The day keyword data died (sort of)

MOH

As of Tuesday*, Google won't passing keyword referrer data on to websites for any search made by users logged into a Google account.

This is going to make it much harder, if not impossible, to work out what keywords are converting well.

Best of all, they're doing it under the guise of being a privacy issue - despite the fact that Google themselves will still be using all your search data for their own commercial benefit.

At the moment they claim this will affect <10% of searches, but as time goes one, expect to see more referral from Google with “(not provided)” as the keyword.

*In the US, doesn't seem to have hit here yet.

worc

Yeah I saw them bitching about this on SeoBook - that's not implying you're bitching or anything!

Have to say I find it slightly amusing when I see blog posts whining about Google is bad for this and that or acting like Google owes everyone something.

People seem to have this idea lodged in their heads that Google is a lovely group of people who "do no evil". It's all BS, they're a business, they're in it to make money just like every other business in the world and they're prefectly entitled to do what they want* - if anyone has a problem with something they do...well stop using their services - simple.

*Of course not entirely anything they want - anti-competitive activities etc. don't get a pass.

Hey it might have a knock on effect where people start putting Bing as their onsite search engine so they can track changes and hence lead to a more level playing field with search engines (probably not likely though!).

The Apprentice

Na from a proactive view of the search engines
The world is let by the top 3 approx 97% of bing yahoo and scroogle

65-70% is google

Bing is pretty much the crappy engine of the above it did try something different, but it doesnt really cut the mustard.
Yahoo is ok, a kind of google clone so to speak but the traffic just simply isnt there.

Ranking for these normally is pretty easy (dependant on keywords)

Google is really the main search engine out there.. thats the only reason why me and billions of others want to use it and CANNOT move away from it.. The moneys there and so is the traffic.

Unless we find something in the next few years just adapt your strat and move accordingly..

worc

The Apprentice wrote: »

Unless we find something in the next few years just adapt your strat and move accordingly..

Couldn't have said it better myself!

The Apprentice

The Apprentice wrote: »

Na from a proactive view of the search engines

Ranking for these normally is pretty easy (dependant on keywords)

Unless we find something in the next few years just adapt your strat and move accordingly..

Before some ego's wake up .. i want to clarify .. ranking above is for yahoo and bing search engines :P

cormee

The Apprentice wrote: »

Bing is pretty much the crappy engine of the above it did try something different, but it doesnt really cut the mustard.
Yahoo is ok, a kind of google clone so to speak but the traffic just simply isnt there.

What are you talking about? Bing has been powering Yahoo! search for over a year now - have a look at the bottom of a Yahoo! SERP http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A7x9Qfj5dqFOGGwA3m5XNyoA?p=bing%20powers%20yahoo%20&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-710&rd=r1

cormee

MOH wrote: »

As of Tuesday*, Google won't passing keyword referrer data on to websites for any search made by users logged into a Google account.

This is going to make it much harder, if not impossible, to work out what keywords are converting well.

Best of all, they're doing it under the guise of being a privacy issue - despite the fact that Google themselves will still be using all your search data for their own commercial benefit.

At the moment they claim this will affect <10% of searches, but as time goes one, expect to see more referral from Google with “(not provided)” as the keyword.

*In the US, doesn't seem to have hit here yet.

It's a pain, no doubt about it. But I suppose even if it does go beyone 10% you're still going to be left with a lot of data from a fairly large segment of your site visitors. I'll be happy once there's enough data to give me an reliable idea of the popular phrases.

If you only use this data for keyword research and optimising content it won't be that big a deal, I'd hope. Sites targeting mobile devices will be worst hit, anyone using an Android device, up to 50% in some markets, will be logged into their Google account. Sites delivering tailored content won't be happy either I'd imagine.

I don't think it's the end of the world, as some commenters on the Google blogs are prediciting. People reacted the same when it was announced Google were allowing users opt out of analytics tracking, and speaking from my own experience it hasn't had any noticable impact on my analytics.

martyoo

I would say it's more than 10% tbh.

It is annoying especially considering AdWords data will still be tracked. Although I believe that might be changing in the future as well.

As some of the other guys said you just got to adapt. They are the boss!

cormee

martyoo wrote: »

I would say it's more than 10% tbh.

It is annoying especially considering AdWords data will still be tracked. Although I believe that might be changing in the future as well.

As some of the other guys said you just got to adapt. They are the boss!

I'd have thought so too - but you're still left with data for the majority of your traffic. While you may not be able to track exact numbers, the percentages shouldn't change were you to include or exclude the missing data. The margin of error might increase, but not massively. So from that point of view you should still have a good picture of what's going on.

Hopefully.

The Apprentice

When i say crappy ... the results speak for themselves..

Bing searches are just weird for some strange reason. I didnt realise what bing power but i still prefer yahoo to bing anyday.. i cant put my finger on it but theres something about the search engine i dont like

I could be just a weirdo i guess.

Baidin

cormee wrote: »

I'd have thought so too - but you're still left with data for the majority of your traffic. While you may not be able to track exact numbers, the percentages shouldn't change were you to include or exclude the missing data. The margin of error might increase, but not massively. So from that point of view you should still have a good picture of what's going on.

Hopefully.

The big wigs like SEOmoz and Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Land are reporting an impact on 2% of data at present. It'll grow no doubt but Webmaster Tools will still produce keyword data, just without the exact stats per keyword.

To me, it's an obvious attempt by Google to get more organic marketers to spend on adwords to access the data.

blue4ever

Funny, i kind of ignored that at the start - one of my sites (consumer info) is fine. Another site B2B is fcuked in the analytics dep.

It looks as if a lot of the people on the B2B site are logged into Google and, therefore, their search terms are not filtering through.

tomED

My biggest problem with it is that Google are basically taking the ball home and saying we can't play anymore unless we pay for their services (in the shape of Google Adwords).

Their guise of this being some sort of privacy tactic is something that worries me about the management of the company now.

Of course, they are a business machine now and they need to do all they can to reap the rewards of the successful brand they have, but they don't have to lie about it.

If they just came out and said, "we're removing this data so we can get more people paying for this great service we've been providing for so many years now" I don't think there would have been such a negative reaction.

So far it appears to account for only 2-3% of traffic which isn't a massive amount in most people's cases.

@cormee - that's not really true estimate on the number of people who will be logged in via android phones. They may have an account, but you still need to log into your account via the browser. So I would imagine it's a lot less than 50%

martyoo

You have to wonder though with Google taking over the page and filter bubbles is the future of SEO in trouble?

Baidin

martyoo wrote: »

You have to wonder though with Google taking over the page and filter bubbles is the future of SEO in trouble?

It'll get harder for the cowboys. I think marketers are expecting too much - what other marketing channel gives free end-to-end analysis and accurate cost per acquisition down to the cent. Google could charge a small fortune for the data they give for free. Make use of it while it is free because when they exhaust every other revenue avenue, they'll cash in on analytics. Even yearly membership of $100 would net them billions.

@tomED, Google own the ball, the pitch, the goalposts and nets, the dressing rooms, the turnstiles, the car park, the lights, the hang sangidges and the flask a tae. I don't think revenue is their only motivator, it never has been - but it's definitely a factor. Now they're showing ads below search results too the hooors.

The (not provided) data is affecting as high as 22% reported in some cases. Marketers and SEO pros just need to adapt.

tomED

Baidin wrote: »

I don't think revenue is their only motivator, it never has been - but it's definitely a factor. Now they're showing ads below search results too the hooors.

I see absolutely no other logical reason why they would do this other than to get people to use Google Adsense.

The privacy explanation is a fallacy, so if you have other ideas of what you think is the driver behind it would love to hear it.

tomED

Baidin wrote: »

The (not provided) data is affecting as high as 22% reported in some cases. Marketers and SEO pros just need to adapt.

Where are you getting these stats from since they are "not provided"???

worc

'tis all to protect that valuable data so the Big-G can make you pay for it.

With Googles personal search using your web history when you're logged in you could argue they've actually quite nicely filtered your data into raw searchers. If you're logged into Google they are changing what people see dependent on their previous browsing history so those search results weren't accurate to the masses.

My primary site is seeing (not provided) ranging between 13-24%.

Baidin

tomED wrote: »

Where are you getting these stats from since they are "not provided"???

The (not provided) data accounts for anywhere between 0-25% of total organic Google traffic in Google Analytics and other reporting tools - as reported by the big wigs in SEO - Search Engine Land, Barry Schwartz at SE Journal.

What's Google's motivator - probably other analytics tools making hay off their intellectual property - why should other analytics tools cash in on membership when Google don't. In the interests of "competition", they probably can't block access entirely without a backlash but they can certainly make it harder for competitors.

Privacy might genuinely be a motivator but they won't remove the data from adwords data as it might risk existing revenue flow.

Sustaining all aspects of their business is more than just about grabbing cash at every opportunity - as I mentioned, they could do that by charging for Analytics and really put the squeeze on for more dollars but they haven't done that.

tomED

Baidin wrote: »

What's Google's motivator - probably other analytics tools making hay off their intellectual property - why should other analytics tools cash in on membership when Google don't. In the interests of "competition", they probably can't block access entirely without a backlash but they can certainly make it harder for competitors.

Privacy might genuinely be a motivator but they won't remove the data from adwords data as it might risk existing revenue flow.

Sustaining all aspects of their business is more than just about grabbing cash at every opportunity - as I mentioned, they could do that by charging for Analytics and really put the squeeze on for more dollars but they haven't done that.

I think that's very naive to be honest.

It's very unlikely that Google will ever make analytics a charged for product. Don't you remember Analytics roots? You know they purchased a "paid for" analytics software company "Urchins" and gave it away free then as Google Analytics?

Analytics has been a massive tool in their armoury - think about it, they can see the traffic of a massive amount of the web because of the statistics.

There are plenty of free or next to free analytics tools that people could move to if they wanted to. So I just can't ever see Google losing the grasp they have on the analytics by suddenly charging for it and losing a lot of the analytical data they've amassed.

Baidin

tomED wrote: »

So I just can't ever see Google losing the grasp they have on the analytics by suddenly charging for it and losing a lot of the analytical data they've amassed.

Well aware of Urchin - it's still available but it ain't free but nobody uses it since Analytics came along!

I didn't say Google WOULD start charging, but they could. Even if they didn't have the Google Analytics, they still have the data. Google have the data from day dot, they've always had the data. They have it for sites that don't sign up to Analytics - maybe not for other sources but for Google search, they have. Analytics merely presents the data to the rest of us.

Sure, there are other free analytics tools - but if all the data was displayed as "(not provided)", those tools are as useful as a chocolate teapot. Google's encryption of the data will determine how third party analytics tools decipher data - so if a significant portion of search is encrypted, marketers would be less prepared to pay for a tool that is no better than Google's FREE alternative. naivety

By the way, Google Analytics Premium is aPAIDanalytics tool.

tomED

Baidin wrote: »

Well aware of Urchin - it's still available but it ain't free but nobody uses it since Analytics came along!

Em, not true - I know companies that still use it.

Analytics originally used Urchin to power it - not sure where it's at now - but I'd assume a lot of the core code is still pretty much Urchin.

Baidin wrote: »

I didn't say Google WOULD start charging, but they could.

No but you did mention that it is a possible reason for their removal of keyword data.

Baidin wrote: »

Even if they didn't have the Google Analytics, they still have the data. Google have the data from day dot, they've always had the data.

Ehh, no they haven't had data from "day dot" as you put it.

What a ridiculous statement. Firstly, I don't know when "day dot" started, but Google certainly weren't around in "day dot" of the web or web search.

Baidin wrote: »

They have it for sites that don't sign up to Analytics - maybe not for other sources but for Google search, they have. Analytics merely presents the data to the rest of us.

No they don't have statistics for sites that haven't signed up for analytics. Yes, they can see data for search and of course most likely from anyone with a toolbar installed (but that's an assumption).

Google also didn't track this information from conception either.

Baidin wrote: »

Sure, there are other free analytics tools - but if all the data was displayed as "(not provided)", those tools are as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Which is what Analytics is now with that data removed. And don't even suggest Webmaster tools - it just doesn't go deep enough for marketeers to get proper data from it.

Baidin wrote: »

Google's encryption of the data will determine how third party analytics tools decipher data - so if a significant portion of search is encrypted, marketers would be less prepared to pay for a tool that is no better than Google's FREE alternative. naivety

Hmm, I don't know if you fully understand the change with a response like that.

You do know it is still possible to get the encrypted data don't you???





By the way, Google Analytics Premium is aPAIDanalytics tool.

MOH

tomED wrote: »

And don't even suggest Webmaster tools - it just doesn't go deep enough for marketeers to get proper data from it.

Didn't stop Google trying to mitigate reaction to the change by telling people they could get the data from WMT anyway. Which, agreed, doesn't come close.

You do know it is still possible to get the encrypted data don't you???

It was possible to get the referrer data on the original 'encrypted search' option if your site (or maybe just landing page?) was SSL, but there are reports that the new "default for everyone" change just doesn't pass it. Not sure how you'd get it then?

tomED

MOH wrote: »

It was possible to get the referrer data on the original 'encrypted search' option if your site (or maybe just landing page?) was SSL, but there are reports that the new "default for everyone" change just doesn't pass it. Not sure how you'd get it then?

Hi MOH!

I only checked this the other day and everything was working - but have just tested there now and it appears that they are stripping everything before the redirect on https://www.google.com searches.

https://encrypted.google.com/ still sends it if directing to a secure page.

Anyway, data is still available... if you get traffic via Google Adwords!

Baidin

@tomED - You've told me all I need to know, thanks so much.

MOH

tomED wrote: »

Hi MOH!

I only checked this the other day and everything was working - but have just tested there now and it appears that they are stripping everything before the redirect on https://www.google.com searches.

https://encrypted.google.com/ still sends it if directing to a secure page.

Anyway, data is still available... if you get traffic via Google Adwords!

Ah, you had my hopes up Tom
Though you had some secret weapon!

tomED

MOH wrote: »

Ah, you had my hopes up Tom
Though you had some secret weapon!

I'm so sorry Mick - so did I!!!

condra

I would like to say "it's a level playing field because it affects everyone the same', but as has been pointed out, it just creates incentive to spend money with google, and further polarizes the big shots from the small shots. :mad: