First published October 13, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

I’m not sure if this is being done in some university somewhere, but I would love to know if our use of search engines is changing how we communicate.

The search query is a form of communication that is deceptive in its simplicity. We are becoming adept at paring down complex concepts into a few well-chosen words, with no unnecessary filler. Even if we do throw in a few “the”s and “what”s, the search engine conveniently strips them from our query.

For example, I wanted to know what time zone Atlanta is in today. I went to Google and typed, “What is the local time in Atlanta?” Google truncated my query to “local time Atlanta.” Of the seven words I typed, four were unnecessary.

Which leads me to think, how many unnecessary words do we use every day as we communicate? If I cut this column down to the bare minimum of words required to convey the concept, it would probably drop from about 800 words to 200 or so. How much of our lives do we spend jamming extraneous words into our conversations and e-mails?

Who’s the advanced searcher?

The common view is that we’re pretty unsophisticated in the way we use search. Less than 5 percent of all searches use advanced search techniques, and by advanced, I mean something as simple as using query operators like “and,” “all” or “not.” I’m betting that the vast majority of Google users have never clicked on that little “Advanced Search” link that sits next to the search box. Sometimes, I think we search marketers are the only ones who ever use these features to mine Google’s index for competitive intelligence regarding back links and pages indexed. But I’m beginning to believe the common view is misguided. I think we’re getting quite sophisticated; we have learned how to make a few words go a long way. Don’t mistake short queries for a lack of sophistication. Generally, a short query matches our intent at the time. We want a broad, inclusive focus. When we’re ready to narrow the parameters, we add the words necessary. We understand that search is an iterative process.

Men (and women) of few words.

One of my favorite examples of on-the-mark ripostes was between two literary adversaries, William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway. Their exchange went like this: Faulkner said of Hemingway: “He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.”

And Hemingway’s response: “Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.” Perhaps search engines are turning us into the Hemingways of the online generation. We cut out the fat, distilling concepts into the fewest words possible. We are learning the language of the search query. And although it’s not perfect, and can be frustrating at times, most of the time it works very well, thank you.

Consider the plight of Ask Jeeves. This engine made much of its ability to interpret queries written in plain English. In other words (lots of other words), queries that didn’t have the fat removed. The idea was that we would be more comfortable interacting with an engine with personality, which spoke the same language we do. Ask Jeeves’ current share of the search market? Less than 2 percent (according to Hitwise). While the Ask Jeeves model might have been attractive to new Internet users, we tend to pick up “SearchSpeak” pretty quickly. It’s not difficult. After a couple of queries, we learn how many words it takes to bring back the results we’re looking for, most of the time. Soon, we leave full sentences behind and cut back to just the essential words to frame our search intent.

So, if I’m right, what will our communications look like in a few short years? Will we have discarded the majority of the language, communicating in pared-down, task-oriented phrases? Will using search lead us into a new linguistic shorthand? A manifestation of this trend is now being seen in e-mails and instant messaging. In some cases, we’re even discarding words completely and going with acronyms. You don’t laugh uproariously anymore, you LOL, and if it’s really funny, you ROTFLMAOPMP.

Global SearchSpeak.

Going further, will a truncated version of English become the new international language? Will SearchSpeak pick up where Esperanto left off? Finally, you can have revenge on your grade school grammar teacher and toss away adverbs, adjectives, modifiers and participles to your heart’s content. All we’ll be left with is a handful of tried-and-true nouns and the odd verb. Anybody should be able to become fluent in SearchSpeak in a few months. Then, you can travel the globe, communicating in short, to-the-point phrases: “London pub, near Buckingham Palace” or “Paris hotel NOT rude staff.” While the discarding of the majority of the English language may be a frightening thought, it’s not really that big a leap. This is pretty much the way we all communicated with our parents when we were between the ages of 13 and 18: “Goin’ out…Nowhere…Nothing.Later.”

First published June 9, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

In Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink, he examines how we make decisions in a split second, and how these intuitive decisions are often more valid than ones we labor over for months.

While Gladwell’s book examines how intuitive decisions are made in a number of situations, it’s fascinating to apply his insights to how we search.

After asking thousands of people to think about they search (through all our research, we’re probably closing in on 3000 now), only one thing has been consistent in our findings. People don’t really know. In some cases, we think we know–but our interactions happen so quickly with the search results page and at such a subconscious level that we’re often at a loss to explain how we chose the results we did. The fact is, the minute we ask people to slow down and start examining their search interaction, that interaction changes and we don’t get a true picture.

When we interact online, we make decisions in split seconds. The rapid-fire assimilation of information and clicking on navigation options is aided by the fact that we can navigate the Web with relatively little risk. If we follow a false lead and end up on a site that doesn’t offer what we’re looking for, the back button is one click away. If only life came with a back button. Wouldn’t it be nice to back out of our mistakes in real life as easily as we can online?

As we navigate, we click merrily along, in a headlong rush to get to our online destination. Only when we perceive that there is increased risk to ourselves–which could present itself as committing some of our personal information, making a purchase, or downloading a file–do we stop and deliberate.

In searching, none of the above risk threats are there. As long as we’re on our favorite search engine, we can’t commit to anything that can’t be corrected with a couple of clicks on the back button.

In our study, we found that people spend an average of 6.4 seconds on a search results page before clicking on a link, and in that time scan an average of 3.9 results. In these few seconds, we assimilate an average of 140 words. Included in those words are between 35 to 60 factors and details we have to consider to make a decision. Yet we take just a few seconds to do this. This is what Mr. Gladwell calls Thin Slicing.

Thin Slicing is the ability to take huge amounts of information and focus in on just what’s important. Then we take these few key pieces of information and make our decision on a subconscious, intuitive level. We don’t know how we made the decision, and if we stop to examine it, we can’t explain the steps we went through. But the decision was made, and in a surprising number of instances, it proves to be the right one. In fact, by trying to take a more logical approach, we often paralyze our decision-making ability.

For the majority of us, the decisions we make while we are on a search results page are an example of thin slicing. Both through cognitive assimilation (actively reading titles and descriptions) and by finding matches to our semantic maps–the group of words that make up the concept we’re search for–through what we see in the listings with our peripheral vision, most of us make decisions on what to click on in seconds.

There are a few deliberate searchers out there who take the time to actively read each title and description before making their decision, but they are few and far between.

What’s the application for search marketing? Understand that placement of keyphrases and words that can catch attention are vital in this split-second environment. This is why position is important. With decisions made in seconds, not a lot of screen real estate is scanned. And every decision is made by weighing the factors in those few listings that were scanned.

So don’t create your search marketing strategies in a vacuum. Explore the competitive environment defined by the search listings for your prime keyphrases. See who else you share the space with, where they’re positioned relative to you, and how you can compete with them for grabbing the attention of your prospective customer. Remember, you can gain them or lose them in the blink of an eye!

First published April 28, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

The perfect search engine would be a small microchip implanted in our brain. It would act as an instantaneous connection between the vast complexity of our brain and the vast complexity of the Web. To find something, we would just have to think about it and the chip would match that concept with the most relevant destination online.

Unfortunately, such a development hasn’t rolled out of the Google Labs yet. So for now, we have to shoehorn our thoughts into a small quarter-inch by three-inch box on the search engine’s home page. We have to distill our thoughts into a few choice words and hope this provides the search engine with enough to go by. And there lies the ultimate vulnerability point of search. Often, our ideas are too big to capture in one or two words.

Small Words, Big Searches; Big Words, Small Searches We all have different intentions when we go to search. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, many of us turn to a general search engine when we’re mapping out unfamiliar territory online. When we define the boundaries of our concept, we often leave them vague and inclusive, because we don’t want to rule anything out. So, perhaps I’m at the beginning stages of considering a trip to New Orleans. I haven’t done any research yet, so I’m looking for options and alternatives. My mind is open. This particular canvas hasn’t been painted on yet. So my search is likely to be broad, i.e. “New Orleans.” By keeping it broad, I know I should include everything on New Orleans.

We also use search as a navigation short cut to get to the most appropriate page on the Internet. We want to go directly from point A to B (again, the topic of a previous column) without a lot of detours to get in the way. Often, these types of searches happen well into the research phase. For example, let’s say I had done a lot of research into New Orleans and in a previous session I remember seeing a page on upcoming events on the New Orleans’s Chamber of Commerce Web site. I don’t have the URL and I didn’t book mark it. So I go to the search engine and type in “New Orleans Chamber of Commerce Events.” It’s a very specific search that should take me right where I want to go. I don’t want to see everything on New Orleans. I just want to see this one page.

Mapping Our Thoughts to Words The challenge comes in the search engine trying to interpret my intentions based on my key phrases. Let’s go back to the first example. Although I’ve kept the search broad (“New Orleans”) I obviously have a concept of the type of sites I’m looking for. They could be restaurant directories, accommodation guides, lists of things to do, official visitor sites, or other rich research sources. This is my concept, unstated to the search engine but residing in my mind.

So, when the search results come up, I’m looking at them through a “semantic map” that continues many words that flesh out my concept and might catch my attention. I’m trying to match the ideas in my mind with the results I see on the page. While I searched for “New Orleans” I’m actually looking for anything that might give me valuable and trusted information on how to make my trip to New Orleans more enjoyable.

The Eyes Have It We’ve just recently completed two studies that show the impact of semantic mapping in the search process. One was an eye tracking study and one was an analysis of the importance of different factors in precipitating a click through. Based on these two studies, here’s what seems to happen. The eye looks for a visual cue, generally the phrase we just searched for, in the title. Starting on the top of page on the left hand side, we start scanning down the page in an “F” pattern. While we’re focused on the visual cue, our peripheral vision is open to the appearance of words that might match our semantic map. Even though we didn’t search for any of these words explicitly, their appearance in the title and description has a strong implicit impact on which link we start reading. When there seems to be a match based on a quick scan including both where our eyes are fixated and the extra detail picked up by our peripheral vision, we switch to more traditional reading behavior, reading first the title and then the description from left to right. This lateral activity creates the horizontal arms of the “F”.

As an example, we saw that people searching for digital cameras were presented with two listings from the same site, with almost identical titles. The listings were first and second in the organic results. Both listings promised “unbiased consumer reviews” in the title, after the query string “digital cameras.” We saw fixation points on both of these visual cues. The difference came in what was shown in the description. In the second listing, there were recognized brands mentioned, including Kodak and Nikon. The vast majority of searchers quickly scanned past the first listing and started active reading of the second. It was a better match for their semantic map.

So, what does this mean? Well, it means that it’s not enough to be No. 1. It’s not even enough to make sure you have the query string in your title. To maximize the potential for click through, you have to understand what might be in your target customer’s semantic map and match this through careful crafting of both title and description text. Bidding and organic optimization can put you in the right place, but you’d better have the right message too.

First published April 14, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

In preparing for a presentation I’m going to do in a month or so to a group of catalogue publishers, I decided to do some research to see how search worked to bring traffic to some well known online catalogs. What searches translated into traffic for Lands End, L.L. Bean, or Victoria’s Secret?

The more I dug, with the help of Hitwise, the more surprised I got. In each of these cases, variations of the site’s name accounted for one half of all search traffic. With Lands End, these variations totaled a little over 48 percent of all its search referrals. Just over 3 percent of all search referrals were for “www.landsend.com”, the exact URL users could have just typed in their address bar.

With L.L. Bean, the total was about 42 percent and Victoria’s Secret was about 63.5 percent. So, about one out of every two searches that ended up delivering traffic to these sites appears to be someone who was unsure of the actual URL and thought it would be quicker just to search for it.

And that got the mental wheels in motion.

Search as a Navigation Shortcut We’ve always known that this behavior takes place. It’s one of the reasons why “google.com” and “google” perennially shows up as an often searched for term on Google. I think I heard a fellow columnist refer to it as the “people are stupid” factor. But I don’t think that’s it at all. I think it’s the “people are in a hurry” and “people are lazy” factor, and I put myself squarely in both camps.

Yes, we could go up to the address bar and type in the URL. But toolbars put search just a little closer to our cursor. And, if we type the address slightly wrong, the search engine will helpfully ask us “Did you mean…?” It’s just quicker and easier to let a search engine eliminate the frustration of getting the right URL typed into that little box.

The timesavings get even more significant when we’re interested in a short cut to a specific section beyond the home page. For example, a significant percentage of Lands End traffic searched for “Lands End Overstocks.” Yes, you could type in http://www.LandsEnd.com and then navigate through the site to find the overstock section, but you could also just launch a split-second search (Google’s average response time is less than a quarter second) and click right to it. Increasingly, we’re using search engines to take us exactly where we want to go.

Implications for Marketing If we’re using search for a short cut, there are a few obvious implications for the search marketer. First of all, the better known the site and its corresponding brand, the more likely this will occur. Again turning to Hitwise, we find the top 10 referring terms for the appliance and electronics industry contained only one non brand name search (cell phones). The rest of the search terms were for the vendors you’d expect to dominate this industry.

So, well known brands better have their prime real estate secured in the search results. If you’re not No. 1 for the major variations of your brand in the organic listings, you’re potentially losing a lot of traffic to the competition. Even worse, if an attack site has somehow gained top spot for your brand name, you’re exceptionally vulnerable. I’ll give you all a minute to go check this right now on your favorite search engine.

What if you’re No. 4 or 5 for your brand? Our eye tracking research shows that visibility and click-throughs drop dramatically as you move from No. 1 to No. 2, 3 or even worse, 7 or 9. Not holding the No. 1 organic spot in this instance is like letting your competitor put their sign over yours in front of your store.

Secondly, it’s important to make sure search engines are indexing your entire site. If your customers are using search as a short cut to land deep in your site and your site isn’t fully indexed, you’re stranding them high and dry.

A Continuing Trend Let’s face it, trying to remember the right URL, with the right extension, and spell it correctly is a lot of effort when we can launch a search and see the results in a second or two. The easier search will be to use and the more tightly integrated it is, the more we’ll use it as our primary source of navigating the Web. It’s like our own online transporter, picking us up and delivering us to exactly the online destination we wanted, without the messy navigation in between. No longer is online search just a way to find what we didn’t know existed. Now it’s the fastest way to get to even our most familiar online destinations, making a comprehensive search strategy even more important for every online business.