You could simply generate a large amount of noise and send it to the API to foil any such evil plan.
The API url used is right there in the chrome JavaScript code, as mentioned by someone else on this thread. Very easy to write a simple script to send random words to the API.
You shouldn't see any slowdown. The code uses minimal resources - reads the table data, calls a webservice and injects the keyword volume and cpc numbers.
I can see the usefullness of this tool but it's not clear how to use it. I installed it but nothing changed (i.e. there's no button in the toolbar). I tried restarting Chrome hoping to see some changes, nothing. I went to the extensions settings page but all I see are checkboxes for different see screenshot: http://imgur.com/rOBCMmj
It would be extremely helpful to have even a basic tutorial page/link pop up after installation (you can add this hook in the manifest.json).
That's a good point. Will add a tutorial in the next version.
There is no setup to be done. Once the extension is enabled, you simply visit any supported website and the keyword metrics will show up automatically. Just google for a keyword and the keyword data should be seen under the search box. Visit Google Search Console or Analytics, and keyword columns automatically appear inside the table.
If you are having any issues with this, please do email me at support@keywordkeg.com and I'll be happy to figure out why its not working for you.
By 'non standard', do you mean the new ones like .club, .online, .global or just any extensions that are not .com, .org or .net?
(a) Brand new extensions - it will depend on whether Google considers the specific tld as a global tld (like it does for .io and .co). If so, then ranking in the search results may not be a problem.
(b) Global extensions like .io, .co - there are ample examples of startups that have used an "io", "co" or "ly" domain extensions. customer.io, intercom.io - startups are better of buying a $50 domains name, than spending hundred of thousands of dollars on getting the .com version of a popular word.
Traffic Penalty: There will be some loss from type-in traffic. But people have been posting domain names directly in the search engines, so its likely that type in traffic has decreased substantially. I see this as not being important in the future.
Trust & Brand Penalties: If the customers are not early adopters, then there might be a trust penalty as very few people have even heard of the new domain extensions.
Yes, and I'm considering getting a .online TLD vs paying thousands to a squatter vs buying a .org that isn't as good.
Thank you, I had not considered the 'global' consequences which are important to me because I think most of my traffic will be arriving from long tail search
This is from personal experience - works for me, may not work for you.
I have found that people who enunciate every word they read in their heads read a lot slower than those who can pattern match (without reading out the word in their head). I belong to the earlier category and have friends who belong to the latter. No matter how fast I tried to read, I could never finish a novel in a night (like the others did).
It's really easy to see which one are you - try and read a line of text making sure you do not read out the words out in your head. If the line makes absolutely no sense to you, you are like me. The text pattern needs to be converted into audio, which then links to meaning. Maybe its just the way our brains are arranged.
What has worked very well for me is listening to books on audible. I can easily listen to most books at 2X (and sometimes 2.5X) the speed of narration. A typical large book (like the recent one on Elon Musk) is about 14 hrs narration. I could successfully finish the book in less than 7 hours - something I could never do if I was just reading it. I also feel like I retain more, although I cannot be sure of this without more data.
I'm one of the guys who can pattern match. But for me this works only for novels and other "light" literature where remembering details of the story is not very important.
If I really want to learn/understand something it's much better to read the text in my head, so I have the opportunity to think more about what I just read. Or I pause after each paragraph.
Audiobooks didn't work for me at all - my mind always wanders away. Maybe I should try 2x speed.
A lot of people(including me) who tried to learn speed reading spend much effort on trying to eliminate "reading out loud" in their head, instead of actually spend the time to read some book.
It's great to hear the experience from someone who actually knows speed reading techniques. I guess "reading out loud" isn't so bad after all. thanks for you input :)
I get very distracted at 1x. There is a speed of maximum efficiency that works for me - generally around 2X. When information is thrown that fast at you, as long as you can catch it, there is no way to get distracted (unless there is a physical distraction).
Try listening at 2X or 3X while lying down with your eyes closed. Apparently, your brain will start to engage your visual cortex for listening and the speed becomes quite manageable.
I agree with your point on audiobooks. I have been doing it myself for a while too, but I always find myself wondering afterwards how this is not helping me to be a better reader.
Just finished filling the survey. Next time, try to not force the user to select the "Never" option. If I have not used that OS or browser, I will simply skip over it.
A 1% CTR is quite normal for an adsense advert. Assuming your advert is a banner ad, it should have similar CTR.
It is important to understand that over time people develop banner blindness - your ad could have copy providing a lot of value, but the human brain would simply be ignoring it. I would suggest A/B testing with different types of ads, with different copy and call to actions.
One more suggestion is that you can build an email list. It might be slow at start, but over time as the list grows, you no longer have to depend on users coming to your website and clicking your ads. You can contact them directly in their inbox. Obviously don't spam them with useless emails - offer them something of value in every email and try to email them every month (or every week if you can). People also react differently to emails since they are more personal and if you build up trust, it should be a lot easier to get their attention.
My AdSense CTR is actually much better (3%-5%), that's what I don't understand. But I've just deployed a new version and I put some sexy unsplash.com images in my CTA and content. It's only been a few minutes but it's already looking much better. It still puzzles me how much you have to dress your content to make it attractive on the Internet, though. You could write articles in thirty seconds and get away with it as long as you put boobs and kitten pictures it seems.
Images work really well when the user is surfing in general and not looking for something in particular. That explains why images are very important for Facebook Ads, while keywords are very important for Google adwords (search).
The only way to know is to keep running A/B tests.
What puzzles me is that most of the articles I've written for this site are working quite well in terms of CTR, and I never did A/B testing for them. Right now I have two images on my home page linking to my lessons, one is a beach and the other is a crowded live concert (they're relevant to the lessons). 20% of the 1% who clicked on the beach image have spent some time learning the song, whereas my crowded venue image has about 0% CTR. Perhaps I could find a better image for the 2nd lesson, sure, but if 6 people are interested in the 1st lesson when it's free, how many will want to buy it? I feel I'm losing my time. PS: Would you want to help me by doing some consulting for me? I really need somebody to see if I'm doing something stupid.
Additionally, if you see the source code, you can see that there is no tracking information sent to the API - only the keyword.
There is also no way to send requests to the Google API to get keyword data.