Has the keyword planner search volume metric gone crazy?
-
I use the search volume found in keyword planner to score and weight my keywords in a similar way as Rand showed us in this WBF.
This week I've found that in many cases suddenly the singular and plural version of the keyword have the same search volume. This seems crazy to me as singular and plural is not the same, the intent is different but more importantly they behave very differently from each other when looking at their track record in Adwords (impressions, clicks, conversions, CTR, CVR etc...all different).
For example, here's a screenshot of 4 keywords (singular and plural versions of 2 phrases) with search volume captured a couple of months ago.
Now here's another screenshot of the same keywords taken from Keyword planner today.
Any ideas why this would be happening? Does it makes sense to you? It just seems buggy to me.
Thanks!
-
Well, it's annoying.
We actually got some feedback from our Adwords support saying "the Engineering team is looking to improve/change this behavior as feedback indicates it is confusing for customers. But for the moment, no details yet on what/how it will change."
So let's see, I suppose the more complaints they get from the PPC community the more likely they are to roll things back.
-
Another thing on the subject I noticed is:
For some phrases it will report the aggregate search volume, thus equal s.v. for the singular and plural. e.g. tel aviv hostels and tel aviv hostel show each a s.v. of 1300.
But "Jerusalem hostel" (s.v. reported - 880) and "Jerusalem hostels" (170) don't!!!
So W.T.F. Google trying to do here? Make us realize that they really really don't want us to use k.w.p. data? First take away the broad s.v. data leaving only the lesser valuable data of the exact, then having the bucket aggregation .... What's next? Don't they want us to show the true potential in Google searches to digital marketing clients??? Kind of hard when you have to either give false inflated numbers and say that there is no true accurate number these are all estimates that might even be very far from the real numbers.
-
Hi,
It is the same with Hebrew search phrases same s.v. for singular and plural.
The odd thing is that the search results for each are different. So I don't understand the logic here on Googles side, if you look at them as the same meaning, why are the search results different? they should aslo be exactly the same!
-
Couldn't agree more!
-
Thanks E_F. I've not heard anything back from Adwords support in Europe yet.
Wouldn't it be great if Google would also explain why they changed the methodology as the tool is no longer fit for the purpose it was originally designed for?:-)
-
Finally got a reply from the Adwords support team:
“there was a recent change in how average monthly searches are calculated in Keyword Planner and it is now expected that search terms that are close variants to each other will show the same aggregated search volumes” -
Yes I saw those articles and they're reporting similar findings as this post. Although nothing official yet from Google so I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for this to be a bug...Will be on the lookout for an official update note...
-
Breaking news on SEW is that Google made a change to the tool last week to combine search variants.Articles belowInstead of showing individual keyword estimates per KW or KW phrase, it now lumps in the data together which means that it will show identical estimates for both both. It's no longer possible to see individual estimates to check highest/lowest volumes anymore. All the data has been changed retrospectively alsohttp://www.thesempost.com/googles-keyword-planner-now-combines-keywords-for-search-volume/https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/06/29/googles-keyword-planner-tool-just-became-even-more-inaccurate/Adwords Keyword Planner now seems to combine many search variants, including:
- plurals with non-plurals for any word in the keyword phrase
- acronyms with longhand version e.g. SEO + search engine optimiZation + search engine optimiSation
- stemming variants: -er, -ing, -ized, -ed etc keywords (ie. designer, designing, designed)
- words that can be spelled with or without space (ie. car park and carpark)
- words with and without punctuation (ie. kid toys and kid’s toys)
-
If I had to guess, it seems to be an issue with "close keyword variations" which Google use for matching keywords to search terms in Adwords and the planner tool now somehow sums up the total search volume for all these variations. Which makes it looks like search volume has doubled or tripled or more depending on how many variations you're looking at.
Our PPC team is pushing for answers from our GG account manager but so far they say they are not aware of any changes to the tool and "believe the information to be accurate".
Will update here if we learn anything new.
-
Hi there
I'm seeing crazy inflated keyword volumes from Adwords KW Planner too. I keep a record of the extracts for these 300 KWs so have files going back to Sept-15
Not the same issue as with plural/singular highlighted by the other but...
-
an inflated "Avg. Monthly Searches (exact match only)" number in June versus all other previous months by 6x in some cases e.g. avg monthly searches for a particular KW was 2,400 up to April and now it's gone to 14,800.
-
And also, Google have also retrospectively updated each of the 12 previous months average search query volumes by keyword.
Here's an example attached. Hope you can read it
Out of the ~300 KWs I track, 40 keywords have 2x'd and higher their average monthly keyword volume. 81 KWs have increased average monthly search volumes by 50%
To me it looks like either it's either a bug (or new method) in how Google count average monthly searches or they haven't updated their KW volumes in this tool in the last 12 months.
-
-
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).
-
correction..."masters in accounting" vs "masters of accounting". It's Monday and the Warriors lost.
-
We're seeing this as well. It doesn't seem as simple as plural vs singular.
"MBA" & "Master of Business Administration" now have the same search volume. "MBA" had 110,000 before and "Master of Business Administration" had 2,400. These variations also have 110K searches/mo now: "Masters Business Administration", "Masters of Business Administration", "Master in Business Administration". Seems like they are bucketing those as the same keyword but then "masters in accounting" is different than "masters in accounting".
-
Yes you're right, the example I provided is not as crazy as what I've seen in our other markets (countries) and I'm fine with Google using buckets as long as I can understand the relative search demand of a keyword compared to another. I don't think we should take the search volumes given by Google as gospel but it's been helpful in the past as a comparison tool.
So what about this - here is a list of plural and singular versions of keywords in Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. Something has definitely changed and in many cases relatively small keywords suddenly look huge.
If you run the keyword variations in Google Trends you'll see that they don't have the same search demand. I also had a look in Adwords for the plural and singular version of one of our biggest keywords, this is what their impressions look like over time and now they have the same search volume in keyword planner.
I haven't seen this in all countries but it seems to be happening in the US as well (if you have old search volume data lying around, have a look and see if you get the same increase for the less popular version).
If Google has decided that plurals and singulars are the same and that search marketers should treat them as such, I can learn to live with that as long as I see consistency in this approach (which I don't, France for example still shows different search demand for singulars and plurals). Google should also show the same SERP results for these keywords, which they don't and I believe this is because the intent is (slightly) different between plural and singular search.
I think this is a bug, perhaps I have overlooked this but I can't recall seeing the option "Only show ideas closely related to my search terms" before in keyword planner and if this is a new feature it might be what's breaking the tool. Just guessing here of course but the reality is that turning this setting on/off changes absolutely nothing for me.
So what do you think? Is this an issue for anyone else?
Thanks for your insights and suggestions.
-
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.
-
Are you referring to the setting in the keyword planner called "keyword option" and the choice "Only show ideas closely related to my search terms"? Is this a new option in the tool?
Anyway, I get the same result regardless if this is on or off.
It definitely would make sense if there was a setting where I could choose to look at exact match only but I can't seem to locate it. (EDIT: and Google has not changed the definition of search volume in the tool: "The average number of times people have searched for this exact keyword based on the date range and targeting settings that you've selected.")
-
I think the biggest difference is in the match type of the keywords. In the end they're used broad in this case which would make sense that the singular and plural could be the same. Usually when you would have an exact match you're going to see a difference in volume.
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
-
Keyword Planning and Site Architecture
Hi all, I'd like to know your thoughts on keyword planning and site architecture. I thought it was best practice to structure your website so specific pages target certain keywords. The titles, meta desc. and content on these pages should be unique to that page. I've had good success ranking pages this way. But! How come so often you'll see a website that has no keyword planning ranking so well? Let's take the example: "Bamboo Sheets". A top ranking website in my country sells all kinds of bamboo bedding, including sheets, towels, pillow cases, etc. They have "Bamboo Sheets" in the title & meta description for the main category page (www.store.com/bamboo-sheets) - which is where it should be. But then I see it again on the homepage title & meta (www.store.com) and other pages of the website. So why aren't they cannibalizing their own pages? And why do they blog about Bamboo Sheets and not cannibalize the keyword from there? Is landing page optimization just a myth? It seems entire websites built around a keyword rank just as well, and in most cases, much better than sites with keyword specific landing pages. If you only sell one product this isn't a problem, but for websites that offer multiple products or services, it's incredibly frustrating when trying to compete. It's like Google still gives a lot of authority to keyword rich domain names and business names. Thoughts?
Keyword Research | | Onlineorders0 -
Is my copy too keyword rich?
www.heartwavemedia.com - Wordpress - All in One SEO Competitors: photonsf.com, h2video.com, corduroymedia.com, thehivestudios.org I've spent the last week writing and tweaking my landing page copy along with my SEO page titles and descriptions. I think I finally feel pretty good about it but I'd like your professional opinions. Is it too keyword rich? Does it flow naturally? Is the voice fresh? Do my SEO titles vary enough? Thanks in advance for your thoughts and advice.
Keyword Research | | keeot1 -
How do I find what keywords competitors are ranking for?
I am just starting out doing come SEO research. I seem to remember a tool that would tell me which words my competitors are ranking for and what kind of traffic they are getting. Thanks, Lisa
Keyword Research | | lisarein0 -
Keyword Conundrum...
I have 3 keywords that I am targeting. Assume for the time being that they are all equally competitive. Includes local exact match monthly searches: Managed IT Services - 3600 IT Managed Services - 720 Managed IT Support - 170 They are all exactly synonymous, not to mention other keywords such as IT Managed Support, Managed IT Service, IT Managed Service, Managed IT Service Provider, etc.. My current strategy is to target the top 3 all on one page. The problem then is the title tag: Managed IT Services | IT Managed Services | Managed IT Support Pretty spammy. I could build pages for all 3, but how would I incorporate them into the website since they are all synonyms. Can I get some recommendations on how to handle this? What would you use for a title tag? How would handle separate pages with synonymous content?
Keyword Research | | CsmBill0 -
Weekly Keyword Ranking Report Question
Howdy folks! Okay so apologies for the n00b question, and additional apologies for going over ground that's potentially already been ploughed. I'm compiling a tally of the Weekly Keyword Ranking Report for a client. For the past three reports, the particular keyword I'm logging has remained in the same position. However the Change column shows it as having decreased in rank, by the same amount every week. If there has been no change in the ranking, I would have thought it would display as "Unchanged". As it stands, it shows up in the Declined category, and that seems odd to me. Anyone have an idea as to why this would be happening? Thanks for any input you can provide! Kevin
Keyword Research | | Treefrog_SEO0 -
Best Practices For Keyword Optimization
Hey currently building a new page on a clients site in the weight loss niche. The keywords he wants to rank for are the following: <colgroup><col width="198"> <col width="64"></colgroup>
Keyword Research | | monster99
| [fat burning foods] | 49500 |
| [foods that burn fat] | 22200 |
| [fat burning foods for women] | 2900 |
| [belly fat burning foods] | 2900 |
| [best fat burning foods] | 1900 |
| [fat burning foods for men] | 1900 |
| [list of fat burning foods] | 720 | His site is new, but he has excellent content production capabilities. My question is, in terms of optimizing the page (the title and url) for these keywords would you focus on the highest volume keyword. In this case the highest volume keyword is "fat burning foods" however is the most competitive and dominated by high domain authority sites (50+ vs. clients site which is around 30). Thus its highly unlikely he will rank for that keyword for quite a while. But for the keyword term "best fat burning foods" the competition is alot less in terms of DA and other factors but volume is smaller with 1900 hits a month. So would you optimize the page (the title and url) for "best fat burning food" or would you optimize thinking about the long-term and eventually ranking the keyword "fat burning foods". My thinking would be to optimize the page for "fat burning foods". And that the benefits of optimizing (url and title) for "best fat burning foods" isn't ideal for the long-run. Any suggestions or advice would be appreciated. Cheers, Mark0 -
Adding qualifiers to keywords?
I know that it's worth adding qualifiers to high value keywords to create long-tail variations which will later have the potential to rank well for the main keyword as well... My questions is, how important is it that the newly-formed keyword/phrase also be evaluated for search volume? E.g. "tips for job interviews" has a high search volume, but scores 72 in the Keyword Difficulty tool - quite high. I would therefore be tempted to create a "10 tips for job interviews" articles or something similar, yet THIS particular phrase is searched for <10 times per month... If there are not any easy-to-find qualifiers that also create a well-searched for keyword/phrase, is it still worth adding them?
Keyword Research | | staingurus0 -
Why is Adwords Keyword Tool showing zero search volume for popular keywords?
When I try to ascertain search volume for the the words "pills" "drugs" and "medicine" it is showing "-" for all types of search volume, including phrase, exact, and broad. Why is this?
Keyword Research | | nicole.healthline0