Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Sometimes I even see some froogle links between the adwords-section and the organic serps, and if spot #1 contains a local-search-google-maps image, you are definitely below the fold with spot #2 on most monitors.
It is generally estimated, I think, that every spot further down costs you 30-50% visitors. We cannot assume, Joe Average decides between those bright-yellow adwords links and the organic serps. I always thought, that I had followed most discussions here on webmaserworld concerning usability and google-search aspects. But this experience made me doubt whether we all have paid enough attention to google continuously changing the design of its „triangle of attention." Or did I simply miss this discussion?
So many aspects come to my mind, when I think about it:
1) What the heck was the history of all this stuff creeping into the SERPs? When did the first sponsored links show up on top of the serps, when did this expand to three links max? When did we see the first froogle links, maps-links, sitelinks and what other methods did google develop to let spot #2,#3,ff. get unnoticed?
2) However stable your ranking may be organically, if you always face three sponsored links above, adwords seems a MUST, because you are left with only 10% visitors compared to the first sponsor. But can you detect any system there? Sometimes it's only one link and you're still fine with a good organic ranking. As an entrepreneur, I need far more continuity for my marketing decisions. I'd understand if google wants to make money, but why should I pay for adwords if I am just one spot further down?
3) Of course google denies, adwords or adsense per se would have anything to do with the organic rankings. But on the other hand we all believe, that tracking user behaviour via toolbar+analytics-data and backbutton HAS a certain impact on googles evaluation on whether a site is useful for the visitor. I believe, that a site targeting those sponsored links above the serps will naturally climb the serps, if it only follows the minimal aspects of SEO-friendliness, even if the content is relatively thin, simply because google realizes this site seems to have fit the needs of the visitor. All such a site needs, is a minimal usability and a certain click-to-backbutton ratio. The textual information provided on the landing page has probably become a minor ranking factor.
4) How many (sponsored) gadgets may google stuff into this triangle of attention until users will begin to switch to another search-engine, because they are fed up with scrolling down doing serious scientific research?
5) My eyes are getting lame. I always use a maximized browser window on my notebook-monitor. Do you think most people also do? Where is „below the fold" for Joe Average?
Just a few questions. I am sure, most of you have many other related aspects to add.
I haven't seen a study on the penetration of scroll mice in the marketplace, but I imagine it is a clear majority by now.
It is still better to be at the top of the page vs the bottom of the page, however the penalty for being below the fold is not a severe as in the past.
Here is a recent article on the subject from the Director, User Interface Design at AOL.
Don't forget to scroll to the bottom of the page where there is some good references (especially detailed stats by Clicktale).
From my personal experience I rarely ever pay attention to the sponsored results because obviously there is always a catch unless im searching for something to buy.
For example if you're looking for webhosting deals many reputable companies will advertise with adwords and there are sometimes good results there.
however when looking for specific information...nothing beats googles natural results.
What I am mainly criticising is the ever-growing dicontinuity in the design of google's result pages.
After several years of fascinating growth, I detect stagnation in my visitor-stats for a few months now, and I think (among other reasons) this also has to do with the number of sponsored links showing up in the serps. So in March I decided to take a closer look at adwords. I thought: OK, we so far performed so well in the organic serps, should be no problem to get another boost investing some money. Should be easier than SEO. But this definitely isn't the case. Adwords is a "science" of its own meanwhile, some people in here believe, it is even more complex than doing fine SEO.
And I think three or five years from now, noone will seriously be able to call himself an "expert" in both fields: adwords AND seo. And doing a one-man-show in webmarketing as most posters here, I'd like to have some clarity on where to put my emphasis. Note that google seems to have more than 90% market share here in Germany.
> I wish google would just stick with the right column sponsors rather than having the 1-3 sponsors at the very top
brinked, of courese I wish the same, but I doubt google will. I grant them the money gained form those links, so I would be happy if google just stopped oscillating between 1 and 3 sponsored links (plus froogle plus sitelinks plus maps with no obvious system behind). The clear and reliable design of googles mainpage is a myth meanwhile. A more stable design of the result-pages could become another.
