homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.54.83
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

    
Bing traffic beats Google's in search effectiveness - big time
Zivush




msg:4381011
 7:46 am on Oct 29, 2011 (gmt 0)

Google has always been (still is) the primary source for traffic on my websites.

However, Bing beats Google on Search effectiveness - Bounce Rate, Time on Site, and Page/Visit.

I’d like to share with you my websites metrics. There’s a common line: Google organic traffic is low coveting as compared to Bing/Yahoo organic.

Page/visit 55%
Visitors coming from Bing orYahoo visiting 55% more pages compared to Google.

Bounce Rate 54%
With respect to Bounce Rate Bing/Yahoo also beat Google. The Google bounce rate is 54% higher compared to Bing.

Time on Site 43%
The same goes with Bing/Yahoo visitors staying longer (by 43%) vs Google visitors.

CTR
Bing/YAHOO visitors are 50% more likely to click vs Google’s.

Based on these figures, I have the impression that Bing is better than Google when it comes to targeted traffic (and quality traffic).

There are some other metrics/figures to put in the basket such as: geographic sources, type of visitors etc.
My estimation is that Bing/Yahoo traffic is - adults, web oriented people, technical, well-educated etc etc .
It might be that Bing search engine is simply better but people do not realized it yet. Just like Apple Mac known as better than the popular MS Windows.

What are your takes on this? Do you have similar figures?

 

tedster




msg:4381152
 5:33 pm on Oct 29, 2011 (gmt 0)

We recently discussed a study comparing click through rates [webmasterworld.com] of the two engines - and if those numbers are accurate, then...

Only 52% of google users click on an organic search result found on page one, and only 26% of bing users do the same.

I was astounded by that huge difference. It's as if Google users are much more willing to take chance and check out "any old" link, whereas Bing users are much more deliberate.

Even in the old days of MSN Search, I usually saw that MS traffic converted better on e-commerce pages, so your numbers are not surprising to me. I'll see what I can dig up for today's rates on some of my sites.

numnum




msg:4381161
 5:53 pm on Oct 29, 2011 (gmt 0)

It's as if Google users are much more willing to take chance and check out "any old" link, whereas Bing users are much more deliberate.


Or does Bing provide better snippets? And by "better snippets" I mean snippets that help users make better "decisions"?

aristotle




msg:4381166
 6:37 pm on Oct 29, 2011 (gmt 0)

It sounds like Google might be sending you a higher proportion of long-tail traffic, which is more likely to be mis-matched, whereas Bing is sending you a higher proportion of keyword-targeted traffic and relatively-less long-tail traffic.

One way this could happen would be if your rankings for your main keywords are higher in Bing than in Google.

steve40




msg:4381170
 6:47 pm on Oct 29, 2011 (gmt 0)

I have never really looked at the difference in images displayed by Bing or Google on the side of the results, so just did a few checks on both, the results from a users point of view are startling, I have not been one of those who have moved to Bing From Google because they have p? me off but must be honest on the 10 searches I just did as a test I think for personal searches I will be using Bing, Results are not better and in some cases worse but because of the "image which is more like a much improved snippets" As a user not a webmaster I preferred it.

Zivush




msg:4381284
 5:05 am on Oct 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

Bing is sending you a higher proportion of keyword-targeted

That's it.
Google many times misses long tails.

shazam




msg:4381302
 8:15 am on Oct 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

Advertising on MSN has always produced a higher conversion rate than adwords for most campaigns, but of course the traffic numbers were lower.

So it makes sense that organic results would be similar.

I love my Bing and Yahoo traffic, it's been slowly increasing this last year. Bing needs to get on the ball and hire some marketing agencies to start taking some users from goo.

There's never been a better opportunity now that goo's search quality has declined so much.

aristotle




msg:4381327
 11:15 am on Oct 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

In most cases I think the overall quality of your organic traffic depends on your rankings for your targeted keywords. High rankings will give you a lot of targeted traffic, so that your long-tail traffic will represent a smaller percentage of the overall traffic. But if you don't have high rankings for your targeted keywords, then a high percentage of your traffic will be long-tail.

Hissingsid




msg:4381329
 11:57 am on Oct 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

Is this related to low quality traffic caused by a bug in keyword suggestions/instants as described by Web-speed here?

[webmasterworld.com ] I don't remember hos to link to a specific post so you'll have to scroll down, sorry.

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