User behaviour on a tablet device
-
My question maybe too broad, but I think this is the right forum to ask the question:
What is the user behavior in terms of search engine results when browsing on a tablet (ipad and others).
Is it the same as for desktops and laptops or its different? Any infographics would be helpful as well.
-
I am also looking for something on those lines...I am 100% sure about the SERP ranking algorithms, but I am not that sure whether users like the top of the screen more or not.
a heatmap would be helpful indeed
-
For search engine results, you could probably assume that behavior would be almost the same. Paid ads and natural listings still appear in the same format, so the user will continue to navigate them as they would any SERP.
What might be cool is to see a heat map of clicks from a spread of different devices?
Aaron
-
I believe the user behavior is same for tablet device and desktops as far as search engine results are concerned. But they vary greatly for website usage. The aim of the user is to get the relevant result and move to the website. The objective of the search engine too is similar - to provide best results and minimize user's time spent on searching
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Rank brain and User stats
We have a company that has very good link metrics (much better than competitors), great content, conversions and generates 3x the amount of turnover the other companies do. The issue is we are being challenged on our number one keywords by this competitor selling lower value items to get to 70% of the same amount of customers as us and I feel we can put this down to Rank brain and us having a strong sales force and due to this very few make it back to the websites (30% are new and 70% are repeat and for repeat we have a strong sales force unlike that competitor which catch the reorder before the make it back to the site again) so we lose the ctr, brand etc from the repeat not returning (the competitor only sells though the website so all return) In effect they have 500 customers and we have 200 so Ctr, brand, back to serp would be stronger could this effect the rankings? If you look at it like this Two companies with 500 customers (200 new and 300 repeat) 500 customers to the first all have to order online so 500 customers going back to serps, CTR up due to them searching to get the site up etc 500 customers for the second but 300 (the repeat) go though the sales lines and find the number on the email or agents call them when predicted to order again so never have to go back to the site = 40% less CTR and staying on the site customers
Algorithm Updates | | BobAnderson0 -
Is "Author Rank," User Comments Driving Losses for YMYL Sites?
Hi, folks! So, our company publishes 50+ active, disease-specific news and perspectives websites -- mostly for rare diseases. We are also tenacious content creators: between news, columns, resource pages, and other content, we produce 1K+ pieces of original content across our network. Authors are either PhD scientists or patients/caregivers. All of our sites use the same design. We were big winners with the August Medic update in 2018 and subsequent update in September/October. However, the Medic update in March and de-indexing bug in April were huge losers for us across our monetized sites (about 10 in total). We've seen some recovery with this early June update, but also some further losses. It's a mixed bag. Take a look at this attached MOZ chart, which shows the jumps and falls around the various Medic updates. The pattern is very similar on many of our sites. As per JT Williamson's stellar article on EAT, I feel like we've done a good job in meeting those criteria, which has left we wondering what isn't jiving with the new core updates. I have two theories I wanted to run past you all: 1. Are user comments on YMYL sites problematic for Google now? I was thinking that maybe user comments underneath health news and perspectives articles might be concerning on YMYL sites now. On one hand, a healthy commenting community indicates an engaged user base and speaks to the trust and authority of the content. On the other hand, while the AUTHOR of the article might be a PhD researcher or a patient advocate, the people commenting -- how qualified are they? What if they are spouting off crazy ideas? Could Google's new update see user comments such as these as degrading the trust/authority/expertise of the page? The examples I linked to above have a good number of user comments. Could these now be problematic? 2. Is Google "Author Rank" finally happening, sort of? From what I've read about EAT -- particularly for YMYL sites -- it's important that authors have “formal expertise” and, according to Williamson, "an expert in the field or topic." He continues that the author's expertise and authority, "is informed by relevant credentials, reviews, testimonials, etc. " Well -- how is Google substantiating this? We no longer have the authorship markup, but is the algorithm doing its due diligence on authors in some more sophisticated way? It makes me wonder if we're doing enough to present our author's credentials on our articles, for example. Take a look -- Magdalena is a PhD researcher, but her user profile doesn't appear at the bottom of the article, and if you click on her name, it just takes you to her author category page (how WordPress'ish). Even worse -- our resource pages don't even list the author. Anyhow, I'd love to get some feedback from the community on these ideas. I know that Google has said there's nothing to do to "fix" these downturns, but it'd sure be nice to get some of this traffic back! Thanks! 243rn10.png
Algorithm Updates | | Michael_Nace1 -
Keyword optimisation: Google's eyes before users' eyes?
Hi all, So the default and ultimate suggestion about how to rank a page high is to get favoured by users, so by the Google. But if write content in favour of users, it may miss out the keywords or will not have much keyword density and variety of keywords to get in to Google's eyes. Then we may appear around 3rd page; then how do we get into top slots? I can see some top results without even a single mention of the keyword they are ranking for. How that would be possible? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Is user engagement a ranking signal?
Read something about user engagement might be a signal that Google uses, along with links and on-site optimisation, to decide if a search result goes up or down. What should I believe and what are the developments in this field?
Algorithm Updates | | MozzieJr0 -
Personalization for non logged in users
My question is, how does google personalize the search results for non logged in users and incoqnito searches? I already know about the location personalization whether you're logged in or not and auto complete. But, is personalization still helping in the other cases. Does for example Google keep track of your I.P and then match suggestions that way? Additionally, any other resources would be great.
Algorithm Updates | | PeterRota0 -
Strange SERP behaviour
We were ranking 2nd while Google was showing only natural listings. Earlier this year, the same SERP started showing only three natural listings, followed by some business listings. We were included within the business listings, but were 3rd, so 6th overall. After a few tweaks we managed to become the 1st business listing, so 4th overall. Early last week, the SERP changed again. The business listings were removed and replaced with natural listings. Rather than return to the old rankings, though, the order of the sites was exactly the same as it was with the business listings being there. It felt almost like a bug. So we remained 4th. On Friday, the business listings returned! But the rankings are way different. The three natural listings at the top are the same as before. Then there are 7 business listings, and then more natural listings after that. We are the fifth natural listing of the second group, so have been hit rather badly. Can anyone shed any light on what's going on here? We made a major change to our site 10 days ago, but it seems there's too much going on for it to be that. If it helps, the search term is a two word name for what we do, followed by the name of our city - and we're in the UK. Coincidentally, someone from Google called earlier this week to confirm an address change I'd be trying to correct in Google Places.
Algorithm Updates | | Special0 -
Since authorship markup requires a domain email, how can a community website allow users to link their Google+ profile?
It seems that Google now requires authors to have a valid email on the domain. This is easy for the traditional web publication. But what about community websites like SEOmoz? How can a community website allow users to link their Google+ profile? Will community websites like SEOmoz be required to 1. Give all users a domain email 2. Ask users to validate the email address with Google? Seems overly complicated.
Algorithm Updates | | designquotes0 -
How influential do you think user behavior is in the algorithm?
I'm one of the guys out there that is super focused on user behavior right now. I think with the implementation of different things such as the block feature and +1, it points to the fact that Google is putting a lot more power in the users. How influential do you think factors such as bounce rate, CTR, time on site, and other user behavior metrics are in the algo?
Algorithm Updates | | TommySwanson520