

More data and charts in Top Search Queries - kbrower
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-data-and-charts-in-top-search.html?

======
randfish
I'm going to have to strongly disagree with at least the "useful" adjective in
this statement. I would concur that if the click-through-rate and impression
data were accurate or consistent with other data sources that claim to show
the same thing (Google Analytics, log file analysis, Google AdWords campaigns)
it would be phenomenally valuable.

However, as it stands, my digging suggests that not only are the numbers
dramatically different between other sources and GWMT, they're not even
consistently different (at times, the multiples of variance can range from
0.5X-3X).

A number of good posts have been written on this by the webmaster/SEO
community already:

[http://www.distilled.co.uk/blog/seo/new-google-webmaster-
too...](http://www.distilled.co.uk/blog/seo/new-google-webmaster-tools-
keyphrase-data-is-70-useless/)

<http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/google-webmaster-tools-2.html>

~~~
Estragon
I'm not doubting the claims in these posts, but I'm having trouble
understanding why google was interested in releasing crappy data.

------
patio11
Compared to Google Analytics (which by necessity undercounts queries, due to
Javascript-related issues) this undereports my queries by a factor of two.

Line-by-line comparisons seem to hold up pretty decently, though, in my five
minute spot-check.

------
chaosmachine
Can anyone beat my record for worst keyword clickthrough rate?

0.01% (12 clicks out of 110000 impressions)

<http://i43.tinypic.com/156ppuw.png>

