Well, here it is folks. The moment you’ve been waiting for.
The short story, for those of you who aren’t terribly interested in the details, is that the complete recalibration of the new Keyword Competitiveness score that uses Majestic data is now complete. When we rolled out the Majestic changes, we noticed that the KC scores were a little higher across the board, and we wrote this post detailing new recommended KC targets while we worked on recalibrating KC scores to align more with what everybody was used to.
This recalibration has now been completed, and those of you who’ve been with us a while and who are used to seeing the chart below can now go back to using that as the guideline for what keywords to target (i.e, KC 30 and under is low competition).
The more detailed takeaway here is that while the overall competition scale is the same between the newly recalibrated KC and the old Moz KC, the exact KC scores of the Moz and Majestic versions aren’t going to line up precisely.
A lot of the differences can be attributed to the fact that Majestic simply has a lot more indexed pages and backlink data than Moz. This means that for some sites, especially smaller ones, Moz may not pick up all the links that the domain or page have pointed toward it, or it may be missing data completely. As a result, the Moz metrics will sometimes underestimate the strength of those results.
Just as a quick initiation – the way that we calculate KC involves first calculating a ‘Base Page KC’ and a ‘Base Domain KC’. These two scores are then weighted and combined along with some other factors to produce the Keyword Competitiveness score that you know and love.
For those of you who really want to delve into the details, here are some of the changes we made:
- In the calculations for Base Page KC and Base Domain KC, we now weight Citation Flow slightly higher than we did previously.
- We increased the importance of the number of referring domains.
- We chose to weight domain-level information more heavily than we did previously. In both the prior iteration of KC and the old Moz KC calculation, domain-level information was only weighted very heavily when we had no page data available. In the new version, we introduce a tiered approach to weighting Base Domain KC where we adjust the emphasis of Base Domain KC based on the values of the root domain’s Trust Flow, Citation Flow, and the number of referring domains.
- Previously, if a specific page had no data, we ignored Base Page KC entirely and used domain data exclusively. This was a carryover from when we were still using Moz. With Moz metrics, there were actually many pages that didn’t have PA for us to use. Because Majestic has so much more data in their index, we’re more confident in saying that if a page doesn’t have data, it’s actually quite a weak page, and we’re happy to include the Base Page KC as a 0. This means that KC is now a combination of both page-level and domain-level data in all cases.
- We lowered the weight of URL targeting (i.e example.com/target-keyword).
Now that the recalibration has been completed, we encourage all users to follow the old KC guidelines again – basically, low competition is once again 30 KC or lower, and those with established sites can shoot for slightly higher targets.
Waiting for almost a month…thanks for the update….:)
BTW also waiting for cloud version of longtailpro…
If you already have the KW Competitiveness Score pulled on your keywords, how do you run it again so it’ll adjust for the new calibration?
They will run automatically once you update the software.
Hi
Thanks for the waiting update
I have one Question are the Citation flow and other are same should be under 30 or they are different numbers need to search for
The CF numbers and others numbers are unchanged.
Great work guys, thanks for making the transition as painless as possible. I’m sure switching to majestic data from moz will help us do some more accurate keyword research.
And it’s good to be able to use that very nice looking chart again!
I appreciate the thesis put out by you. You recommend a KC of around 30 to have low competition but does it not mean low traffic too? What I suggest is to think of ways to beat the high KC area with new techniques or approaches. Your theory otherwise asks me to stay content with some 4 or 5 word phrase ranking at the top albeit with some very low traffic. I wonder if that is what you mean.
Well, for people just starting out, we do recommend KC 30 and below and very long tail phrases as a way to first start building out a new site. With more experience, SEO knowledge, and with a stronger site, you can start targeting higher KCs of course.
I appreciate the thesis put out by you. You recommend a KC of around 30 to have low competition but does it not mean low traffic too? What I suggest is to think of ways to beat the high KC area with new techniques or approaches. Your theory otherwise asks me to stay content with some 4 or 5 word phrase ranking at the top albeit with some very low traffic. I wonder if that is what you mean.
Well, for people just starting out, we do recommend KC 30 and below and very long tail phrases as a way to first start building out a new site. With more experience, SEO knowledge, and with a stronger site, you can start targeting higher KCs of course.
Hello 🙂
After reading both articles I still have a question… I started researching a new project yesterday morning and have a long list of KC scores already (pulled up yesterday). If I continue with this project and analyze KC’s for more keywords in my list, it sounds like the list will become a mixture of “before” and “after” KC’s, making it impossible to keep track of which were calculated with the most recent update. If for some keywords under 40 is ok, and for others it is back to under 30, but there’s no way to know the difference, it sounds like doing a completely new search and KC analysis for everything would be in order, right?
I noticed this article is dated August 6, so just wondering if yesterday’s project would be up to date with the latest system or not, since the newsletter was sent out now.
By the way, I tried re-analyzing KC scores of a couple of keywords this morning and the score did jump one point for all three keywords.
I’m confused… 😉 I’d rather do it all again than have inaccurate data, but would love confirmation of the above.
Fieww, that was a long one – hope I explained it right!
Thank you so much for your time!
– GJ
Yes, I would probably start a new project just to be sure. The alternative I believe is to click recalculate on the KCs you want updated.
Hello 🙂
After reading both articles I still have a question… I started researching a new project yesterday morning and have a long list of KC scores already (pulled up yesterday). If I continue with this project and analyze KC’s for more keywords in my list, it sounds like the list will become a mixture of “before” and “after” KC’s, making it impossible to keep track of which were calculated with the most recent update. If for some keywords under 40 is ok, and for others it is back to under 30, but there’s no way to know the difference, it sounds like doing a completely new search and KC analysis for everything would be in order, right?
I noticed this article is dated August 6, so just wondering if yesterday’s project would be up to date with the latest system or not, since the newsletter was sent out now.
By the way, I tried re-analyzing KC scores of a couple of keywords this morning and the score did jump one point for all three keywords.
I’m confused… 😉 I’d rather do it all again than have inaccurate data, but would love confirmation of the above.
Fieww, that was a long one – hope I explained it right!
Thank you so much for your time!
– GJ
Yes, I would probably start a new project just to be sure. The alternative I believe is to click recalculate on the KCs you want updated.
Thanks for the update LTP! It’ll be nice to have this back to normal, was nervous but kept my fingers crossed. Can’t wait to take it for a test drive and see the difference between MOZ and Majestic. If it works out, I’ll be more comfortable using Majestic than MOZ due to MOZ not keeping up with the times. Thanks!
Thanks for the update LTP! It’ll be nice to have this back to normal, was nervous but kept my fingers crossed. Can’t wait to take it for a test drive and see the difference between MOZ and Majestic. If it works out, I’ll be more comfortable using Majestic than MOZ due to MOZ not keeping up with the times. Thanks!
So, I’m guessing should we re-run numbers we got since the update occurred? My numbers since the change have been all over the place. I just checked some phrases I had marked as favorites because the KC was 12. Tonight they are both have KC numbers in the upper 40s.
Great question Mike.
I am looking for questions and feedback like this to assess how well LONGTAILPRO has come along with a supposed, accurate, updated software for all of us to use. Hopefully a reply from LONGTAILPRO is forthcoming, as it is a more than reasonable question to be answered before I dump the MOZ METRICS model.
Hi Dan and Mike,
Yes, rerunning numbers is probably a good idea. I’d say the KC you’re seeing now is almost definitely more accurate than the one previously.
So, I’m guessing should we re-run numbers we got since the update occurred? My numbers since the change have been all over the place. I just checked some phrases I had marked as favorites because the KC was 12. Tonight they are both have KC numbers in the upper 40s.
Great question Mike.
I am looking for questions and feedback like this to assess how well LONGTAILPRO has come along with a supposed, accurate, updated software for all of us to use. Hopefully a reply from LONGTAILPRO is forthcoming, as it is a more than reasonable question to be answered before I dump the MOZ METRICS model.
Hi Dan and Mike,
Yes, rerunning numbers is probably a good idea. I’d say the KC you’re seeing now is almost definitely more accurate than the one previously.
Well, the keywords now shows broad search results… just like google adwords…. :/
any solution?
Not sure what you mean here – care to expand?
Well, the keywords now shows broad search results… just like google adwords…. :/
any solution?
How are you guys dealing with the fact that google now shows search volume as lump sum groups? EX: they just to have individual kw volume for red car and red cars, now both those search terms have the same kw volume. Last time I used long tail it was pulling those numbers from google kw tool right? how are you getting accurate kw search volume numbers these days?
We are still pulling some numbers from google – also, the issue of Google search being in groups is not as drastic as some places have been reporting – the main different is things like plurals (like in your example) – we don’t feel that this should change the usage of the software as trying to rank for ‘red car’ and ‘red cars’ should basically take the exact same steps in terms of SEO.
‘
How are you guys dealing with the fact that google now shows search volume as lump sum groups? EX: they just to have individual kw volume for red car and red cars, now both those search terms have the same kw volume. Last time I used long tail it was pulling those numbers from google kw tool right? how are you getting accurate kw search volume numbers these days?
We are still pulling some numbers from google – also, the issue of Google search being in groups is not as drastic as some places have been reporting – the main different is things like plurals (like in your example) – we don’t feel that this should change the usage of the software as trying to rank for ‘red car’ and ‘red cars’ should basically take the exact same steps in terms of SEO.
‘
Glad this is finished and we can keep using the KC less than 20 for new sites and less than 40 for authority sites. Thanks for keeping us up to date with this.
Glad this is finished and we can keep using the KC less than 20 for new sites and less than 40 for authority sites. Thanks for keeping us up to date with this.
This update has broken the tool for me, all the local search volumes are messed up.
Been trying to get support to resolve this and nothing has changed for over a week now, they are not even replying to my support ticket questions.
Very disappointing 🙁
Carl
What you are experiencing is because of this : http://searchengineland.com/google-officially-throttling-keyword-planner-data-low-spending-adwords-accounts-255795
It has nothing to do with LTP and not sure that LTP can do anything about it. I was actualyl checking LTP blog to find an official statement about this… 🙁 But there’s nothing.
Nicolas.
Post is upcoming with an explanation of what we’re doing short and long term.
Wow! This is not good. I hope you get a resolution and soon!
We are writing a post right now – I believe we just rolled out a fix for this Adwords change, where LTP will reflect the ranges shown in your adwords account if you’re getting the 100-1000 style results.
This update has broken the tool for me, all the local search volumes are messed up.
Been trying to get support to resolve this and nothing has changed for over a week now, they are not even replying to my support ticket questions.
Very disappointing 🙁
Wow! This is not good. I hope you get a resolution and soon!
We are writing a post right now – I believe we just rolled out a fix for this Adwords change, where LTP will reflect the ranges shown in your adwords account if you’re getting the 100-1000 style results.
What about this new change?
The numbers are no showing only estimates like between 10-100 or 100-1k
http://searchengineland.com/google-adwords-keyword-planner-unknowns-256710
What about this new change?
The numbers are no showing only estimates like between 10-100 or 100-1k
http://searchengineland.com/google-adwords-keyword-planner-unknowns-256710
They will run automatically once you update the software.
The CF numbers and others numbers are unchanged.
Post is upcoming with an explanation of what we’re doing short and long term.
I get LMS volumes and KC but when I run competition analysis it’s all just ” — ” in multiple keywords and niches with good search volume. Anyone else experiencing this? I’m using the Platinum version.
Do these criteria still apply for choosing a niche that could potentially reach the top 10 for a beginner?
Page CF: Below 35
Page TF: Below 20
Domain CF: Below 55
Domain TF: Below 40
Would really appreciate an answer 🙂
Which version of LTP includes that fix?
I have 3.1.5 installed. should I update it or is it done automatically?
How do I update the software?
I am observing another major changes in google adwords. The difference between singular and plural in search is abolished, the same is observed in search Result too.
hi i have an issue with latest version of long tail platinum version 3.1.5 sumtime its stuck on genrating kc i dont know what to do
Thank you , it has been my all time favourite tool for lon tail keywords . Thanks to Long tail university course also for teaching valuable methods
Great one Again! I am learning and making full proof things to start Keyword Research in Future, but I try to learn new things As much as possible.
i have an issue where external backlinks, referring domains, trust flow and citation flow are “–”
What do i do to solve this issue? Is it supposed to be like this in 3.1.6?
Glad this is finished and we can keep using the KC less than 20 for new sites and less than 40 for authority sites. Thanks for keeping us up to date with this.
Hey guys, is cloud version of longtailpro out?
Yes, it is out.
Do these criteria still apply for choosing a niche that could potentially reach the top 10 for a beginner?
Page CF:
Page TF:
Domain CF:
Domain TF: