Has anyone ever studied CTR from #1 positions on G vs. the total traffic count from WordTracker or Overture's keyword tool? Would be interesting to see how an average #1 position (or other top position) performs versus the "total" traffic count. Anyone ever done this?
There really are too many factors involved to make it useful I think. For example, if you have a technical oriented topic, you are going to have more Google users, and less MSN users. So the percentages are also going to vary based on the topic.
I think that chachi's question really is what is the CTR on the number one site in the SERPs? In other words if you are #1 do 50% of the searchers click through on average. I don't think you can get at this with the tools or method he suggests and of course at best you could only get an average. For the individual page it depends on how attractive the information that Google publishes in the SERP looks to the searcher. On an allied subject, when I was running AdWord campaigns I came to the conclusion that CTR were often better when your ad appeared in second place rather than first.
that's interesting that you had a better CTR on the second spot. but yes, there are way, way too many variables to really have any sort of "control;" your description and title, the other listing's descriptions and titles, if the users have previously been to any of the sites, if .gov or .edu sites show up, and the user base that's making the search could all have huge impacts on it.
Bob, yes that was my question. I was hoping that maybe Shawn or someone else (in conjuction with the keyword tracker tool) had done some kind of study on this. Regardless of what G shows as far as text, it would be interesting to see some kinds of figures.
plus you'd have to account for everflux and the datacenters, and the possibility that just because it's showing as #1 for you doesn't mean it showed for 30 people that happened to click it. and then there's geo-targetting... my guess is that we won't ever really have any sort of remotely accurate numbers.
Well, I just figured that since most SEO is making an educated guess, it would be interesting to see. Maybe I will just do it with my new DP keyword tool account and see what happens.
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172916&highlight=placement a similar discussion. I'd definitely take anything in there with a grain of salt though.
Although I would certainly be happy if I was number 1 for all our keywords, I think it might make sense that being listed towards the top, but not AT the top might actually give better sales. Anyone else have thoughts on this? I'm thinking that while people may be likely to CLICK the number one listing, they may return and check a couple more listings before making a buy decision (comparison shopping). If your site is among these last pages to check out and your offer is competitive, I guess it would be more likely for you to get the sale than for the surfer to go back to the number one listing and buy from them? Geir
I can say atleast in my market being ranked number 8 for my main search phrase in G I have recieved less traffic then running adwords and being the top adwords ad for placement. A lot less traffic. From what I understand only 20% of people searching a phrase will click on a sponsor adword ad.
I found the same and reasoned that perhaps the searcher scans the natural results and if the first few seem unsatisfactory (thus doubting the >5 will be more interesting) that at that stage they wander off with their eyes to the right to the ads, skipping the first and maybe even the second thus seeing #2 or #3 first. Some quantitative/psychological rersearch would be interesting indeed.
I remember someone saying that the #1 spot get around 500% more clicks than #5 and furster down... Don't know the quality of that source since I can't remember who it was/where it came from.