miercuri, 1 octombrie 2014
Google Organic Click-Through Rates in 2014
Google Organic Click-Through Rates in 2014 |
| Google Organic Click-Through Rates in 2014 Posted: 30 Sep 2014 05:12 PM PDT Posted by Philip_Petrescu We've all been there. Trying to improve our organic rankings so we can get more traffic from the search engines. And every time we do that, we are left with some big questions in our minds:
I've been there, too. I felt overwhelmed and frustrated every time I had finally reached a number one organic ranking in Google only to find out that the traffic coming from the search engine was not making the big difference I was expecting. So I started searching for a way to find out how much organic traffic I could get for ranking on the top positions in Google. But I faced a big challenge. These days, with "not provided" being almost 100%, it's very hard to measure how many people reach your website searching for a certain keyword. So I turned to the best source that I could get this data from, Google Webmaster Tools, which allowed me to see how many people click on my website when searching for the keywords I am interested in. This saved me a lot of time and allowed me to make better choices in the future with the keywords I was targeting. Sounds like something you would be interested in? Read on to find out more about how my initial findings turned out into a full fledged organic CTR study and how you can use this data to make better and more informed decisions in the future. TL;DR: This will be a long post, so for those of you who are anxious to see the results of this study, scroll down to the CTR Study section below. Alternatively, you can download the complete study in PDF format or check out the free Google CTR History tool we have built to aid with this study. Previous CTR studiesThis is not the first study of its kind. There have been a number of studies in the past that have tried to find out the CTR for organic results. It all started when AOL released more than 20 million search queries made by more than a half-million users in 2006. A number of studies followed after that, including those from Enquiro (now Mediative) in 2007 and later by Chitika and Optify in 2010. More recent studies have been performed by Slingshot in 2011 and then Chitika and Catalyst in 2013 respectively. Here is a comparison of the Click Through Rate for each study: It's important to emphasize the major differences in the methodologies applied for each study, as they are the main ingredients responsible for the dissimilarity of the results: It's worth noting that the studies conducted by Mediative (former Enquiro) and Chitika, have been executed through unique methods that cannot be truly compared to any of the other studies. Mediative's study relies on survey data and eye-tracking research, while Chitika's studies are based on ad impressions served within their network. Also relevant for a comparison is how CTR is defined for the other three studies previously conducted:
Our study retrieves the CTR data from Google Webmaster Tools so comparing it with the Catalyst study would be the most accurate. So why a new study?First of all, the Google search results have evolved significantly since these studies were performed. Besides having a fresh set of data, we also wanted to make this study unique.
Read on to see how different types of search results influence users' behavior and what role the user intent has in determining the distribution of clicks. Our methodologyHere's how we obtained this data in case you want to do a similar analysis for your own websites:
Assumptions and limitationsThe sample data set that was extracted from GWT belongs to our clients. Their businesses, although variate, may belong to certain industries that are different than the industry you are in. Therefore the results may not be the same for every business. This study measures the CTR that was observed for a special time frame (within the month of July 2014). That means we cannot predict how the CTR changes for keywords that have higher volumes in different periods of the year. In this study, we also made the assumption that the data collected from GWT with the above methodology is accurate. The CTR studyThis is the reference chart for the click-through rate (CTR) of organic desktop searches in Google for July, 2014. It is important to mention that these numbers reflect the CTR across all the searches included in this study. They do not account for the user intent, the features that appear in the SERP, or whether the keywords used in the search included a brand name. These will be addressed later in the study when we segment the data. On average, 71.33% of searches result in a page one organic click. Page two and three get only 5.59% of the clicks. On the first page alone, the first 5 results account for 67.60% of all the clicks and the results from 6 to 10 account for only 3.73%. "These numbers serve as a useful reminder of the importance of organic rankings, and reconfirms the importance of the top few positions on Google. Although the first spot is still the most valuable for CTR, it seems to have become less so. I'd guess that part of the reason is that the increased use of ads, universal search results and Google's own comparison and shopping results have reduced the prominence of top slot." Graham Charlton - Econsultancy In case you wonder where the other 23.08% of the clicks are, here are some possible scenarios:
MobileMobile traffic is getting bigger and bigger day by day. Here we can see the CTR for searches coming from mobile devices compared with the searches from desktop devices. Given the fact that you can see fewer ranking results above the fold on mobile, people have assumed that the CTR would be higher for the first results on mobile devices. Let's see if that is the case: Not only is the CTR slightly lower on the first page, but the CTR for mobile searches actually rises on the 2nd and 3rd page, which is opposite to what we would expect and see from mobile searches. "I would've expected mobile to drop off much, much faster than desktop. These rates seem to imply that the first positions on a mobile results page are less significant than we thought. Does that mean people are scrolling more?" Ian Lurie - Portent Branded vs. unbrandedOne might assume that when users are making generic searches on Google, they end up making a brand selection from the results retrieved. They choose from the handful of options received, the source of information or provider to trust in for satisfying their need. But what happens when branded searches are made? If the users are clearly looking for information related to a specific brand, will they follow the same behavioural pattern as for generic searches? For branded searches the first result is almost always associated with the brand's website, which makes it the obvious choice for most users and very hard to miss. This would justify the big CTR difference between the first position and the rest of the SERP. This big difference in CTR may also be affected by the fact that brand searches usually display a pack of 6 site links just below the first result, making it more prominent in the search results. "People will seek click on a brand in the first position for a search on that brand way out of proportion to all other positions." Danny Sullivan - Search Engine Land "The CTR data coming straight from Google suggests that we should be even more conservative when estimating potential search traffic. Most of our keyword research is going to revolve around non-branded terms. If you study the data, you'll see a dramatic difference between CTR for the #1 position of branded vs. non-branded search. Our views of how many clicks you will get with an average position of 1 may be skewed because of this. But now with this segmentation data, I know I will be viewing traffic potential even more conservatively based upon CTR of only non-branded keywords." Dan Shure - Evolving SEO Search intentMost of us have some sort of intent when we search for something. We may need to find the location of a restaurant or a better price for that big TV we always wanted to get in the living room. It is believed that people who search for keywords with high commercial intent ("buy 4k LCD TV") are more likely to click on the first results than people who perform basic informational searches ("where is the nearest thai restaurant"). Let's see if search intent does indeed affect how people click on the results. This chart reveals that people tend to click more on the first results when their search has a specific intent. So we wanted to dig deeper and see which of the search intents affect the CTR and how. "Google uses a lot of context cues beyond the keyword so if I type 'restaurant' the intent isn't there, until you realise it is midday and I'm on the street searching on my iPhone. This might explain the significant uptick in clicks on positions 1-3 for searches with intent." Tom Anthony - Distilled The "Specific Intent" in the chart above is the set of all keywords found in the Informational, Commercial and Location sections and the "Other Intent" means all the other keywords. The following chart compares these three search intents and how they affect the CTR: Google is getting better and better at figuring out search intent. Nowadays, many of the search results contain instant answers so people no longer need to click on a website to find out what they're looking for. The answer is already there. Commercial intent searches usually trigger ads that have colorful pictures of the products we search. It's usually a lot more tempting to click on these pictures than on the first organic results. "Search results for commercial intent keywords usually contain more features (eg: pricing, ratings, shopping results) which might dilute the CTR across the page." Richard Baxter - Builtvisible Estimating organic traffic based on CTRRemember the initial goal of this study? To find out how many organic visits one could receive for ranking in the top results on Google. We are now closer to reaching our goal. By knowing the CTR for each position in the organic search, we can now calculate the organic traffic potential of a website. Depending on the ranking of a keyword and how many people click on that website, we can easily calculate how many people would reach that website from organic search. Theoretically, by taking into account all these factors, one could easily estimate the amount of organic traffic. The formula is quite simple: Traffic = Search Volume * CTR But things get a little complicated when taking into account that each keyword is different. As this study showed, searches for branded keywords have a higher CTR. Search intent also affects organic CTR significantly and long tail keyword searches show higher CTRs for first page listings. Let's see an example for an unbranded keyword with a volume of 1,000 searches per month where you rank first in the organic results with no ads above you: 1,000 x 24.8 / 100 = 248 (visits per month) where 24.8 is the CTR for the 1st position for unbranded keywords. Applying this formula for each keyword, enables you to estimate the amount of organic search traffic for any website. Where can you get this study from?This post contains only parts of the actual study. To find out how ads affect the CTR of organic results and more, download the complete Google Organic CTR Study in PDF format. You will also get access to the entire data set that we used for this study if you want to do your own research. Future developments of the studyWe will be constantly adding new features to this study, such as more ways to segment the data or insights on how different features that may appear in the SERP affect the CTR. These new additions will be featured first in the free Google Organic CTR History tool, so make sure you check it out. The first thing we want to tackle next is how the features that appear in the Universal results (such as news, videos, places, etc.) affect the CTR. We will then dig deeper to see how the CTR is affected by carousels, answer boxes and other knowledge graph features that appear in the SERP. Your turn Is there something in particular you would like to see in further updates of this study? Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read! |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Moz Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Seth's Blog : You're right, they're wrong, but they won
You're right, they're wrong, but they won
Why is that? Is the world so unfair?
Actually, it might be because the other guys took the time and invested the effort to build a movement. They showed up, every time, again and again. They never contemplated that they might lose, even though they're wrong, sub-par or not as good as you are. Their operating system, corporate structure, political ideas or economic approach won.
Perhaps they told a story that resonated, one that resonated not with the better angels of our nature, but with our urgent desires. And most probably, they built a tribe, not one in their image, but in the image (and dreams) of those that wanted to belong.
But mostly, it's because they were prepared to spend a decade (or two or three) to change the culture of their part of the world in the direction that mattered to them.
More Recent Articles
- Two ad campaigns of the moment
- The sophistication of truth
- Wishing vs. doing
- Two purposes of user feedback
- None of this makes sense
[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]
Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.
marți, 30 septembrie 2014
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
- Draghi Pressures ECB to Buy "Junk-Rated" Loan Bundles of Greece and Cyprus
- "Come Hell or High Water" Promise Morphs Into "Infinity and Beyond"
- Reader Question on a Credit-Based Society: Can Interest Ever Be Repaid?
| Draghi Pressures ECB to Buy "Junk-Rated" Loan Bundles of Greece and Cyprus Posted: 30 Sep 2014 07:00 PM PDT On September 4, ECB President pulled out a financial bazooka including a pledge to build up the ECB's balance sheet by another €1 trillion. Draghi confirmed the asset purchases would "include the real estate, the RMBS, real estate ABS. It would also include a fairly wide range of ABS containing loans to the real economy," but only "the senior tranches, and the mezzanine tranches only if there is a guarantee." Now, just three weeks later, he wants to buy outright junk, presumably without guarantees. Please consider Mario Draghi pushes for ECB to accept Greek and Cypriot 'junk' loan bundles. Mario Draghi is to push the European Central Bank to buy bundles of Greek and Cypriot bank loans with "junk" ratings, in a move that is set to exacerbate tensions between Germany and the bank.Free Up Liquidity? The idea that swapping money for junk will free up liquidity is as ridiculous as moving a rotting fish from your pantry to the living room in hopes the stench will go away. In this case, the stench on Greek bank balance sheets will not go away. Instead, stench will also appear on the balance sheet of the ECB. And it will not do a thing to spur lending for the same reasons as noted in ECB's €1 Trillion Stimulus Gamble: ECB Pulls Out Bazooka, Cuts Rates, Buys Assets; Will this Stimulate Lending? Here's the key snip. Will this Stimulate Lending?In response to the above post, a director at a global financial company pinged me with ... "Hello Mish,These actions by Draghi prove he is clueless about how the system even works. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| "Come Hell or High Water" Promise Morphs Into "Infinity and Beyond" Posted: 30 Sep 2014 02:13 PM PDT In 2010, vice-president Joe Biden publicly vowed the US would be "totally out" of Afghanistan "come hell or high water, by 2014." In a few short months, 2014 will be gone. Are US troops out of Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Nope. Instead, we have troops in Syria. Political Promises Political promises should never be believed. Today the US signed an extension allowing US forces to remain in Afghanistan until "at least" 2024. At Least Until 2024 The Guardian reports a new Afghanistan pact means America's Longest War Will Last Until at Least 2024. The longest war in American history will last at least another decade, according to the terms of a garrisoning deal for US forces signed by the new Afghanistan government on Tuesday.Enthusiasm of Defense Leaders Soars  Opium Connection To help highlight the absurdity of US policy in Afghanistan, please consider U.S. Turns a Blind Eye to Opium in Afghan Town KABUL, Afghanistan — The effort to win over Afghans on former Taliban turf in Marja has put American and NATO commanders in the unusual position of arguing against opium eradication, pitting them against some Afghan officials who are pushing to destroy the harvest.Opium Production at Record High That story was from 2010. An article from January of 2014 highlights the "success" of US opium strategy: Afghan opium production on the rise despite U.S. troops, inspector says Citing the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Sopkp said the cultivation of poppy plants — used to make opium and its derivative drugs such as heroin — is greater today than in 2001 when the United States invaded Afghanistan.Afghanistan Absurdities
The above process necessitates keeping US troops in Afghanistan to 2024, if not infinity and beyond. Thus, the Battle for Perpetual War is Won. Is it any wonder the process has garnered rabid enthusiasm of the defense industry? The only missing ingredient of the warmonger's ultimate fantasy is multiple wars on multiple fronts with a large power like Russia. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| Reader Question on a Credit-Based Society: Can Interest Ever Be Repaid? Posted: 30 Sep 2014 10:35 AM PDT Reader Mike wonders how interest can ever be repaid in a credit-based economy. Hi Mish,Exponential Math We are in this mess precisely because of fractional reserve lending and never-ending policy of inflation by central banks that do not seem to understand the long-term ramifications of exponential math. I have covered the exponential math aspect before. For details, please see Money as Communication: A Purposely "Non-Educational" Fallacious Video by the Atlanta Fed. Credit in a Gold-Backed World There is nothing wrong with credit expansion used for productive purposes. If we had a 100% gold-backed dollar without FDIC, bad debts would be extinguished automatically. Interest rates would be low for low-risk ventures and high for high-risk ventures, with lenders (depositors willing to lend money) taking the risk. On high risk ventures, some projects would lose and some win, as it should be. Importantly, no money held for safe keeping (checking deposits), would ever be at risk in 100% gold-backed system. Nor would there be any mathematical need for credit to expand exponentially forever and ever without end. 30-year mortgages might not even exist, but that would not cause any problems. Deflation (a natural state of affairs because of rising productivity) would provide price stability central bankers now claim they want. But that is not the world we live in. Fiat World Math Unfortunately, we live in a fiat world, not a 100% gold-backed dollar world. We have fractional reserve lending, and a huge mismatch in duration. Banks borrow short and lend long. It's a recipe for disaster. Thanks to central bank encouragement and unnaturally low rates for a fiat scheme, credit is out of hand. Loans that have been made cannot possibly be paid back. Unproductive zombie companies survive only because they can roll over debt while expanding it. Covenant-lite debt now accounts for 50% of new debt issuance. Worse yet, real wages are falling because of central bank inflationary policies in a productivity-driven world increasingly dependent on robots, not human labor. Minimum wage laws, Obamacare, Congressional fiscal policies, Fed interest rate policies, public unions, and inflationary policies in every phase of government make it likely that companies use robots at a far faster pace than they would otherwise. Something has to give and it will. Debtberg Malinvestments and the Zero-Bound Problem I asked my friend Pater Tenebrarum at the Acting Man blog to chime in on this situation. Pater writes ... Interest is basically nothing but the discount of future goods vs. present goods. At its root, interest is actually a non-monetary phenomenon. In the modern-day fractionally reserved fiat money system, it has become possible to expand money and credit at immense rates. The reason why the debtberg was able to grow to such immense proportions is that interest rates fell for over 30 years. But now we have arrived at a critical juncture, because interest rates can no longer go any lower. The possibility to refinance existing debt again and again to lower its cost has come to an end.On the Edge of a Cliff
No one can be sure when some country is going to fall off that cliff, but exponential finance, Ponzi financing schemes, and zero-bound interest limitations suggest the outcome is sooner rather than later. As I have stated before, a global currency crisis awaits. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Postări
