Device-dependent click-through rate estimation in Google organic search results based on clicks and impressions data

Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print

DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-04-2023-0107

[Original article]

Artur Strzelecki
University of Economics in Katowice
1 Maja 50, 40-287
Katowice, Poland
Andrej Miklosik
Comenius University in Bratislava
Odbojarov 10, 820 05
Bratislava, Slovakia

Abstract:

Purpose

The landscape of search engine usage has evolved since the last known data were used to calculate click-through rate (CTR) values. The objective was to provide a replicable method for accessing data from the Google search engine using programmatic access and calculating CTR values from the retrieved data to show how the CTRs have changed since the last studies were published.

Design/methodology/approach

In this study, the authors present the estimated CTR values in organic search results based on actual clicks and impressions data, and establish a protocol for collecting this data using Google programmatic access. For this study, the authors collected data on 416,386 clicks, 31,648,226 impressions and 8,861,416 daily queries.

Findings

The results show that CTRs have decreased from previously reported values in both academic research and industry benchmarks. The estimates indicate that the top-ranked result in Google's organic search results features a CTR of 9.28%, followed by 5.82 and 3.11% for positions two and three, respectively. The authors also demonstrate that CTRs vary across various types of devices. On desktop devices, the CTR decreases steadily with each lower ranking position. On smartphones, the CTR starts high but decreases rapidly, with an unprecedented increase from position 13 onwards. Tablets have the lowest and most variable CTR values.

Practical implications

The theoretical implications include the generation of a current dataset on search engine results and user behavior, made available to the research community, creation of a unique methodology for generating new datasets and presenting the updated information on CTR trends. The managerial implications include the establishment of the need for businesses to focus on optimizing other forms of Google search results in addition to organic text results, and the possibility of application of this study's methodology to determine CTRs for their own websites.

Originality/value

This study provides a novel method to access real CTR data and estimates current CTRs for top organic Google search results, categorized by device.

Keywords:

clicks; click-through rate; desktops; organic search results; clicks; smartphones; tablets

Full text:

PDF

How to cite:

Strzelecki, A., & Miklosik, A. (2024). Device-dependent click-through rate estimation in Google organic search results based on clicks and impressions data. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-04-2023-0107.

References:

  1. Agarwal, A., Hosanagar, K. and Smith, M.D. (2015), “Do Organic Results Help or Hurt Sponsored Search Performance?”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 695–713, doi: 10.1287/isre.2015.0593.
  2. Agichtein, E., Brill, E., Dumais, S. and Ragno, R. (2006), “Learning user interaction models for predicting web search result preferences”, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Vol. 2006, pp. 3–10, doi: 10.1145/1148170.1148175.
  3. Balakrishnan, V., Ahmadi, K. and Ravana, S.D. (2016), “Improving retrieval relevance using users’ explicit feedback”, Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 76–98, doi: 10.1108/AJIM-07-2015-0106.
  4. Baye, M.R., los Santos, B. and Wildenbeest, M.R. (2016), “Search Engine Optimization: What Drives Organic Traffic to Retail Sites?”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Blackwell Publishing Inc., Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 6–31, doi: 10.1111/jems.12141.
  5. Bendersky, M. and Croft, W.B. (2009), “Analysis of long queries in a large scale search log”, Proceedings of the 2009 Workshop on Web Search Click Data, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 8–14, doi: 10.1145/1507509.1507511.
  6. Brin, S. and Page, L. (2012), “Reprint of: The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine”, Computer Networks, Vol. 56 No. 18, pp. 3825–3833, doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2012.10.007.
  7. Di Caprio, D., Santos-Arteaga, F.J. and Tavana, M. (2022), “An information retrieval benchmarking model of satisficing and impatient users’ behavior in online search environments”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 191, p. 116352, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116352.
  8. Chen, L., Hu, Y. and Nejdl, W. (2008), “DECK: Detecting Events from Web Click-Through Data”, 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, IEEE, pp. 123–132, doi: 10.1109/ICDM.2008.78.
  9. Chitika Insights. (2013), “The Value of Google Result Positioning”, Chitika, Chitika.
  10. Danovitch, J.H. (2019), “Growing up with Google: How children’s understanding and use of internet‐based devices relates to cognitive development”, Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 81–90, doi: 10.1002/hbe2.142.
  11. Dupret, G. and Liao, C. (2010), “A model to estimate intrinsic document relevance from the clickthrough logs of a web search engine”, Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 181–190, doi: 10.1145/1718487.1718510.
  12. Erola, A. and Castellà-Roca, J. (2014), “Using Search Results to Microaggregate Query Logs Semantically”, in Garcia-Alfaro, J., Lioudakis, G., Cuppens-Boulahia, N., Foley, S. and Fitzgerald, W. (Eds.), Data Privacy Management and Autonomous Spontaneous Security, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 148–161, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-54568-9_10.
  13. Glick, M., Richards, G., Sapozhnikov, M. and Seabright, P. (2014), “How Does Ranking Affect User Choice in Online Search?”, Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 99–119, doi: 10.1007/s11151-014-9435-y.
  14. Google. (2023), “Google Search Console”, available at: https://search.google.com/search-console/about (accessed 17 February 2023).
  15. Haider, J. and Sundin, O. (2019), Invisible Search and Online Search Engines, Routledge, London, doi: 10.4324/9780429448546.
  16. Halavais, A. (2017), Search Engine Society, John Wiley & Sons.
  17. Jayroe, T.J. and Wolfram, D. (2012), “Internet searching, tablet technology and older adults”, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1–3, doi: 10.1002/meet.14504901236.
  18. Jerath, K., Ma, L. and Park, Y.-H. (2014), “Consumer Click Behavior at a Search Engine: The Role of Keyword Popularity”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 480–486, doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0099.
  19. Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H. and Gay, G. (2017), “Accurately Interpreting Clickthrough Data as Implicit Feedback”, ACM SIGIR Forum, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 4–11, doi: 10.1145/3130332.3130334.
  20. Jones, S.M. and Oyen, D. (2023), “Abstract Images Have Different Levels of Retrievability Per Reverse Image Search Engine”, in Karlinsky, L., Michaeli, T. and Nishino, K. (Eds.), Computer Vision – ECCV 2022 Workshops, Springer, Cham, pp. 203–222, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-25085-9_12.
  21. Karimi, M., Jannach, D. and Jugovac, M. (2018), “News recommender systems – Survey and roads ahead”, Information Processing & Management, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 1203–1227, doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2018.04.008.
  22. Levene, M. (2010), An Introduction to Search Engines and Web Navigation, Wiley, doi: 10.1002/9780470874233.
  23. Lewandowski, D. (2023), “Search Result Presentation”, Understanding Search Engines, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 137–163, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-22789-9_7.
  24. Luh, C.-J., Yang, S.-A. and Huang, T.-L.D. (2016), “Estimating Google’s search engine ranking function from a search engine optimization perspective”, Online Information Review, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 239–255, doi: 10.1108/OIR-04-2015-0112.
  25. Mager, A. (2012), “Algorithmic ideology: How capitalist society shapes search engines”, Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 769–787, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.676056.
  26. Maillé, P., Maudet, G., Simon, M. and Tuffin, B. (2022), “Are Search Engines Biased? Detecting and Reducing Bias using Meta Search Engines”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, p. 101132, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2022.101132.
  27. Miklosik, A., Evans, N., Zak, S. and Lipianska, J. (2019), “A framework for constructing optimisation models to increase the visibility of organizations’ information in search engines”, Information Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, p. 808.
  28. Nagpal, M. and Petersen, J.A. (2021), “Keyword Selection Strategies in Search Engine Optimization: How Relevant is Relevance?”, Journal of Retailing, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 746–763, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2020.12.002.
  29. Park, S. and Cho, K. (2021), “Mobile vs desktop user search behaviours of the 1300K site, a Korean shopping search engine”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239–257, doi: 10.1108/EL-09-2020-0261.
  30. Pass, G., Chowdhury, A. and Torgeson, C. (2006), “A picture of search”, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Scalable Information Systems - InfoScale ’06, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 1-es, doi: 10.1145/1146847.1146848.
  31. Pechenick, E.A., Danforth, C.M. and Dodds, P.S. (2015), “Characterizing the Google Books Corpus: Strong Limits to Inferences of Socio-Cultural and Linguistic Evolution”, edited by Barrat, A.PLOS ONE, Vol. 10 No. 10, p. e0137041, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137041.
  32. Sachse, J. (2019), “The influence of snippet length on user behavior in mobile web search”, Aslib Journal of Information Management, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 325–343, doi: 10.1108/AJIM-07-2018-0182.
  33. Schaefer, M. and Sapi, G. (2023), “Complementarities in learning from data: Insights from general search”, Information Economics and Policy, p. 101063, doi: 10.1016/j.infoecopol.2023.101063.
  34. Song, Y., Ma, H., Wang, H. and Wang, K. (2013), “Exploring and exploiting user search behavior on mobile and tablet devices to improve search relevance”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1201–1212, doi: 10.1145/2488388.2488493.
  35. Strzelecki, A. (2019), “Google Web and Image Search Visibility Data for Online Store”, Data, Vol. 4 No. 3, p. 125, doi: 10.3390/data4030125.
  36. Taghavi, M., Patel, A., Schmidt, N., Wills, C. and Tew, Y. (2012), “An analysis of web proxy logs with query distribution pattern approach for search engines”, Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 162–170, doi: 10.1016/j.csi.2011.07.001.
  37. Wang, J., Xiao, N. and Rao, H.R. (2012), “An exploration of risk information search via a search engine: Queries and clicks in healthcare and information security”, Decision Support Systems, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 395–405, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2011.09.006.
  38. Wildemuth, B.M., Marchionini, G., Fu, X., Oh, J.S. and Yang, M. (2019), “The usefulness of multimedia surrogates for making relevance judgments about digital video objects”, Information Processing & Management, Vol. 56 No. 6, p. 102091, doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102091.
  39. Zhang, Y. and Moffat, A. (2007), “Some observations on user search behavior”, Australian Journal of Intelligent Information Processing Systems, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1–8.
  40. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M., Bar-Ilan, J. and Levene, M. (2016), “Testing the stability of ‘wisdom of crowds’ judgments of search results over time and their similarity with the search engine rankings”, Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 407–427, doi: 10.1108/AJIM-10-2015-0165.

License:

This author accepted manuscript is deposited under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC) licence. This means that anyone may distribute, adapt, and build upon the work for non-commercial purposes, subject to full attribution. If you wish to use this manuscript for commercial purposes, please visit Marketplace