Big rise in "Keyword not defined"
-
Hi, all.
Anyone else seen a massive increase in the Not Provided keywords in their analytics in the past couple of weeks. Probably related to this (source:http://searchengineland.com/post-prism-google-secure-searches-172487) _In the past month, Google quietly made a change aimed at encrypting all search activity — except for clicks on ads. Google says this has been done to provide “extra protection” for searchers, and the company may be aiming to block NSA spying activity. _
Other than the unreliable stats from WMT, there doesn't seem too many ways which we can now find out what is sending traffic to our sites!
-
Can anyone confirm if this will have an impact on the traffic data showing in Moz? I'm assuming that the data is coming from the Google Analytics data and will therefore be affected in the same way?
-
I hope Bing steps up their game and offers everyone a free analytics suite more on par with GA in response to the loss of keywords. I've never been enamored with Bing but they have been looking for a means to steal away people from Google. They can even market it as Microsoft saving the little guy/small business while Google hoards information.
-
anyone think Google is going to come up with a way to charge businesses/seo companies to view keyword data?
-
Google has turned into a black box.
-
Absolutely agree with you Grumpy Carl! I can see that this change is just going to increase the need to check rankings in order to find out which page is ranking.
Why we can't get this link in the google webmaster tools data I just don't know (but I know it's nothing to do with privacy!). I just want to know which pages the keywords are sending traffic to... grr
I just get a feeling that it's all going to get messy and I'm going to be spending a lot more time in front of spreadsheets.
-
It is, I do not guess there is any coming back from this either. It will be interesting to see how this changes SEO.
-
I would agree, in part. However, even if you don't know which keyword is sending you traffic, If anything this makes ranking reports more important. If we see traffic going up, but cannot directly see which keyword is sending it, then one could draw a link (however tenuous) between the rise in rankings and the rise in traffic
-
Scary how the 100% date, in the chart, has become this December. Was scary enough when it was 2017!!!
-
I think Google is on a covert mission to napalm the SEO industry....
-
Apparently things have taken a change today look at this, http://www.notprovidedcount.com/ and this http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-gone-100-provided-secure-search/70799/
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
-
Thousands of duplicate website links at "Who links the most" in Google webmasters. Any risk being duplicate website links pointing to website?
Hi all, As I mentioned some days back here, our duplicate website got indexed a month back. Unfortunately there are links to our original website. I noticed that thousands of links are from our duplicate website at "Links to Your Site". Will this hurts? Now we have blocked the duplicate website getting indexed. What to do to remove these links from "Who links the most"? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
SEO Myth-Busters -- Isn't there a "duplicate content" penalty by another name here?
Where is that guy with the mustache in the funny hat and the geek when you truly need them? So SEL (SearchEngineLand) said recently that there's no such thing as "duplicate content" penalties. http://searchengineland.com/myth-duplicate-content-penalty-259657 by the way, I'd love to get Rand or Eric or others Mozzers aka TAGFEE'ers to weigh in here on this if possible. The reason for this question is to double check a possible 'duplicate content" type penalty (possibly by another name?) that might accrue in the following situation. 1 - Assume a domain has a 30 Domain Authority (per OSE) 2 - The site on the current domain has about 100 pages - all hand coded. Things do very well in SEO because we designed it to do so.... The site is about 6 years in the current incarnation, with a very simple e-commerce cart (again basically hand coded). I will not name the site for obvious reasons. 3 - Business is good. We're upgrading to a new CMS. (hooray!) In doing so we are implementing categories and faceted search (with plans to try to keep the site to under 100 new "pages" using a combination of rel canonical and noindex. I will also not name the CMS for obvious reasons. In simple terms, as the site is built out and launched in the next 60 - 90 days, and assume we have 500 products and 100 categories, that yields at least 50,000 pages - and with other aspects of the faceted search, it could create easily 10X that many pages. 4 - in ScreamingFrog tests of the DEV site, it is quite evident that there are many tens of thousands of unique urls that are basically the textbook illustration of a duplicate content nightmare. ScreamingFrog has also been known to crash while spidering, and we've discovered thousands of URLS of live sites using the same CMS. There is no question that spiders are somehow triggering some sort of infinite page generation - and we can see that both on our DEV site as well as out in the wild (in Google's Supplemental Index). 5 - Since there is no "duplicate content penalty" and there never was - are there other risks here that are caused by infinite page generation?? Like burning up a theoretical "crawl budget" or having the bots miss pages or other negative consequences? 6 - Is it also possible that bumping a site that ranks well for 100 pages up to 10,000 pages or more might very well have a linkuice penalty as a result of all this (honest but inadvertent) duplicate content? In otherwords, is inbound linkjuice and ranking power essentially divided by the number of pages on a site? Sure, it may be some what mediated by internal page linkjuice, but what's are the actual big-dog issues here? So has SEL's "duplicate content myth" truly been myth-busted in this particular situation? ??? Thanks a million! 200.gif#12
Algorithm Updates | | seo_plus0 -
Keyword Targeting - How to Properly Target Two Similar Terms?
Hi all, So I have a question about "best practices" when you have two unique, but highly similar keywords you are targeting. Let's use the examples of "raincoats for women," which gets 9,900 searches a month, and "rain jackets for women," which gets 4,400. I am in the process of selecting keywords for my client's "keyword portfolio" and need to come up with a strategy when faced with two similar keywords that use different terminology. I'm well aware that there should only be one page for "women's raincoats" but there is no doubt in my mind that Google will give preferential treatment to whichever version of the keyword (raincoats/rain jackets) I include in my title tag, meta description, content, etc. I know that the modern philosophy is that Google is sophisticated enough to understand that the two words are essentially synonymous. That said, would you A) only pick "raincoats for women" for your client's keyword portfolio and focus exclusively on that term in your optimizations? b) pick both terms and try to strike an even balance between both in your optimizations? c) pick both terms and only optimize for "raincoats for women" and hope that "rain jackets for women" gets some peripheral benefit from your optimizations via Google's understanding of synonyms? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | FPD_NYC0 -
Meta Keyword Tags
What is the word on Meta Keyword Tags? Are they good to have, or bad? Our biggest competitor seems to have them.
Algorithm Updates | | Essential-Pest0 -
Anyone seeing big drops in Bing this month?
Seems like our Google rankings are improving on most sites, but BING took a big hit this month for many of the sites we working on. I have never seen them drop like this before. Anyone else seeing the same thing? I am wondering if it is because we are building a lot of brand links vs. keyword links and Bing still wants to see the keyword links. What have you seen?
Algorithm Updates | | netviper0 -
Should I remove my keyword meta?
So it's safe to assume keywords are no longer used by SEs in the old fashioned sense to rank sites, but should be keep them as indicators of site content? It's been suggested by some that they're detrimental for two reasons: 1. Your competitors can snoop the keywords you're targeting but mainly... 2. Over-optimisation is the enemy these days! Thanks for your input 🙂
Algorithm Updates | | underscorelive0 -
When Google crawls and indexes a new page does it show up immediately in Google search - "site;"?
We made changes to a site, including the addition of a new page and corresponding link/text changes to existing pages. The changes are not yet showing up in the Google index (“site:”/cache), but, approximately 24 hours after making the changes, The SERP's for this site jumped up. We obtained a new back link about a couple of weeks ago, but it is not yet showing up in OSE, Webmaster Tools, or other tools. Just wondering if you think the Google SERP changes run ahead of what they actually show us in site: or cache updates. Has Google made a significant SERP “adjustment” recently? Thanks.
Algorithm Updates | | richpalpine0 -
If a page one result for a keyword is mostly directories, do I have a chance to rank for this keyword?
I feel like although directories carry a lot of weight and links, I'd think that my client would be able to gain a top position, since none of the others are competitor pages, nor are the directories engaging.
Algorithm Updates | | randallseo0