1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Main Keyword Databases Totally Untrustworthy?

Discussion in 'White Hat SEO' started by rudyvise, Jun 13, 2009.

  1. rudyvise

    rudyvise Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    169
    Occupation:
    Corporate Copywriter
    Location:
    England
    Hi Guys,

    What is your opinion of keyword database stats from Wordtracker, Google KW and Keyword Discovery? I have literally tried about 30 or 40 tools out that were based on these databases and all report totally inconsistent search results and also the majority of the stats just don't make sense.

    How the hell can you ever identify lucrative markets using these stats?

    I've got a good handle on SEO now, but will never invest in any project which does not qualify itself to a basic level.

    I say, without good data - every project is a total PUNT.

    Whats your thoughts?

    best,

    Rudy
     
  2. Babylon5

    Babylon5 Newbie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    13
    Don't all these programs all use the one Google source? And in saying that, if Google can't supply accurate info it creates a flow on effect.

    If the data looks too good, there is a high chance that you can't trust the figures. You will have to do the hard yards and use other methods to correlate the stats.
     
  3. rudyvise

    rudyvise Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    169
    Occupation:
    Corporate Copywriter
    Location:
    England
    Wordtracker gets its stats from dogpile and metacrawler. Most tools either derive data from Wordtracker or Google data. Which to me looks totally fucked. For instance the stats in Google differs wildly on average months search results and last months search results. Also the stats never correlate between the two main data sources - not in any way of measuring.

    I used be an underwriting analyst in insurance and the data exports were pretty patchy then. But this is like trying to build strategies using data from a bunch of lunatics.

    Why the fuck does anyone take it seriousl?. Perhaps the data was better in the past, but for now it looks like BS.

    best,

    Rudy
     
  4. tivowatcher

    tivowatcher Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    49
    Good timing on this post. I just noticed this as well.

    NicheShark was returning a given search term around 20,000 per MONTH from Google.

    I did a search on the same term in G's keyword tool and it said about 2,900 in a month.

    Oops - a 10 fold difference? Ugh.

    I guess the bottom line is double check your figures (maybe using G's keyword tool as the "bible") when using one of the automated tools.

    FYI: I like Micro Niche Finder *much* better than NicheShark. :)
     
  5. rudyvise

    rudyvise Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    169
    Occupation:
    Corporate Copywriter
    Location:
    England
    Yes, there are some pretty good tools out there but they are of course only as good as the underlying data.

    Which to be perfectly frank fails all quality tests.

    I myself will be prepared to invest in projects on the basis that there are other ways (other that WT or Google stats) - to test the performance of markets. Rather than rely on stats alone. But its pretty damn frustrating to think these providers offer this data, yet it is inconsistent. One look at the data tells me that it isn't worth the electrons its composed of.

    This data is either partial data, misinformation or simply made up garbage.

    As you can tell i am a "risk averse".


    So forgive me for sounding off on this.

    Best,

    Rudy