Odd Rankings: Tools vs Human results

[SEO_Ron]

Anyone seeing odd ranking results lately when using tracking tools? We have a set of locally focused keywords that we track weekly and have been tracking for years. These keywords include the city name within the query and have historically shown consistent results no matter the user's location. Also historically when checking ranking positions for these keywords any automated checks would match human checks in private windows. Within the last month or so that changed. Now our automated tools whether it's SerpAPI, ScaleSerp or one-off checks using tools like https://technicalseo.com/tools/local-search/ frequently show different results than what humans see.

Again, these are keywords we have tracked manually and with tools for many years and until recently automated checks matched human checks. And I should add when I say "human checks" these are people unaffiliated with our company/business checking in private windows in various parts of the country. The human results are consistent. But now it almost seems as though Google is showing a different set of results for APIs/tools than it is for human/browser based checks.

Also, I should add these aren't minor discrepancies. We will see for example across all human checks our site ranking 1 or 2 for a specific keyword whereas the automated check won't have the site in the top 10.

Has anyone else seen anything like this? Any theories?

 

[fisicx]

Ignore the tracking tools. At best they will indicate trends. And you can mostly ignore your human checking as well.

The only thing you need to check is the number of new leads you get each day. They will tell you far more about how well your website performs than worrying about ranking.

 

[SchielerDeland]

Hey there, I would treat those tool results as directional right now, not absolute

The main reason is that most rank-tracking tools, APIs, and local search simulators are checking from sterile environments: clean IPs, no real user history, no Gmail account, no behavioral profile, and no normal search journey attached to the request

That matters more now because Google does not seem to be returning one fixed SERP for every user. It can shift the #1 result, the local pack, organic ordering, and even the overall SERP layout based on the profile, location context, device, prior behavior, and what Google thinks that user is most likely to click

One question I’d ask: when your people did the human checks, were they signed into their Gmail accounts or searching in private/incognito windows?

The common SEO habit is to validate rankings through incognito, but that may no longer reflect how real users actually search. Most real users are logged into Google, and that logged-in context can enrich or alter the SERP in ways an API or sterile rank tracker will not reproduce

I think what you’re seeing is very plausible. The tools may not be “wrong” in the sense that they are broken, they may simply be measuring a different version of Google than the one real users are seeing

I hope this helps, and I look forward to hearing back!

 

[JeffClevelandTN]

Hi Ron,

We have not seen any major ranking fluctuations across the tools we use, but we do occasionally see one-off increases or drops for certain keywords. As you know, Google algorithm updates can also create short-term volatility in some industries, although I would be careful about assuming rankings will automatically recover. In my experience, if the SEO work is solid and above board, the results often settle back down, but it is still worth watching closely.

You did not mention whether you are seeing this with local map pack rankings or organic search engine results page (SERP) rankings. I am assuming organic SERP results based on your description, but I will comment on both.

For local pack tracking, I would strongly recommend using a well-established subscription tool as part of your main toolbox, if you are not already. There are a lot of options, but we have had strong long-term success with BrightLocal (BL), Whitespark (WS) and Places Scout (PS). BL and WS are both very affordable, and Places Scout is definitely more expensive, especially if you are tracking multiple keyword phrases or multiple locations. That said, PS has been very reliable for deeper location-based tracking. Other than PS, I believe BL and WS offer free limited trials.

For local pack rank checking, one important thing to keep in mind is business hours. Whether you are checking manually or running scheduled reports, rankings can be affected by whether the business is open or closed at the time of the search. Sterling Sky covered this here: https://www.sterlingsky.ca/google-added-a-new-ranking-factor/

For organic SERP tracking, BrightLocal and Whitespark have good directional rank tracking tools, but the results are usually based on a single geographic coordinate. In even a small or midsized city, rankings can change noticeably based on a very small location shift. That is where Places Scout can be useful because it allows you to check multiple points around an address, almost like a grid, which gives a better picture of whether rankings are trending up or down.

Places Scout also now includes reporting for AI Overviews mentions for the same keywords, and if you manage pay-per-click (PPC), it can show whether it saw your ad during the latest run.

We still manually spot-check significant drops or sudden increases. For that, we typically use valentin.app, which lets you spoof your location and search as if you were at a specific address. The same developer also has the GS Location Changer plugin for Chrome and Firefox. There is a good thread about that here: https://localsearchforum.com/threads/location-spoofing-with-gs-location-changer.62274/#post-197529

For both manual checks and tool-based checks, I would use a private or incognito window whenever possible.

As for your specific question about APIs and tools showing different results from human/browser-based checks, I do think that is possible. @SchielerDeland already touch on this in his reply. Google may be treating some automated checks differently based on several factors: location, browser environment, personalization signals, device type, language settings and other parameters. Even small differences in those factors can produce a very different result.

That is one of the reasons I like having a paid subscription tracking tool. It may not perfectly match every human check, but if the methodology is consistent, it gives you a reliable directional view over time. It also makes client reporting much easier. We want clients to see the improvements we are making, and internally, our team needs a consistent way to measure progress over the last few months, the last 12 months or longer.

Tagging @whitespark and @Jenny_BrightLocal

Hope this is helpful!

 

[whitespark]

Can confirm that rankings are increasingly volatile these days. There is no single set of rankings. Pretty much every person and every tool gets different results.