Yahoo last of the Majors to Still Number Web Results in SERPs

[! !]

Interesting trend in the past year AGAINST numbering the ranking results of SERPs.

Philosophical or logistical reasons why? :confused:

It was convenient when checking Web Page rankings - especially in the 100 results per-page mode.

[seobook]

probably because it does not really matter.

the top results are intended to be relevant and it does not aid the search engine at all for you to be able to compare #87 to #76

[bwelford]

Not numbering SERP results is a typical "product-driven" approach to delivering stuff to customers. I can't think of any customer who would be against the numbering, and for some it is immensely useful. At the least if working with other members of your team and wishing to refer to a particular entry ("Hey guys, do you see that entry at #6."). Numbering is "customer-centric".

So way to go Yahoo!, for once you're on the right track.

[St0n3y]

I love the numbers. To me it provides for a much cleaner results page. That's enough for me.

[dannysullivan]

I like numbers for reasons others have said, makes for easy reference. But like seobook says, don't like that it implies 1 is somehow the very best or better than 2 or 3. The entire first page is basically the same -- and the way results can move around, even worse that someone may interpret numbers in this way.

[bwelford]

Few things in life are either all good or all bad (even SEO as another hot thread is exploring).

Of course some website owners will treat their #1 position in Google like their latest Mercedes. Wow, look at me! Presumably that is why Google prefers not to show numbers.

However the numbering system sensitizes a lot of customers to the search engines and the importance of SEM so why should we knock it.

Equally PageRank may be a concept that has lost its simple relevance. However if it sensitizes customers to the need for good backlinks that bring traffic, that's a useful educational process.

[DigitalRoad]

Hello to Everyone,

Let's examine this from a slightly different angle. The customer you've been discussing has been the web searcher. Perhaps the customer Yahoo is serving by numbering their results is actually the site owner/optimizer/marketer. For them, the ability to quickly review rankings is a real feature. It has more benefit to them than it does the web searcher customer. Perhaps numbering is a tacit acknowledgement and embracing of this crowd by Yahoo.

Danny said:
"But like seobook says, don't like that it implies 1 is somehow the very best or better than 2 or 3. The entire first page is basically the same -- and the way results can move around, even worse that someone may interpret numbers in this way."

I agree that the entire first page is basically the same (depending on the search of course). Similarly, position 10 is about the same as 11, etc. However, I don't think it's an implication, rather fact, that based on an se's algo, number 1 is "better" than 2. If this isn't fact, engines should randomly shuffle result groupings and let searchers know that. Since they don't, shouldn't we accept it as fact that se's believe 1 is better than 2?

Jon

[St0n3y]

the entire first page is basically the same

Thats and interesting quote. Isn't there specific research that shows that #1 ranking get clicked more than #2, 3, 4, 5, etc.? Or is it that any link on the first page is no more likely to get clicked than another? I will say this, I've had clients tell me they can see a drop in orders when one of their #1 rankings drops to #3. I'm very interested in Danny's (or anybody's) thoughts on this.

[seobook]

they try to organize results in order of relevancy, but when a search engine works correctly many of the top results should be extremely relevant

recently a study by Atlas DMT showed click through rates by ad positions for pay per click ads, but typically the ads at the top stick out more like organic listings & get a disproportionately larger clickthrough rate.

[DigitalRoad]

Hey Stoney,

When I say/agree that all of the results on the first page are basically the same, I'm referencing relevancy. And again that's also a function of the competitiveness of the keyphrase. I'm not suggesting that ctr's are the same for all positions. So yes, we still do have to try to get those last 9 spots for clients.:)

but when a search engine works correctly many of the top results should be extremely relevant.
Agreed, but isn't one at least a bit more relevant than the next based on the algo? There is only one king that sits at the top (less ranking fluctuations). Isn't that an acknowledgment that the site is "better". And I only mean better by se's interpretation.

Of course, se's could modify there listings to reflect a more egalitarian approach. For instance, they could take the top fraction of a percent of sites and randomly present them to searchers. So let's say they considered the top 1/100 of a percent to be in the same relevancy range. In a search with 100k results, 10 sites would be considered top tier in relevancy. Those 10 would randomly be presented in positions 1 through 10. The same formula for results presentation could occur all the way through the serp's. The engines would probably want to have adjustable percentile ranges based on the competitiveness of keyphrases.

Jon

[St0n3y]

I'm not suggesting that ctr's are the same for all positions.

I think I read Danny's and your quote in a different context. I think this makes more sense.

Of course, se's could modify there listings to reflect a more egalitarian approach. For instance, they could take the top fraction of a percent of sites and randomly present them to searchers. So let's say they considered the top 1/100 of a percent to be in the same relevancy range. In a search with 100k results, 10 sites would be considered top tier in relevancy. Those 10 would randomly be presented in positions 1 through 10. The same formula for results presentation could occur all the way through the serp's. The engines would probably want to have adjustable percentile ranges based on the competitiveness of keyphrases.

This is something I had thought about some time ago. It makes sense and would also throw a wrench in the works of SEO manipulation.

[bwelford]

I don't agree at all. The first listed should be the one most relevant to your search. For the majority of searchers, they are just looking for an answer to a question or a particular web page. That is why Google has its 'I Feel Lucky' button so that you can immediately get the web page you want, if it's your lucky day.

They are listed in order of the Search Engine's judgement of relevancy. So if the first one doesn't work then you move to the next on the list.

Only in a minority of cases is someone hoping for a few possible suppliers of liederhosen or whatever. So then the candidates may have equal validity to be included on the list, irrespective of order.

In practice taking all possible industrial sectors, SEO's have an influence on only a very minor fraction of all websites. It would be unfortunate if to "equalize the playing field" in this minor fraction, the format was changed to the detriment of all the other stakeholders in the Internet world.

[St0n3y]

The first listed should be the one most relevant to your search.
I think the key word here is *should*. That is often not the case.

A simple case in point. If someone is searching to go on a "hog hunt" the first result is the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. Not particularly helpful to the searcher.

Now, if someone wants to know "hog hunt" regulations in Oklahoma, this site is perfect. By and large, however, I would say this #1 ranking has little relevance to the majority of "hog hunt" searchers.

[seobook]

"hog hunt"

I was just about to use that example...
:)

[DigitalRoad]

Barry,

If the first result is most relevant to your search, isn't it the "best" site or at least better than the second or third listed, as judged by the se's? That's the point I'm making, that a number 1 listing isn't an implied judgement of that site being the "best", it's a de facto judgement. And I don't have a problem with that. Even if the difference is relevancy between 1 and 2 is extremely minimal. I guess that's part of growing up in the competitive society that is America. We're weaned on the idea that there is always a winner. Outcomes that lack a clear winner are somehow unsatisfying.

Now of course, in addition to making sure that a site is the most relevant and best for the search engine, one should ensure it's also most relevant and best for a customer. When that occurs I think that showing off the Mercedes is understandable - you've built something to be proud of. When it doesn't you effectively have an example of a defective algo.

Jon

[St0n3y]

I was just about to use that example...

LOL. I knew it was an obscure example, but it was fresh in my head because of a client. But hey, it works! :rolleyes:

[Andy AtkinsKruger]

From a user or searcher's perspective, I think the numbers are good.

Without numbers suggests that the results are random or accidental - with numbers means that a deliberate process has taken place and that - based on your query - this is what our system thinks to be the best match.

The idea of randomly mixing up the top ten results to make life difficult for SEOs is an SEO-obsessed perspective and really ludicrous.

If as a search engine, you've got all hell on to produce the most relevant result and you're in a competition with giant battle-hungry competitors you're not going to take the risk of watering down your relevancy in any way. The top two results might be the only ones truly answering the user's query.