Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

News Feed Comments

You are here: Home / NicheBOT Updates / I need your vote URGENTLY

I need your vote URGENTLY

Comments

I need your vote and this is truly important.

See — today, earlier in the afternoon, a sudden change
took place over at NicheBOT.com and there was a cry out
by some users about the change. So I need your input.

Here’s what happened.

At http://www.NicheBOT.com – we show the competition as
the “Number of pages listed in Google with the exact
keyword phrase.”

The way you would manually check the results for those
competition results would be to put “quotation marks”
around the keyword when you search in Google like this…

Google search box: “keyword here” [then hit enter]

However, after digging and further investigation, the
question arose…. “Is the way NicheBOT displays the
competition results an accurate measure of the real
competitors for that keyword?”

The direct answer to that is… “NO!”

Here’s why…

The original way really doesn’t filter or take
into account how many actual sites are optimized for
THAT specific keyword you are looking for. So the
original way NicheBOT displayed competition can’t be
a true indication of real direct competition for a
keyword.

A web page that is optimized will 99.9% have the
keyword in the title tag of the web page, as well as
in the anchor text on the page.

This is a much more accurate gauge of your TRUE
competition rather than listing ALL pages that
just match the keyword phrase. Matching only
the keyword phrase using “quotation marks” in
the Google search box brings back a lot of
irrelevant and non-optimized pages that you
can easily bypass with some simple optimization.

This also means that you may be bypassing golden
opportunities with the way NicheBOT displayed
competition beforehand.

So if you were to check the competition manually of
a keyword with the NEW way NicheBOT displays the
competition, this is what it would look like when
checking Google…

Google search box: intitle:”keyword” inanchor:”keyword”

Or — you could just do a keyword search at NicheBOT
right now and then click on the Competition hyperlink
and it will take you directly out to the Google search
page and show you this exact format.

This will definitely allow you to hunt down keywords with
severely low competition for a keyword and shows
a much more clear picture.

Yes — the number is going to be dramatically lower
because 80-90% of the web pages on the net are nowhere
close to being optimized.

This sudden change in competition numbers jarred some
NicheBOT user’s reality — which I can understand
without some explanation.

That’s why I am asking you right away to get your input.

Remember, the focus here is narrowing down and understanding
the number of optimized pages to truly gauge the competition
and that’s why we have changed the format.

So now my question is to you how would YOU like the
competition results displayed.

The way it was before or the way it is now, which I
believe is a much more realistic view of the competitors
that are TRULY optimized for a keyword.

I’ve set up a poll to the right.

Please take a moment and cast your vote so I know how
you feel about this change.

Thanks so much for your time.

Best,

Jim Morris, President/CEO
Full Throttle Enterprises, Inc.
NicheBOT.com – Finds exactly what people search for

Posted by The NicheBOT Guy on Saturday, August 26, 2006 at 3:24 am 
Filed under NicheBOT Updates · Tagged with

  • It makes good sense to offer both techniques which furthers your authority and insight to those seeking knowledge at your site. Better yet, show the new version with a link to a new page that explains the criteria and comparison to both.

    Kent
  • I agree with many of the above comments - both ways if possible, if not, then the new way.

    Kathy
  • tammy
    If at all possible, both ways would be great.
  • Haven't used nichebot much over recent times but surely the
    old and new could both be shown? If not then the new way might be best, and we can do a manuel comparison ourselves
    Just a thought

    Paul
  • Whatever approach you use will be defective to a degree. There is no perfect mechanism for delivering the exact number of competitors. Your new approach is clearly an improvement but no doubt you will refine it again in the future. It will rarely be a problem for people using Nichebot since I'm sure that most people use it for static (rather than time-series) analysis.
  • Sam
    The optimized results count gives the wrong impression that competion is much less that actual. If Google was following the same criteria to rank its search results it would have been great, but it does not.

    The narrow selection of pages that show up in the intitle, inachor search do not make it high in google's actual search.
  • Thanks for a great job.
  • I like it the way it is now.
  • TRULY optimized for a keyword
  • You know.. I am a really, really, really busy SEO guy. To the point I give out advice because I cannot take on new clients. That’s right, I give it away.

    That’s what this is.

    Anyway, I totally agree with finding more appropriate ways of calculating a more accurate ‘competition’ factor. Merely looking at the BULK results is a non-indicator for true competitive analysis.
    This new move shows an understanding of this systemic problem. Few others have PUBLICALLY addressed this issue.

    I must say this improvement gives nicheBot a leg up in the world on Keyword Competitive Analysis. As a professional I will be looking closely.

    ..and the price? Truly a gift.

    IMHO

    David Harry
  • Why either/or? Why not just show both and everyone can be happy.
  • Brad

    The 'competition rating' changes at nichebot are for the better.

    In fact GREAT.

    Knowing exactly who the competition is makes it dead easy to locate them, 'steal' their ideas, and 'steal' their traffic!

    I give away similar information in my free book 'Viral Alchemy' in which I share the secret of how I got over a MILLION HITS on my website in a month, sold 350,000 books, and how others can use the secret for their own website.

    The book is downloadable free at http://viralalchemy.com

    Congratulations on the success of Nichebot Jim.

    See you in the traffic!

    Jonathan Gunson
  • George Fischer
    Thank you for your insight. Given the speed of change you really do need to think ahead. If you don't you will wind up in deep deep trouble. We used to say, "I don't mind going fast, it's the sudden stops I worry about"
  • Ralph
    Jim,
    Based on my mini test, your new way does not always pick up top.
    Yes, I would love the new way if I could also get old results too. But that was Not a Vote option. So, I prefer old over just getting new.
  • BigSmile
    Keep it with the new method in place. It is much more accurate and there are plenty of other places that do it the old way. NicheBOT needs to be better and different than everyone else.

    People are just naturally resistant to change... even when it's better for them ;-)
  • Hi Jim
    After reading your email I thought the new way would be much better for us.
    Unfortunately after I joined up I could not locate the code you gave me for credits a s a long time user.

    Therefore I have not been able to use the new version at all.

    I have sent a few emails but no reply

    Hamant
  • the new way, please. i use nichebot all the time, so i guess i am going to have to update some of my stored data, but even so i think the new way is the best
  • Yuri
    Hi Jim,

    I could not pick any of the options of the Google Competition Results poll that reflects my opinion. But, since I care a lot about NicheBOT and I am grateful for all you do, I want to give you my detailed opinion on this.

    I would like to see both the old and new results, actually. This way, people can get a broader picture from a single screen, and either group of users will be happy. You can name the new column "OPTIMIZED", instead of "COMPETITION".

    Now, since page real estate is at a premium, I want to give you my opinion on something related - the "RATIO" and the "KEI" columns. The "RATIO" seems pretty useless to me in this form - it just lacks any "resolution". So, if you are to bring back the old competition results, you might as well keep the old definition of RATIO. For the KEI. I think it is too long and unnecessary takes up too much space with this range of billions. I guess, you can come up with Jim Morris definition of KEI - the current one divided by 1,000,000 with 2 decimal digits - and I will be perfectly happy with it ;)

    Hope this helps make NicheBOT even better.

    Best regards,

    Yuri
  • Hi there. Just a brief word on the polling. A great, great way to build a service. The more feedback the merrier. But, and I don't want to put you off, but your phrasing is obviously "leading" in nature, and any reader can see your own bias (again, no offence intended here). If you leave your questions a bit more "open ended" at this time, you might garner ideas that might give you "radical insights" into how people behave and search for keywords. Just an opinion, I think you have a real shot at building a great service. Best regards, Paull.
  • I stopped paying attention years ago to competition figures derived from searches done merely by enclosing the keywords within quotes. Competition figures like that are worthless.

    For the past few years, I've determined the true level of competition for my keywords by taking the extra step of doing the intitle and inanchor searches myself for each keyword . It's a real pain to do over a thousand individual searches when I research a new topic, but I think it's worth the effort to determine the true level of competition.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that it's taken NicheBOT and WordTracker (I know, it's a dirty word with you) this long to institute intitle and inanchor searches as a truer picture of real competition.

    Please, please, PLEASE, keep the intitle and inanchor competition searches. If nothing else, at least keep it as an option for those who want accurate competition data. Don't let the "but-we've-never-done-it-that-way-before" people take away a valuable method of checking competition that all of the keyword services should have been using all along.

    I'm sure that once they have a chance to see the clear superiority of this method, they'll be glad you did it. And it will give your keyword results yet another clear advantage over WordTracker's.
  • I like the New way, it gives a much more accurate picture.
  • You listed some of the syntax of the google search, however one important one that you left out is...allinurl: as in let's say coffee which is an equally important factor in gauging your competition...

    That being said, I think the your new way of displaying the results will serve us all much better...thanx for your continued good work...
  • Terri
    Jim,

    I voted for the new way. The poll isn't showing any votes, however, even after I voted.
  • Change it. Want the former? Go to Google. I'm sure they awill still show, but in the meantime you have a realistic number. I have wondered about this for quite a while!
  • I believe the more accurate filtering model of Nichebot 2 is preferable so as to really drill down to the opportunities that aren't being fought over by too much competition.

    However, seeing the unoptimized competition as NicheBot 1 was doing gives a broader perspective of interest in the area. This is also useful information.

    So, why can't both results be displayed? That would please everyboody.
  • I think I prefer the old way, with adding in the KEI analysis. The reason being is that my site already ranks well for some terms, but with the new system when I checked the Google results it showed my site as ranked #1 for the test I did. However, in "real rankings" by this I mean not adding quotation marks to my query-my page ranks #10. Now that's not a lot of disparity....but I built that page from knowledged gleaned under the old system.

    For the record though, I love NICHEBOT and will continue to use it no matter what changes. It has changed the way I SEO and use PPC.

    Good luck in your endeavors and thanks for making Nichebot.

    David
  • When I first saw the new way you are doing it I was like What the @#!%@ is that. but you make a compelling arguement for your reasons, and I find myself agreeing. Changing somethig always brings friction, but that's not a valid reason for not changing.

    One observation I have is that it might be more appropriate to add an OR to the string. like intitle:"keyword" OR inanchor:"keyword". I'm really interested in testing this out now and seeing what the results are.
  • Pelly
    First I am an absolute beginner, in fact I have yet to start a site, but have been using both the "old" and "new" version. I am having a hard time understanding the difference. As an example, If on the new version I see that something has 100 for competition for a keyword instead of 10,000 - Does this mean that if I create a page optimizing on that site can I reasonably expect to at least rank in the top 100? If so then my vote would be for the new way. As I said I am just a bit confused because what I thought was a niche that was way to competitive now seems reasonable, so I don't know if in fact it is viable for me as a newbie or not. (Is something with a count of 10,000 and a competition of 500 viable for a beginner?)

    I think however I have the perfect solution for you (and it is not listed as an option), why don't you include both? Maybe one would be optimized competion and the other would be competing pages or something. I don't know if that messes up the whole structure of the program, but my guess is you are going to get votes for both so why not capitalize and offer both, realizing that there will need to be an explanation of the differences.
  • JM
    the way it is now
  • jens
    I voted for your new way and I checked the total , but it showed
    0 total votes.
    jens andersen
  • Nikolaj
    I think this is better that before, because some results can be achived directly from Google by entering allinanchor: or allintitle:

    So I think this is more accurate statistic than before even it can't be precise as you have said.
  • I'm with you. The more accurate the information can be, the better.
  • Ray Corbett
    Another option that should please absolutely everyone is to present the info the 'new' way and throw in the kei also...each stat would be corroborating and supporting the other. When it doesn't play out that way...maybe it deserves a second look. Also, some real gems could be turned up by using the 'new' way with the kei.

    just an idea...but that's what i would love to see.

    Ray
  • Hiya

    The poll isn't working for me...but I have long wondered about using the term 'competition' as far as BULK Goog results. This at very least get's us a little closer.

    Sure, some folks not doing proper SEO may miss TITLE stuff, but then they wouldn't be 'competition' now would they

    I think it is a good move. Get's my vote!
  • While comparing "competition" to how many other pages are displayed is horribly faulty, I'm unsure how the
    intitle:"keyword" inanchor:"keyword" is anymore accurate...

    "intitle" is nearly useless IMO. Some of the "most competitive" keywords have top-ranked pages that don't even mention the target keyword in the title.

    "allinanchor" is a little more accurate IN CONJUCTION with several other factors.

    I did a quick check for "best computers"... You have the competition number at 812 (relatively low by your new formula)...

    Good luck using that formula and thinking someone will rank for that page anytime in the next 16 months even with massive backlinks and optimized pages.

    You'll also notice, 8 of 10 of the top ranking pages for that term dont have the words "best computer" in it.

    I'd rather see how many backlinks the page has that mention "keyword" rather than anything else.
    That's far more accurate than either of the other 2 options, imo, of course.
  • Dave
    showing competition as in intitle and inurl is far superior.

    I actually wish that you hadn't told the world about this let along automated it :)
blog comments powered by Disqus