Yesterday's Searchblog links to WebmasterBrain's new "Search Engine Experiment," which offers a blind taste-test pitting search results from the three big dogs against one another (you search for something, then vote on the most relevant list, then see which engine you picked). The test could be improved--too few links are displayed and the headlines are truncated--but the results are interesting. This week's aggregate results mirror the general consensus: Google first, Yahoo! second, MSN third.
Importantly, the taste test appears to measure only organic search results, rather than sponsored search results, and the latter are far more important for generating near-term revenue. Over the long run, consistently superior organic results would presumably lead to market share gains, but this would take time and would by no means be guaranteed (remember: Pepsi tasted better, and it was still always No. 2). Superior sponsored results, meanwhile, mean more revenue now.
As discussed here, Google's awesome growth in recent quarters appears to have been at least partially a function of improved relevance in sponsored search. And for Yahoo! or MSN to gain revenue share versus Google, they will have to focus as much or more on the relevance of sponsored links as organic results.
On a similar topic, Is Tagging Relevant?
Posted by: Travis Reeder | December 03, 2005 at 10:30 PM
I really don't think that it is very relevat.Despite that the efforts from MSN are doubtful.Their results are down and the results can be seen.Very small amount of visitors.
Posted by: increase semen volume | June 15, 2006 at 06:25 PM
Great work, i like it. Thanks for sharing.
xxxecemxxx Egitim Egitim Exsohbet
Chat Sohbet Chat Sohbet
Chat Sohbet
Posted by: Network | December 15, 2010 at 07:37 AM