How Many Of You Disagree With This Image?

63 replies


"If you're in the #1 position in Google,
expect to get about 42.3% of the searches/month
to your website for your keyword."

"If you're in the #2 position in Google, expect to get
about 11.92% of
the searches/month to your website
for your keyword."

And on and on (according to the image above)...


Have you found this to be accurate?


...because I have found it to be NOT EVEN CLOSE!
#ctr #disagree #image #number one #percentage #position #visits
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    How would we know?

    Doesn't seem right though, if for no other reason than I know when I'm doing research I may go through all the first page listings. That drop off seems to fast.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879822].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Emmanuel Betinis
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      How would we know?
      Check your stats.


      Originally Posted by LMC View Post

      I've seen better results in #2 and #3 spot.

      Over #1
      I find that hard to believe. Why would you get more traffic
      in #2 & #3 vs. #1?!


      Originally Posted by Negotiator74 View Post

      ...when I was at 9 or 10 the traffic was higher than that graph.
      Did you make sure you were checking the traffic in your stats
      only from the search engine you were in that position with at
      the time ALONG WITH filtering THAT data out with THE KEYWORD
      you're speaking of?


      ---------

      It's very easy for people to talk about the traffic they
      get to their websites while "mashing in" all the traffic
      sources while coming up with numbers to quote their
      traffic from "Google" for a certain keyword.

      HOT TIP
      : Google Analytics can FILTER out ONLY traffic coming from
      GOOGLE...and then filter THAT data for ONLY a certain
      keyword.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879854].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author NikkiG
        Originally Posted by Emmanuel Betinis View Post

        I find that hard to believe. Why would you get more traffic
        in #2 & #3 vs. #1?!
        For the same reason that a position #3 PPC ad might get higher CTR than number 1...some people are click happy and go for whatever is at the top. Others actually read the titles, descriptions etc...I know I do.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879893].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Emmanuel Betinis
          Originally Posted by NikkiG View Post

          For the same reason that a position #3 PPC ad might get higher CTR than number 1...some people are click happy and go for whatever is at the top. Others actually read the titles, descriptions etc...I know I do.
          I don't buy that because the same logic would then say the
          #1 position organic listing could have a LAME title/description
          while the #3 organic listing has an AWESOME title/description,
          in that case perhaps #3 would get higher CTR%...at the same
          time, the #3 organic listing could have a LAME title/description
          and the #1 organic listing could have an AWESOME title/description,
          in which case #1 then certainly would "out-CTR%" the #3 position.

          Either situation occuring, there still is an overall average in cold
          hard numbers...not "guesswork"...no using the word "might"...or
          "I would think"...This something that is measurable...I want numbers!

          Doesn't anyone track their CTRs for keywords for certain positions
          in certain search engines?


          I'll give you mine: I have been in the #1 position for a keyword that,
          according to the Google keyword search tool, gets an average of
          14,800 searches per month (and that's LOCAL search volume!)

          Using that number, dividing it by the number of visits Google
          gives me FROM THAT KEYWORD renders about 5% of that
          traffic.

          So basically, for ME, based on MY HARD DATA, being in the
          #1 position in Google is getting me about 5%...NOT 40% like
          the image above is saying (along with countless other sources
          saying 30-40%).


          EDIT: This is dividing by BROAD keyword volume for last month.
          See below post for EXACT data.


          Keep in mind...I'm not talking about SALES conversions here...
          I'm talking about CLICKTHROUGH conversions.

          So...what are your numbers? I'm tired of reading "graphs from big
          companies in magazines and articles from various big sites"...I'd love
          to hear REAL people's numbers here in the forum (granted they're
          actually measured and presented correctly & not skewed because
          of factoring in other traffic sources...which, I may add again,
          Google Analytics can filter this data down for you beautifully.)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879945].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author NikkiG
            Originally Posted by Emmanuel Betinis View Post

            I don't buy that because the same logic would then say the
            #1 position organic listing could have a LAME title/description
            while the #3 organic listing has an AWESOME title/description,
            in that case perhaps #3 would get higher CTR%...at the same
            time, the #3 organic listing could have a LAME title/description
            and the #1 organic listing could have an AWESOME title/description,
            in which case #1 then certainly would "out-CTR%" the #3 position.

            Either situation occuring, there still is an overall average in cold
            hard numbers...not "guesswork"...no using the word "might"...or
            "I would think"...This something that is measurable...I want numbers!

            Indeed but you asked why would you get more traffic at 2 or 3 than you would at number 1.

            That is a scenario where you would, could or might get that going on. I posed a theory to explain the exception not to prove or disprove the cold hard numbers
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879975].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by Emmanuel Betinis View Post

        Check your stats.
        Checking my stats doesn't tell me how many times my site was displayed on the first page, so there's no way of knowing what percentage my click-throughs represent.

        Am I missing something?
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880044].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Emmanuel Betinis
          Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

          Checking my stats doesn't tell me how many times my site was displayed on the first page, so there's no way of knowing what percentage my click-throughs represent.

          Am I missing something?

          Well, after a while I've noticed your rankings will "settle"
          and basically be "glued" to a certain position in the search
          engines. You can verify this information by using rank check
          software that continually monitors your rankings every day
          for weeks/months/years (or you can constantly manually
          check this).

          After you've verified that your ranking has "stuck" for a long
          enough period of time, you can then begin the data collection
          process (all the while still making sure your ranking has stayed
          in the #1 position) for a week/month/year (the longer the better
          as long as you're in the same position - preferably #1).

          If your ranking bounces around all the time, then you won't
          have reliable enough data to come to a significant enough
          conclusion about what your CTR% is.

          EDIT: You may also use a service to track your rankings
          monthly/weekly/daily/hourly in order to begin the test once your
          rakings have settled (IF you're lucky enough to have
          a site that DOES settle so you can do this test).
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880058].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LMC
    I've seen better results in #2 and #3 spot.

    Over #1
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879825].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Negotiator74
    I don't think it is accurate at all. Why? Because in one niche I have been competing in for 2 years (extremely competitive) I have been at every single position, 1 to 10. I can tell you my traffic at #1 is very similar for position 2 or 3. Also, when I was at 9 or 10 the traffic was higher than that graph.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879831].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JMPruitt
    I agree with other posters. also people need to look not only at traffic numbers but how well that traffic converts. I get a little less traffic but HIGHER conversions to sales in positions 3-5....which is more important having someone else view your site, or having someone BUY from your site?
    Signature
    follow my relationship marketing blog for tips on building more traffic without relying on Google's whims.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879840].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Emmanuel Betinis
      Originally Posted by JMPruitt View Post

      people need to look not only at traffic numbers but how well that traffic converts.
      Hey, I understand how well the traffic converts is more important
      than how much traffic we get. BUT with all due respect that's not
      the point of this thread. I'm attempting to open up a discussion here
      about the accuracy of these CTR claims of the #1 position.

      Anyone care to share their numbers?

      And for those of you who are going to say "There's no way to tell
      because each keyword/market is different", there is HARD DATA
      to be spoken of here. I have MY hard data, and it does NOT
      coincide with the image above.

      Yes, I also understand it depends on the TITLE/DESC of the page
      that will determine your CTR. If it sucks, so will your CTR.

      Ok.

      Lets assume your title & description kicks ass and you're in the #1 position.

      What's a proven, researched CTR for this situation? I've heard
      and read 30%-40%, on average, according to researched, tested
      HARD FACTS...with HUGE sample sizes). However, MY HARD DATA
      based on my own experiments over the last couple years isn't even close
      to those claims (the image in the OP being one of those claims)...

      This brings up the possibility of the Google Keyword Tool's search
      volume data to be completely wAcKeD.

      Originally Posted by JMPruitt View Post

      I get a little less traffic but HIGHER conversions to sales in positions 3-5
      It'd be nice to stay on topic here, but that just does not make
      any sense to me. Why would you get higher conversions with
      lower search engine rankings?! Are you "more credible" the
      weaker you rank? Heh.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879873].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NikkiG
    Not what I have found to be the case either. Much closer between the top 3 spots. Given Google seems to lie a lot of the time about the exact search volume I would say anything in the top 1-5 results seems to pull approx 30% of the traffic.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879889].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Emmanuel Betinis
      Originally Posted by NikkiG View Post

      Not what I have found to be the case either. Much closer between the top 3 spots. Given Google seems to lie a lot of the time about the exact search volume I would say anything in the top 1-5 results seems to pull approx 30% of the traffic.
      Thanks for the on-topic answer, Nikki.

      But again, are you quoting 30% because that's what you've
      heard or because that's what you've experienced?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879897].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author NikkiG
        Originally Posted by Emmanuel Betinis View Post

        Thanks for the on-topic answer, Nikki.

        But again, are you quoting 30% because that's what you've
        heard or because that's what you've experienced?

        A little of both but a whole lot of speculation!

        Because it appears to be roughly 30% as a very rough average based on analytics but in reality it is always going to be skewed by other factors. Some high ranks get high CTR others are pretty lousy.

        The problems, at least for me, also creep in because the results are very different based on location and the datacenter. In some cases I'm number 1 in Google for user X and number 7 for user Y and somewhere in between for if I search myself.

        Also I don't really know the actual monthly search volume for these Google terms. Broad 15,000, exact 3,768 and of course the very helpul traffic estimator might tell me that for PPC at number 1-3 I'd get 600 clicks per month.

        So at the end of the day who really knows. Google's public data always should be taken with a grain of salt and my own experience is hardly statistically significant.

        So feels like 30% to me, and I had that feeling before my mind was corrupted by an SEO expert...although now I wonder if the chicken came before the egg?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879962].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Emmanuel Betinis
          Originally Posted by NikkiG View Post

          The problems, at least for me, also creep in because the results are very different based on location and the datacenter.
          Good point. And I've checked as many datacenters as possible before starting this thread.

          Originally Posted by NikkiG View Post

          Also I don't really know the actual monthly search volume for these Google terms. Broad 15,000, exact 3,768 and of course the very helpul traffic estimator might tell me that for PPC at number 1-3 I'd get 600 clicks per month.
          And I'm also glad you brought up the broad/exact. If we go EXACT with my keyword, then I'm at a 14% CTR compared to the LOCAL volume and 7.7% compared to the GLOBAL volume. I've checked tons of datacenters internationally as well and the site still hangs at #1 for all the ones I checked around the world too.

          So while my numbers still aren't 100% accurate, they're close enough to say the CTR for my site being in the #1 spot with it's very relevant title and description are still nowhere even near what "the graphs and charts" say on all these sites (a simple search about this and you'll find these claims like I did)...

          EDIT: I've even heard 70% CTR for the #1 organic listing is to be expected! And this claim was from a very respected person in the field of SEO! Pshhhh...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880006].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JMPruitt
    Sorry to take the thread off topic there. one thing I have done is talking to people who use search engines without any knowledge of marketing a website. A lot of people have told me that they will skip the first few results, because they rarely find what they are looking for, they jump right to numbers 3 or 4...

    some things dont make sense logically, but the results are the same no matter WHY people do it.
    Signature
    follow my relationship marketing blog for tips on building more traffic without relying on Google's whims.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879926].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kevin Riley
      A lot of other factors affect clickthrough rates on the first page:

      Title: A good title can make a big difference. Gotta remember that at this point you're appealing to humans with a mouse in their hand - not the SE. Give a compelling title (which promises benefit to the searcher) and you up the number of clickthroughs.

      Video Thumbnail: Putting up a video on You Tube and some of the other video sites can get you a thumbnail on Google. This can be the kind of eye candy that gets your listing more attention than those above you.

      Description: After the title, that description can also make a difference in clickthroughs. Again, it's all about what it promises to deliver.

      URL: Sometimes, having a URL that promises this is the right site can make all the difference. After all, if you're searching for an answer to your termite infestation, the URL TermiteBeGone is going to be a lot more appealing than CatJuggling.
      Signature
      Kevin Riley, Kevin Riley Publishing, Osaka, Japan


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879958].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kelly Verge
    I have a site that hovers between #9 and #10.

    Assuming the search numbers are right from Market Samurai, I get 2.6% at #10 and 1.9% at #9.

    This is with a smallish sample size, so the numbers are certainly in the neighborhood.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879938].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NK
    I would think that the 2nd or 3rd position usually gets better clickthroughs based on my own experience. It could be that people are just starting to skip the first few results simply because its usually an adwords ad or a wiki page, which they are not looking for.
    Signature

    Affiliate Link Cloaking & Tracking Software - The most powerful tool available for affiliate marketers who are sick and tired of making way too little money!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879951].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AverageGuy
    from statistical point of view, the figure and explaination is not enough meaningful.

    To draw a conclusion similar to this, the data has to be based on a wide range of niches (keywords). AND, it has to show the variance. Without variance, the figure only says: hey, if you are lucky, #1 position will get 42% traffic, if you are not lucky, who knows. how to decide whether you are lucky or not, who knows. So, basically, it does not say much meaningful,

    however, #1 position is definitely better than #11,


    david
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879994].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AFD
    I don't believe in this image.... I think the data is too low...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880010].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Will Edwards
    My Main site is sometimes ranked as #1 for it's main keyword, but usually it is about #6; and there is no jump in traffic when Google decides to promote the site.

    Will
    Signature
    Money-Making Rebrandable Books - Free for a Limited Period!

    Click Here to Get Yours
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880088].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author poker princess
    I think the stats are somewhat right. As compared to the 1st I have experienced #2 and #3 has vast amount of difference between them.
    Signature
    Poker Software
    Poker Blog
    Life is GOOD! :)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880096].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    I don't mean to be difficult, Emmanuel, but knowing my ranking still doesn't tell me how many times my site was displayed. Sure, you can use keyword tools to estimate how many searches there are each month for a particular search term, but that is only an estimate, and sometimes it doesn't seem like a very good estimate. Kinda of like the stats you show in the OP that you don't think are close, I agree with you on that, and because it's apparently based on estimates, perhaps that's why it doesn't seem right.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880182].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Emmanuel Betinis
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      I don't mean to be difficult, Emmanuel, but knowing my ranking still doesn't tell me how many times my site was displayed.
      You're absolutely right. Knowing your ranking does NOT tell you how many
      times your site was displayed. That's only half the story.

      Google Analytics will tell you how many times your page was displayed...
      and by what search engine...and when...and by what keyword.


      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      Kinda of like the stats you show in the OP that you don't think are close, I agree with you on that, and because it's apparently based on estimates, perhaps that's why it doesn't seem right.
      Perhaps.


      Originally Posted by Matt M View Post

      When you say 5% are you talking about 5% of the numbers of monthly searches?
      Yes, Matt, that's correct.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880215].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by Emmanuel Betinis View Post

        You're absolutely right. Knowing your ranking does NOT tell you how many
        times your site was displayed. That's only half the story.

        Google Analytics will tell you how many times your page was displayed...
        and by what search engine...and when...and by what keyword.
        Ah...there's the missing piece of info I didn't have. I'm not using Google Analytics. I keep telling myself I will, right after I finish this project, then that project, then...


        lol - okay, thanks Emmanuel.
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880228].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    When you say 5% are you talking about 5% of the numbers of monthly searches?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880197].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    Depending on the niche, that sounds about right.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880246].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    Without going into all of the math again, I will re post one that I made from another thread about this.

    Eric I hear you but you and I know that most of the people here at the forum are selling products between $17 and $47.

    Then they are told to go for 3000 searches a month so it comes out to 100 a day.

    But most people here are NOT told about user search data.

    Not everyone who types in a search term (keyword) and hits the "Search" button go on to click on any of the site links that come up.

    There is a percentage of people that realize that they made a mistake, or the phone rings, or any number of other reasons to stop them from continuing with that search.

    So the "Monthly Search Volume" will show you a number but there is around 4% - 8% that never continue their search. So you need to subtract those from the monthly totals.

    Just to be safe, I deduct 10%.

    Then out of the 90% that actually click on a link at the search results page almost another 12% turn to the second page of the results.

    Of the 78% that click on the front page, 70% of the clicks go to the top three listings and the rest trickle down the remaining 7 spots out of the 10 on the front page.

    That is around 8% that 7 people are competing for. If your site description was like a "killer headline" and got half of those people, you are still only talking about 4%. It is safer to think of 2%.

    Now you can see that it is ridiculous to expect to get 100 hits a day from a term that gets around 3000 searches a month.

    Try to think of your site getting 2% of the search numbers when you do your keyword research and you will not be disappointed and surprised when your visitors start showing up.

    These numbers are rough estimates based on information found on SEO (Search Engine Optimization) sites throughout the web. Overall search numbers are constantly changing and if you want to learn more about this you can do a search for Search Data, User Search Data, and similar searches.

    But remember that no matter how much the data changes from month to month, you will never get 100% of the searches.

    So 2% of 3000 is 60 a month. Not all 60 are going to buy because the industry average for sales page conversions is around 2%. But most of the crappy Clickbank products barely convert at 1%.

    So around a sale a month would be good for some of these people.

    This is why everyone is coming in here and crying that they are not making any sales.

    Everyone has this fantasy that all 3000 people are going straight to their site and all 3000 are supposed to buy so we keep hearing the newbie cry "dude, where's my money"?
    The Search User Data changes from month to month and from niche to niche.

    So as you can tell, with all of the variables starting with the "reported" monthly numbers you could end up with your 5% of the reported total.

    Usually the total is wrong to begin with and then it starts going downhill from there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880266].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    Do a search for Search Data, User Search Data, and similar searches.

    I forgot the other names we had for this data when I was playing the "search engine" game. But User Search Data I think is still used as a term.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880274].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GeorgR.
    yes i can confirm that #1 gives *significantly* more clicks than #2, although i dont have exact numbers.

    FURTHERMORE:

    Please do not simplify this! There are more factors playing a role.

    Example: If someone is searching for a solution for a problem and on position #1 and #2 are some generic wikipedia etc. entries but you are #3 and your Title VERY MUCH appeals to what the user is looking for....you might as well get GOOD clicks on #3 and compete with #1 and #2.

    So..title and description in Google index certainly also plays a role how many people click your link.

    Let's say someone is looking for a way to get rid of the "XYZ Virus", it could be that #1 and #2 are simply descriptions of the virus, but your title jumps in their face with "HERE IS HOW TO GET RID OF THE XYZ VIRUS" <---- Profit!
    Signature
    *** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
    -> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
    *** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
    Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880287].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    To give you an example of how a keyword or search term's numbers can change would be to look at the number of searches that get interrupted above at around 4% - 8% and then imagine how high those numbers would be if the search term were "how to stop a leaking pipe".

    Many people realize that they typed the wrong thing in after they see the search results. So, Pritney Pears would get way over 8% of the searchers stopping and starting over.

    Google might show you that so many people type in Pritney Pears a month but they do not tell you that those people were trying to type in Britney Spears and never continued that search.

    So one could be doing some keyword research and see a bunch of searches for Pritney Pears and no competition.

    Then they wouldn't understand why they are not getting anywhere near the numbers reported.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880299].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TelegramSam
    Originally Posted by Emmanuel Betinis View Post



    "If you're in the #1 position in Google,
    expect to get about 42.3% of the searches/month
    to your website for your keyword."

    "If you're in the #2 position in Google, expect to get
    about 11.92% of
    the searches/month to your website
    for your keyword."

    And on and on (according to the image above)...


    Have you found this to be accurate?


    ...because I have found it to be NOT EVEN CLOSE!

    Hi Emmanuel,

    Where did this data come from?

    Was it from Google itself?

    Could you please provide a link?

    Thanks,

    Sam
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880637].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aira Bongco
    I think that picture is simply a representation of your market share once your site makes the rankings on a particular keyword. Ideally, it will be like that. But of course, people consider other factors such as their problem, the title and the description of the website in their decision to visit it. To put it simply, if the website seems to have the solution to their problem based on its title and description, then there is a higher likelihood for the searcher to click it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880647].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Penworthington
    I think one of the reasons why sometimes better results can be found with #2 and #3 positions over #1 positions in Google is because some keyword phrases result in several sponsored listings.

    Sponsored listings these days are much harder to distinguish from normal listings, and many people who search Google tend to ignore the sponsored results and look further down the page. This can mean that the #1 position is lumped with the sponsored ads at the top, and the eye is drawn a little further down the screen.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1880725].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojo100
    Very interesting but I don't believe it.
    I have not found this to be true on my websites and if I think about it if I am looking for something myself I look through the first page and hardly ever click on the top result!
    Signature
    MoJo

    **Attn Newbies ** The Absolute BEGINNERS Guide to Building a Website - FREE
    How to Build My Own Free Website
    http://www.buildmyownfreewebsite.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881016].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin_Hutto
    Without reading everyone's responses, another big factor is whether or not local results are displayed -- if they are, being #1 often means youre below the fold. So the #'s drop off steeply.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881030].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author badboy_Nick
    Originally Posted by Emmanuel Betinis View Post



    "If you're in the #1 position in Google,
    expect to get about 42.3% of the searches/month
    to your website for your keyword."

    "If you're in the #2 position in Google, expect to get
    about 11.92% of
    the searches/month to your website
    for your keyword."

    And on and on (according to the image above)...


    Have you found this to be accurate?


    ...because I have found it to be NOT EVEN CLOSE!
    I strongly disagree.

    The #1 spot does get the most clicks, but 2 and 3 get MUCH more than what this image suggests.
    Signature
    Read my incredible story: www.affiliatechamp.co.uk
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881058].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steven Downward
    I have seen that there is a major difference in the amount of traffic that I get from the top three to the bottom seven. Most people got to the top three.

    But I have never seen a clear indicator as to which of the top three gives better results. I my experience, I have found that it really depended upon the keyword. Sometimes the number 1 spot gave me an increase of traffic but not always. Some keywords I seemed to do better on the 3rd spot.

    It almost feels that it is something that needs to be tested to really see. But I know for myself, I just want to get in the top three, that is my aim and my focus. Then I start to work on another to musltiply my results.
    Signature
    Jonathan Budd's 7 Figure Networker System, What's The Truth?
    How To Start An Online Business - Indepth Article Teaching You How With No Money
    Steven Downward's Personal Blog - Stories Of A Traveling Entrepreneur
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881071].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mike_thiga
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881079].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sylviad
    Going by my own search methods, I would say that #1 would get less than #2, #3 and other spots.

    I scan down the results before picking one. I do not go to the first one that comes up. Also, I've read that you get more targeted traffic in spots below #1 (#3 specifically). Don't recall who said that, but the idea is that many people probably click the first thing they see because they are impatient. This tells me they are not really studying the options before clicking to see how relevant the site might be.

    If you are in position 3 or lower, it's more likely they are "really" looking for something specific.

    Perhaps Google has stated this because it is true, but I doubt they know how targeted is the traffic that you get in that position. Google just wants to "sell" you on the importance of getting to #1 - which ultimately means buying that top sponsor ad position.

    Just my opinion.

    Sylvia
    Signature
    :: Got a dog? Visit my blog. Dog Talk Weekly
    :: Writing, Audio Transcription Services? - Award-winning Journalist is taking new projects. Warrior Discounts!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881206].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Emmanuel Betinis
      Originally Posted by sylviad View Post

      Going by my own search methods, I would say that #1 would get less than #2, #3 and other spots.

      I scan down the results before picking one. I do not go to the first one that comes up. Also, I've read that you get more targeted traffic in spots below #1 (#3 specifically). Don't recall who said that, but the idea is that many people probably click the first thing they see because they are impatient. This tells me they are not really studying the options before clicking to see how relevant the site might be.

      If you are in position 3 or lower, it's more likely they are "really" looking for something specific.

      Perhaps Google has stated this because it is true, but I doubt they know how targeted is the traffic that you get in that position. Google just wants to "sell" you on the importance of getting to #1 - which ultimately means buying that top sponsor ad position.

      Just my opinion.

      Sylvia
      Why would Google serve up the most relevant result in the #3
      position and not #1? Like I said before, I'm not talking about PPC.
      Did you read post #17? If you didn't, here it is again:



      Originally Posted by Emmanuel Betinis View Post

      CLARIFICATION TO ANYONE THINKING OTHERWISE

      I'm not talking about PAID ADS being the first positions.

      I'm talking about the FIRST ORGANIC LISTING being #1.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1882401].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sylviad
        Originally Posted by Emmanuel Betinis View Post

        Why would Google serve up the most relevant result in the #3
        position and not #1? Like I said before, I'm not talking about PPC.
        Did you read post #17? If you didn't, here it is again:
        That's not what I'm saying.

        Google wants you to buy the top sponsor position, which is why they are claiming that position 1 in SERPs gets the best response. The next best thing to #1 in SERPs is the top sponsor ad.

        And what are you talking about... position #3 and not #1. You said in your OP:

        "If you're in the #1 position in Google,
        expect to get about 42.3% of the searches/month
        to your website for your keyword"

        and you asked if we believed those stats.

        BTW: No need to shout. I'm not dumb or deaf, and neither are the other Warriors.

        Sylvia
        Signature
        :: Got a dog? Visit my blog. Dog Talk Weekly
        :: Writing, Audio Transcription Services? - Award-winning Journalist is taking new projects. Warrior Discounts!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1882671].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Emmanuel Betinis
          Originally Posted by sylviad View Post

          That's not what I'm saying.

          Google wants you to buy the top sponsor position, which is why they are claiming that position 1 in SERPs gets the best response. The next best thing to #1 in SERPs is the top sponsor ad.

          And what are you talking about... position #3 and not #1. You said in your OP:

          "If you're in the #1 position in Google,
          expect to get about 42.3% of the searches/month
          to your website for your keyword"

          and you asked if we believed those stats.

          BTW: No need to shout. I'm not dumb or deaf, and neither are the other Warriors.

          Sylvia

          Hey Sylvia, I understand how you may taken offense to bold
          red type. I apologize if I offended you or anyone else by it.

          Certainly wasn't my intentions at all.

          Thanks for all your replies - it's much appreciated!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1883127].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Emmanuel Betinis
          Originally Posted by sylviad View Post

          And what are you talking about... position #3 and not #1.
          Because you said...

          Originally Posted by sylviad

          If you are in position 3 or lower, it's more likely they are "really" looking for something specific.
          I understand what you mean, but Google usually serves up the
          most relevant, specific information the user is looking for in the top
          organic positions anyway vs. #3 or lower results. The deeper into
          the results you search, the less relevant the results become. Don't you agree?

          Must just be a simple miscommunication. :confused:
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1883194].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
            Originally Posted by Emmanuel Betinis View Post

            Because you said...



            I understand what you mean, but Google usually serves up the
            most relevant, specific information the user is looking for in the top
            organic positions anyway vs. #3 or lower results. The deeper into
            the results you search, the less relevant the results become. Don't you agree?

            Must just be a simple miscommunication. :confused:
            Throwing a couple of opinions into the stew...

            1. Depending on the niche, Google usually serves up what the algorithm of the moment believes is the most relevant, specific information. Based on my own behavior as a searcher, that doesn't always coincide with what I'm actually searching for. And I've been searching long enough to have a pretty good hit rate with my search strings.

            If you look at the average search, the more iterations and refinements the searcher makes to the search terms, the more likely that chart is to approach accuracy. On fairly general searches, the curve probably flattens out a lot as Google has to "guess" the searcher's intent. As the search string hones in on the actual intent, the most accurate, relevant listing is more likely to rise to the top.

            For example, if I'm looking for a black leather dog collar with a double row of chromed studs, I'm much more likely to find one typing that in than I am if I just type in "dog collars".

            2. This might sound a little snarky, but I'd be much more inclined to believe the data if the person presenting it didn't run a business that centers on the importance of high search rankings...

            No accusations, just saying.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1883280].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author WhamSoft
      You have to remember how people search.

      They type in keywords into the search bar

      Let use something original like "Dog Training"

      The results

      #1 Dog Training, blah blah
      description goes here

      #2 Dog Training, blah blah
      description goes here

      #3 Dog Training, blah blah
      description goes here

      #4 Dog Training, blah blah
      description goes here

      #5 Dog Training, blah blah
      How to train your German Shepard or
      any other dog to do exactly what you want when you want.

      -------------------------
      So if had a German Shepard I would of course pick search result number 5,

      Position does not matter in the 1-10 results, but your page title and description needs to be the most relevant for the searcher to select you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1882859].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John Hocking
      For #1 is still the highest but the top 3 are within about 15 % spread.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1882911].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VegasGreg
      Maybe the graph is saying 42.3% of clicks go to the #1 spot. Your CTR only counts your -times displayed- to -clicks-. So if a searcher doesn't click, it isn't counted in the graph's numbers.

      Also, the graphs numbers should account for ALL searches done, not just those targeted towards us savvy internet marketers.

      There are a lot of factors left out here and very hard to test.

      If you track your own keywords, have your keywords been in all 10 positions over a period of time to supply ample data? Or do you control all 10 spots from your own urls? Then how do you know your numbers don't match the chart? Without the complete stats derived from the exact search keyword and the actual clicks of all 10 spots you really can't answer the question.
      Signature

      Greg Schueler - Wordpress Fanatic... Living The Offline Marketing Dream...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1883249].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zeus66
    At the bottom of the Top 10, I definitely see what the image suggests between positions 8-10. Being #10 is actually almost always a bit better than the #9 spot. I think this makes sense because it's a natural stopping point for the reader. I bet our eyes linger there a bit longer just because it's a natural break of text on the page. Whatever the cause, I do see a spike in traffic when one of my pages drops from #9 to #10. It's very close to the traffic I see when at #7 and #8.

    John
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881409].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Penworthington
    I think that more than the exact position on the search results page, what can make a huge difference is the text, title and description that is displayed.

    Having good page titles, and snappy, eye catching descriptions can make a huge difference.

    If the keyword phrase searched for is buried within a long sentence then this may not be as eye catching as a page title or description which is as arresting as any successful SEO headline.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881470].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    I would think the click-through rates would strongly depend on the search term. With some types of searches you can find the answer you're looking for right away, but for research queries there's a much greater probability the searcher would want to see results from several sites. Personally, if I'm doing research, I'll often go 2-3 pages deep.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1882599].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lett
    People tend to open more than only one website when they search for something, so this has to be wrong for sure. Top 10 clickthroughs has to be larger than monthly searches. I am sure than most people usually open at least 2 results in page 1 when they search.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1882883].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JayXtreme
    I've found that on average.. spot 3 is the best converting/performing position to be in..

    Having said that.. I have had great results in spots 1 thru 5, only for # 3 to be the overall best performer.

    There are SO many variable to this, that the position in Google can almost become irrelevant, once you are on the first page... you get to work on those other factors and change your luck

    Jay
    Signature

    Bare Murkage.........

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1883309].message }}

Trending Topics