Search Intent Checker

Choose the question you are reviewing. Keep results for a single query, search engine, market, language, device and observation date together. A mobile search in one country and a desktop search elsewhere are different observations, even when the query text is identical.

Enter the query and record where the results came from. The form offers Google, Bing and Other as search-engine labels, with Desktop, Mobile, Tablet and Unknown as device choices. These choices describe your supplied snapshot; they do not start a live search.

Record the date on which the results were observed. A download date or today’s review date should not replace an older capture date. Add a clear source note, such as a manual review or the named export provider, so another reviewer can trace the evidence.

If you are still selecting possible topics, use the Keyword Research Tool for its current idea-discovery workflow first. An idea list and a reviewed results snapshot answer different questions. Collect the relevant result evidence separately before drawing an intent conclusion.

Add results individually or use the CSV / TSV import area. Use rank, URL and title columns, with snippets and classifications when available. The import controls show the accepted headers and limits.

Preserve actual organic positions. If your source includes ranks 1 and 3, keep rank 2 missing rather than renumbering the third result. Record the organic depth you intended to review, then check the records against that scope. The visible depth and organic-rank controls range from 1 to 50.

Keep ads and features separate from organic results. An advertisement, video feature or map observation may help you understand the page, but it should not receive an extra organic vote. Use the result-kind control and supplementary observations to keep those distinctions visible.

Inspect the imported rows before continuing. Confirm that URLs, titles, ranks and labels landed in the intended fields. Choose whether to append to your evidence or replace it. Check the import feedback and resolve any rejected rows before generating a report.

The query field allows 300 UTF-16 code units. Other fields and imports have their own limits, so keep notes focused and retain lengthy source material separately. A long note or large file is not an unlimited evidence allowance.

A title is a useful starting point, but it may not show what a visitor can actually accomplish. Inspect the result in your own research workflow. Ask what the page primarily does, what evidence supports that interpretation and which part remains uncertain.

An informational result explains something or helps someone learn. A commercial result helps compare or evaluate options. A transactional result enables an action such as ordering or booking. A navigational result helps someone reach a particular website or destination.

Choose Unknown when the evidence is insufficient. A brand mention alone does not establish navigational intent, and a word such as “best” does not prove that a page is a fair comparison. Short wording clues can direct attention without replacing inspection.

English wording clues remain separate, unconfirmed hints. A title containing “how to” can remain Unknown until a reviewer accepts a label. Editing a primary label does not replace its separate wording clue.

The report percentages count supplied organic results by primary label. They do not measure searches, clicks, conversion likelihood or the percentage of people who want one kind of page. Unknown rows remain in the denominator.

If two of five organic records are commercial, the commercial share is 40% of those records. Removing an unknown row would change the calculation to two of four, or 50%, without adding any new evidence. Keep the uncertainty visible.

Secondary labels do not create additional primary-intent votes. Ads and features remain separate. A record should not count twice simply because a page explains a topic and sells a product.

The method requires more than half of the supplied organic rows to share one known primary label for a strict majority. The largest category can still fall short of that threshold. A majority is a description of the sample and still needs editorial judgment.

The top-three view uses the observed organic ranks 1, 2 and 3. It does not take the first three imported rows or promote rank 6 to replace a missing position.

A commercial majority among the leading results can coexist with a mixed overall sample. Record both findings. They may help explain a possible page direction, but neither proves that one format serves every audience or that a new page will rank.

Check completeness as well as percentages. A small or selectively captured set can give a confident-looking fraction without strong evidence. Missing ranks, unclear labels and repeated publishers deserve review before a content brief is approved.

Distinct-domain information describes repetition in the supplied sample. It does not establish separate ownership, independent evidence or publisher quality. Review the actual results and source method before interpreting diversity.

Write down the audience, the task, the proposed page experience and the evidence behind your choice. Include the strongest supporting results and any important disagreement. Keep uncertainty attached to the decision so the next reviewer knows what still needs research.

When related queries need organizing, use the Keyword Cluster Generator with its supported inputs. A group shows a relationship worth inspecting; it does not establish that every query needs the same destination.

Record your chosen destinations in the Keyword Mapping Tool. A comparison, practical guide and product category can deserve distinct pages when they serve distinct tasks. Avoid creating near-identical URLs simply to target different wording.

Use the Content Brief Generator to develop the writing handoff from your reviewed audience, objective and outline. Include original evidence, examples and an accountable owner. A competitor pattern is a research observation, not permission to copy its headings or claims.

For a separate page comparison, the Competitor SEO Analysis Tool offers another review route. Keep the specific comparison evidence separate from your search snapshot and confirm that tool’s current requirements before relying on its findings.

Download CSV and JSON reports retaining context, result evidence and the content decision. Review the exported fields before handing a report to another person. A report file is not an editable-project backup; no project-restoration or saved-history workflow is included.

Submitted search evidence and reports are not saved in WordPress. Shared abuse protection separately uses a salted IP hash, tool identifier and usage date. Hosting and verification-provider policies apply separately; the entire workflow does not stay on your device.

Clear evidence removes the records and clears the snapshot fields, returning the engine, device and depth to their defaults. Preserve any research you need before clearing. The built-in Example is explicitly illustrative and uses an older fixed observation date, so do not relabel it as today’s search.