Tag Archives: seo

What are the best SEO search engine rank checking tools

Every site owner wants to know where their site is listed in the search engines, checking by hand is of course not feasible for 100’s or thousands of keywords. Although Google Console (previously known as webmaster tools) gives you some data on your average position, it only supplies you with sampled data and can be inaccurate because the data includes personalised results (for example when a user is logged in and as interacted with the site via Google+)

What are the best SEO search engine ranking tools to check your average position? Below are some of the best search engine rank checking tools on the market.

Advanced web ranking

http://www.advancedwebranking.com/desktop/

Track unlimited keywords in many search engines across the globe. Besides ranking checking there is Analytics intergration, Links, keyword Research tool and comprehensive reporting.
Available on Windows, Mac and Linux.

Cost: STANDARD version $199 one time payment ( plus yearly software maintenance fee)

AWR ranking report

Rankranger

http://www.rankranger.com/

Search engine position (SERP) tracking tool to see our your daily positions are getting on, local rank tracking, whitelabel PDF reports. Integration with Analytics, Majestic, ahrefs, and Moz.

Micromasters

http://www.micrositemasters.com/
For free you can get daily rankings (and trending) on 10 keywords.

Pro Rank Tracker®

https://proranktracker.com

Software as a service with an impressive list of features including; Tracking to the top 100 search results, Track all Google, Yahoo and Bing local sites, any language, Daily updates plus Updates on demand, No proxies needed, Full historical data, graphs and trendlines, Track videos on YouTube results. You can also resell the service with your own branding on your reports in the form of personal logos, texts and colours. Reports can be exported in PDF, CSV and excel XLSX. Free URL Google Page Rank and MajesticSEO backlinks data is also supplied.

Prices: sliding scale based on keyword & URL number starting from the Free version up to 20 search terms & 2 URLS up to the Diamond service for $159 month for 6500 search terms and
unlimited URLs.

Pro Rank Tracker dashboard screenshot

QuickRankTracker

http://quickranktracker.com

Basic low-cost tool to quickly Check Your Website Rankings For Various Keywords. It does not use proxies so you are limited on our many keywords you can check. You can track Particular Long URL Pages Not Just Root Domains. Currently only available for Windows XP/Vista/7/8/10.

quickranktracker rank checking software

Freshmetrix

http://www.freshmetrix.com/

Web based service, with prices starting from $19 a month to track unlimited domains, 100 keywords, White label reporting (ideal for digital agencies) and finally daily tracking updates.

Freshmetrix ranking checker

Dragon Metrics

http://www.dragonmetrics.com/

Track your web site rankings on 10 search engines in every country and language, on desktop or mobile devices. Get a detailed site audit with optimization recommendations and infomation on more than 50 common SEO issues effecting your site. Additional SEO tools created specifically for Baidu and Chinese search engines. Prices starting from $99 / month.

Dragon metrics Track rankings

Did you like this? Share it:

SEO test of Geolocation results with generic searches on Google

On 27 of Feb 2012 Google published on their Inside Search Blog, 40 changes made ​​to their algorithm when ranking various results. Among these, two concerned the geolocation results or local results:

Improvements to ranking for local search results. [launch codename “Venice”] This improvement improves the triggering of Local Universal results by relying more on the ranking of our main search results as a signal.

Improved local results. We launched a new system to find results from a user’s city more reliably. Now we’re better able to detect when both queries and documents are local to the user.”

From this, a well known SEO Specialist Riccardo Perini thought of the idea of doing a little test to try to understand what percentages of  geolocation results or ”geo” targeted results (detected via the users IP address) were being shown when searching for generic keywords (not usually connected with local results) . The aim was also to see if somehow there was a constant for these customizations.

It was decided to do the test using the general search “hotel”.  ”hotels” was chosen instead of “restaurant” as the search [hotel] did not show any results for UniversalSearch, or Google Places.

Riccardo then contacted around 100 people and asked them for help with the test, the test procedure was as follows:

“Using the Chrome browser. Go to Tools > Options > Under the Hood > Clear browsing data (all)
Then open an incognito window.
Now go www.google.it (not logged in), and search for the keyword ”hotel” (do a single search, so that there is nothing in your browsers history).
Take a screenshot of the entire first page of results.
If possible also note the IP address from which you have done the research.”

Data collection was from the 4th to the 14 March 2012 and included 70 screenshots.

The sample is not very large, and the research was done only for a keyword, so the results are to be ”taken with a pinch of salt.” He would of liked to have collected more data, both in terms of different IP’s and different keywords. Also it would be interesting to have the SERPs (results) for this research shown  from a few months ago, in order to analyze the changes over time.

However, even with the small sample it is not possible to define an exact rule, here is the data collected.

Total research carried out by different IP: 70

SERP results without any Geo-localized results based on the users location (detected by Google): 21
Among them:
SERP standard (*): 13
SERP results Geo-localized but not different from the standard SERP: 8 (**)

SERP results Geo-localized based on location detected by Google: 49
Among them:
SERP with 1 Geo-localized result: 16
SERP with 2 Geo-localized results: 32
SERP with 3 Geo-localized results: 1

Google serps with results geo-localized

In 70% of the cases analyzed from the Google SERP the results showed Geo-localized ones  customized by location detected by Google. Among these 65.31% of cases 2 results out of 10 were customized , in 32.65% cases only 1 result in 10 were customized  and only 2.04% of the cases were 3 results customized.

In none of these analyzed SERP’s were present Universal Search boxes, Google Places Maps or single G. Places boxes.

* The standard SERP for the search [hotel] was composed of these 10 results:

1. it.hotels.com
2. www.venere.com/it/
3. www.tripadvisor.it
4. www.booking.com/index.it.html
5. www.expedia.it/Hotel
6. www.it.lastminute.com/site/viaggi/hotels/
7. www.edreams.it/hotel/
8. www.italyhotels.it/
9. www.italysquare.com/
10. www.italy-hotels-reservation.it/

[Note: this “standard SERP” result was the same one that was displayed for the duration of the test by setting the location as “Italy”]

** This was the “normal” results, having collected the data on different days. With any freshness results taken out of the equation.

Here are some SERP examples of customized results (Results marked with arrows are customized results based on the location of the user):

Customized serps results for the word hotel ip address Milano

 

hotel search from a user in verona Italy

As a side note, I wonder if using the open source version of Chrome called Chromium would have produced the same outcome?

This Post has been translated with the kind permission of Riccardo Perini.

Did you like this? Share it:

Google quality rater paid me a visit?

While going through my Google analytics data for one of my domains, I noticed a very strange URL as a referral. It was domain.com/this_page_should_not_exist.fake (no page extension like html, etc). Being a curious type and working in SEO meant a further investigation was on the cards. I checked the location of the visitor which was San Francisco, where Google has one of it’s offices. Next was the operating system used which was Linux, which is in the most part what Google employees are using, which is said to be a customized version of Linux Ubuntu.

Also the other strange thing about this saga is that the domain in question is not in English, so it would be very unlikely that a user from San Francisco, using Linux (used more o less by only 1-2% of the total users), visiting a non existent URL. All this leads me to believe a Quality rater, working for Google is testing various sites to see the server response codes when a user calls a non existent page (which should be a 404 of course), probably to see if any funny busy (Black-hat SEO) is going on.

Did you like this? Share it: