Hi,
I am wondering if you can help me with some market research
information.
Anduro Technologies is doing keyword research for our client and would
like the daily volume of traffic for 2 words: "envirolet" and
"sancor" between the dates of January to December 2000.
Is this information available? If there is a cost what would the cost
be?
Your prompt assistance is appreciated.
Cheers,
Jeff Nelson, MBA
President
Anduro Technologies Inc.
www.Anduro.com
Suite 200, 1324 - 17th Ave. SW
Calgary, Alberta T2T 5S8
Main: (403) 770-3004
Cell: (403) 875-2247
Fax: (403) 685-1858
Text Msg to Cell: 4038752247@msg.telus.com |
Request for Question Clarification by
websearcher-ga
on
23 Jul 2002 18:19 PDT
Hi jungle:
I have been researching this question for you for a couple of hours.
I am beginning to have serious doubts that you will find what you are
looking for. While most search engines do compile statistics about
what search terms are being used, they don't often publicize them, nor
do they keep the kind of daily records you are asking for for a time 2
years ago.
I have put out some email feelers to several large public search
engines and will let you know what they say if they respond at all.
One sear h engine that allows you to see how many time a search term
was used last month is Overture:
http://inventory.overture.com/d/searchinventory/suggestion/
However, they don't appear to have archives available. (Thanks to
inquisitive-ga for his help with this link.)
If you can tell us more about what search engine(s) you were
interested in particularly or why you want this information, it might
help us answer your interesting question.
Thanks.
websearcher-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
jungle-ga
on
23 Jul 2002 20:12 PDT
1. We are familiar with Overture and Wordtracker. Neither retain
archived copies of keyword searches for the year 2000.
2. Ideally we would like data for all search engines but if there was
data for even one search engine that would be sufficient.
3. We are working on a legal case against a competitor of our client,
to establish damages when they used these keywords in their Meta tags
during the year 2000.
Thanks for trying.
Jeff
|
Request for Question Clarification by
websearcher-ga
on
24 Jul 2002 11:20 PDT
Hi Jeff:
Why am I not surprised that they don't have the weblogs? How
convenient.....
Anyways, I am still waiting on responses from the emails I sent out
yesterday (and today). I have some further questions to ask you
(marked below as [CLARIFICATION #]) and I'd like to tell you how I
think we should proceed here.
It seems to me that you need enough data so that you can do the
following:
1. Prove to a judge that the unauthorized usage of those two
copyrighted keywords caused your client harm and made unwarranted
profits for the offending company.
2. If number #1 is successful, prove (to within reasonable accuracy)
what the monetary damages should be for that lost business. This can
be estimated from the total amount of web traffic diverted from your
client to the offender.
[CLARIFICATION 1: Am I missing anything important here? Are there
further points?]
Both of these points can likely be proven by showing that a
significant amount of web traffic was diverted during the year 2000.
If we can get one or more of the major search engines to provide us
with the data we need for 2000, then I believe we have a strong enough
basis to formulate reasonable numbers. Of course, more than one set of
data would be better than only one - but I think one would hold up, if
our analysis of that data is mathematically sound.
[Clarification 2: When you say you want "daily volume of traffic", do
you really want the figures for Jan. 1, Jan. 2, ..., Dec. 31 - or
would you be satisfied with the *average* per day?]
Here's my current thoughts on the mathematical analysis process we
should follow:
Go to the Search Engine Watch website at:
http://www.searchenginewatch.com/reports/mediametrix.html
and have a look at the Audience Reach figures in the first barplot.
These figures are for 2002. According to a link later on this page
Search Engine Watch also has similar historical data for 1997 -
present, but you have to be a member to get it.
http://www.searchenginewatch.com/about/subscribe.html?source=mmetrix-bottom
This will cost US$59 for 6 months or $89 for a year. While that's a
bit pricey, this website is *THE BEST*, most authoritative source of
search information today and I think it would be money well spent, not
just for this piece of data, but for other things that might come up
in this legal battle. (Of course, there's not much point signing up
until we get some data from the engine(s).)
Once we find the relevant figures for 2000, *and* we have a response
from at least one of the search engines listed there for 2000, we can
interpolate the amount of keyword requests at the other engines (by
using the ratios of traffic provided in the data) and total them all
up. A "buffer" of ~10% could be added to that for smaller search
engines and any "specialty engines" (e.g., environmental search
engines) that might not normally be counted. (I'll do further research
on whether that 10% figure is valid or not.)
I will help you with the analysis (I'm a mathematician) so that it
looks as rock-solid as it can be. Hopefully, this will impress the
judge with the seriousness of the offense.
[CLARIFICATION 3: How does this line of reasoning strike you? Any
questions? Other thoughts?]
Thanks.
websearcher-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
jungle-ga
on
24 Jul 2002 17:04 PDT
Websearcher,
The time you are spending is appreciated.
Clarification #1: You are correct on both points and that about covers
the issues
Clarification #2: Actual daily volumes are not required but would be
nice. Monthly volumes are okay too. If you can get averages (over a
month??) then that is fine too.
Clarification #3: Your line of reasoning is excellent. The buffer is
a good idea.
Question 1: How do we get the data?
Question 2: Are you a member of SearchEngineWatch? If not I can become
a member but I would need a pointer or 2 to get the data.
Question 3: Are their any additional costs?
Jeff
|
Request for Question Clarification by
websearcher-ga
on
24 Jul 2002 18:29 PDT
Hi Jeff:
I'm glad we're on the same wavelength. :-)
Question 1: The only way I can think of to get the keyword data (since
your words are pretty obscure - in the big scheme of things) is to ask
the individual engines to see if they can pull that data for us out of
their historical logs. I have already sent emails to 4 search engines,
that would have been popular in 2000, requesting whether this sort of
data service is available and if so, what costs would be involved. So
far, I haven't received any answers other than the typical "we got
your message, we'll be in touch" variety. A 2-4 day turn around is
typical for these companies, so I'm not panicking yet. :-)
If the email approach doesn't work, we may need to try calling - which
I may ask you to do, from numbers I could find for you. (Since there
would be long-distance charges involved.) But let's give it a few
days....
Question 2: No, I am not a member of SearchEngineWatch. I daily email
update on search-related stories (I once founded a search company),
but don't have need for the extra data at this time. If the time comes
where we need the data on this site, I'll point you in the right
direction(s).
Question 3: The only other costs (that I can forsee) at this time
would be whatever we negotiate with the search engines for their data
services (if any).
I'll keep you up-to-date on progress tomorrow.
Thanks - this is fun. :-)
websearcher-ga
|
Request for Question Clarification by
websearcher-ga
on
25 Jul 2002 10:25 PDT
Hi Jeff:
Well, I got one response today - but not from a search engine.
I had written to www.webmasteraid.com to see if they might also have
the search engine popularity statistics that we know Search Engine
Watch has. I got the following response:
*******************************
Unfortunately we don't keep historical search engine popularity stats.
We
are trying to keep our database up-to-date so it contains only the
latest
information.
P.S. By the way, it's highly possible that you'll find the information
you
are looking for at http://www.searchenginewatch.com
*******************************
This verifies what I believe about the authority of Search Engine
Watch.
I am leaving town Friday morning and won't be back until Sunday night
- so I won't be able to work on this question during that period. This
leaves us/you with two choices:
A: Leave things as they are until Monday, waiting for the email
responses from the already-sent enquiries.
B: I could get you the phone numbers to call and prepare a script for
what you should ask for today, and you could start calling the search
engine companies on Friday.
[CLARIFICATION 1: Which do you prefer, A or B? My gut says A, but I'm
not 100% sure of your timeline here.]
Thanks.
websearcher-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
jungle-ga
on
26 Jul 2002 10:33 PDT
Clarification:
Neither actually. I think we are done, unless you come up with anything brilliant.
Thanks, Jeff
|
Request for Question Clarification by
websearcher-ga
on
28 Jul 2002 11:47 PDT
Hi Jeff:
There are alot of other things that we could try - but I'm pretty sure
none of them would stand up in a court. :-(
Sorry I wasn't able to get the exact information you wanted.....
Seeing as we've determined that the information isn't available, which
was one of your options in your original question, do you have any
objections to my answering this question formally and collecting the
$200? If you think that is too much money for the time I've put into
this, you could cancel this question and post another with a title
like "Question for websearcher-ga onyy" with a sum you feel is more
appropriate. I'd then answer that question (with a dummy answer) and
collect the fee.
Thanks for the intersting opportunity at research.
websearcher-ga
|
Request for Question Clarification by
websearcher-ga
on
07 Aug 2002 17:37 PDT
Hi Jeff:
I was wondering if you'd had a chance to read my last request for
clarification since your return from holidays...?
I'd really like to have it cleared up soon what we should do w.r.t.
compensation for the long amount of time I spent helping you refine,
investigate, and conclude your search for patent infringement
information.
I'm leary of just putting an "answer" in the question and collecting
the $200 without hearing from you first and possibly discussing the
situation. Google Answers is a new service and we're still ironing out
the kinks in how to respond to certain situations (especially in
complicated questions like this one) ......
Thanks again for any light you can shed on the situation. I'm looking
forward to hearing your input. :-)
websearcher-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
jungle-ga
on
08 Aug 2002 05:19 PDT
This is my first time using Google Answer so I am not always sure of
the protocals. Let me get back to you regarding payment.
Thanks for your patience.
|
Clarification of Question by
jungle-ga
on
16 Aug 2002 07:47 PDT
To websearcher-ga:
We would like to settle the account for $100 US. As you recall, we
never got our question answered but we would like to compensate you
for your time.
What is the next step?
Jungle-ga
|
Request for Question Clarification by
websearcher-ga
on
16 Aug 2002 08:10 PDT
Hi jungle-ga:
Thank you for your response and your fair offer of $100.
To do what you propose follow these steps:
1. Create a new question at $100 that states: "This question is in
payment of websearcher-ga for his work on question #44275. Only
websearcher-ga may answer this question - anyone else answers it and
I'll ask for a refund. Thanks." The subject should be "For
websearcher-ga Only".
2. Cancel the $200 question by clicking on the "My Account" link,
clicking on the link for this question and then clicking the "Close
Question" button.
That should do it!
Let me know if there are any problems. :-)
Thanks again - and good luck with your lawsuit.
websearcher-ga
|
