<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: So who&#8217;s doing all this searching anyway?</title>
	<link>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/</link>
	<description>web insights powered by over 2 million U.S. online consumers</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:16:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: contact info black jack</title>
		<link>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-595517</link>
		<dc:creator>contact info black jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 10:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-595517</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;tavolo da gioco roulette&lt;/strong&gt;

Before that bonus casino on net casino on line italiano casino craps gambling online casino online affidabili video poker pc</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>tavolo da gioco roulette</strong></p>
<p>Before that bonus casino on net casino on line italiano casino craps gambling online casino online affidabili video poker pc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Perry</title>
		<link>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-280906</link>
		<dc:creator>Perry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:28:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-280906</guid>
		<description>I'm curious about the repetitive nature of search - I find myself lazily redoing a search sometimes several times on Google - often because I'm multi-tasking or interrupted. It would be interesting to understand this across the board, and comparatively on the major engines. 

Any insight?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m curious about the repetitive nature of search - I find myself lazily redoing a search sometimes several times on Google - often because I&#8217;m multi-tasking or interrupted. It would be interesting to understand this across the board, and comparatively on the major engines. </p>
<p>Any insight?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jaime Fitzgerald @ Fitzgerald Analytics</title>
		<link>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-225253</link>
		<dc:creator>Jaime Fitzgerald @ Fitzgerald Analytics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:20:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-225253</guid>
		<description>Great post! Looking forward to the follow-up post because, as you suggested, there are lots of fascinating questions raised. Like most great analysis, new WHATs lead to new WHYs.

Regarding whether the trends hold true over time, perhaps you can look at "decile mobility," that is, the percentage of today's top 10% of searchers show up in a different decile in the next time period.

Thanks again...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post! Looking forward to the follow-up post because, as you suggested, there are lots of fascinating questions raised. Like most great analysis, new WHATs lead to new WHYs.</p>
<p>Regarding whether the trends hold true over time, perhaps you can look at &#8220;decile mobility,&#8221; that is, the percentage of today&#8217;s top 10% of searchers show up in a different decile in the next time period.</p>
<p>Thanks again&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: * Miss Universe</title>
		<link>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-203950</link>
		<dc:creator>* Miss Universe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:38:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-203950</guid>
		<description>It would be interesting to see what percentage of those TOP searchers click on the sponsor links

and what percentage click on the organics first.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to see what was the average final position they clicked on until they are satisfied with the answers they had attained</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would be interesting to see what percentage of those TOP searchers click on the sponsor links</p>
<p>and what percentage click on the organics first.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it would be interesting to see what was the average final position they clicked on until they are satisfied with the answers they had attained</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Hein</title>
		<link>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-203268</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Hein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:48:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-203268</guid>
		<description>In response to the article I'd have to go with Google as the most proficient search engine. I myself do A LOT of SEO and web page diagnosis. As far as algorithms are concerned Google is a quad core while Yahoo and MSN are Pentium 4s... In the grand scheme they get the job done. but if any "best sellers come out" you might have to wait a week before msn or yahoo indexes them. If you're looking for a good price you'll have to wait a month before anything appears...

In response to the comments I'm not sure if I agree... I think the statistics are definitely something to look at and consider when search engine optimizing; but to say that a "best seller" can out perform something in "less demand" would vary depending on the product and the search engine.

I help with marketing for a national dining guide dinersnation.com ( http://www.dinersnation.com ) and I'm constantly adjusting SEO; in retrospect if a site that marketed things that were not in high demand they could still out perform guys who readily update and sell high demand items. 

I'll use my particular site (a national dining guide), www.dinersnation.com as an example. I have 3000 some odd restaurants in my database, in a profile system similar to myspace; granted many of these restaurants have been in existence for many years (not high demand), and many of them have their own website (this makes my job even harder). 

When an experienced web designer or marketing director designers advertising and/or a web page, it's important to look at both the long tail and short tail hit from the consumer.

In my case, a potential viewer looks for 1 of 2 things:

1. (short tail) - The EXACT name of a restaurant (I'll say this is the "hot new item" which is one of the hardest to compete with)
or 
2. (long tail) - Something in the category of the restaurant. (think of this like restaurants in a particular area or that fit this criteria, only for our example it would be a product that relates to, or meets a particular spec or description)

in this case the short tail or "hot item" would be easily found in the top 10 pages of any search engine and theoretically outperform the out-of-demand item.

but here is the science behind all this madness. 
The short tail hit typically has 1 to 2 possible search terms to find a particular site. in my case the exact name of a restaurant (which will usually lead them to the restaurant's homepage)
 
BUT

for a long tail hit result you have a multitude of possible search terms. In my case, 50. There are 50 general search variations in order to find just one profile (product) on my site. Not including all the random and weird variations of words or phrases that could accidentally send someone stumbling onto a page.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to the article I&#8217;d have to go with Google as the most proficient search engine. I myself do A LOT of SEO and web page diagnosis. As far as algorithms are concerned Google is a quad core while Yahoo and MSN are Pentium 4s&#8230; In the grand scheme they get the job done. but if any &#8220;best sellers come out&#8221; you might have to wait a week before msn or yahoo indexes them. If you&#8217;re looking for a good price you&#8217;ll have to wait a month before anything appears&#8230;</p>
<p>In response to the comments I&#8217;m not sure if I agree&#8230; I think the statistics are definitely something to look at and consider when search engine optimizing; but to say that a &#8220;best seller&#8221; can out perform something in &#8220;less demand&#8221; would vary depending on the product and the search engine.</p>
<p>I help with marketing for a national dining guide dinersnation.com ( <a href="http://www.dinersnation.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dinersnation.com</a> ) and I&#8217;m constantly adjusting SEO; in retrospect if a site that marketed things that were not in high demand they could still out perform guys who readily update and sell high demand items. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ll use my particular site (a national dining guide), <a href="http://www.dinersnation.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dinersnation.com</a> as an example. I have 3000 some odd restaurants in my database, in a profile system similar to myspace; granted many of these restaurants have been in existence for many years (not high demand), and many of them have their own website (this makes my job even harder). </p>
<p>When an experienced web designer or marketing director designers advertising and/or a web page, it&#8217;s important to look at both the long tail and short tail hit from the consumer.</p>
<p>In my case, a potential viewer looks for 1 of 2 things:</p>
<p>1. (short tail) - The EXACT name of a restaurant (I&#8217;ll say this is the &#8220;hot new item&#8221; which is one of the hardest to compete with)<br />
or<br />
2. (long tail) - Something in the category of the restaurant. (think of this like restaurants in a particular area or that fit this criteria, only for our example it would be a product that relates to, or meets a particular spec or description)</p>
<p>in this case the short tail or &#8220;hot item&#8221; would be easily found in the top 10 pages of any search engine and theoretically outperform the out-of-demand item.</p>
<p>but here is the science behind all this madness.<br />
The short tail hit typically has 1 to 2 possible search terms to find a particular site. in my case the exact name of a restaurant (which will usually lead them to the restaurant&#8217;s homepage)</p>
<p>BUT</p>
<p>for a long tail hit result you have a multitude of possible search terms. In my case, 50. There are 50 general search variations in order to find just one profile (product) on my site. Not including all the random and weird variations of words or phrases that could accidentally send someone stumbling onto a page.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kip</title>
		<link>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-203225</link>
		<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 06:38:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-203225</guid>
		<description>What is the effect of http://club.live.com/ to Live Search results in this data? Live Search experienced a noticable bump when it introduced the Live Search Club last summer, and it would seem to fit in the mix: a large number of searches done by a small percentage of users, and a noticable dropoff (after prizes were achieved?).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is the effect of <a href="http://club.live.com/" rel="nofollow">http://club.live.com/</a> to Live Search results in this data? Live Search experienced a noticable bump when it introduced the Live Search Club last summer, and it would seem to fit in the mix: a large number of searches done by a small percentage of users, and a noticable dropoff (after prizes were achieved?).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pierre</title>
		<link>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-202855</link>
		<dc:creator>Pierre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.compete.com/2007/11/07/top-searchers-google-yahoo-msn-live/#comment-202855</guid>
		<description>Actually, in the Long Tail concept depicted by Chris Anderson, "products that are in low demand or have low sales volume can collectively make up a market share that rivals or exceeds the relatively few current bestsellers and blockbusters, if the store or distribution channel is large enough". 

Consequently, the Long Tail effect does not apply to search queries : top searchers account for a too important part of the queries.

Do you agree?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, in the Long Tail concept depicted by Chris Anderson, &#8220;products that are in low demand or have low sales volume can collectively make up a market share that rivals or exceeds the relatively few current bestsellers and blockbusters, if the store or distribution channel is large enough&#8221;. </p>
<p>Consequently, the Long Tail effect does not apply to search queries : top searchers account for a too important part of the queries.</p>
<p>Do you agree?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
