|
Well, I think that one of two things is happening here:
Either:
1) It's an error or
2) G has redefined the criteria for what counts as an exact match.
Historically, as far as I'm aware G has included multiple page views in SERPs as separate exacts matches (ie viewing the second page of results or returning to the first page [uncached] after visiting a site adds +1 to the exact match total). Also up until now the figures have been very susceptible to being manipulated by auto queries, which has resulted in some very odd readings for obscure terms. Obviously there are likely to be other factors, such as stats from Google's ad partners, parking pages and so on.
Removing one or more of these factors would result in lower, or much lower readings.
I've got quite a few very high exact match sites sat at #1 in G for terms, and often the traffic they get bears no relation to a traffic estimate based on user eye scan / click rate studies and the quoted exact match figures, so assuming that this is not a system wide error it will be interesting to see if the reality matchs up better to estimates based on the readings that are now being given.
As has been said by many members both here and on other domain forums, valuing undeveloped names solely on exact match without adding a good dollop of experience and common sense was always going to be a risky strategy. Regardless of the size of the readings given I do think that the tool has a value in terms of adding metrics to the buying equation for selecting target names.
|