Posts Tagged ‘Google’
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: What % of mobile searches are local?
It’s interesting how when you ask the right question, you get more questions. We ran a poll on mobile phone experience yesterday, and it generated a solid response, which is still going. I asked a few people about other questions they would like to see asked. Cindy Krum, who’s an expert in mobile marketing wants to discuss:
Thanks for the question Cindy - let’s see how the results turn out!
Previous polls:
- Best User Experience with mobile web browsing?
- Is Twitter effective Interruption Marketing?
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.
The Launch of Linker - SEO’s Version of Matchmaking
Ten days ago, after a long period of development followed by extensive testing during our Beta period, Linker has been launched to the public for anyone to sign up.
In the early days of the Internet, before the search engines came along, navigation was driven by links which allowed people to jump from one place (document) to another. People used hyperlinks as authors use footnotes in reference texts. The purpose of the links were to provide citations, and to advise readers of other valuable resources which they ought to consult.
When the Internet began to become popular with the masses, marketers started using links as a means of traffic acquisition. I did this type of link building as far back in the mid 1990’s “Before Google” for my own businesses. This marketing trend was actually followed by, not preceded by the search engines recognizing the value of links, and embedding a weighting value for links into their algorithms. Of course, at first the search engine did things differently, valuing any old link as a positive score. When this link recognition system was discovered as a performance score value in search results, it was unsurprising that some marketers saw the opportunity and took advantage of it. What is surprising is how far away from the fundamental reasons for link building the noise in the marketplace has taken this strategy, especially in light of how strongly the search engines have driven away from volume. Their mantra could be qualified as back to the future in regards to link values.
The reality is high value links matter. Period. A high quality link is one which readers will find of value. Generally, these links are found within the body content of a document and the link points out to content on another page or site which is relevant to your content. Your link is adding perspective for your readers, and also helping build both your sites’ authority in the search results.
Finding great resources to link to is not easy however. There’s so much content, how do you know which are the best resources, and the ones which are the most relevant to you and your readers? Just as importantly, how do you get in contact with representatives of the right sites which are the appropriate matches for yours? This was the challenge I used to face as an online marketer, and the manual process I was explaining internally when we came up with the idea behind Linker.
I’ll be starting a series of posts shortly around the philosophy behind the Linker product, and how it came to be. The reality is, no one likes to get all those spammy “link to me” emails that flood our email inboxes. They really are useless Junk. Links from, or to these low value, low relevance domains won’t add to your site’s user experience, or add any value to your business in terms of visibility in the search engines. That said, everyone with any online marketing knowledge recognizes that link building is a formidable tool in any good marketing campaign. The point everyone needs to focus on is that good quality, relevant link-building improves the user experience of your web site, and at the same time also drives traffic via search engines and direct referrals. Addressing this need is why we built Linker, a context and relevance driven introduction system which people have labeled a dating service for online marketers.
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.
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 »