No problem; do-overs are a dime a dozen here.
Unless those data were derived from searches for the same query string, with one data set being for when said description is displayed, and the other for when it is not, the comparison is not valid vis-a-vis <meta description.>
The application of sound scientific methods is exactly what this industry needs, and is sorely lacking in most. That is why there are so damned many people running around repeating countless myths and fantasies.
In this case, since you cite a simultaneous change in two variables, you cannot attribute any change to one or the other alone.
Now, to return to the original subject of this thread, as a PPC advertiser, I am not pleased with having PPC listings intermingled with the organic.
With PPC listings being segregated and in a fixed location, one can pick his physical location relative to the origin of the display. For example, with Google's present format of 3 PPC listings preceding the organic, and the 4th place and following listings runnin down the right rail, I am quite happy to be in 3rd or 4th place.
However, with the test format here noted, I may then be below the fold.
I find it difficult to expect that moving PPC listings from their current area of high visible presence to a more obscure one will be offset by an increase in their click-through rates.
And, even should that turn out to be the case for certain searches, there is no reason to expect that such result would be universally true without a very lengthy and broad test, one spanning at least a year so as to capture all seasonal variabilities.
Then, if such seemd to be more profitable, MS would need to decide if the additional revenue will be sufficient for outweighing any user dissatisfaction and/or scrutiny by regulatory agencies and any adverse consequences arising from such.
As I've yet to see any such intermingled displayed, and we've not yet enough reports to determine the depth and breadth of this test, it remains to be seen what, if anything, is actually happening here.
Good answer as usual deepsand.
I found this thread so provoking or shall I say interesting that I started a new thread on a Norwegian marketing forum where I am a member. Here
is the thread.
The forum administrator gives the first answer with the words:
Stygg sak. Og slik ser det ut: (Ugly case. And it looks like this : )
Look at his screendump.
Also look at the second answer:
Er vell nærmest ingenting annet enn G som er av betydning i Norge. Kvasir har vell en andel, men treffene er hentet fra Google.
Bing er søppel. Sesam tok kvelden. Yahoo er nesten ikke brukte i Norge. Altavista er en kopi av Yahoo. ABC-søk er vell også G.Theres is almost nothing other than G, which is of significance in Norway. Kvasir has a share, but the hits are taken from Google.
Bing's garbage. Sesame went to bed. Yahoo is hardly used in Norway. Alta Vista is a copy of Yahoo. ABC-Search is G too.
Last edited by kgun; 07-27-2011 at 10:46 AM.