Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thank you Tom.

I have to second Matt - both and neither are probably right. This is an extremely difficult thing to measure, especially at large scale, and only Google has the numbers. Even purely organic CTR studies (not accounting for paid search) show numbers all over the place. The one consistent aspect is that we typically see a similar shaped curve, with a clear preference for #1 and a pretty steep drop-off. It also appears that one of these studies is based on US data and the other on UK data. The "War on Free Clicks" was a WordStream study, if I recall, so their PPC data is generally pretty solid. It also reflects things like paid shopping results and uses a query set that's a bit more commercial. So, it's probably solid, but it reflects a specific niche. With the diversity of new SERPs, I think it's vitally important to know your own industry landscape. Organic SERPs now have answer boxes, Knowledge Graph, carousels, expanded site-links, in-depth articles, and many features that can radically alter CTR. There's no "average" answer - it's critical to know the space you operate in. Ultimately, there are two ways to get a sense of CTR data for yourself. Google Webmaster Tools has some clues - I don't completely trust their data, but it's a good starting point. The other option is simply to run some small-scale PPC campaigns and measure yourself. I've done some PPC work in the past in competitive niches, and I'll be blunt - it's all theory until you get out there and try it. CTR also differs radically across ads, based on copy, brand strength, etc.

Hi Cornel, Thanks for the question!  Unfortunately OSE will not show any https links/data because our robot isn't able to crawl secured sites.  Sorry! Sam Moz Helpster

Do try again -- we've had about five questions submitted in the past four hours, so it's working right now. If there's still a problem, email help@seomoz.org and they can help get the question submitted. Thanks! Keri

Thank you, Good point. Cornel

Cornel I suggest adding the rel=canonical tag on your page to the version you'd like index. That way both the http and https version of the same page, will display the same "http" canonical and avoid the duplicate content issue and also act as a 301 from your https to http for the bots. The user's would still be able to get to the https homepage if they are logged into your website and or browsing on https, so that they don't toggle back and forth between https and http.

Hi Doug, Thank you for your reply. We never used the .com it was redirected to the .co.uk domain since the begining. The traffic is 100% new visits. Cornel

Thank you Cornel

1. Before I roll out of bed I check email and Twitter 2. On the bus ride in I check SEOmoz Twitter account & respond to emails as I can 3. COFFEE 4. Jump into SEOmoz Twitter account 5. Moz Facebook 6. Moz Google+ 7. Email 8. Rinse and repeat

I've been hearing this for years and it's always the same thing: Google likes .edu but not because it's .edu. EDU sites are typically major link bait in of themselves and they also don't link to other sites on a whim. As a result, they wind up with high site popularity and great link juice.

They are just a new/alternate way of displaying sitelinks. Here's a relevant article from Search Engine Land earlier this year. Here's an article from Google Webmaster Tools on what you can do with sitelinks as a webmaster. In short, you can't tell Google which sitelinks to display, but you can 'demote' certain pages. So if you find Google is pulling up your 'About Us' page as a sitelink, but that's a page that you don't place a lot of priority on, you can log into your Webmaster Tools account and demote that page to give other pages a better chance of showing up.

It's not WordPress compatible yet. What do you mean by "set them up corectly"?

We do get a lot of scrapers Google doesn't manage it all that well, unfortunately. There are a couple of cues: (1) As Harald said, Google does try to determine which came first. This can be tough, because auto-scrapers actually can get indexed before sources in some cases. Having a solid crawl structure, XML sitemaps, pinging relevant sites, etc. can help. (2) If the sites link back to you (on purpose or accidentally, by including links you put in the content), it's a signal to Google that you're the source. (3) If you're a high-authority site, you've generally got an edge. Most of our scrapers are pretty weak sites, so we're not in much dangers. Unfortunately, I've seen times when scrapers outranked original content. Proper syndication, with back-links or other signals (like syndication-source or cross-domain canonical) can definitely be good for sites. Having a ton of scrapers on a site that's relatively new/weak can be very negative, unfortunately. Then again, most new sites don't have a ton of scrapers, so it does balance out a little.