Has Google gotten better?
How many times do you use Google each day? Each week? Each month? Countless times! And would you say you use it in the same way you did a couple of years ago?
It’s likely that you don’t.
There has been a significant shift in search pattern behaviour; one that reflects rational and effective time management; one that is a result of habitualisation. Here at Think Eyetracking, we conducted a study into search behaviour to explore this.
In a 2005 study we found that people looked through many of the search results before clicking on one. The distribution of attention using Google can be seen in the heatmap below.
In our most recent study, we had 30 participants search for the broad term, Oasis. PEEP methodology was employed; participants were eyetracked while completing the task and later asked about their usual behaviour.
As seen in the heatmap above, fixations are studded around the top 5 results and the majority of clicks are upon the top 3 results (discounting the sponsored link). The sponsored link was actually not well attended to due to the fact that searchers are now familiar with advertiser placement within Google. The 2008 heatmap supports the recent trend observed by Cornell University (Their study found that the top 3 Google results get 79% of all clicks) and by AOL (Findings were that 63% of clicks were concentrated upon the top three search results).
Furthermore when asked afterwards what they would normally do when they couldn’t find their desired search result on the first page of Google, 87% respondents replied that they would modify the search terms or refine the search by category. 97% of people tested answered that Google was the search engine they most commonly used and out of those people, 87% stated they wouldn’t bother using anything else.
It’s not clear that Google has gotten any better, but certainly our use of it has become habitualised. Google’s popularity and dedicated following mean that a large majority of users have grown extremely familiar with the search giant and refine searches to display exactly what they need within the top 5 results. We now expect to find our required answer in the top 5 results.
The use of Google has become habit and users have optimized their behaviour accordingly; they now act in order to eliminate the need to scroll below the fold or sift through additional pages of results. Nowadays to compete competently, you must know your customer’s search words, and land in the top 5, if not top 3 results.
46 Responses to “Has Google gotten better?”
Thanks, that’s very interesting information.
Have you done any studies of Local Search, and the impact of the “Ten Box” (the list, with a map, that Google shows at the top for many local searches)
Cheers, Jon
Thanks Jon.
No we haven’t researched that, but could be interesting. We’ll be sure to post if we find something to share.
Cheers, Lizzie.
I think there’s a few things going on here.
1. People are more familiar with using google and have learned how to scan a page of results.
2. I’m guessing Concurrent Think Aloud (CTA) was used in 2005, where the user has looked at the whole page and described to the moderator what they see, and because people look at what they are talking about, the heat map shows activity on most of the page. In 2008 you have used retrospective think aloud / PEEP – and have got a heatmap showing natural behaviour, not moderator lead eye movements.
3. 2008 shows how people use page titles in results as a primary method of selection.
Overall, it looks like a fine example of how eye tracking methodology has moved on and is now producing solid data for website testing. I don’t think you can draw any conclusions over user behaviour from these 2 heatmaps, different methodologies have produced different data.
regards
Guy
Thanks Lizzie
I’ve posted about your findings on our blog. Hope it was OK to copy your diagram?
Cheers, Jon
Hi Guy,
PEEP was used in both the 2005 and 2008 studies.
Cheers, Lizzie.
With hindsight and a little experience I realize also how easy it is to say what we want with some studies of eye tracking, ultimately it all depends on number of participants in the study, their representativeness depending on the target and the context of the study.
I am sceptical about the value to be given to these 2 screenshot, however attractive on paper.
At left if it was in 1996 why not, but not in 2005 (it’s yesterday) while we were already at the age of the golden triangle (repeatedly verified and validated).
At right and according to the limited number of crosses visible on the capture, it means that this study is based on very few users and personally like it’s also a universal search I am very surprise that the eye seems not disturb by the screenshot on the SERP’s and don’t go more on it or/and around it… and like it was seen in the past : http://www.1ere-position.fr/blog/eye-tracking-recherche-universelle-et-sens-de-lecture-sur-une-page-de-resultats-google
In short, the truth is surely as often, a little in the middle of it all, but I would be more prudent on hasty conclusions especially when we talk about search behaviour.
I’d be interesting to see if there is a cultural difference… expanding the research to various countries. Probably not very cost effective… but would be interesting.
Google Suchverhalten – Eye-Tracking
Eine signifikante Verlagerung der Such-Musterverhalten von Suchenden bei der bekannte Suchmaschine Google wurde zwischen den Jahren 2005 bis 2008 bei einer Studie mit 30 Teilnehmern festgestellt. Dabei wurde mit Hilfe der Eye-Tracking-Methode (Blick…
Thank you, this is a very interresting work. It means webmasters will have to fight even harder to be in the top 3 of the results, this is very difficult to achieve!
This is really interesting. Not really about Google but about lists design.
http://tinyurl.com/5kwdcf
Interesting but still I have a question, back in 2005 we used eyetracking results from Enquiro and they already showed the F-map like you have found now in 2008:
http://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/naar_welk_deel_van_de_resultaten_kijkt_een_zoekmachinegebruiker/
How come that your result in 2005 was so different than that of Enquiro? Less internet savy people?
Very interesting. Nice article. I linked it.
It’s difficult to make direct comparisons between the work we present here and NNg’s F Pattern of 2006 because we utilize a different test protocol: NNg used the Think Aloud Protocol and we used Post Experience Eyetracked Protocol (PEEP).
The test protocol utilized makes a significant difference to the eyetracking results as proven in the aforementioned PEEP paper. This is why we developed the PEEP methodology and worked with Lancaster University on its validation.
However, we can see from the NNg work that browsers searched down to items 9 and 10 of the page. The results are slightly different to the results we published in 2005, this can be attributed to the difference in test protocol.
Alternative conclusion:
People are using Google more and more simply to navigate the web. They are looking for a specific site, and they type it in to Google (their browser homepage, or the Google toolbar) and click on the top result.
Some people treat Google as if it *is* the internet, and are not really tuned in to using their browser’s own tools such as the location bar.
I believe it’s these users who are leading the trend towards that kind of focus in the graph. When our 5th-8th position Adwords ads receive as much as 2-3% clickthrough, it suggests that the eyes do still travel elsewhere on the page.
I totally agree with DavidD [1ère Position] : pay attention to these kinds of rapid and whoaw conclusions.
People who lack a knowledge of the basics of the visual system and its use in our global behaviour, will only analyze the moving points on a screen or clouds of points that represent the average visualisation of users.
http://www.simplifyinginterfaces.com/2008/06/eye-tracking-tool-to-convince-or-expert-tool/
Marc,
David makes an important point: eyetrackers are now very easy to use and just about anyone can produce outputs, there are several bandwagon jumpers coming to market and it is vital that the integrity of this growing branch of research be preserved.
It’s interpreting these outputs that real expertise is needed. Please let me assure you that we are not some of the new hacks that have just jumped on the bandwagon. We are well trained in eyetracking, the visual system, and human behavior.
Dr. Jon Dodd (Director and Co-founder of Bunnyfoot/Think) – DPhil in Visual and Computational Neuroscience from Oxford University. 13 years eyetracking experience.
Robert Stevens (Director and Co-founder of Bunnyfoot/Think) – Has lead the use of eyetracking in the usability industry, developed the PEEP methodology, and for 5+ years been the most successful academic reseller of Tobii systems. 6 years eyetracking experience.
Lizzie Maughan (Managing Director of Think) – Degrees in Psychology and Applied Photography. 4 years eyetracking experience.
We present frequently at both academic and commercial conferences, indeed I think you saw me present at SWAET in Lund.
Our knowledge of eyetracking analysis exceeds what is readily available and so we have developed our own software SuperVisual, to better meet the needs of ourselves and the market research communities we serve.
We’ve designed and delivered bespoke global eyetracking solutions for multi-national companies including P&G and Ogilvy.
I completely agree with Google being a habit for some. It’s amazing how much the heat maps differ. What is sad is Google has done a great job getting relevant information in the search results, I’d like to see the clicks more evenly dispersed.
Thanks for the link. Sounds like interesting read
We do see the web searchers are searching with more accuracy. The searches I see coming to my clients’ web sites are 4 words and sometimes 7 words. Web searchers changed the way they searched, and the way they use Google / Yahoo / MSN.
When a web searcher looks for “used car dealers, bad credit, canada” they would not go to the SERP page 2.
This is what we refer to as the “Long Tail”.
Hello was searching Google for Adwords Software and your blog regarding Has Google gotten better? looks really interesting for me. I will definitely bookmark it and come back for more cool postings to read! Cheers!
Really interesting research. What I would like to know is how much attention people gives to adwords.
thanks much, brother
Wahrnehmung der Google Ergebnisliste
Wie bei Think Eyetracking zu lesen ist, scheinen sich die Internetnutzer mehr und mehr an Google zu gewöhnen und sehr kurze Aufmerksamkeitsspannen zu haben.
Während 2005 noch der GroĂźteil der Ergebnisseite wahrgenommen und gelesen wurde, hat sich d…
Good question Bjarke. That’s also what I find really interesting. Is Adwords really that interesting to use?
cool you saytik! Write more!
Hello
Nice site!
G’night
Fasinating study guys – thanks for publishing the results – I’ve linked to this post on my new Being Smarter blog… hope that’s OK.
It may have changed but not by the amount the figure shows, and am speaking from personal experience across a couple of sites.
But then again there are other factors such as the niche, and the type of audience that is being targetted.
[...] further de-prioritising the blended results down to organic position five. As we have found in previous research organic listings below rank three are much less valuable that ones in the top three. [...]
Thanx very much! It’s a great inofrmation!
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts.
I just posted my review of the Awesome free Internet Marketing and SEO tools.
You should find these pretty handy. Feel Free to read, review and send feedback via comments
Thanx a lot for this post! =)
[...] before we get there. I’m sure many of you have seen or heard about Google heat map studies. One recent study from Think Eyetracking (September 2008) revealed that people are now scanning the first few results on page 1 of the [...]
[...] before we get there. I’m sure many of you have seen or heard about Google heat map studies. One recent study from Think Eyetracking (September 2008) revealed that people are now scanning the first few results on page 1 of the [...]
More evidence of the quicker, less thorough and even more ‘instant gratification’ nature of internet surfing. It seems to translates to websites too, with unique users reading very few pages on a news site – in essence get what you want and leave straight away.
Why don’t either of these tests use sample pages with multiple Paid Search ads on the right? I would love to see the test results when using a larger population as well as multiple Paid Search options.
[...] leave a comment » There was a time when people would click through a page, two or even three of search results, but that is not so common anymore. According to an eyetracking study conducted by Think Eyetracking, if you dont’ rank in the top 3, searchers will barely notice your listing. [...]
Could you recommend any specific resources, books, or other blogs on this specific marketing topic?
Very interesting research and I have also been testing some of those products years ago. It seems that we have been better in relevancy of search targetting, in order to give a better, more relevant result for specific searches.
I find this to be a result of good SEO and it shows that SEO is important, now it might give different results on businesses like Hotels or depending on the relevancy of the search and how many hits… Google has of course been better but if its for google or the searcher we cant know yet i think.
Good work
[...] Source:Â Think Eyetracking, September 2008 [...]
This is absolutely perfect. Thanks a lot, I’ve been looking for something like this for a long time.
Thank you for this very interesting information. This study shows that the optimization with SEO and SEM is important and remains.
I always read your blog in high spirits. Thanks
[...] Latest Eye Tracking study…bad news for SEOLatest Eye Tracking study…bad news for SEOA recent study by Think Eyetracking shows that visitors are less likely to look down the SERPs than they were 3 years ago. They are [...]
I read your article with great pleasure. This wonderful article thank you for sharing with us
This blogs always give a few tips for the search I am doing. Thanks!!
Leave a Reply