It's not rank, it's returns that matter!

I, Brian · Nov 23, 2007

Apologies in advance if this reads as a snarky post, but I just gotta rant.

One of the really frustrating points coming to UKBF and reading the discussions on SEO is that people keep talking about "ranking on Google" and being on the "first page", and looking at the number of search results as an indicator of competition.

Here's a big pointer:

There's no point ranking for a search term that delivers no conversions

SEO is all about getting not traffic quantity, but traffic quality, and leveraging volume of targeted traffic to increase conversions, whether in terms of sales, signups, or similar.

A lot of times I've read people posting about ranking for keyword searches, but the pointer isn't simply to rank, but to rank for something that matters.

Additionally, the number of search results returned is absolutely not an indicator of how difficult it is to rank for a keyword - it's simply a statement of keyword frequency in Google's documents.

How difficult a keyword is to rank for is determined simply on how many people are chasing it.

For example:
1. pink elephants London shows nearly 2 million results returned.
2. fixed rate mortgages shows just over 2 million results returned.

You can rest assured that the second keyword is *far* more competitive than the first, because a lot of people will be targeting the second keyword, and not the first.

OVERALL - having a presence on Google means nothing unless that presence is noticed, and the more it is noticed in a very targeted way, the more likely you are to be able to convert the traffic from that attention.

So please, stop thinking in generic terms about "ranking on Google" - think more about having a "targeted presence".

That way, you can focus on what really matters: bringing real customers to your website more effectively - rather than focus on meaningless indicators which will deliver you nothing in real terms.

Rant over.

Bathead · Nov 23, 2007

That's a good post. Totally agree.

Mick

Tin · Nov 23, 2007

Hi Brian

I agree with you and it's something I've pointed out myself on more than one occasion. The problem is that your comments will be buried under a pile of newer threads within a week all asking the same old questions.

There's plenty of seo companies who don't understand the points you're making so if they don't get it, how can the customers?

Ray

RayB · Nov 23, 2007

I agree with Brian insofar converting traffic is the only traffic worth having, and that may come from high organic ranking, PPC, referrals, offline marketing etc.

I said:
For example:
1. pink elephants London shows nearly 2 million results returned.
2. fixed rate mortgages shows just over 2 million results returned.

However, I do want to correct this example, because to see who is competing for a phrase you need to enclose the phrase in "" speechmarks.

So

1. pink elephants london actually only returns 2 results

and

2. fixed rate mortgages returns just over a million

So now we know the competition for those phrases

Bathead · Nov 23, 2007

But Brian is pointing out the results not the competition. It is a relevent phrase for that business that will attract the right visitor in order to create the conversion, based on as little competion as possible. But looking at the results they appear comparable, which I thought was the point.

Mick

RayB said:
I agree with Brian insofar converting traffic is the only traffic worth having, and that may come from high organic ranking, PPC, referrals, offline marketing etc.

However, I do want to correct this example, because to see who is competing for a phrase you need to enclose the phrase in "" speechmarks.

So

1. pink elephants london actually only returns 2 results

and

2. fixed rate mortgages returns just over a million

So now we know the competition for those phrases

Chris Jones · Nov 23, 2007

Bathead said:
But Brian is pointing out the results not the competition. It is a relevent phrase for that business that will attract the right visitor in order to create the conversion, based on as little competion as possible. But looking at the results they appear comparable, which I thought was the point.

Mick

Thats the way i understood the point as well.
I also agree with what Brian is saying.

RayB · Nov 23, 2007

Ok, just to clarify, if I had the words pink, elephant and london on a page - anywhere on that page, and not even next to each other, then my page would be one of those 2 million results.

Using the speech marks tells us the competition which is only 2 pages - a heck of a difference!

So it was just a point of clarifcation only

ImproveSearchListings · Nov 23, 2007

Very true RayB, but when people are searching they don't tend to use quotation marks.

In fact, if you take a look where the two companies that do show up on the "" show on the search without quotations, they are no-where to be seen.

The only thing to focus on is getting to converting traffic. If you can get to page one with the right traffic, then you will have more 'correct' visitors than if you were on page two with the same keyword.

I, Brian · Nov 23, 2007

Bathead said:
But Brian is pointing out the results not the competition. It is a relevent phrase for that business that will attract the right visitor in order to create the conversion, based on as little competion as possible. But looking at the results they appear comparable, which I thought was the point.

Mick

Indeed, was my original point.

The trouble with speech marks is again, it doesn't really tell you the level of competition involved.

For example, here's a less obtuse example:

"read a book" - nearly 2 million results, but how many companies are actively and aggressively trying to rank for that keyword search?

Again, all it's telling you is how frequently the keyword/phrase is found - but tells you nothing about just how competitive it is to rank top for that keyword.

More to the point, would it actually deliver any decent level of conversions for a site, if ranked?

RayB · Nov 23, 2007

ImproveSearchListings said:
Very true RayB, but when people are searching they don't tend to use quotation marks.

Quite agreed, but the reason I posted what I did is because Brian said

How difficult a keyword is to rank for is determined simply on how many people are chasing it.

and then gave examples of searches not encased in "" - which DOES NOT show how many people are chasing it - so again - it was a point of clarification.

Also, I was not correcting this to be pedantic - but for the benefit of SEO novices who read these threads trying to learn stuff

Bathead · Nov 23, 2007

RayB said:
Quite agreed, but the reason I posted what I did is because Brian said

and then gave examples of searches not encased in "" - which DOES NOT show how many people are chasing it - so again - it was a point of clarification.

Also, I was not correcting this to be pedantic - but for the benefit of SEO novices who read these threads trying to learn stuff

Sorry I think i'm being pedantic now, but the results in "" show the sites that are "apparently" optimising that phrase to chase visitors they believe to be searching for that phrase The number of sites optimised for a given phrase has nothing directly to do with the number of visitors chasing a phase - or you can't make that assumption.

Mick

RayB · Nov 23, 2007

Bathead said:
but the results in "" show the sites that are "apparently" optimising that phrase to chase visitors they believe to be searching for that phrase

Absolutely 100% agree with you - this was PRECISELY what I was trying to get across - as the information in the OP was suggesting otherwise

The number of sites optimised for a given phrase has nothing directly to do with the number of visitors chasing a phase - or you can't make that assumption.

Mick

Absolutely 100% agree with you on this as well - I never said otherwise

Researching achievable "money" KW's is a whole different subject

Bathead · Nov 23, 2007

RayB said:
Absolutely 100% agree with you - this was PRECISELY what I was trying to get across - as the information in the OP was suggesting otherwise

I'm not sure that he was??

Mick

RayB · Nov 23, 2007

Bathead said:
I'm not sure that he was??

Mick

I think he was because he said:

How difficult a keyword is to rank for is determined simply on how many people are chasing it.

Followed by 2 examples of search results WITHOUT the search terms in " " - which is not a measure of how many people are chasing it - but is simply a measure of how many pages have those words on it somewhere.

Introducing the " " is a far more realistic measure of how many people are actually "chasing it" - yes?

Nov 23, 2007

You Have obviously not been down "The elephant and castle" at chucking out time on a friday night.

One often see's pink elephants playing banjo's dependant on your consumption.

Earl

Picto · Nov 23, 2007

Bathead said:
Sorry I think i'm being pedantic now, but the results in "" show the sites that are "apparently" optimising that phrase to chase visitors they believe to be searching for that phrase The number of sites optimised for a given phrase has nothing directly to do with the number of visitors chasing a phase - or you can't make that assumption.

Mick

I would have thought it could be taken as a reasonable indication though surely?

Bathead · Nov 23, 2007

I said:
How difficult a keyword is to rank for is determined simply on how many people are chasing it.

For example:
1. pink elephants London shows nearly 2 million results returned.
2. fixed rate mortgages shows just over 2 million results returned.

You can rest assured that the second keyword is *far* more competitive than the first, because a lot of people will be targeting the second keyword, and not the first.

I read that as a whole with an explanation below the examples, in that Brian clarified those examples are not what they immediately seem. So I suppose all roads lead to the same conclusion. I think!?

Mick

I, Brian · Nov 23, 2007

RayB said:
Introducing the " " is a far more realistic measure of how many people are actually "chasing it" - yes?

Picto said:
I would have thought it could be taken as a reasonable indication though surely?

I honestly wouldn't agree - again, it simply tells you the frequency of the keyword, not how many people are *actively* trying to rank for it.

Also, another pointer on that - I've seen some keyword searches with only a few tens of thousands of results returned which are far more competitive than keywords which show millions - because that smaller set are mainly compaosed of people actively chasing those keywords, as opposed to the second set who happen to mention it.

Perhaps by analogy:

1. You are a competition class runner, and want to find out more about who you may be competing against.

A MORI poll might tell you that 2.0 million Britons run on a regular basis (frequency). It doesn't tell you how many of those are Olympic-class runners (competitors).

2. You are a competition class shot-putter, and want to find out more about who you may be competing against.

A MORI poll might tell you that 200 Britons practice shot-put on a regular basis (frequency). It doesn't tell you how many of those are Olympic-class runners (competitors) - but you can guess the competition is probably tougher.

I know some people use frequency of a search term as an indicator, and if someone is very focused on a particular niche then perhaps they are qualified to be able to make an interpretation of frequency figures that generally reflects the level of competition.

But in general terms, frequency really is a meaningless measure by itself.

2c.

NSGuru · Nov 25, 2007

I said:
how many companies are actively and aggressively trying to rank for that keyword search? quote]

Hi guys,

this is quite reassuring for me because our SEO guys have been putting this message across to us for the last few months. In fact, they have a team looking at the search terms being used relative to the terms we're promoting and they will amend and adjust terms we're trying to rank accordingly.

The message I've got from this is that SEO is not about 'Fire and Forget' you've got to monitor it and react to what the online market place is actually looking for.

Cheers
Sion

RayB · Nov 25, 2007

I said:
I honestly wouldn't agree - again, it simply tells you the frequency of the keyword, not how many people are *actively* trying to rank for it.

A search enclosed in " " will give a better indication than a search without, then you can bring in other operators to fine tune and filter you research - all basic stuff.

Of course this is all meaningless without proper keyword research - which is a whole different ball game

RayB · Nov 25, 2007

Also, IBrian, it it not helpful to insult the intelligence of UKBF members elsewhere on the internet:

I raised this as part of a UK Business Forums thread - in an attempt to educate people about the basics of SEO. Because it's apparent a lot of the general non-SEO's there are pretty clueless about SEO.

UKSBD · Nov 25, 2007

I'll just throw this in,

One persons meaningless phrase is another persons bread and butter.

I often seo other SEO's saying it is a waste of time ranking high for
meaningless phrases, the longer they say that the better as far as I am concerned.

RayB · Nov 25, 2007

UKSBD said:
I'll just throw this in,

One persons meaningless phrase is another persons bread and butter.

I often seo other SEO's saying it is a waste of time ranking high for
meaningless phrases, the longer they say that the better as far as I am concerned.

Very true - and long tail traffic can be very useful too - it just helps to know what do are doing SEO wise

Tin · Nov 25, 2007

RayB said:
A search enclosed in " " will give a better indication than a search without, then you can bring in other operators to fine tune and filter you research - all basic stuff.

Of course this is all meaningless without proper keyword research - which is a whole different ball game

At Last! Nicely summed up, accurate and to the point

Ray

I, Brian · Nov 25, 2007

RayB said:
Also, IBrian, it it not helpful to insult the intelligence of UKBF members elsewhere on the internet:

All I did in the blog post is repeat exactly what I've said here - namely that a lot of small businesses just don't understand SEO, and that education on specifics can be helpful. I don't think that's insulting anyone's intelligence.

Nov 25, 2007

Search terms enclosed in quote marks may give an indication of the competition for that search term.

But as Brian says still does not tell you how many people are searching for that term.

I think only a program like keyword discovery or your own stats can help with that.

Earl

RayB · Nov 25, 2007

sirearl said:
I think only a program like keyword discovery or your own stats can help with that.

Earl

Like I said - keyword research is a whole different ball game

An Oasis · Nov 25, 2007

sirearl said:
...I think only a program like keyword discovery or your own stats can help with that...

Speaking of which does anyone have any useful tools for niche keyword results, e.g. stuff that has very low search volumes?

Nov 25, 2007

An Oasis said:
Speaking of which does anyone have any useful tools for niche keyword results, e.g. stuff that has very low search volumes?

Hi David at Red Evo has some tools he uses for KIE.

Earl

RayB · Nov 26, 2007

An Oasis said:
Speaking of which does anyone have any useful tools for niche keyword results, e.g. stuff that has very low search volumes?

One tool I find handy for this is Good keywords - which is free.

It is basically a tool that makes it easier to filter Overture data - and organise into spreadsheets

Pet Nanny · Nov 26, 2007

Umm, I think even I understand that. However, I would point out that some of us, well maybe only me actually, do not understand all the SEO jargon. I say google rank, as I do not know how else to explain it.

For smaller companies such as ours, we really do depend on our company showing up on google in the areas which we cover. But I understand what you mean entirely (for once) lol

Nina
ninasnanniesforpets.co.uk

ken_uk · Nov 26, 2007

Ibrian, You may want to rethink the way you have the article you posted on webpronews, as at present it reads like this

"Because its apparent a lot of the general non-SEOs there are pretty clueless about SEO. Small businesses in general."

The problem being, it reads to me as though you are implying that the linked company linked to in the small businesses in general bit is one of the clueless companies....

As that appears to be your company, its maybe not a good idea to give that impression.

Different people may read it differently but thats how I read it.

RayB · Nov 26, 2007

ken_uk said:
Different people may read it differently but thats how I read it.

I read it that Brian is on a link building campaign for his site, targeting the KW "Small Businesses"................................

RedEvo · Nov 26, 2007

UKSBD said:
I'll just throw this in,

One persons meaningless phrase is another persons bread and butter.

I often seo other SEO's saying it is a waste of time ranking high for
meaningless phrases, the longer they say that the better as far as I am concerned.

There is no point ranking for meaningless phrases with no search volume. We optimise for seemingly meaningless phrases all the time as we use data based on real searches.

d

I, Brian · Nov 26, 2007

ken_uk said:
Ibrian, You may want to rethink the way you have the article you posted on webpronews, as at present it reads like this

"Because its apparent a lot of the general non-SEOs there are pretty clueless about SEO. Small businesses in general."

RayB said:
I read it that Brian is on a link building campaign for his site, targeting the KW "Small Businesses"................................

I'd posted the article to my blog - then suddenly remembered that WebProNews sometimes syndicates my blog content.

Just to let you know I have no control over how they syndicate my content, so I quickly added a couple of links as an afterthought, just in case.

Actually, Ray, I had presumed you were linking to my blog earlier - I hadn't realised you were linking to a WPN item.

RayB · Nov 26, 2007

I said:
Actually, Ray, I had presumed you were linking to my blog earlier - I hadn't realised you were linking to a WPN item.

I linked to the WPN item when I found it on this search

I, Brian · Nov 26, 2007

Damn, I'm not optimising very well for "pink elephants" ...

RayB · Nov 26, 2007

I said:
Damn, I'm not optimising very well for "pink elephants" ...

You might just wing it with a bit of SEO

Cookie Consent

Essential

Analytics

Marketing

It's not rank, it's returns that matter!

Bathead

RayB

Bathead

Chris Jones

RayB

RayB

Bathead

RayB

Bathead

RayB

Bathead

RayB

RayB

RayB

RayB

RayB

RayB

RayB

RayB