discuss Type-in traffic vs. Google search volume

The more results the worse off you are and the higher your actual exact searches the better off you are. There is no ratio eg 100,000,000 results and 25 exact searches meaning a lot of work for no result or 10,000,000 results and 500k of exact searches also meaning decent share to be had. I often get people trying to sell names with millions results and little to no searches thinking they have something.

lock said:

The more results the worse off you are and the higher your actual exact searches the better off you are. There is no ratio eg 100,000,000 results and 25 exact searches meaning a lot of work for no result or 10,000,000 results and 500k of exact searches also meaning decent share to be had. I often get people trying to sell names with millions results and little to no searches thinking they have something.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your insight. I'm more interested in the search volume of the keyphrase rather than the search results. Assuming I have a domain that has a keyword search volume (not search results volume) of 20k/month, is that a helpful gauge of how much type-in traffic to expect?

BrandAptly.com said:

Thanks for your insight. I'm more interested in the search volume of the keyphrase rather than the search results. Assuming I have a domain that has a keyword search volume (not search results volume) of 20k/month, is that a helpful gauge of how much type-in traffic to expect?

Click to expand...

You still have to get it placed on front page to get any results really. I have loads of tools over a few sites to assist.

The actual type ins you will get will be low but the fact a site has any clicks without content is a miracle. The more work you do content and marketing the more it will move forward with forward potential. I could embarrass my self confirming much higher searches with trickles of traffic without content.

lock said:

The actual type ins you will get will be low but the fact a site has any clicks without content is a miracle. The more work you do content and marketing the more it will move forward with forward potential. I could embarrass my self confirming much higher searches with trickles of traffic without content.

Click to expand...

I decided to address my conundrum by running a little experiment. I purchased 10 domains with moderate google searches (approx. 3k/month) and did 301 redirects to different landing pages on a site with referrer tracking. So far, it looks like an average of 2 type-ins per day, which is better than I expected. That works out to be 7,300 targeted visitors a year for a reasonable price of less than $90 per year.

My consensus is that finding domains with higher search volumes will improve those numbers in my favor and proportionately reduce my marketing cost.

BrandAptly.com said:

...on a site with referrer tracking..

Click to expand...

Can you be sure of its accuracy?
I mean,
how do you know whether a visitor is organic and is really interested in your targeted keywords or you just got a crawler/bot or maybe random traffic from people that test domains/keywords etc.?

If I was doing your test, I would setup landers with clickable keyword terms (or some short text) and check who clicks them

Hypersot said:

Can you be sure of its accuracy?
I mean,
how do you know whether a visitor is organic and is really interested in your targeted keywords or you just got a crawler/bot or maybe random traffic from people that test domains/keywords etc.?

If I was doing your test, I would setup landers with clickable keyword terms (or some short text) and check who clicks them

Click to expand...

Very valid questions.

1. Each domain is redirected to a specific landing page on the tracking website.
2. The site has a 'coming soon' page with no menu (navigation).
3. None of the domains have any backlinks yet, so it's highly unlikely any bots will crawl them.
4. The referrer will always be the respective domain name when it's type-in traffic.
5. The domains are created from proper nouns...like johndoe.com. It is safe to assume the visitors are the bearers of these names. Now even it's domainers doing keyword checks, it's still a good sign...I think.

I will have more data to work with once I officially launch.

BrandAptly.com said:

I decided to address my conundrum by running a little experiment. I purchased 10 domains with moderate google searches (approx. 3k/month) and did 301 redirects to different landing pages on a site with referrer tracking. So far, it looks like an average of 2 type-ins per day, which is better than I expected. That works out to be 7,300 targeted visitors a year for a reasonable price of less than $90 per year.

My consensus is that finding domains with higher search volumes will improve those numbers in my favor and proportionately reduce my marketing cost.

Click to expand...

Interesting experiment. Good luck with it!

Could you give any updates?

..had dreamt one of my typos *not a USpto trademarks'* domain's worth "millions"? ..of which is chinese tech csdn.net (#1 .net ranked #28 world of all websites buy alexa) is wwwcsdn.net a rarity find in the WHOIS Checked; if can't find one like dat at $10 handreg i imagine, and tried, like combining traffic of like 50 altogether that amounts to $500/year For Traffic TomorrowS for yesterday's work a niche of domaining beyond brandables selling one and done only!



-have a special day

BrandAptly.com said:

How reliable a predictor is google search volume of organic type-ins? What is the general ratio?

Click to expand...

Hi

unless there is measurable volume, with extension included in query, then no ratio.

the old overture tool was the best for gauging whether a word/phrase would have type-in traffic.
still have some acquired using it, and they continue to get some traffic.

imo...

i remember overture

typo domains with traffic tomorrows could be the most undervalued in domaining
for some reason dreamt one of mine wwwcsdn.net (top alexa/.net) is worth "millions"..

got a counter offer godaddy emails'



-have a special day