Forum Moderators: open
I could have sworn I saw numbers like this at GoTo. But now can't seem to find them.
I'm searching for it even as I speak. If I find the answer first, I'll post it here.
Thanks a ton!
Many of my sites in the past have had the number one and two spots on various search engines for very popular keywords. I've seen as much as a 50% reduction in hits going from the number 1 spot to the number 2 spot. With that much reduction continuing on down the list.
These are my experiences but I'm sure everyone has their own.
If I remember right said something like, the #1 had twice as many as the #2, and up to 4 times as many as the #3.. blablabla...... :)
I'll still keep an eye out. Thanks for all your effort. If you come across anything let me & us know.
Thanks,
Sage
But still, I would think there might be some general numbers that if 100% of people see the front page of a search then 40% of those see the second and only 20% go to the third page. Those, of course are just made up numbers. But it would seem something like that might be available.
Thanks again!
This is a good question and a timely topic now that PPC slots are rearranging the return page landscape. From my admittedly very limited research, I think we're hitting pretty close when we say it drops by 40-50% per page. Over the past 6 years I've always based my internal traffic estimates on that rough range of percentages because it seemed to line up with my stats for multiple pages on a topic, but it's definitely been one of those gut call kind of assumptions. Earlier this year I installed a directory system on the site which as several hundred categories my readers page through in "search" of related information. The way these work on my site, they would be very similar to search return pages. I just reviewed the directory's stats for this past September and I'd say that the above rule of thumb (40-50%) would fit great majority of the categories extremely well for the click to the second page, but it looks like a 30% loss might be better for page 3. And maybe 20% for pages 4 and 5. This is based on 5 returns per page rather than the usual 10, so I'd expect my loss rate to be lower because the pages were shorter and had less opportunities available to siphon off the traffic. I've listed the stats for 5 categories below.
Directory pages have 5 listings per page
Category "A"
947 = page 1
409 = page 2
231 = page 3
Category "B"
2,924 = page 1
1,411 = page 2
1,000 = page 3
Category "C"
315 = page 1
138 = page 2
129 = page 3
111 = page 4
94 = page 5
Category "D"
2,961 = page 1
2,300 = page 2
1,296 = page 3
Category "E"
429 = page 1
176 = page 2
150 = page 3
149 = page 4
57 = page 5
Thanks offering for those stats. That's a kind of information I find hard to locate. The numbers you show are much more like I would have expected. I have not seen traffic falling in half when a page goes from position 1 to position 2 -- that kind of change has only come from more significant changes, like falling to the second page.
I do find that GoTo clicks are much more volatile with position changes than regular SE positions. Perhaps people figure one ad is a lot like another, so they just click on the top one.
I think the general market in which a site competes makes a VERY big difference. The following is anectdotal information from the last two weeks. I've never collected stats on this over a wide spread of instances, but from what's on my plate right now, these are examples that run counter to what I've read as the "prevailing wisdom" on position.
#1
I have a client who just went from number 3 to number 1 on AOL. Their referals only increased about 20% over the previous week. This, rather than doubling as some information might lead people to expect.
#2
Another client moved from number 5 to number 3 on Google and DECLINED of about 10% in referals. However, on the Yahoogle page, where this meant going from 4 to 3, it meant an increase of 35%
#3
Yet a third example was movement on MSN from fifth page to second page, which made essentially no change in referals, surprisingly.
Part of this is the nature of the product ... in the first case it's artist original canvases, so clearly every retailer will have a very different variety. Deep searched are common.
In the second case it's food for diets of various kinds. Much less likely to have a deep search. And the third is alternative health care, where it's pretty much get on top if you want significant SE traffic.
To further muddy the water on (A)... somewhere I've seen a GoTo stategy that said bid to get just below the fold on competitive terms where the top slots were extremely expensive. The theory, claimed to be based on experience, was that this became a prominent listing and drew clicks because it was in the direct line of sight when the page was scrolled. Since it was drastically cheaper than top 3 it was more cost-effective. Reviewing my own habits, and factoring in the "higher is better than lower" side of all this, I think the theory has merit. SO... position 6 might be more effective than position 4, yet less expensive. Trick-EE! Could this be part of your example #2 Google CTR, perhaps?
Edited by: rcjordan
Sounds interesting, rc, but just below the fold on what monitor, browser, and resolution? Too much variation for me on that one. I've seen different monitors with the same browser and screen res showing a 20 pixel difference in where the fold lands.
By the book? 17", IE, 800.
But I was mostly citing that as an example of the complicated "click dynamics" within a page. (Note that it works poorly for most GoTo partner sites because it wouldn't make the cut.)
Edited by: Laisha
*blush* Jeez...I honestly didn't do that on purpose! I'm serious. My ex-clients who were Adult sites were still getting plenty of traffic when they were #60 and below.
>still getting plenty of traffic when they were #60 and below.
I'll bet. Reminds me of a comment once made by one of the other moderators after reviewing an adult site -something along the lines of he "had to check out 200 pages" for his analysis.
rogerd, I agree, but here's a point that tedster and I have turned over several times (an open-book pop quiz, take your time); while you're skimming, what criteria are you using to determine who gets the click?
I did a search on Google for 'computers'. The top 4 sites were Yahoo, CNET, Lycos and Dmoz. For a novice user, it's unlikely that they would go much beyond this point - especially if they were searching just on 'computers'. They may look at the whole first page of results if one was lucky.
However, if you were searching for 'cellists' you very well might be inclined to drill down until you found a name you recognized or a piece of music you remembered.
So, could we say that if your target market is, at least initially, unfamiliar with what sets you apart from your competition your positioning becomes integral?
Whereas if you and your competition are all quite unique, your title and description become key to your search engine success.
I would imagine if you could categorize sites as say, commodity, informational and specialty you might be able to then determine some sort of CTR based on positioning at that point.
>2. Specialty-type sites require very effective titles and descriptions - what this means remains to be determined.
And (according to my theory), BOTH require intuitive, authoritative urls to draw the click while in the scanning mode. Take the self-exam and note how you select a site.
