is when they first approach it – competition is fierce and traffic volumes are not as high as many people first think.
Chris’s last post…Why Nail Collation Matters – Paper vs Plastic
I actually find it amazing that the traffic volumes are as low as they are considering this is Google we are talking about. Some people are even saying that in the past Google overinflated the figures on purpose to boost up their company.
Boy – if the new Google tool gives more accurate data… then I’m a happy camper.
But – I wonder when I’ll ever trust Google to give accurate data?
The fact that you have found your #1 spot keywords not giving you nearly the traffic you expected… isn’t always a matter of #1 spot gives the most clicks.
The search(er) doesn’t always click on the first results just because it’s #1. They want to see the answer to their question in the title.
Right?
Very true Debra but we found that the traffic was quite a way off. When they promise 18,000 clicks for instance and you only get 1500 then something has got to be wrong.
I don’t think we can ever really trust Google with their stats but at least it is now looking like it is in the ball park at least.
I am glad to see the numbers looking more in line with what I have been experiencing too. If we are going to go to all of the trouble of doing the research, it’s nice to know that the numbers will be more indicative of the real traffic volume we can expect.
Exactly. Shame we have wasted a lot of time and effort in the past but I guess we have to chalk it up to experience really. Those that stuck with it despite unexpected traffic results won out in the end.
I have notice the same thing since Google changed the tool and infact prior to that was trying to find ways of verifying data…..I even did live adwords tests and the impresssions there were even bugged and incorrect. It was very frustrating…. I have a number of sites that i would not have built out if I knew the real stats. Like you I tested the results and yes they are way more accurate and realistic now and thats the important thing – realistic. Most keywords dont produce more than 200 clicks per day in my experience so you have to build out a number of keywords each page and a number of reviews to get to say 2000 clicks per day of targeted traffic.
It’s good to see someone else has done a bit of testing and came to the same conclusion we have. I still notice some people out there that think the old results were more accurate.
While the numbers appear to give a more accurate reading of keyword search volumes, the bigger issue is why Google made this significant change so quietly.
I think when a company operates in this fashion, they tend to damage their brand as being honest and trustworthy.
Ken Weiss’s last post…By- health insurance companies in
I agree Ken. I think Google kept this quiet because they knew what the impact was going to be. It affects so many people and so many businesses.
I thought the keyword software (based on Google) I was using was inaccurate after the update I just installed, until I read your blog. Seems like I have built entire websites, and written articles based on low search count keywords. This is very disappointing, but does explain why, after hours of work to make it to 1st page of Google, the traffic I expected never came.
I just go with the Google KEY WORD application and i have found that the application is quite difficult to understand and more over the application does not show the url of the company who is promoting the Key word more. so we have to check it manually.I think it require more up gradation.