• Danny at Search Engine Land
• Gord at Out of My Gord

I’m with Danny about a study of 18 people being a bit difficult to really trust, but if you’re willing to make that jump, here are some of the takeaways:

1. Most people view at least the top 4 listings no matter which one they click on. Participants said they “highly agreed” with the statement “I expect the information I’m looking for to be in the top five results.”

2. Most people look at about 8 listings without clicking before trying a new search.

3. Snippet length impacts search “success”, but it’s dependent on the type of search being performed; i.e., is the searcher looking for a web site or a piece of information? Shorter snippets are more effective for the former; longer snippets for the latter.

Both articles I’ve linked to above are good. Danny’s is the more exhaustive.

This is a post from Matt McGee's blog, Small Business SEM.

MSN Studies Searcher Behavior

First, the background, in this order:

1. David Pasternack of Did-It.com doesn’t like SEO. It’s a one-time fix, he says.
2. Kevin Lee, also of Did-It.com, agrees. PPC ads are more relevant, he says.
3. Many SEO folks call them out, none better than Greg Boser. (The “frogs” reference is to the Did-It mascot.)

And, finally, Gord Hotchkiss hits a grand slam with this big picture take on the whole debate.

Our research shows that a very interesting interaction takes place with the researcher versus the purchaser in that Golden Triangle real estate. Both users look at the top sponsored ads when they appear. They both look at the organic listings. Frankly, there’s not a lot of difference between the scan patterns. But it’s where they click that makes the difference. When they’re ready to buy, based on a recent eye tracking study, about 45% click on top sponsored, and about 55% clicked on the top 1 or 2 organic links. Almost a 50/50 split, FOR THOSE THAT ARE READY TO PURCHASE. But when we look at the other 85%, the ones doing research, EVERYONE OF THEM clicked on the organic link. And in the test, the same site appeared in both spots, so relevancy of the destination was equal. As long as users want organic links, organic optimization continues to be important.

Please do read the full post on Gord’s blog, it’s one of the best things I’ve read in a long time and goes beyond organic vs. PPC by addressing searcher behavior, user interface issues with Google, Yahoo, and Ask.com, and much more.

In the end, if David and Kevin want to tell their clients to ignore SEO and focus on PPC, that’s great. That’s less competition for the rest of us, and more opportunity to gain new business when those clients wonder why their competitors — ones with a more rounded approach to search marketing — are winning.

This is a post from Matt McGee's blog, Small Business SEM.

Organic vs. PPC

Lots of stuff related to local search to share:

Bill Slawski dives into a recent Google patent that seems to suggest a telling possibility: the definition of “local”, i.e. - how wide an area is included in a local search query results, may be dependent on the category being searched. In other words, a local pizza search would be relevant over a smaller geographic area than a local car dealer search, because you’re probably not willing to drive 40 miles for a pizza, but you could be for the right car. Interesting!

Some good data from Mike Blumenthal, who did some digging through Google Maps to see where they get their restaurant reviews and where they get the restaurant listing data.

After just a week of use, AskCity — Ask.com’s new local search portal — has some interesting stats. The folks at the Ask.com blog shared some quick lists detailing how AskCity is being used. Not surprising to see “pizza” as the top food search, but quite surprised to see “massage” as the top business service search. Holiday stress, I suppose….

The folks at the Yahoo Publisher Network blog gave the carkeys to Lee Odden earlier this week, and Lee delivered a good roundup of five low-cost marketing tips for small biz owners … and one bonus tip, too!

I like this one from Stephan Spencer: Editing Wikipedia for SEO.

And that’s all the links for this Friday night. Have a great weekend!

This is a post from Matt McGee's blog, Small Business SEM.

Friday Night Link-o-rama

See, I realized recently that I’ve become too reliant on Google. I’ve become too dependent on that spartan home page with the big text field where I can type anything I want and get feedback in less than a second — even the most well-trained dogs aren’t that responsive! Google really is Man’s Best Friend.

And Google has been easy, too. It’s right there in the upper corner of my browser. It was there when I was using Safari, and it was still there when I switched to Firefox a few months ago. I don’t have to go to Google to use Google.

Then I decided this had to stop. There are other search engines out there, and I need to play the field. At 38, I’m too young to settle down with one search engine. So, I did the unthinkable. I took Yahoo! out on a date. It started easily enough: I went up to the top right corner of my browser, said goodbye to Google (told her I might be back in a week or so), and made Yahoo! the default browser search engine.

Here’s a picture I took on our first date:

I’m not usually one to kiss and tell, but our date was pretty interesting. Everybody Loves Google, but Ugly Yahoo! was fun and, for the most part, satisfied all my needs (if you know what I mean). We spent five days together, me and Yahoo!, doing a fair amount of searches. Some of those were personal, and won’t be included here. And many were work/client-related, and those also won’t be discussed here. But I will share about 10-12 SERPs that make an interesting, if completely unscientific case study of dating Yahoo! vs. dating Google.

Query: [agiven site:atu2.com]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: “Agiven” is the name of a relatively unknown band in Ireland that I happen to like. I’ve written about them a couple times on @U2, my independent U2 fan site. The purpose of this search was to track down the two old articles I’d written where Agiven had been mentioned.
Results? Yahoo! and I got off to a bad start, like many dates often do. Yahoo! didn’t find anything. I was embarrassed to have to go back to Google so quickly, but sure enough, Google had the links I needed.

Query: [950 kjr]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: The home page of the all-sports radio station in Seattle, 950 KJR.
Results? This felt much better. Yahoo! gave me exactly what I needed in the No. 1 spot.
Anything else? Both Yahoo! and Google include the KJR Wikipedia entry in their top 10. Both sets of SERPs are pretty heavy with news-related pages that mention the radio station. The most noticeable difference is that Yahoo ranks KJR’s duplicate domain at #2, while Google doesn’t show the 2nd domain in its top 50. Yahoo! also has five of its own directory pages (where KJR is listed) in the top 20.

Query: [kelsey group]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: The home page of the Kelsey Group. I was trying to track down their recent local search projections.
Results? No surprise for a company home page query — Yahoo! gave me exactly what I needed in the No. 1 spot.
Anything else? Google also has the right page at No. 1. Both engines have Kelsey’s blog at No. 2, but Google has the correct/current URL, while Yahoo! still has the old one. This is also a good example of how the Google Sitelinks really add to the user experience.

Query: [define:remiss]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: A definition for “remiss.”
Results? Poor Yahoo!. I had asked it to do something using the same language I used when speaking to Google. My mistake. Yahoo! came up with nothing. This is a Google search operator.

Query: [didgeridoo]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: Information (and the correct spelling) about a musical instrument called a didgeridoo.
Results? Yahoo! rebounded with a Wikipedia entry at No. 1, and that gave me what I needed. (Google had the Wikipedia entry at No. 3.)

Query: [google sitelinks]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: I was looking for either the official Google Help explanation of sitelinks, or the Search Engine Watch coverage about them.
Results? At No. 3 in the SERPs, Yahoo! pointed me to a Google blog entry about sitelinks, which consequently had the link to their Help pages. So that worked, in a slightly roundabout way.
Anything else? Google had the two exact things I wanted at No. 1 and No. 2 — the SEW blog post about sitelinks, and then the Google Help page. Nice.

Query: [yahoo quick links]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: I was mostly looking to see if I had the name correct.
Results? At No. 3 in the SERPs (again), Yahoo! pointed me to what I wanted — a SEW blog post about Quick Links being added to Wikipedia results. That confirmed the name “Quick Links” for me.
Anything else? The No. 1 result on Yahoo! for this query was strange — a Yahoo! Directory listing on Religion & Spirituality. Meanwhile, the No. 1 Google result is perfect: a Yahoo! Searchblog entry about Quick Links. Now why wouldn’t that rank No. 1 in Yahoo!, too?

Query: [ilq firefox extension]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: The download page for this Firefox extension.
Results? Yahoo! had the SEOCompany.ca page in the No. 2 spot in the SERPs, behind a forum discussion which had the link. That’ll work. (Google had the same two results at the top, but switched.)

Query: [show ip firefox extension]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: The download page for this Firefox extension.
Results? Yahoo! had the mozilla.org download page at No. 1. Perfect! (Google had it at No. 2 - exact opposite of the situation above with the ILQ query.)

Query: [boise newspaper]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: The home page of the big newspaper in Idaho. I assumed it was based in Boise.
Results? Yahoo! had the Idaho Statesman at No. 2 in the SERPs behind Boise Weekly, a newspaper I’d never heard of.
Anything else? I found what I wanted, but Idaho Statesman should be No. 1 for this query. It’s the dominant newspaper in Idaho and it’s based in Boise, the capital. Google has the Statesman at No. 1, with the Boise Weekly at No. 2. Why the difference? We know Google values inbound links more than any other engine. The Statesman has 4x-5x more IBLs according to MSN and Yahoo.

Query: [how to call London]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: How to make an international call to London, of course.
Results? Yikes! Holy %@!#$. What am I looking at? Book listings, anti-terrorism articles, and finally, at No. 8, a helpful page.
Anything else? Google, frankly, wasn’t much better. The top 10 was littered with book listings and pages about London call girls. Needless to say, I should’ve put my query in quotes, where I would’ve found much more helpful SERPs.

Query: [current time London]

see it on: Yahoo! // Google
What I was looking for: The current time in London, of course.
Results? Yahoo! gave me exactly what I wanted right in the SERPs via a “Shortcut.” Google would’ve done the same had I searched there.

After our date…

Even though Google had slightly better SERPs overall, my date with Yahoo! was satisfying. Yahoo! gave me what I wanted almost every time and I hardly missed Google at all. In fact, I was so pleased by the experience that I went out and added MSN Live and Ask.com search to my browser — I can date whatever search engine I want, and more than one at a time! So long, monogamous relationship with Google — I’m now a full-time search engine player!

This is a post from Matt McGee's blog, Small Business SEM.

Five Days Alone with Yahoo!

That’s a popular line from Will Ferrell’s current movie (which I saw in San Jose), and the recently released AOL search data proves it to be accurate where search is concerned.

Donna at SEO Scoop discovered a forum post detailing August click-throughs on Top 10 search results by AOL users, and the numbers obviously show that the #1 search result gets 3.5x the clicks that #2 gets. But maybe a better stat to use is this:

No. 1 gets more clicks than Nos. 2 thru 8 combined.

Whoa.

Updated edit: Let me clarify something here. These numbers represent one month of searches on a single search destination; it’s not necessarily representative of the entire search industry. It’s also important to note that this is on AOL, where users are (to be frank) less experienced and less savvy, and more likely to click on the 1st link they see than, say, the more experienced searchers using Google or Yahoo. So I’m not posting this as a statement about search as a whole, only about search on AOL as illustrated by this single example. Got it? Got it.

This is a post from Matt McGee's blog, Small Business SEM.

As Ricky Bobby says…

Back in April, in one of my first posts on SBS, I wrote a post that amounted to a reminder not to put all your eggs in one basket. There were, I think, about 7 SBS readers at the time, so the vast majority of you missed it.

Tonight, some handy stats to back up that message, courtesy of Forrester Research’s North American Consumer Technology Adoption Study 2006. The study reports that 62 percent of people aged 18-40 years old use Google … but only 25 percent use Google exclusively.

Chew on that for a second. The takeaway is obvious: for 3/4ths of the 18-40 crowd, if Google doesn’t give them what they want, they’re off to the next search engine (Yahoo, MSN, Ask, etc.). So as I was saying back in April … don’t put all your eggs in Google’s baskets.

This is a post from Matt McGee's blog, Small Business SEM.

Update on the eggs…