Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
blog.keltex.com
Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
#2Interesting observation. It's very subtle, but potentially important.
As for myself, I don't think there's a big difference. I use Google Instant just to help me form my queries, because my query changes as I see the intermediate results. The paid results and the first organic results help me see if my query really is going to give me the most relevant results, otherwise I try modifying the query a little bit. When I'm done with that phase I click search, which removes the suggestion box, finalizes the results, and then I scroll down and open whatever results appear promising.
Re: Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
#3There's been quite a lot of UX research on this, and the concept of "the fold" simply doesn't exist for webpages. People scroll and scan, even the least knowledgeable ones.
Re: Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
#4Google has two goals with Instant... first, they want to improve the user experience by offering inline suggestions - makes sense - I like that part.
What they're not advertising is that Google is dealing with the same decreased CTR and advertising revenue that the rest of the Internet is. In an effort to seem as user-centric as possible, they've introduced a user friendly feature with a refinement that increases the CTR on their ads.
This isn't a shocking move, it's a sign of the web to come. What's really disappointing is that Google isn't devoting more time to coming up with different ad units and testing more creative ways to encourage users to click. The online ad industry is stagnant - advertisers and publishers are scared to make changes. Google isn't any different.
Re: Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
#5Google has two goals with Instant... first, they want to improve the user experience by offering inline suggestions - makes sense - I like that part. What they're not advertising is that Google is dealing with the same decreased CTR and advertising revenue that the rest of the Internet is. In an effort to seem as user-centric as possible, they've introduced a user friendly feature with a refinement that increases the…
My startup is building better displays ads for the web: http://nowspots.com
I agree Its weird that the basic deliverable of an ad unit, a click, hasn't changed in 15 years.
Re: Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
#6a lot of these "improvements" are made for making people pay. i.e. like that local business results
Re: Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
#7Do we know if the suggested results are based on search frequency or revenue maximization? -- i.e. if I type in "plan my" will it suggest "travel" above "vacation" if the PPC/CTR on the ads for "plan my travel" generate more $s than "plan my vacation"?
That seems like a much more clever optimization than stealing screen real estate. The other optimization to this is if they can guide users to a smaller list of common search phrases they can drive up the prices for them -- a fragmented list of search phrases is very bad for Google.
Re: Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
#8Google has two goals with Instant... first, they want to improve the user experience by offering inline suggestions - makes sense - I like that part. What they're not advertising is that Google is dealing with the same decreased CTR and advertising revenue that the rest of the Internet is. In an effort to seem as user-centric as possible, they've introduced a user friendly feature with a refinement that increases the…
I've always found it funny that advertisers swear by CTR as much as they do. It's almost as if they completely forgot the last few decades of television advertisement. For television, no one gives a damn if a viewer goes out to buy the product right that instant. It's all about repetition and building psychological reinforcements so that once the viewer actually needs something along the lines of what that product offers, they subconsciously lean towards that specific product as opposed to its competitors.
Granted, it's a lot easier for someone to just click some text from their computer than to get up in the middle of a show and drive to a store, but the same essential theory still applies. Which is why I don't understand how CTR is valued so highly over impressions.
Re: Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
#9Google has two goals with Instant... first, they want to improve the user experience by offering inline suggestions - makes sense - I like that part. What they're not advertising is that Google is dealing with the same decreased CTR and advertising revenue that the rest of the Internet is. In an effort to seem as user-centric as possible, they've introduced a user friendly feature with a refinement that increases the…
I've always found it funny that advertisers swear by CTR as much as they do. It's almost as if they completely forgot the last few decades of television advertisement. For television, no one gives a damn if a viewer goes out to buy the product right that instant. It's all about repetition and building psychological reinforcements so that once the viewer actually needs something along the lines of what that product of…
The 'Old Spice' campaign is an example of what you describe.
Re: Google Instant Steals 25% of Your Organic Search Results
#10Do we know if the suggested results are based on search frequency or revenue maximization? -- i.e. if I type in "plan my" will it suggest "travel" above "vacation" if the PPC/CTR on the ads for "plan my travel" generate more $s than "plan my vacation"? That seems like a much more clever optimization than stealing screen real estate. The other optimization to this is if they can guide users to a smaller list of common…
Interesting, so...
ORDER BY (CPC * CTR);
versus
ORDER BY (CTR);
yeah, i know they're not using SQL