Why does google only show

10 results per page by default?

[jim_w]

Hope this wasn’t covered already and I could not find it and it is the correct spot to post it.

With the ads running to pages 2 and 3, wouldn’t 20 results per page make more sense as a default? Wouldn’t that attract more ad customers? I would be ticked if I setup ads and they were on page 2. Is there a sound reason why they only show 10 as a default?

[dmorison]

Is there a sound reason why they only show 10 as a default?

Bandwidth?

[takagi]

I can only guess, but since most visitors will just select from the top 10, giving by default only 10 will:
1. Reduce load time for the visitor
2. Reduce bandwidth use for Google
3. (Maybe?) reduce the CPU load. Selecting the top 10 for a query could mean less computation than selecting the top 100 (highest option).

Hope this helps.

[edited by: takagi at 11:32 am (utc) on June 25, 2003]

[jim_w]

Internal Goggle politics maybe?

It's got me! I really don't understand it.

[jim_w]

3. (Maybe?) reduce the CPU load. Selecting the top 10 for a query could mean less computation than selecting the top 100 (highest option).

That would make sense, especially if they are maybe doing some kind of calculation just before display. And I guess, in theory, 20 would be twice as much of everything. But if they generate more ad dollars, they could purchase more of everything. And my guess is google doesn’t have a problem with dollars.

I have a mostly text web site, I think the bandwidth for them would be very small. One has to serve up a bunch of text to get much movement on the bandwidth meter.

[AmericanBulldog]

Just an aside, you can change your default up to 100 with the toolbar installed.

[takagi]

One has to serve up a bunch of text to get much movement on the bandwidth meter.

250 million searches a day [webmasterworld.com] results in more than a bunch of text.

[webdiversity]

If we're talking adwords here, then Google will generally only show 8 adwords, 2 premium spots, regardless of whether the end user has 10 or 100 set as their default for organic listings.

In some competitive arenas they used to show up to 15 ads per page, but I figure the reason they are back with 8 is that those that are 9-15 will have to pay more to be on page 1 and those at 4-8 have to stay on their toes or will end up on page 2.

Either way, user defaults for viewing will not affect the ads shown.

[jim_w]

250 million searches a day results in more than a bunch of text

I still don't think bandwidth is the key. Yahoo doesn't have a problem with it.

...will have to pay more to be on page 1...

Sounds like the most logical reason so far, to me at least. But, and I’m sure they must have done research on it, how much more to get on page 1? 100%? If they sign more ads, they get 100%, right?

Example, lets say cost per is .10 to be on page 2. Cost to be on page 1 is .15. They only get a .05 increase vs more ads @ .10 each?

Either way, user defaults for viewing will not affect the ads shown

What happens when they get to the bottom of the page with the ads. I have always seen them continue on the next page. I must be missing something.

[dmorison]

Google defaulted to 10 results per page long before Adwords came about...

[jim_w]

I know, but I would have thought they would have changed that if there was a cash cow to be had. Especially since it would be real easy for them to do. I must be missing something.

[chris_f]

The lower you go the less relavant the page. I can only assume (as well as the reasons above) it's to increase the appearance of the quality of the search results.

anywho, I never go past the 5th listing usually

Chris

[defanjos]

Google thinking: If we cannot give them what they are looking for in the first 10 results, what good are we?

[jim_w]

anywho, I never go past the 5th listing usually

I’m different, I usually go to the 4th or 5th page before I redefine the search tighter.

Google thinking: If we cannot give them what they are looking for in the first 10 results, what good are we?

Some people would question if they are doing that now anyway, or are you only getting sites that can afford to throw money at being on the 1st page. Which is all right if you are looking to purchase something, but may not be the case if you are looking for information

[comment]can you tell I'm having a slow day? ;-)[/comment]

[mistert_1]

The bandwidth argument doesn't really wash with me.

It might be a simple case of price discrimination. If you can separate two (or more) groups of people, based on their willingness to pay, and charge them separate amounts, you can extract more of the consumer and producer surpluses, and generate higher sales. It is no different to train companies charging more for commuter hours, or giving discounts to students.

Google can effectively offer three "tiers" with "premium", "normal", and "page two" listings, and thus maximise sales without having to discount ALL units to the lowest price - the only other way of generating the same turnover.

--2c.

[jim_w]

mistert_1

Couldn't they do the same with 20 per page?

[mistert_1]

Jim,

In order to be able to separate potential customers into distinct groups - there must be an obvious discernible difference in the product being purchased.

In the case of the trains, they use the time of the journey to imply that folks travelling between 8 and 9 will pay more than those between 12 and 1, because they are probably going to work. (and might not be paying themselves..)

Google are able to separate the products (and therefore the customers/advertisers) by making the ads appear on a separate page.
(those are my thoughts, anyway)