In Case You Missed It: Your Rank Tracking Reports Are Now Useless

[Google Places Blogger]

Here’s the thing, though. Because most rank trackers work with the depersonalized results where the location is set to USA, you’d never be able to make and report this discovery unless you had performed the ranking checks manually.

In other words, if you’re currently relying on ranking packages like those of SEOmoz and Link-Assistant.com, your reports are largely incomplete! These tools simply don’t have the option of emulating local search behavior, at least not yet.



See it on Scoop.it, via Google Places Optimization & Local SEO News



More...

 

[Nyagoslav]

I'd disagree with that. I've always been using GWT's ranking reports, because practically they are the most accurate ones you could ever get. But yes, it is true that in general ranking reports from third-party providers are rather useless (other than for "boosting the ego").

 

[Linda Buquet]

Hmmm I commented but it didn't get approved or got eaten.

 

[djbaxter]

I'd disagree with that. I've always been using GWT's ranking reports, because practically they are the most accurate ones you could ever get. But yes, it is true that in general ranking reports from third-party providers are rather useless (other than for "boosting the ego").

I think you may have missed this part:

In other words, if you?re currently relying on ranking packages like those of SEOmoz and Link-Assistant.com, your reports are largely incomplete! These tools simply don?t have the option of emulating local search behavior, at least not yet.

 

[Nyagoslav]

I think you may have missed this part:

Nop, actually this part is exactly what I mean. I suppose I was unclear in my comment. I meant that I disagree with the title of the post, because not all ranking reports are useless. Only the ones from third-parties are.

 

[djbaxter]

Nop, actually this part is exactly what I mean. I suppose I was unclear in my comment. I meant that I disagree with the title of the post, because not all ranking reports are useless. Only the ones from third-parties are.

???

So what ranking reports are NOT from third parties and which of those actually manage to tell you about local search?

 

[Nyagoslav]

Umm, I'm not sure what is unclear this time.

Ranking reports NOT from third-parties are ranking reports that are provided by the search engines themselves (because we are talking about search ranking reports, aren't we). GWT's "Search Queries" is one example of ranking reports NOT from third-parties.

I am not sure why you mention local search as this is not part of my argument.

 

[Linda Buquet]

I am not sure why you mention local search as this is not part of my argument.

Well I see what David is saying. The whole point of the article is about local. I'm not aware of GWT doing location search behavior emulation which is what the article is about.

Point being an Atlanta Dentist could rank #1 in Places OR organic now with Venice for the search Dentist (no city modifier) IF the searcher is right there in Atlanta.

But if GWT or any rank tracker other is searching for Dentist on a national basis without any location emulation that Dentist would not rank. BUT it's the local search that a local prospective patient makes that counts.

I don't use GWT but I don't think it even does ranking reports does it?

My comment over there which I think Akismet ate was about the fact that Places Scout is the only local rank tracker I know of that has location emulation. You can set it for city or even zip to similate rankings as if you were a surfer right in that market.

 

[Nyagoslav]

GWT provides data for the average position at which your web listing search result shows up per keyword. So it actually shows both data for local search without a geo-modifier, and local search with geo-modifier.

Example:

"White Dental" is a dentist clinic in Columbus, Ohio.

What GWT would show you is:

Query: Dental Clinic
Impressions: 300
Clicks: 15
CTR: 5%
Average position: 1.6
(this means that from ALL searches for the word "dental clinic" your result showed up on average at position 1.6; normally a clinic such as "White Dental" would not rank for "dental clinic" if someone is searching for the keyword from California, so you might assume that all these searches are local for the area and are without a geo-modifier)

Query: Dental Clinic Columbus
Impressions: 200
Clicks: 4
CTR: 2%
Average position: 2.3
(this shows you the average rankings for this particular keyword, as it has a geo-modifier added, so you do not have to make any assumptions)

I don't think any third-party tool can do that. The search results, as the article argues, are unique for each particular user, so assuming that if you rank 1 when the location is set to "Columbus, OH" or even to a particular ZIP, is inaccurate and incorrect.

However, my initial comment had nothing to do with the local intent of the article, but rather with the general case of using third-party tools for ranking reports. It just isn't accurate and in a way you are delivering wrong information to your clients.

 

[Linda Buquet]

OK I see what you are saying, thanks for the extra details.

 

[Nyagoslav]

Sure thing