Ever wonder how great search results end up that way?

Well, in a recent post at the User Interface Engineering blog, Jared Spool says there are no shortcuts to search-result success. According to Spool, “There is no way you can produce a great search-results page [on your website] without spending the time and effort to build it.” Period.

Spool asserts that good results pages all have one thing in common-”teams that experimented thoroughly, tried out dozens of designs, and repeatedly watched users.” From his past research, Spool provides a few helpful insights for search marketing teams on how users actually expect the search process at your site to work. Among them:

• Users press the Search button only after they’ve scanned a page for their trigger words. (“Trigger words are the words that will ‘trigger’ them into clicking on a link.”) If they can’t find them, only then do they turn to the search box and type in their own specific triggers.
• Users don’t need the first search-results page to contain a link to the exact page with their answers. Instead, they’re looking for something that is “clearly getting them closer to their goal,” he says.

Users don’t want to have to choose among a ton of options. Spool recommends that, instead of creating a showcase of search options, you look at users’ objectives based on their current scenarios and context, and place targeted trigger words in front of them.

The Po!nt: Make it happen by better understanding your users. Creating user personas and search scenarios will help identify the trigger words that will catch your best prospects’ eyes.

Source: User Interface Engineering. Read the full post here.

http://www.marketingprofs.com/news/search-marketing/index.asp?nlid=1371&cd=dmo121&adref=NsmM4A9

Producing Great Search Results: Harder than It Looks

By Jared M. Spool

Originally published: Jul 09, 2008

When creating a search results page, it’s unfortunately too easy to produce an ineffective design. We know this because, in the course of our research, we’ve studied hundreds of search results pages. Many of the pages we’ve studied hurt the user’s experience purely because of their design.

A slew of problems occur when users encounter an ineffective search results page: Users can’t identify what is relevant to their search. Many of the links are irrelevant to them. They find it hard to tell the differences between the various results, making the choice difficult. These problems force users to click into each result, often ending with them abandoning the search altogether.

The good news is we’ve seen many effective search results pages. This means there’s hope. It also means we can start to look for patterns that separate the effective designs from their less effective counterparts.

Good Design Doesn’t Just Happen

In our research, every time we found a site where the search results were doing what they should, we also found a team that had worked really hard to make it that way.

Those teams all have something in common. They’ve experimented thoroughly, trying out dozens of designs and repeatedly watching users. They’ve frequently scoured their search log data, studying the terms users employ and comparing them to the results the site generated.

They’ve ended up with great search result pages, but it has taken months (and in some cases, years) of constant studying to get to this point. There is no way, as far as we know, that you can produce a great search results page without spending the time and effort to build it.

Understand the Tasks

We know from watching users that, on most sites, they use Search after they’ve scanned the page for their trigger words. Trigger words are the words that will ‘trigger’ them into clicking on a link.

If they can’t find their trigger words, only then do they turn to the search box. And, what do they type? Their trigger words. Once they start searching, everyone has a similar expectation: a search results page that will move them forward in achieving their goal.

When we talk to designers about how they approach the search results page, they tell us they want to give their users a list of great choices from which they’ll choose. This approach focuses these designers on creating a showcase of choices. The showcase leads developers to think choices are a good thing.

However, here’s an interesting finding from our research. Users don’t necessarily want to choose. They aren’t looking for a showcase. They are looking for the magic item that will solve their needs. If the system can’t figure it out, well then, they want to see the selection that contains their magic item. But, if the system only provides a single magic item, they’ll be happy — assuming it’s exactly what they want.

Instead, we’ve found the best designers don’t take a showcase approach to the search results page. They look at the users’ objectives and try to find ways to get the magic item in front of them. Of course, what makes an item into “that item” will vary based on the user’s tasks.

For example, someone looking for hotels in Aruba may type “Aruba” into a hotel site. There’s not a lot of information here other than they are looking for a hotel in Aruba. But that doesn’t mean the search is generic.

That user could be looking for the cheapest hotel in August. Or, they could be looking for the hotel they’ve heard has a private island. Or, they could be looking for a hotel that is hassle free, since they had a horrible experience last time with dirty rooms and bad service. Or, they could be looking for a hotel that is right on the beach.

Users don’t wake up in the morning thinking a good day will be a day filled with search queries. They have specific goals and objectives, based on their current scenario and context. Design teams with solid personas with well-defined scenarios will find the design process to be easier, since they can derive specific search tasks right from the scenario descriptions.

Scent Trumps Accuracy

In looking at how users think the search process works, we learned that the results don’t have to be the exact page the user is seeking. They are not expecting their answer to appear as soon as they press the Search button.

The users also don’t need the search results page to contain a link to the page with the answer. Instead, users are looking for something that moves them forward. They don’t care how many clicks it takes, as long as each click is clearly getting them closer to their goal.

In the search for an Aruba hotel room, the search results page wouldn’t have to provide a detailed list of the specific hotel rooms (“A king suite with an ocean view for $79 a night”) that are low cost. It only has to provide good scent that tells the price-sensitive traveler that, by clicking on the result, they are going to end up with a room that matches their criteria.

For example, HotelRooms.com, when given the search term “Aruba”, gives detailed descriptions of each property, but no prices. This won’t help the price-sensitive traveler scenario.

In contrast, Hotels.com shows price, distance from important landmarks (like downtown), and ratings.

In fact, many of the best hotel sites don’t present travelers with any room specific information in the search results. Instead, the results focus on the hotel properties. Only once the user selects a property do they learn what their room choices are. For example, on Marriott.com, a guest only sees the available rooms once they select a specific hotel.

Search results don’t have to bring you directly to the final page. They just have to bring you to a page with even better information scent than the page you just had.

Do Site Searchers Want Just One Answer?

Jared Spool is one of the few user experience pros who focuses on Web site search. And when he says something, I pay attention. His post yesterday crams into one article more about site search behavior than most people will ever know. But I have one disagreement with him. It’s rare, but it happens.

Jared says that his research shows that people using site search want just one answer rather than a list of great search results. I’m certain that he is interpreting his research correctly, but I wonder if there might be some selection bias at work. Here’s why I say that.

My friend Andrei Broder worked with a few other luminaries years back to identify several different types of searches: navigational, informational, and transactional. This was a great insight, because it was generally thought that all searches were informational-the searcher desired a screen-full of useful search results to choose from. Andrei and colleagues proved that some searches are attempts to do something (transactional) or go somewhere (navigational) and they typically need the right result at the top.

And many Web site searches do require just one correct answer, as Jared points out. But not all of them. In my work at ibm.com, I noticed that the most preliminary searches often were informational ones. Someone might search for “e-mail archiving case studies”-they don’t want to get just one. Now, sure, if you have a page on your site that lists every blessed e-mail archiving case study, that would be a great #1 result, but you usually don’t have that kind of aggregation page for every possible query.

Searchers would not want your “Content Management Case Studies” page as #1, even if that list included every e-mail archiving case study, because it also includes too many other irrelevant case studies. Instead, searchers would love a list of case studies that match the query. They could scan through that list and click several results, drinking in that practical information they crave.

If I am right, then why did Jared’s study show otherwise? It might have to do with sample bias. When search tests are defined, they often focus on popular queries. Those queries are far more likely to have a single page that aggregates the information in one place, simply because so many people are interested in the subject. I suspect that if unpopular, unusual search queries were studied-and those queries are the bulk of the volume-you might see a different result. I can’t prove it however, so I’d love to see more information about what kinds of queries were tested.

Jared is smart to tell folks that not all queries are informational. He might even be on solid ground to say that most are not. I just think that a good portion of them are.

So, do listen to Jared. About almost everything. But just understand that some searches are informational searches, where a rich list of choices is exactly what your customer needs.

Posted by MikeMoran at July 10, 2008 6:33 PM

Skinflint Search Marketing

Maybe you don’t think you can afford search marketing. Or perhaps you’re just terminally cheap. Regardless, you don’t need to spend a lot to succeed at search marketing-here’s a step-by-step approach of free tools and techniques that lead to success.

Let’s start with paid search-at first glance you might think there’s no such thing as free paid search, but you’d be surprised.

Although paid search bargains are nice when they happen, organic search is the skinflint’s stock and trade. Each step in organic search requires tools, but you can find good ones for free:

1. Forecast your search campaign. Begin by forecasting what it’s all worth to you.
2. Get your pages indexed. Search engines can’t find your page if it’s not listed in the search index.
3. Plan your keywords. Find out what searchers are looking for so you can make them happy.
4. Optimize your content. Your pages must contain the keywords that searchers are using.
5. Attract links to your site. You can build links to your sites to get traffic and garner high search rankings.

Search marketing does not have to cost an arm and a leg. Follow these steps and you’ll find the tools and techniques you need to make something out of nothing.

Want more tips to raise your search marketing success? Check out Search Engine Marketing, Inc., which contains a complete step-by-step program for successful search marketing for your business. For more ways to improve your overall Internet marketing, take a look at Do It Wrong Quickly, an indispensible guide to the new ways of marketing on the cheap. http://www.mikemoran.com/skinflintsearch/index.htm