Archive for the ‘Google’ Category
Bing Growing, Yahoo Steady - Search Engine Market Share Update
It’s been almost seven months since I last provided insight into the search engine market shares based on click through activity. After holding relatively steady for months, this latest update shows Bing has grown by 2.0%. Perhaps most interestingly, it’s no longer growing at the expense of Yahoo, which was previously the case.
Here’s the raw numbers:
| Yahoo | Bing | Other | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| September 7 | 78.68% | 11.51% | 6.80% | 3.01% |
| September 14 | 78.35% | 11.13% | 6.50% | 4.02% |
| September 21 | 77.43% | 11.35% | 7.11% | 4.11% |
| September 28 | 77.65% | 10.80% | 7.27% | 4.28% |
| October 4 | 77.78% | 10.66% | 7.23% | 4.33% |
| October 12 | 77.78% | 10.66% | 7.21% | 4.35% |
| October 18 | 77.89% | 10.65% | 7.29% | 4.17% |
| October 25 | 77.83% | 10.56% | 7.56% | 4.05% |
| November 1 | 77.75% | 10.46% | 7.66% | 4.12% |
| November 8 | 77.96% | 10.21% | 7.75% | 4.08% |
| November 15 | 77.60% | 10.39% | 7.59% | 4.42% |
| November 22 | 77.59% | 10.41% | 7.67% | 4.37% |
| December 22 | 78.43% | 9.73% | 7.86% | 3.97% |
| Month of June 2010 | 75.93% | 9.94% | 9.82% | 3.83% |
Eightfold Logic collects data from a network of web sites distributed globally. The data used in this reports represents web sites distributed globally, accessed by searchers located in the U.S., and reflects click-through activity data.
Poll: Android, iPhone, Blackberry, Microsoft, Nokia, Best User Experience?
I’ve received quite a bit of email about the post showing how Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android OS powered phones are surging, but Google’s seem to drive more people online. I’m not ignoring Nokia’s offerings, nor do I dismiss the Palm systems, Microsoft mobile etc. In fact, I think Microsoft’s next version of mobile OS could be great!
The point is, each of the phones have definitely addressed different marketplaces. Google and Apple’s offerings definitely appear to be targeting the same groups, and at least from the perspective of enticing people to surf the web, Google seems to be doing a better job.
I’ve had a few people email me that they use apps on the iPhone to fetch info, and perhaps this accounts for the difference in numbers. Unfortunately, since most of the top apps are available for both platforms, this is unlikely to be a factor. As a side note, Apple’s App Store blows away Google’s.
So, tell us, which phone’s OS / Browser combination do you think offers the best web browsing User Experience? Remember, you don’t need to own one to vote for it. This has nothing to with best of email, call quality, etc.
Previous poll: Are Tweets Effective Interruption Marketing?
Mobile Market Share on the Move - Is Android Superior?
It would appear that based on data which would indicate people’s habit with their mobile devices, that the Android offers a better user experience for surfing the Internet than the Google iPhone. While the Android and the iPhone’s share of the overall browser market continues to grow, it is surprising to note that despite the iPhone’s lead in activations, mobile web usage of phone browsers powered by Google’s Android appears to be picking up steam faster than Apple’s iPhone.
The last time I posted market share numbers around web browser referrals to web sites from mobile devices, the various devices had not yet even broken a combined 1% total share. It appears that milestone’s long gone now, as shown in the chart below. Looking at the graph, and data, there’s more going on beyond the obvious “Google’s Android web usage is exploding faster than Apple’s iPhone.” The reality is while that fact is important, and can be attributed in part to the diversity (60) of devices running the Android OS, versus the four devices running Apple’s iphone, the diversity of devices in stores is minor compared to the fact that there are many more Apple iPhone devices in circulation. Apple sold 1.7 million iPhone 4’s within days of release along, and has years worth activation , compared to 160,000 Android phones being activated daily. That gap pales when comparing the mobile browser usage numbers.
A while back Steve Jobs was quoted that most iPhone activity goes via apps, versus search or traditional browser. I found that comment interesting as it reflects a different layer of Internet activity which most of us ignore. While this likely is true, the stunning growth rate in overall web browser usage from Androids v. iPhones reveals something else: People with Android phones use them quite differently from those who have iPhones.
While putting together these numbers, I happened to read Peter Sims’ Tech Crunch’s article “Is Google at Risk of Becoming the Next Microsoft.” When I look at these numbers, the answer definitely becomes no. Just the innovation is not in the same area as before.
Now, I don’t own either an Android or an iPhone. I do have a Blackberry Bold 2, which is great for email and has good sound quality, but it lacks the quality browser experience which might entice me to surf via my phone. If I have to look something up online using my Blackberry, it’s a last resort. Conversely, that function is key to both the Android and iPhone. However, it appears that despite Apple’s massive lead in total footprint based on activations, Android is making that experience much more positive, and as a consequence, Android owners are much more likely to surf using their devices.
The web sites which we are tracking, and using as a basis for the data that we are reporting are not likely to be accessed directly via apps. Apologies for the timescale jump, for those who like the raw numbers:
| iPhone | Android | Blackberry | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July | 0.448% | 0.038% | 0.026% | |
| Aug | 0.591% | 0.045% | 0.033% | |
| Sept | 0.583% | 0.043% | 0.041% | |
| Oct | 0.663% | 0.049% | 0.044% | |
| July 2010 | 1.070% | 0.483% | 0.051% |
Eightfold Logic collects data from a network of web sites distributed globally.
Changes in Natural Linking - Death, Rebirth, or a Return to the Roots?
When contemplating link-building strategies you need to take the user experience into account. They should look at your citations (links) as references to substantiating or relevant documents. Search engines will use these signals to define your site. Consider the user experience when focusing on building contextually relevant links for your business, and you will be rewarded with higher amounts of relevant direct referrals and relevant search engine placement.
There’s been some excellent articles recently focused on this issue, including changes in natural linking by Eric Enge, Editorial Citation by Rand Fishkin and natural link building strategies by Michael Gray.
Michael’s analysis was interesting in that he took Google’s guidelines at face value, created great content, and spent only 10% of his time building links manually. After six months of blogging, Google represented just over 0.5% of his referral traffic. That’s a pathetic amount, considering how popular the posts were in StumbleUpon, Digg, and other social networks. In fact, when he analyzed his traffic, he discovered that the blog didn’t perform in the top 100 for even the simplest keywords. The exception was one post for which Michael did a little link building. Apart from this limited effort, certain posts which received over 30,000 views from social marketing generated almost no natural inbound links.
Now, Michael isn’t advocating that content doesn’t matter. It does, as it engages readers and entices them to return. His article restates a point everyone in the industry has been making for years: If you build it, they don’t just come, or in this case, the links don’t just happen, and the engines won’t just refer anyone your way. As Ian Lurie wrote: “content alone is not going to boost you into the top 10 for any even remotely relevant phrase”
Of particular interest to me in juxtaposition to the pieces by Ian and Michael were the articles by Eric Enge and Rand Fishkin. Rand hypothesizes that 20% of the web’s links exist to influence the search engines. That’s a lot of noise, but that also means 80% are not there just to influence search engines. Eric makes the point that 80% leaves lots of meat to work with and links are still a big factor, but he also estimates that you need to spend 30% of marketing energy into social media, which is interesting in the context of Michael’s lack of success with organic link building from social networks.
There’s an interesting question in Eric’s article, which every site operator should ask themselves: “If you aren’t good enough to be worth linking to, then what do you have anyway?” The answer is of course, you need to build better content. But, a hint to the broader correct answer can actually be found in the title of Rand’s article: Editorial Citation.
Rand notes this in his reference to three periods of linking: 1) early web; links were editorial like footnotes and citations, helping people navigate the web; 2) The engines incorporate web page links as a value metric in ranking algorithms (Google / Alltheweb/ Teoma); 3) non-webpage citations. Google’s recent patent publication which was reviewed by Eric Ward, supports this last point - see Eric’s point #5.
However, another point in the patent leads us in towards additional context: user interaction with links may determine their value, and may go a long way to resolving the dichotomy between the points these articles circle, but also may point search marketers towards clues around link building strategies going forward.
Links from different areas of the document will have different value, and will pass different amounts of link juice flow. Obviously, a link from one site to the next where the link is located in the main body content and is relevant to both the origin and destination will end up scoring higher than an irrelevant link, or links within footers, template side navs and the like. Which really is the point: links as citations are the oldest form of linking, and still carry the most value.
Search Engine Market Share by Click Through Activity - December 2009
Surprisingly, I haven’t posted a search engine market share report in 30 days. We did post lots of other interesting data in the interim however. This week, we’re getting back to the evolving search engine landscape. Of course, not a lot overall has changed since our last look at the data.
Google continues to own almost 80% of the actual click through market share. We recognize that our numbers are different from some other reports. The core difference is our reports reflect click through activity, as opposed to general activity. As demonstrated in the post “how long is normal,” while most search lookup activity is on one word queries, click throughs occur most often on three-word searches. The same holds true for the various engines. A lot of people apparently run searches on Bing / Yahoo, but they refine their searches prior to clicking through. Hence, Google shows a much higher market share when we examine just click through activity.
As it relates to the change in activity over the last month, Bing continues to show strong forward momentum, and Yahoo continues to fade away. Sad, really. Google’s decline which started in June appears to have stabilized at a dominating ~78.4% market share. If we look at areas outside the US, Google’s share is even higher.
For convenience, this graph shows the change in Yahoo / Bing / and other non-google shares since May 2009. If you want to look at the raw data that for back you can view it on the prior blog post about search engine market shares. The data table is getting so long however that we’ll just show the last 4 months from here on out. I’m using an “all-time” chart to show the trends though.
The raw data for those who prefer the numbers:
| Yahoo | Bing | Other | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| September 7 | 78.68% | 11.51% | 6.80% | 3.01% |
| September 14 | 78.35% | 11.13% | 6.50% | 4.02% |
| September 21 | 77.43% | 11.35% | 7.11% | 4.11% |
| September 28 | 77.65% | 10.80% | 7.27% | 4.28% |
| October 4 | 77.78% | 10.66% | 7.23% | 4.33% |
| October 12 | 77.78% | 10.66% | 7.21% | 4.35% |
| October 18 | 77.89% | 10.65% | 7.29% | 4.17% |
| October 25 | 77.83% | 10.56% | 7.56% | 4.05% |
| November 1 | 77.75% | 10.46% | 7.66% | 4.12% |
| November 8 | 77.96% | 10.21% | 7.75% | 4.08% |
| November 15 | 77.60% | 10.39% | 7.59% | 4.42% |
| November 22 | 77.59% | 10.41% | 7.67% | 4.37% |
| December 22 | 78.43% | 9.73% | 7.86% | 3.97% |
Enquisite collects data from a network of thousands of web sites distributed globally. The data used in this reports represents web sites distributed globally, accessed by searchers located in the U.S., and reflects click-through activity data.
Browser Share Report and More…
Last week I posted some information about user behavior in relation to depth of visit. This week I’m going to share some data regarding how different browsers result in varying user behavior.
For the month of November, I decided to break down the user behavior differences behind Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE), Firefox, Apple’s Safari, and Google’s Chrome. At first glance one would assume that if someone visits a web site time on site and pages viewed should not be affected by browser. Yet, this is not the case. One could argue that Chrome and Firefox users are more sophisticated, as evidenced by the fact that they deleted their default browser, Safari and MSIE usage is almost identical, which should be the norm if default browsers were used, as it reflects the simplest behavior patterns. The most sophisticated users would change away from the defaults, and be faster / less patient in navigating sites.
Are Mac users really any more sophisticated than Windows users; perhaps not…?
| Browser | Percentage of Visitors | Average Pages Viewed | Average Time on Site |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSIE | 60.38% | 4.60 | 0:04:08 |
| Firefox | 25.08% | 3.85 | 0:03:42 |
| Safari | 8.58% | 4.33 | 0:04:01 |
| Chrome | 3.42% | 3.65 | 0:03:35 |
The change in browser usage away from MSIE is truly stunning. I’m going to monitor this drop, and Chrome’s surge in case it was Holiday related. Stranger things have happened.
About the data. Enquisite works with thousands of sites worldwide and captures a trove of relevant search-related data every day. The browser shares reported here are based on data from a selection of Enquisite-tagged sites that cumulatively represent over 350 million page views/month, across most major industry sectors - a very significant sample size. The data reported solely reflects our data.
Google Search Update: Ranking Report Really is Dead (finally)
This week I had the pleasure of moderating and speaking at SES Chicago. It was probably my favorite Chicago show yet. What a change from last year when everyone was nervous about how deep the economy would slide into chaos.
One subject that did create some buzz - no surprise - was Google’s announcement of an always-on personalized search. There’s been lots written about it, and the change truly is spectacular. Unfortunately, spectacular doesn’t always equate good.
Rather than dwell on all the questionable issues that the always-on personalized search system raises, I’m going to comment about something that’s actually good in this update: The death of the ranking report. Finally! Finally, rankings are totally meaningless as a reporting metric. Ranking reports which scrape results to identify a position in the search results have been deceptive for years, but now they are unquestionably and completely useless. Anyone providing a ranking report as authoritative is deceiving their clients.
In a way, I am thrilled with Google’s personalization changes, as they make the performance reporting used in Enquisite Optimizer even more valuable. It now is definitely the only real way to measure true page and rank positioning. Optimizer shows where people located anywhere in the world are finding your site in the results, based on actual click-through activity, not some bogus ranking report. This is only analytical platform which report back to you on what your customers are actually seeing in the search results.
People who use traditional ranking reports as a reporting metric are no longer able to report any meaningful data. First off, the data collected are unique to that computer. Second, other activity from that computer affects the results. Run just one site’s reports from a system? Do anything else with it? Anything you search for with that computer can now affect the results you’re seeing. Wait until Caffeine rolls out, and anything you do with that computer will cause variations. Use Google Docs, Gmail, or any other Google products? Your results will vary.
So how can any ranking report based on what one, or even 100 computers which repeatedly run ranking analysis reports be accurate? They can’t. The ranking report you used to use as a metric is dead.
If, as a user, you’re not comfortable with the new personalized search “benefit” just wait for caffeine to roll-out in full next year. Me? I’ve already changed my default search engine in Firefox to Bing. Strange, I’m not concerned about how responsibly Microsoft will handle my information.
Search Engine Market Share Update
Greetings from Search Engine Strategies Berlin!
This week, our weekly trend data of search engine market share as defined by click-through activity shows a Bing regaining its forward momentum, after a slight slip last week. However, looking at the last four weeks, it seems that Bing is hovering quite steadily around the 7.7% market share mark. Over the next few weeks we should be able to see if this is maintained as a normal position, or if Bing recovers its forward momentum.
It should be interesting to observe what happens this week. Each year we see a big drop in search referral traffic associated with the week of the American Thanksgiving Holiday. Will all the engines drop the same proportionate amount, or will Google’s traditional strength in the IT and student marketplace result in a larger drop in market share for the week? Next week I’ll try and put together a chart showing how search volume drops in the run-up to the Holiday, and also how it bounces back.
As always, we’re providing the data in weekly breakdowns to try and identify trends in very granular ways. This data reflects actual clickthrough activity, and not the number of queries run. Meaning if someone performs a search on Yahoo, but doesn’t click through to the results, we don’t track it. We only track searches which generated referrals.
The raw data for those who prefer the numbers, not the graphics:
| Yahoo | Bing | Other | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| September 7 | 78.68% | 11.51% | 6.80% | 3.01% |
| September 14 | 78.35% | 11.13% | 6.50% | 4.02% |
| September 21 | 77.43% | 11.35% | 7.11% | 4.11% |
| September 28 | 77.65% | 10.80% | 7.27% | 4.28% |
| October 4 | 77.78% | 10.66% | 7.23% | 4.33% |
| October 12 | 77.78% | 10.66% | 7.21% | 4.35% |
| October 18 | 77.89% | 10.65% | 7.29% | 4.17% |
| October 25 | 77.83% | 10.56% | 7.56% | 4.05% |
| November 1 | 77.75% | 10.46% | 7.66% | 4.12% |
| November 8 | 77.96% | 10.21% | 7.75% | 4.08% |
| November 15 | 77.60% | 10.39% | 7.59% | 4.42% |
| November 22 | 77.59% | 10.41% | 7.67% | 4.37% |
Enquisite collects data from a network of web sites distributed globally. The data used in this reports represents web sites distributed globally, accessed by searchers located in the U.S., and reflects click-through activity data.
Mobile Browser Market Share Data
As promised to lots of people last week at Pubcon, and to Mike Grehan over at SES, I’m going to start posting even more varied data.
A frequent request from and for search marketers is insight into the mobile browser market. While still tiny in relation to general web traffic when considered from the search perspective, the growing adoption of devices built with web browsing in mind make these numbers are worth watching. I suspect that as iPhones & Android devices become even more ubiquitous, these numbers will continue to grow. Most remarkably, if Blackberry built a better web interface / UI into their devices, I suspect their share would more accurately reflect their general market share for devices in use.
I’ve prepared two charts: one which includes all the mobile browsers; and one with the iPhone removed. The reason is simple - the iPhone is so dominant that it’s impossible to see market share changes for the others without excluding it. This is very much like Google’s overwhelming marketshare dominance in search.
With the iPhone’s market share displayed, it’s hard to make out any of the competitors:
Without the iPhone’s market share displayed, it’s much easier to see the trends starting to emerge:
The obvious insights that I spied immediately were:
1) Android outperforms Blackberry even thought their install base is tiny by contrast.
2) Android’s numbers will be very interesting to watch with Verizon’s big push on their devices.
3) Windows Mobile numbers are horrible! By the time MSFT catches up on search, they’ll realize that they’ve lost their dominant position for being the interface to the web! (IE, mobile etc…)
4) Look at the Palm Pre! For a phone which T-Mobile didn’t really do a great job pushing, their lead on Microsoft is astounding. (yes, I’ve asked for those numbers to be double-checked).
5) Every one of these browsers is growing strongly and steadily. It’s a great sign for the future of mobile marketing!
What are your thoughts?
The raw data for those who prefer the numbers, not the graphics:
| iPhone | Android | Blackberry | Palm Pre | Win Mobile | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 31 | 0.448% | 0.038% | 0.026% | 0.008% | 0.005% |
| Aug 31 | 0.591% | 0.045% | 0.033% | 0.012% | 0.007% |
| Sept 30 | 0.583% | 0.043% | 0.041% | 0.012% | 0.007% |
| Oct 31 | 0.663% | 0.049% | 0.044% | 0.016% | 0.008% |
Enquisite collects data from a network of web sites distributed globally. The data used in this reports represents web sites distributed globally, accessed by browsers located in the U.S.
With mobile browsing in particular, I suspect there’s a higher level of incidence than even of browsers who look up information, but never click through to any destination web site, leaving the search engine / resource of choice being the information portal.
Yes, Google is unquestionably a portal when mobile is considered.
Should You Consider “Author Authority”?
August 6th, 2010 by Richard Zwicky
Search marketers are familiar with signals. One of the truisms is the logic: if no one links to your site, it can’t be considered important, therefore why should it appear in the search results? The more quality links referencing your website or web pages, the better.
A lot of signals or factors behind links can affect the quality, relevance, and value of these citations. Perhaps there’s another signal to consider: Author.
If you’re interested in learning more, earlier today Search Engine Watch published an article I submitted on the topic of Author Authority. The idea came to me while reading a recent patent which was issued and assigned to Google. I’d love to get your thoughts and feedback!
Thanks!
Richard / @rzwicky
Tags: authority, authority score, GOOG, Google, linking strategies, links, marketer, Marketing, patent, Search Engines, SEO Link Building, social marketing
Posted in Commentary, Google, Inbound Marketing, Link Strategies, SEO, SMM, Search Engines, link building, search marketing, social marketing | No Comments »