• davep

    smoke + mirrors.

    Presume this is only the average of true natural results, rather than hard coded results (ie: Google+, Places, News, Shopping etc)

  • http://www.koozai.com/ Mike Essex

    That makes so much more sense than the old method which looks like it penalizes sites who appear multiple times (even if Google chooses to show them). If anything this is is a correction of the way it should have worked originally. Now they just need to make the data accurate and trustworthy enough for us to actually care.

  • http://www.antezeta.com/blog/ Sean Carlos

    This is a good example of how Annotations in Google Analytics can be useful.

    Add a shared annotation on this date which links to the Google blog post so people will remember when the data calculation changed and what the impact was.

  • http://www.attacat.co.uk timbarlow

    @Mike I’m finding the data pretty accurate now (when using the filter facility to get rid of image search ranks). Are you still seeing inaccuracies?

  • http://twitter.com/pavlicko david pavlicko

    I’m finding the search query report to be utterly useless when trying to analyze ranking for ecommerce related terms. Some of our big traffic ‘short-tail’ queries are showing as ranking upwards of position 20, but I know for a fact that they’re appearing on the 1st page. 

    It seems that Google has occasionally been adding ‘brands’ and ‘stores’ links just above the organic search results for a lot of these high traffic keywords – (try a search for guitars and you’ll see what I’m talking about) – well, they’re apparently counting those links in the search query reports, which presents very misleading data. 

    This totally sucks when you all of a sudden see a big drop in revenue from (not provided) keywords.