Archive for the ‘Search Analytics’ Category
Enquisite Suite Update - April 2010
Earlier this week we released an update to the Enquisite reporting suite, extending the functionality of some key components. We are very excited to share the news, and outline the features and benefits with you. Many of these changes are very significant, and are benefits unique to Enquisite: you can’t do most of these things with any other analytics package on the marketplace.
Cross-Domain and Sub-Domain Tracking
We’ve added the ability to track actions and conversions across different domains and display the results as a unified reporting set. This is particularity useful if a booking engine or shopping cart is hosted on a separate domain, or if multiple domains all point in to one site for conversion purposes. Please note that cross-domain and sub-domain tracking will require assistance from the Enquisite team to implement: it’s not complicated, and shouldn’t require any effort from you. If you would like to take advantage of these new capabilities, please send us an email at [email protected].
Sub-Domain Tracking
Cookies can now be tracked across sub-domains and we now tie sub-domain activity together using a single Enquisite tracking code. This allows you to take advantage of our entire platform of functionality while ensuring accurate cross-channel attribution of actions and conversions, no matter where your customers go on your site.
Advanced Organic Keyword Predictions
We are already widely regarded as industry leader in Organic Keyword Research and Predictive Analysis. But being the best isn’t good enough. There’s always room to improve. During the last year, our research scientists have been working hard to enhance the core algorithms and validation routines that deliver predictive keyword suggestions to Enquisite Campaign users. This update is a major step forward on a lot of fronts, and it means you’ll benefit even more than ever from our predictive insights far in advance of the rest of your competitors in the marketplace.
Advanced Regex Segmentation
Enquisite’s Search and Social Analytics platform, Optimizer, is recognized by advanced search marketers as the fastest and most accurate way to segmenting your search traffic. We’ve enhanced your ability to segment by adding the ability for you to take advantage of the most powerful commands in the regular expression (regex) database query set.
In doing so, we have opened up a whole new way to look at your search data. These newly added commands can also function with lists, meaning that if there is a large selection of keywords that you need to work with you simply create a list, and use the list within an expression. Advanced segmentation functions are available when using the ‘contains’ and ‘does not contain’ match type in the Optimizer Longtail segmentation panel. Commands and variables include:
* An asterix is any number of characters,
? A question mark is a single wild character.
| The pipe symbol denotes alternation (either of a number of alternatives).
() Parentheses may be used to group items into a single item. (e.g. (a|b|c))
{x} Brackets indicate a list substitution where ‘x’ is the name of the defined list of words
\ Backward Slash before a control character denotes it as that character not the command (e.g. ” \ * ” is the ” * ” character, not a wildcard)
The search marketers we previewed the regex features to were absolutely thrilled. It makes the management of large datasets so much easier on a lot of levels, and saves them days of work each month.
We Want Your Feedback
We are eager to get any thoughts or suggestions on improvements or new features that you would like to see in the Enquisite Performance Suite in order to exceed your expectations and best meets your needs. You can submit your ideas at [email protected].
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.
Is Longer Better? What the Best Length for a Query?
In my recent post, “How Long is Normal?” I published data which showed that based on click through rate, four-word queries are more common than one-word queries, and five-word ones are almost as common.
Today, I’m adding to that information with an additional layer showing a correlation between the number of words used in a query and the time on site, and pages viewed.
One would assume that a more specific query would result in longer time on site and pages viewed. Surprisingly, That’s not the case. In fact it appears that the more specific a query, the more a search referral visitor’s behaviour will reflect a decisive intent and higher level of sophistication in how they navigate web sites. They use the search process to pre-filter results more aggressively, and then they get to the point of their visit very quickly.
This information will of course have implications for bounce rate reporting, as a significant number of search referrals which normally could be classified as bounces more likely indicate a higher than expected level of satisfaction with the results.
| Words in Query | Percentage of Queries | Avg Pages Viewed | Avg Time on site |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11.08% | 6.64 | 4:32 |
| 2 | 24.56% | 4.13 | 2:53 |
| 3 | 25.77% | 3.06 | 1:57 |
| 4 | 17.68% | 2.62 | 1:42 |
| 5 | 10.03% | 2.29 | 1:27 | 6 | 5.36% | 2.11 | 1:21 | 7 | 2.65% | 1.97 | 1.14 | 8 | 1.36% | 1.84 | 1:07 | 9 | 0.70% | 1.74 | 1:04 | 10 | 0.37% | 1.69 | 0:59 |
The longest query recorded in this data sample was a search referral with 594 “keywords” in it. Likely it was someone was searching for exact copies of an article, either to identify plagiarism, or link opportunities.
So, if this is “normal” for the Internet, how does your site match up? Interesting to think of this as one more way to determine if your web site’s SEO strategy is healthy.
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 information published reported solely reflects our 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.
Does Depth of Referral Affect Quality of Visit?
Yesterday I published data around click through rates from the search results. That data shows that 95% of all search referrals now arrive from page 1 in the search results. The number is higher in paid, and slightly lower in organic search, but 5% for everything not on page 1 doesn’t leave a lot of room for any other positioning.
I thought it would be interesting to start comparing that data against quality of visit, from the perspective of engagement. A longer time on site and / or more pages viewed should give a good indication of engagement. What I found was quite surprising. You would think that a searcher who is going to bother to drill deeper into the search results would be more motivated to find the right information, and thus would stay engaged in a destination site longer. In fact, the opposite is true. As people drill deeper into the results they become less patient.
The information shown demonstrates how there is a relationship between where in the search results people click, and the quality of their visit to your business. In this case longer time on site and more pages viewed would indicate a better quality of visitor. Counter-intuitively, it’s not the people who drill deeper in the search results that are showing the greatest satisfaction when they land on a destination site, it’s the visitors from page one:
| Referrals from Page # | Pages Viewed | Time on Site |
|---|---|---|
| (average) | mm:ss: | |
| 1 | 3.59 | 2:27 |
| 2 | 2.16 | 1:06 |
| 3 | 2.12 | 1:01 |
| 4 | 2.08 | 0:57 |
| 5 | 2.05 | 0:55 |
What this data demonstrates is that visitors from page one in the SERPs are, on average, spending twice as much time and viewing almost twice as many pages on the web sites they visit as visitors who arrive from clicking deeper within the results pages.
Not only is page one more valuable from the perspective of amount of traffic, but also quality. When viewed graphically, the similarity between pages viewed and time on site is stunning, both in relation to time on site v. the referring page number in the search results:
As well as to pages viewed v. the referring page number in the search results:
This less patient user behavior is also reflected in how people search using longer and longer queries. I published data a few weeks ago around how many words are in a typical referring query. What I found was while people might start searching with one word queries, they quickly move to longer, more specific requests. In the next few weeks I’ll expand on that post with some page view and time on site behavioral metrics as well.
As always, Enquisite collects data from a network of web sites distributed globally. The data used in this reports represents web sites distributed globally, and reflects click-through activity data.
How Long is Normal: Data Shows Normal Length of Search Query
In honor of Pubcon Las Vegas, where I’ll be heading tomorrow, I’m going to post some more data which should provide meaningful insights to search marketers. First up this week is an answer to the question lots of advanced search marketers often ask me: “how long are most search queries?”, or in other words, “How many words are in most search queries?” I had one of our databases prepare a report on search query length for the month of October, so a poll size of ~40 million search referrals, so enough to be more than just statistically relevant.
Interestingly, four-word queries are more common than one-word queries, and five-word ones are almost as common! Five words!
The database pool used was general web search, and not skewed towards local search, so this breakdown is even more surprising. If it had been local skewed, then a preponderance of local queries such as “Best burritos in San Francisco” would explain the query length.
For the longest query, we actually recorded one search referral with 594 “keywords” in it. Likely it was someone was searching for exact copies of an article, either to identify plagiarism, or link opportunities.
So, if this is “normal” for the Internet, how does your site match up? Interesting to think of this as one more way to determine if your web site’s SEO strategy is healthy: distribution of query length. Not really longtail, what animal shape could we name this metric after? Dana Todd is great at naming these things; maybe I’ll ask her.
For those of you wanting the raw data - I didn’t have time to format the tables, so just put it at the end…
| Words in Query | Percentage of Queries |
|---|---|
| 1 | 11.08% |
| 2 | 24.56% |
| 3 | 25.77% |
| 4 | 17.68% |
| 5 | 10.03% | 6 | 5.36% | 7 | 2.65% | 8 | 1.36% | 9 | 0.70% | 10 | 0.37% |
Enquisite Optimizer Update
We are pleased to announce the September update to the Enquisite Performance Suite. This release includes three new features/enhancements:
1. Enhanced action/conversion reporting for Enquisite Optimizer
2. Deeper visibility into performance of campaigns within Enquisite Campaign
3. Usability enhancements to Enquisite Campaign
Enquisite Optimizer has been enhanced to allow you to better understand the activity driving “actions” and “conversions” for your business. The “Actions” tab allows you to segment and view your search referrals across the various site actions you define (e.g., “user registration”), while the corresponding “Conversions” tab provides you with unprecedented intelligence on factors driving revenue for your business.
With this new feature, you can answer such questions as:
* Which landing pages are most effective – whether to fill out a lead generation form, viewing a demo video, or even find their local store on a map?
* Are there certain cities or zip codes which tend to convert more than others?
* Which search engines are providing me with the quality traffic that converts to sales?
* Which root search phrases are driving actions and conversions, which I can subsequently use to research high-value, long-tail terms?
Now, you are able to quickly understand the specific segments of traffic that are engaging your site and ultimately converting – something that would have previously taken hours, if not days.
Check it out… let us know what you think.
Richard