Comparing Rank-tracking Methods: Browser Vs. Crawler Vs. Webmaster Tools – Moz

, , . 1 – 3 Google.com. TweetTuber SEO Tools Twitter. – . – unfollow , , follow. – follow . Twitter . TweetTuber SEO Tools TweetTuber SEO Tools – Professional website promotion services for better rankings in Google, Yahoo, Yandex and Bing.

Comparing Rank-Tracking Methods: Browser vs. Crawler vs. Webmaster Tools – Moz

Crawls occurred across a range of IP addresses (and C-blocks), selected randomly. The crawler did not emulate cookies or any kind of login, and we added the personalization parameter (&pws=0) to remove other forms of personalization. The crawler also used the &near=us option to remove some forms of localization. We crawled up to five pages of Google results, which produced data for all but 12 of the 500 queries (since these were queries for which we knew Moz.com had recently ranked). (4) Google Webmaster Tools After Google made data available for August 7th, we exported average position data from GWT (via Search Traffic > Search Queries) for that day, filtering to just Web and United States, since those were the parameters of the other methods. While the other methods represent a single data point, GWT Avg. position theoretically represents multiple data points.

Warum sind meine Seiten/Fehler so lange in den Google Webmaster Tools? – Die SEO-Frage -SEO Book

On the surface, this suggests that, across the entire set of methods, GWT disagreed with the other three methods the most often. Given that weve invented this disagreement metric, though, its important to ask if this difference is statistically significant. This data proved not to be normally distributed (a chunk of disagreement=0 data points skewed it to one side), so we decided our best bet for comparison was the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U Test . Comparing the disagreement data for each pair of methods, the only difference that approached statistical significance was Incognito vs. GWT (p=0.022). Since I generally try to keep the bar high (p<0.01), I have to play by my own rules and say that the disagreement scores were too close to call. Our data cannot reliably tell the levels of disagreement apart at this point.

We crawled up to five pages of Google results, which produced data for all but 12 of the 500 queries (since these were queries for which we knew Moz.com had recently ranked). (4) Google Webmaster Tools After Google made data available for August 7th, we exported average position data from GWT (via Search Traffic > Search Queries) for that day, filtering to just Web and United States, since those were the parameters of the other methods. While the other methods represent a single data point, GWT Avg. position theoretically represents multiple data points. Unfortunately, there is very little transparency about precisely how this data is measured. Once the GWT data was exported and compared to the full list, there were 206 queries left with data from all four rank-tracking methods. All but a handful of the dropped keywords were due to missing data in GWTs one-day report.

Comparing Rank-Tracking Methods: Browser vs. Crawler vs. Webmaster Tools – Moz

seo software Die meisten werden mit solchen 404-Mengen wohl kaum konfrontiert werden. Aber: Diese Seite hier funktioniert trotzdem bestens! Beginnen wir mit der ersten Erklarung: der Crawling-Vorgang Ein einmal gemeldeter Fehler in den Google Webmaster Tools bleibt manchmal extrem lange dort. Daruber wundern sich viele Webmaster. Obwohl es die Seiten schon seit Jahren nicht mehr gibt, stehen sie wie eine Eins in den GWT. Das mag einen argern aber ich finde es auch etwas verstandlich, wenn man sich mal den Crawl-Vorgang vorstellt: Stell dir vor, du bist der Google-Crawler und da drauen gibt es mehr zu untersuchende URLs als es Sterne am Himmel gibt. Was tust du?

Comparing Rank-Tracking Methods: Browser vs. Crawler vs. Webmaster Tools – Moz

The reported rankings ranged from #3 to #8, with an average of 4.11. These rankings were reported from across the US, and only two participants reported rankings at #6 or below. Heres the breakdown of the raw data: You can see the clear bias toward the #4 position across the social data. You could argue that, since many of my friends are SEOs, we all have similarly biased rankings, but this quickly leads to speculation. Saying that GWT numbers dont match because of personalization is a bit like saying that the universe must be made of dark matter just because the numbers dont add up without it. In the end, that may be true, but we still need the evidence. Face Validity Ultimately, this is my concern when GWTs numbers disagree, were left with an argument that basically boils down to Just trust us. This is difficult for many SEOs, given what feels like a concerted effort by Google to remove critical data from our view.

Use this to your advantage to tell Google what your keywords are. Internal linking Link to other resources/pages of your site which are relevant to the copy you are writing. This will benefit the visitor and increase the amount of time they spend on your site. External link building If you reference external websites on your web pages, provide a link pointing to this source. This adds credibility to the content which the search engines love. Content Mass Never have less than 400 words on a page. If the content you are providing is in fact valuable you should be able to come up with around 1,000 words. Fonts and copy size is important Not everyone has the same fonts as you, so stick to basics like Arial, Verdana or Times New Roman.

10 Tips for DIY SEO Copywriting | ineedhits

You could argue that, since many of my friends are SEOs, we all have similarly biased rankings, but this quickly leads to speculation. Saying that GWT numbers dont match because of personalization is a bit like saying that the universe must be made of dark matter just because the numbers dont add up without it. In the end, that may be true, but we still need the evidence. Face Validity Ultimately, this is my concern when GWTs numbers disagree, were left with an argument that basically boils down to Just trust us. This is difficult for many SEOs, given what feels like a concerted effort by Google to remove critical data from our view. On the one hand, we know that personalization, localization, etc. can skew our individual viewpoints (and that browser-based rankings are unreliable). On the other hand, if 56 out of 63 people (89%) all see my site at #3 or #4 for a critical head term and Google says the average is #6, thats a hard pill to swallow with no transparency around where Googles number is coming from.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s