Campaign Diagnostics & Optimization

Search-Term Mining: The Weekly Query That Pays for Itself

By Chinmay Raibagkar·September 6, 2026·10 min read·Some SQL

The 60-second version

The search terms report is a list of customers telling you what they wanted in their own words. The 30-minute weekly routine that converts it into negatives and new keywords.

  • What happened, in one line
  • What to do about it this week
  • What you can safely ignore

Your keyword says "running shoes". The customer typed "running shoes for flat feet under 3000", "best marathon shoes exhange offer", "nike running shoes first copy". One of those is your exact customer speaking their budget aloud; one is a bargain hunter; one wants counterfeits. All three clicked the same keyword, and only the search terms report tells you which.

The search terms report is customers describing their intent in their own words — free voice-of-customer data that also happens to control 10–30% of wasted Search spend. The discipline is a 30-minute weekly routine: harvest, negate, promote. This post is that routine.

The short version: every query gets a verdict

The Weekly Mining Loop

Data Journey
Stage 1Pull the report
Harvest

Last 7–14 days of search terms with spend, conversions and value. Sort by spend descending — waste hides at the top.

200–2000 terms, most harmless
Stage 2Stop the bleeding
Negate

Irrelevant, unprofitable and junk queries become negative keywords at the right level (ad group vs campaign vs list).

5–15 new negatives weekly
Stage 3Scale the winners
Promote

High-intent queries with conversions graduate to exact-match keywords with their own bids and landing pages.

2–5 promotions monthly

A search term is what the user actually typed; the keyword is what you bid on. The gap between them — widened by broad match and close variants — is where money leaks and insight lives. Mining is the weekly reconciliation of the two.

Sort by spend, not by clicks. A term with 2 clicks that cost ₹900 and converted zero outranks a 200-click curiosity that cost ₹40. Waste is measured in rupees, and the top of the spend-sorted report is always embarrassing — that is how you know the routine is working.


The triage: four buckets for every term

BucketSignatureActionExample
JunkZero intent overlap: jobs, free, DIY, competitor careersNegative, campaign level"nike showroom jobs", "running shoes free download"
Price-mismatchIntent adjacent, economics impossibleNegative exact, or separate low-bid test"first copy", "under 500" on a ₹4,000 AOV store
Relevant but unprovenGood intent, spend below significanceWatchlist — revisit at 2x target CPA spend"marathon shoes exchange offer" (₹300 spent, CPA ₹600 target)
Proven winnersConversions at or below target CPAPromote to exact match with dedicated bid"running shoes flat feet" (6 orders, ₹410 CPA vs ₹600 target)

Two judgement rules:

  1. Significance before negation on intent-adjacent terms. Killing a term at ₹150 spend against a ₹600 CPA target destroys learning. Negate junk instantly (intent is certain); negate adjacent terms only past ~2x target CPA with zero conversions.
  2. Negative at the lowest effective level. Query wrong for one ad group → ad-group negative. Wrong for the product line → campaign negative. Universally wrong (jobs, free, porn-adjacent) → shared negative list applied everywhere. Level discipline prevents a good query starved in one place from being banned everywhere.

The n-gram view: patterns humans miss

Row-by-row triage catches big waste; n-gram aggregation catches systemic waste — the word "free" appearing across 300 tiny terms that each look innocent:

N-Gram Waste Finder — Words That Burn Budget

Show query

One n-gram, ₹38,000/month

Systemic waste
Word'jobs' — ₹38,400 / 30 daysSpread across 214 distinct terms, none over ₹400 alone
Row-by-row triageNever surfacedEvery individual term looked too small to matter
N-gram viewTop row, zero conversionsOne shared negative list entry
Recovery₹4.6L annualisedThirty seconds to add, a year of budget returned
Small-waste aggregation is the whole argument for the n-gram pass: row-level review has a detection floor, and systemic junk lives below it permanently.

Promoting winners: from query to keyword

Negatives stop bleeding; promotions create growth. A proven query graduates when it clears ~3 conversions at target CPA:

  1. Add it as an exact-match keyword in the best-fit ad group (or a dedicated single-theme group for volume queries).
  2. Give it its own bid at observed CPA minus headroom — inherited ad-group bids misprice proven intent.
  3. Match the landing page to the query's specificity ("flat feet" winners deserve the stability-shoe collection, not the homepage).
  4. Add the query as an exact negative to the originating broad group so the new exact keyword — not the broad net — catches future matches.

The 30-Minute Weekly Routine

Process Flow
1

Pull spend-sorted terms, 14-day window

Matured enough to include lagged conversions, fresh enough to act on. Ten minutes, top of the spend column first.

2

Triage into four buckets

Junk negated instantly, adjacent held to the 2x-CPA significance rule, winners flagged for promotion.

3

Run the n-gram pass monthly

Systemic words the row review misses. Shared-list the universals, campaign-negate the vertical-specifics.

4

Promote and re-anchor

Exact-match graduates with own bids and landing pages. Review promotion performance the following week.

Broad match without mining is a donation. The broader the match type, the wider the query gap, the more the account depends on this routine. Automating bidding while neglecting mining optimises efficiently toward the wrong queries — Smart Bidding learns from conversions, but it cannot negate "jobs".


Frequently Asked Questions

How is this different from just adding obvious negatives once?

Once is a snapshot; queries drift perpetually — new slang, new competitor names, new irrelevant trends attach to your keywords monthly. The weekly cadence exists because the query stream regenerates. One-time negation decays to zero value within a quarter.

Should Performance Max / AI campaigns get the same treatment?

The insight half, yes; the control half, partially. PMax search-term visibility is limited and negatives work through account-level lists — mine what is visible for the n-gram and landing-page insights, and push exclusions through the available controls rather than mourning keyword-level ones.

When does a query deserve its own campaign, not just a keyword?

When its economics or intent diverge enough to need different budgets, geos or creative: a high-volume winner that would be throttled inside a shared budget, or a distinct use-case ("wedding" vs "daily wear") that converts on different pages. Promotion is a ladder — keyword, then group, then campaign — climbed on evidence.


Summary & Next Steps

Search terms are customers narrating their intent; mining converts the narration into negatives (stop waste), n-gram lists (stop systemic waste) and exact-match promotions (scale proven intent) — weekly, spend-sorted, significance-gated.

  • Use search terms triage as the highest-ROI recurring routine in Search.
  • Use CPA significance rules so learning survives the negation pen.
  • Use channel CAC to confirm mined savings compound into real acquisition cost.
CR

Chinmay Raibagkar

About author →

Founder of DataLens AI. He helps non-technical teams read their ad and database numbers with confidence — which number to trust, what to do next, and what to ignore.

Glossary terms referenced