Comments on: 20% of Searches on Google are new… another SEO Myth? http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html I think there's an opinion on that subject lying around here somewhere.... Wed, 22 May 2013 02:40:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: john andrews http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html#comment-133120 Tue, 01 Nov 2011 19:14:40 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html#comment-133120 @Otto I was referring to blind acceptance of the claims put forth by Google, without questioning actual meaning. A straight up "wow.. 20% of queries were never searched before" is deceptive... and should not be repeated by an SEO company without some clarification about the importance of that. It clearly does not mean 20% of queries represent new searcher intent, as I demonstrated above. As Google continues to expand it's switching e.g. "results are shown for the query we decided you might have meant, instead of the query you actually entered" this is more and more important. Is that 20% actually 10% Or maybe 5%? Or perhaps even less than 5% when you remove the duplicated intent? And if it is less than 5%, is it remarkable? @Otto I was referring to blind acceptance of the claims put forth by Google, without questioning actual meaning. A straight up “wow.. 20% of queries were never searched before” is deceptive… and should not be repeated by an SEO company without some clarification about the importance of that. It clearly does not mean 20% of queries represent new searcher intent, as I demonstrated above.

As Google continues to expand it’s switching e.g. “results are shown for the query we decided you might have meant, instead of the query you actually entered” this is more and more important.

Is that 20% actually 10% Or maybe 5%? Or perhaps even less than 5% when you remove the duplicated intent? And if it is less than 5%, is it remarkable?

]]> by: otto http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html#comment-133034 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:46:49 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html#comment-133034 Sorry, meant to say: existing brand new product means a lot of new search terms Sorry,

meant to say: existing brand new product means a lot of new search terms

]]> by: otto http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html#comment-133033 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:45:13 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html#comment-133033 Hi John, Not sure how 20% new and bad seo are related. The way I see it, there are loads of new products coming out daily. Existing brand new product means loads of new search terms. As you have shown, with plenty of possible variations, depending on what counts as unique. If you take into account search terms disappearing, a larger percentage becomes new. In terms of SEO, all this new sounds like opportunity to me. Otto Hi John,

Not sure how 20% new and bad seo are related.

The way I see it, there are loads of new products coming out daily. Existing brand new product means loads of new search terms.

As you have shown, with plenty of possible variations, depending on what counts as unique.

If you take into account search terms disappearing, a larger percentage becomes new.

In terms of SEO, all this new sounds like opportunity to me.

Otto

]]> by: john andrews http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html#comment-133031 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 03:22:43 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html#comment-133031 Well Brian just as you would not label them "bad" they probably shouldn't label others as "bad" as a way of marketing themselves. On one hand maybe they don't believe in keyword meta tags, while they do believe Google's propaganda. Is it really their place to say what is and isn't correct? Google says unequivocally that kw meta tags are useless... and that 20% of searches are brand new. Which one is more correct... or less false? Well Brian just as you would not label them “bad” they probably shouldn’t label others as “bad” as a way of marketing themselves. On one hand maybe they don’t believe in keyword meta tags, while they do believe Google’s propaganda. Is it really their place to say what is and isn’t correct? Google says unequivocally that kw meta tags are useless… and that 20% of searches are brand new. Which one is more correct… or less false?

]]> by: Brian Kenyon http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html#comment-133030 Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:20:38 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/764/seo-myths.html#comment-133030 I wouldn't label HubSpot as a "bad seo" company just because of the 20% statement. I reviewed their service over a year ago before their recent investors jumped in and felt it was a very thorough service. I wouldn’t label HubSpot as a “bad seo” company just because of the 20% statement. I reviewed their service over a year ago before their recent investors jumped in and felt it was a very thorough service.

]]>