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:
|
Google |
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.
Posted under Enquisite Search Metrics, Google, Market Share, Search Analytics, Search Metrics, Yahoo, bing
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.
Posted under Enquisite Search Metrics, Search Analytics, Search Metrics
Since I just posted about desktop browser usage, and reported that Mac users may not be, by default, any more sophisticated than Microsoft users, I thought it might be interesting to look at mobile browser usage.
Looks like Blackberry users view the least pages per mobile browser sessions (that’s me), and surprisingly, Palm Pre users are the fastest browsers. On the whole, not a lot of difference across the browsers, which surprised me. I though that iPhone and Android users would exhibit dramatically different behavior than others.
| Mobile Browser |
Average Pages Viewed |
Average Time on Site |
| iPhone |
2.49 |
02:38 |
| Android |
2.45 |
02:51 |
| BlackBerry |
2.13 |
02:48 |
| Palm Pre |
2.78 |
02:36 |
| IE Mobile |
2.48 |
03:13 |
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.
Posted under Browsers, Enquisite Search Metrics, Market Share, Search Metrics
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.
Posted under Browsers, Chrome, Enquisite Search Metrics, Google, Market Share, Search Analytics, Search Metrics, bing
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.
Posted under Analytics, Enquisite Search Metrics, Google, Ranking Reports, Search Analytics, Search Engines, Search Metrics, bing, search analytics
