Why don't keyword difficulty tools have this metric

kontentdruid

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
443
The best keyword difficulty tool is to comb through the serps and analyze each page ranking with an eye test.

If you're in a pinch or a hurry, then use a tool: Kw difficulty tools such as kwfinder and keywordrevealer are decent but often times i find them to be lacking.

And the one metric that would benefit both tools would be some sort of word count/keyword density metric. Because that's the main thing i look at when looking through individual websites:
  1. the amount of content on the ranking page
  2. number of times the keyword or similar variations of target keyword appears on the page
I would think this would be an obvious metric to add - something like word count + keyword density

Obviously these arent perfect metrics but who wouldn't look at those numbers if displayed in a keyword difficulty tool?

rant over

curious what others think.
 
Probably difficult to intelligently pinpoint semantic variations of the searched keyword within the content

Also most keyword tools just pull metrics from popular SEO marketing platforms and this sort of goes above and beyond that

Seems like a bit of a hassle for a metric that would probably be inaccurate/misleading a lot of the time

Just my 2c
 
When did the amount of content become relevant again?

What if you have 10 pages with 500 words each in SERP, is that an easy keyword to rank for?

What if those top-10 pages have 4000 referring domains each?
 
That would require these tools to actually crawl the page. Being the cheap bastards most of these companies are, they will do anything to save on resources/queries. KWFinder for example only pulls data from Moz using their API and then uses their simple formula based on that to come up with a difficulty number.

Other than the resources issues, incorporating something like keyword density in their formulas will be extremely difficult and can only mess it up. There is no such thing as a universally perfect keyword density, so how could these tools take any advantage of it? You can find sites with 0 value and authority on page 22 or something which will have the so called "perfect" - does that make them competitive? You will also find sites with high authority on page 1 which often won't even mention the exact keyword even once - does that make them less of a competition?
 
Probably difficult to intelligently pinpoint semantic variations of the searched keyword within the content

Also most keyword tools just pull metrics from popular SEO marketing platforms and this sort of goes above and beyond that

Seems like a bit of a hassle for a metric that would probably be inaccurate/misleading a lot of the time

Just my 2c
Just described all metrics.
 
your both critieria dont say much ....... it requires logic to analyse a kw and the bots are not clever.
 
As everybody already pretty much said not really a metric I'd care for. Remember tools displaying intitle inurl and that would be taken into consideration how competitive it is ? Additionally imagine all the e-com terms where they'd had to crawl amazon and how many proxied they would need for that (and other sophisticated sites)
 
When did the amount of content become relevant again?

What if you have 10 pages with 500 words each in SERP, is that an easy keyword to rank for?

What if those top-10 pages have 4000 referring domains each?
I didn't say you should ignore the referring domains....obviously that is crucial.

The amount of content can be relevant as a shortcut metric.

I noticed that some eBay ranking category pages (and other big sites) have a paragraph description on their page, which makes it significantly more competitive than a basic Pinterest page with no content on it but is ranking top 3

tldr point is there isn't a single BHW member who wouldn't look at this proposed metric, and id value it above social shares which these tools love to report on
 
Back
Top