homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.236.92
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

    
How much has position No1 been degraded?
Whitey




msg:4188941
 2:10 am on Aug 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

I've heard from a few folks that the introduction of local search , directories and maps may have reduced traffic by as much as 20% in the No1 position.

What other reports have you heard ?

 

tedster




msg:4188954
 2:37 am on Aug 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

If you're talking about a local search query term - one that triggers the Map - then I've seen more like 35% to 60% loss. Local Search is less and less about organic ranking these days.

driller41




msg:4189083
 8:29 am on Aug 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

Can we assume we are talking about the effect of recent changes to the number 1 position overall.

The last data I saw was something like

1 45%
2 15%
3 10%

I would love to see some proven current data.

Whitey




msg:4189084
 8:31 am on Aug 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

I put this old statistic up for discussion to get things rolling , but it's way out of date. Does anyone have a references to reliable sources that are more current :

A study from Cornell University in 2004 showed that 56.36 percent of the clicks were on the first result and 2.55 percent on position No. 10. Every study I saw was unequivocal traffic drops significantly by rank. [columbiatribune.com...]

aristotle




msg:4189261
 2:02 pm on Aug 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

I think the effect varies, depending on the search term. The new SERPs page layout that Google introduced a few months ago gives various menu options for refining a search, and these seem to vary according to the search term. Also, for some search terms Google puts up to three paid ads above the organic listings, and these push the number 1 listing down the page and reduce its CTR. But this only happens for some search terms. So the effects of the new layout vary, so that some search terms are affected more than others.

Victor1




msg:4189424
 7:21 pm on Aug 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

I agree about 20% is what i have seen

Whitey




msg:4189523
 11:41 pm on Aug 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

Tedster - on those drops that you're aware of , would the remaining traffic from the top organic search position still be in line that Cornell study in 2004 ( i wish i could locate some more recent data - I'm sure i've seen it somewhere )

Whitey




msg:4192944
 7:58 am on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

..... i did a lot of digging around since, and gee the information seems to be scarce. Here's a few references from very good sources


Red Cardinal :
Want to Know How Many Clicks The #1 Google Position Gets? [redcardinal.ie...]

1. 42.30%
2. 11.92%
3. 8.44%
4. 6.03%
5. 4.86%
6. 3.99%
7. 3.37%
8. 2.98%
9. 2.83%
10. 2.97%



Plus - [seo-scientist.com...]

But there's nothing much out there since late 2008 , so it's a bit old hat.

I wonder if the ratios still apply on the remaining positions ? Any ideas ?

AnkitMaheshwari




msg:4192946
 8:04 am on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

What I have seen from my Google Webmaster account of different sites, if there are no one box (maps specifically) the CTR is generally 37-40% however with maps coming in organic CTR drops to 19-25% provided the ranking for the query is 1 in both cases.

I guess other webmaster must also be seeing some co-relations in the data.

Whitey




msg:4192950
 8:21 am on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

Do you see positions 2 & 3 etc. dropping in the same proportions ?

piatkow




msg:4192976
 9:37 am on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

It varies so much on the search terms. On one of my sites "London Widgets" puts three organic results at the top, with my site second followed by the map. "Widgets London" puts the map at the top with so many results that the number one result (mine) is below the fold.

The site is too new for me to assess what, if anything, I have lost by this.

AnkitMaheshwari




msg:4192979
 9:46 am on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)


Do you see positions 2 & 3 etc. dropping in the same proportions ?

I have never done any deep dive into this hence never looked queries beyond the position range of 1 and 1.5 (as per GWMT) for CTRs.

Whitey




msg:4193001
 10:46 am on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

Have conversion rates dropped on those lower CTR's or are they generally constant with before ?

Mark_A




msg:4193121
 3:56 pm on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

But No1 is not no1 nowerdays, it may be position 4.

piatkow




msg:4193141
 4:50 pm on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)


But No1 is not no1 nowerdays, it may be position 4.

Number 4? You are doing well! On my previous example my number one position is more like the equivalent of number 7.

doughayman




msg:4193220
 7:45 pm on Aug 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

I don't know how you guys feel about this, but I really am finding Google results more and more utterly worthless. My gosh, it's really hard to fathom how they have let things get this shabby. Even with explicit search string in quotations and the use of judicious "AND" statements in complex clauses, I have found their results are mediocre, at very best. That is why I have moved on. Right now, Yahoo seems to be the best for my search uses, with Bing coming in a close 2nd. I hope that the fusing of these 2 search engines doesn't deteriorate things much. Google is going to fall upon hard times, that's for sure.

cien




msg:4193435
 9:45 am on Aug 28, 2010 (gmt 0)

Yeah, the ole Google is gone. Hope they can get their act together soon.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved