| 10:45 am on Nov 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
on average the top 5 results get somewhere in the range of 80-90% of the clicks. i wouldnt tell a client that number. the click share can sway alot depending on many factors.
page title - i once had a great page title ranking #2 that got more clicks than my friend's page who was ranking #1 for the same keyword.
url structure - having the keyword appear in the url and having the url appear "clean & pretty" can boost ctr.
keyword - people searching for long tail keywords tend to be searching for something very specific. you may rank #1 but if they dont think you have that specific thing they wont click on you.
one boxes - google is embedding local, maps, videos etc into the serps. if these one boxes get inserted above your listing you can expect your ctr to drop.
adwords - i remember a research report that said running an adwords campaign at the same time you organically rank #1 can boost ctr. also great adwords can siphon away ctr from results with poor snippets.
| 11:06 am on Nov 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The numbers I have seen and use as a referrence are:-
| 2:29 pm on Nov 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|The numbers I have seen and use as a referrence are |
That goes along with Goodroi's estimates, have you seen any for #11 i.e. #1 on the second page, assuming the standard 10 results layout?
I've read that can get a healthy click thru.
| 6:08 pm on Nov 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Here's some recent research, taken over many thousands of query terms since the Instant Results came into play -
1 - 42%
2 - 12%
3 - 8%
4 - 6%
5 - 5%
6 - 4%
7 - 3%
8 - 3%
9 - 3%
10 - 3%
Page 2 - 10%
The big difference between these results and others is a much lower number for the first position. I was also surprised to see 10% of searchers going to page 2
| 11:06 am on Nov 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This means that with Google showing 4 results for a single domain now, I guess that brand sites would have literary no competition with 80-90% clicks going to them, Really BAD for e-commerce retail sites.... :(
| 12:35 pm on Nov 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Thanks For your contribution,
where i will get exact search volume for a keywords,?
i tried Google keyword tool, it giving some search volume i i calculate top 5 position share %, its not matching with my visits
| 3:04 pm on Nov 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The closest you'll get for exact search volume is to run an AdWords campaign where your bid for the phrase you're interested in keeps you constantly on page 1 of the SERPs; the AdWords impressions data for that term is the best number available outside Google.
The general consensus is that the keywords tool can be a little bit out or wildly out. It's a good idea to look at the relationship between the numbers in one keyword set as well as / instead of the actual figures themselves.
Add to that, the numbers for click through share given above are only averages, and vary from SERP to SERP, depending on the appearance of that SERP and the sites in the SERP, as explained in detail above.
| 4:42 pm on Nov 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone still use wordtracker for estimating word demands. I used to find them very helpful.
| 4:45 pm on Nov 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|The big difference between these results and others is a much lower number for the first position. I was also surprised to see 10% of searchers going to page 2 |
Well, with the way google is now (4 positions from one domain), I do expect the CTRs to the top pages to go further down...
It would be interesting to see how this turns out for positions 5 and 6, going forward.
| 10:57 pm on Nov 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Does anyone still use wordtracker for estimating word demands |
I had a sub a few years back but didn't renew it. The SEO I've always done is for SMEs with an emphasis on local and Wordtracker just didn't have a big enough data set to be anything approaching accurate in the markets I tried it in.
| 4:46 am on Nov 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Running Adword Campaing for exact search volume is Good idea,but how much you will pay that much Impressions share we will get,it not a exact search volume
| 9:56 am on Nov 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
That's why I said you need to bid enough to always be on page one, so aim for an average position of 7/8 at least.
As long as your ad is shown every time someone searches on Google you have access to the best source of keyword data outside of the Googleplex. There is no better data to be had at any price AFAIK.
| 4:55 pm on Nov 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
We have adwords for green widgets ..
We rank on P1 for green widgets
Why do people mainly click the pay link ! ?
| 8:56 pm on Nov 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|where i will get exact search volume for a keywords,? |
They update 20M keywords in every five days and their analitics is very evident.
This huge amount of queries they monitor is their know-how and allocates them among competitors. (they generate some percents of Google's full traffic)
| 9:13 pm on Nov 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
There are many keyword sources on the market today. Some of the data sources they use include major search engines themselves, meta search engines, and even click-stream data from ISPs in some cases. Then some of these tools also partner with other tools.
I've still never found any "holy grail" when it comes to a specific tool - reality always differs. The same can be said for click-through percentages. We can look at aggregate data, but still, real world results vary extremely in particular applications.
| 11:13 pm on Nov 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
It varies depending on lots of things. It really isnt a "stat" I would like to put an average on to be honest - I feel the average would be useless.
Lets say you have number 2 and you get 20% - you change your title to include "Blue Widget - WARNING" - your clicks will shoot up.
Then again - lets say the goofle decide to place a load of youtube dross at number 3 and you are then pushed off the fold (as you were at number 3 (and still are really)). Well now - your click % will be less than if the term was one which did not have youtube cack there. Play with this in your head - and you will be able to move the goalposts here aswell.....
Then - you have the situation where the adwords crud shows 3 sites. One of which has 3 sub links showing - shoving websites further down the screen again - even though they are number 1. Again - this search would have a different click % as one which did not show adwords drivel.
Averages - hmm - I do like them generally (on average LOL) - but in this case I personally feel that the swing is too great across terms and other factors (attractability of title etc) for them to be of any use.
Having said this - its probably true to say that for terms which goof doesnt put their own shiz there - the results are more comparable across terms - so an average is left depending mainly on the title attraction level.
One thing I guarantee - we have lost clicks to goof over the years putting their stuff up above everything else (right or wrong - the fact remains) - and I also assure anyone reading this - we will continue to lose clicks until many many many more of us die online.
Again - is goof right or wrong to do this? I feel wrong - but again - the fact remains - they will take as many clicks from you as possible.
Instead of looking at
x% at 1
y% at 2
z% at 3
Where each percent is taken as part of the total of 1+2+3 clicks - what has more of an impact on us - is the fact that 1+2+3 clicks is now only p% of the TOTAL searches.
For example - if I explain it right - with Zero goof bull on the top of the serp - x% at 1 may have meant 10000 clicks per day 7 years ago.
Now - x% at 1 may mean only 5000 clicks per day now.
Those are just off the top of my head numbers - but they probably do apply to a search term somewhere. Some terms will be worse - some not as bad.
Thats a metric I worry about more than the OPs metric. But thats just my perspective.
| 2:15 am on Nov 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Not sure I completely got what you're saying - but if this is right, it's an important factor to remember when making traffic projections.
Here's my deal with keyword search stats. There may be 10,000 total searches on keyword-x, and position #1 may get 42% of the clicks. BUT, even if you are at #1 a good bit of the time, your site will not be at #1 for everyone who does the search.
Even more, the statistics always represent the number of searches, but that's not thte same as the number of clicks (traffic). For some general keywords, the number of people who make the search but click on NO result can be as high as 40%. Instead of clicking, they revise their query. This isa big reason why Google works so hard at "mind reading".
| 1:53 pm on Nov 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Each term has x as its total user searches.
Some terms have zero google crap in the serps.
Phrase Redwidget shows google shiz all over the show
Phrase Bluewidget is pure serps - no google shiz
You are number "1" for both terms
For Redwidget you will get 30% of clicks from the total number of searches because of google crap
For Bluewidget you will get 60% of clicks from the total number of searches.
The number of clicks you get at position 1 is directly proportional to the amount of google crap for that phrase (amongst other things like your title)
Google will continue to kill all sites by introducing more and more crap.
For example - today - I saw twitter results (2 of them) in my serp for my phrase. They were inserted at position 4.
This represents yet more dross in the serp which pushes trading sites out of the way - further down the fold.
So as I say - my worry is more that soon - page 1 for a search will be just full of so much google crap that the click % of a total search count for a phrase will be weedled down to 10% even though you are number 1.
I think the main point of this - is that we must realise that google - whether right or wrong - is killing traffic.
And its going to get a lot worse.