Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 52
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: August 7, 2008 - 2:57 am
Posted By: TCSM 117 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://searchlightdigital.com)
Category: Google SEO
27 Comments
Went Hot: August 7, 2008 - 2:57 am
Posted By: TCSM 117 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://searchlightdigital.com)
Category: Google SEO
27 Comments
Top 10 Most Sphunn
In What's New
- 30 Tips on How to Get, Convince, Ke... (19)
- 5 SEO Tools You Might Be Missing (18)
- Could you Buy or Sell Social Media ... (16)
- fRank Takes on PageRank (13)
- The End of Fake Avatars? (13)
- How To Actually Get Links From Your... (12)
- Top 10 Reasons for PPC & SEO Synerg... (11)
- 16 Business Lessons for Freelancers (11)
- Rumors: Microsoft in talks to buy Y... (11)
- 5 Critical PPC Budgeting Problems (10)
Latest Comments
- facebooked for you! …
- Congratulations Kate! New Edge is a lucky lot.…
- Was about to submit it here myself, amazing review.…
- I made my blog dofollow, but my forum has gotten hit a lot with nasty posts…
- stumbled for ya…
- Most of the comments, like those on uselessTUBE are worthless - one seven y…
- Great dialog Lisa. We've been following this case since the beginning, as h…
- I really liked this article. I've been learning Thesis hooks and still lear…
- - read more -
Save the date for:
• SMX West - Feb. 10-12, 2009
• SMX Munich - April 22-23, 2009
• SMX Social Media Marketing - April 29-30
• SMX Advanced - June 2-3, 2009
Learn more about search marketing through free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site Search Marketing Now.
Upcoming Webcasts:
Comments
Good analysis, best post I've read today on here.
"The top four results put together account for over two thirds of all clicks that will happen (68.69% in total)."
That shows the effect of Google pushing up these authority sites into top positions. Eventually they will just leave scraps for everyone else.
@TCSM Has someone from Ayima been telling you secrets? ;)
@evilgreenmonkey Nooooo...
Actually, it's from a whacking great file I got from AOL. I'm guessing you're going to the bbq on the 13th?
Yarp, I'm the one organising it ;o)
Good man. I shall see you there!
Very good post indeed! This is very good information here. Agree with Nick, this is the best thing I've read so far today.
That's interesting information but how does the AOL demographic affect the data? Am I wrong to assume that the average user of AOL search is less internet-savvy than most?
@philippe glad you enjoyed it!
@mindy it's almost certainly skewed sightly, and as it says in the article, mileage will vary from SERP to SERP.
How did you get this information from AOL and how can you compare AOL data to what would be true for Google. Because have you been to AOL lately they try to hide the fact that you are likely to be clicking on PPC links. That 42% who don't click on anything I have a feeling would be a lot lower in google, because google clearly shows you what is PPC and what is organic. Most of that 42% who don't click anything in your data is likely made up of PPC clicks since it is so easy to click on a PPC link in AOL.
That fact alone causes a huge issue with this data. I think it tells me hardly anything about google, except they are liekly to have a higher percentage of people clicking on organic links, and that is just a quess.
@140local the data is from AOL log files. They're fairly available, if you know where to go.
And no, the 42% is nothing to do with PPC. As stated in the article, this data excludes PPC clicks. Not because people click on things and they're wrong, and that's the 42% or whatever. It's just completely PPC free.
And even if that was the case, it still gives you data on 19.4 million click throughs from SERPs. If you can't find something useful from that...
Tell me where to go to get this data. I want a link.
Also, You proved my point. When you factor out PPC you take away a huge percentage of people who likely clicked on something. So you can't say that, because 42% of people didn't click anything in the data you had, then that means that 42% of people who perform a search don't click anything.
The people could have clicked something on that page, and it is likely to be a PPC ad which again isn't in the data. You can say, that according to this AOL data that 42% of people didn't click an Organic search result. That is a good conclusion. The question then is what did those 42% of people click: a back button, did they type in another search, the images or video link, a ppc ad, what. There is more stuff on that page besides clicking a organic serp.
I am also interested in how you have this data formated. To even say that you have 42% of people didn't click on anything, doesn't make since according to what you are showing. If I add up the first ten results because that is typically what is on the first page of results I get that 89.29 of people clicked on atleast one of those links. Or does that data you are showing only include percent of people who clicked on that link according to the number of people who clicked on a link and not the total number of people who clicked on a search.
http://www.gregsadetsky.com/aol-data/ Oh, and I hope you're not on a metered connection...
And yes, there's no PPC data in this. If there was, it'd make the whole thing less useful, as it'd obfuscate the data. And yes, it does mean 42% of people don't click anything. Why's that surprising?
Once again, the 42% isn't people that clicked PPC. They either performed another search, or hit back, or went somewhere else.
The data shown (percentages) only relates to peopel who clicked on something. So it's the 58% left over. Sorry for the confusion.
I looked at the log files. These are the following fields that show in this data:
- What Appears to be a unique user ID
- What the Query was
- Time the Query was done
- Ranking for the item clicked on
- What the user clicked on if they clicked on anything
- Closed their browser
- Anything else I am not thinking of
From that it is easy to tell that 42% of people didn't click on an organic result. But, that 42% of the people who didn't click on anything performed on of the following actions:- Clicked on a PPC link
- Hit their back button
- Typed in a URL or hit a book mark
- Performed another search
- Click on one of the many other links on that search engines page
From that you can say that:- 42% of people didn't click an organic link
- They likely performed one of the following actions
- A portion of the 42% who didn't click an organic link clicked a PPC link
What you cannot infer from this data:- That 42% of people did not click on anything and just hit their back button or performed another search. A portion of these people performed this following action, but not everyone.
TCSM: Thanks for the info, sorry I am giving you a hard time. I just want to understand this better.This week I was looking at some data from a tool that stored the AOL dump. I've always felt that was the greatest source of data we have had on the web. It is the closest thing we'll see to what the SE's see and know.
The report is invaluable.
Thanks for ultimately revealing where the data set comes from. Its absolutely great information.
Dave
No worries. To qualify further, I suspect that there's no PPC data, based on what I know of click-throughs on PPC links based on several years of running campaigns. It just doesn't fit, to my eye.
And the UID is obfuscated IP address.
I know there is no PPC data. AOL says it themselves. But, just because there is no PPC data does not mean that they eliminated anyone from these results that did click on a PPC ad.
Listen to me, I am not saying that 42% of people clicked on a PPC link. I am saying a portion of that 42% clicked on a PPC link. I agree overall PPC CTR is not 42%. Read above, I outlined what is likely made up of those 42% who did not click on a search result.
Read this: http://www.gregsadetsky.com/aol-data/U500k_README.txt
AOL is only showing data for people who clicked organic results - like you said and AOL says. I feel like I am going around and around with you.
And it is not hard for me to believe that 42% of people didn't click on an organic result. Please understand what I am saying.
If you want my theory, people who are actually using Google itself, would likely have a higher percentage of people who clicked on Organic results. This is because more people are less likely to click on a PPC ad as they are clearly defined in Google unlike AOL. Also the top PPC results on Google take up less room than they do on AOL.
Ahhh, I get you. :) Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The same analysis was done about two years ago ;) in a french seo site http://www.webrankinfo.com/actualites/200608-repartition-des-clics.htm
using help from here http://www.webrankinfo.com/forums/viewtopic_57017.htm#547990
The difference for position #1 may be explained by the fact that the author exluded:
1) Multiple clicks for the same url by the same user
2) Searches for domain names (don't forget it is aol users :)
He ended up with 15,436,869 clicks
1 35,78%
2 12,25%
3 9,16%
4 6,70%
5 5,47%
6 4,51%
7 3,84%
8 3,40%
10 3,40%
9 3,23%
11 0,78%
12 0,66%
13 0,62%
14 0,58%
15 0,56%
16 0,46%
17 0,43%
18 0,40%
25 0,40%
19 0,38%
Here is the code he used for these results
cat all_aol_data.tsv | awk -F "t" '{ if($4) print($1 "t" $2 "t t" $4 "t" $5); }' | uniq | awk -F "t" '{ print($2 "t" $4); }' | egrep -v '(.org|.net|.com|www.)' | awk -F "t" '{ if($2) print($2); }' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | awk '{ gsub("^ *",""); gsub(" ",","); print; }'
Just wanted to add that the guy also published how many words were used by users for searches http://www.webrankinfo.com/forums/topic_page_57017_15.htm#548024
2 words: 29,03%
1 word: 27,49%
3 words: 18,68%
4 words: 11,13%
5 words: 6,20%
6 words: 3,32%
7 words: 1,74%
8 words: 0,97%
9 words: 0,56%
10 words: 0,32%
It's been reported on a lot. The data isn't particularly new. However, as stated in the post, it's more a response to a YOUmoz post, to refresh people's memories.
Is this the same AOL data from 2 years ago?
If so, Donna's paste from earnersforum 2 years ago makes for a useful reference:
http://www.seo-scoop.com/2006/08/09/aol-data-reveals-how-top-10-position-affects-ctr/
It is indeed.
Just a little correction on the article. The organic ctr was 53.4% of total clicks, not 58%. The author made a math mistake.
So of the remainder visitors didn't click on anything or clicked on an ad.
I go back to this data all the time. Its absolutely the best thing we seo's can see.
Dave
@earlpearl me too. I wish someone at AOL would hurry up & make a screw up again
;)
Yea. That sounds about right. #1 getting 3-4 times the amount of traffic as #2 or #3.
Just remember the stats still show 66% of people choose organic. 33% choose ppc. :)