A Google Trends question
June 21, 2013 6:42 AM Subscribe
Why are so many geographic (and other) terms trending consistently downward on Google Trends since 2004? For example, Vermont, New Hampshire, Idaho, Florida, Netherlands, Kansas City, Arizona, China, australia — or pick your own. (Or look at this 5-state trends comparison.)
What these trends show is that the number of searches for various geographic terms is down anywhere from 20% to 80% over a nine-year period, generally with a pretty consistent decline. (There are exception. But most of the geographic terms I'm picking out of my head show the downtrend. Certainly most US states do.)
What it's not:
-- advent of Bing: these trends all predate Bing's launch in June, 2009, and show no particular post-Bing inflection point.
-- smaller fraction of larger search universe: all of these trends are relative to the peak search volume for that particular term, not as a fraction of all searches, so overall Google volumes are not relevant
-- the economy (less interest in travel to places during recession) — the economy was growing during the first part of these trendlines, peaked, crashed, resumed growth, all without any effect on the general downward patterns.
So what's causing this?
What these trends show is that the number of searches for various geographic terms is down anywhere from 20% to 80% over a nine-year period, generally with a pretty consistent decline. (There are exception. But most of the geographic terms I'm picking out of my head show the downtrend. Certainly most US states do.)
What it's not:
-- advent of Bing: these trends all predate Bing's launch in June, 2009, and show no particular post-Bing inflection point.
-- smaller fraction of larger search universe: all of these trends are relative to the peak search volume for that particular term, not as a fraction of all searches, so overall Google volumes are not relevant
-- the economy (less interest in travel to places during recession) — the economy was growing during the first part of these trendlines, peaked, crashed, resumed growth, all without any effect on the general downward patterns.
So what's causing this?
A quick thought about what it's not:
-- People searching in smartphone map apps - this predates the Smartphone Ubiquity Revolution
I'm wondering if Google started looking at location around this time in returning search results? These days when I search for a business name - even a national chain - I'm more likely to get a result near the top that's specific to where I'm at now.
That said - does this include Google Maps search terms? I sort of wonder if people going directly to Maps is responsible for some of this, though that's a shot in the dark.
posted by Tomorrowful at 6:53 AM on June 21, 2013
-- People searching in smartphone map apps - this predates the Smartphone Ubiquity Revolution
I'm wondering if Google started looking at location around this time in returning search results? These days when I search for a business name - even a national chain - I'm more likely to get a result near the top that's specific to where I'm at now.
That said - does this include Google Maps search terms? I sort of wonder if people going directly to Maps is responsible for some of this, though that's a shot in the dark.
posted by Tomorrowful at 6:53 AM on June 21, 2013
Google web search has gotten a lot smarter over the years. It now knows where I am and automatically offers me localized results when contextually appropriate, even when I don't include a geographic keyword in my search string. I don't remember it doing this back when I first started using Google over a decade ago -- I think it started sometime in the last 5 years or so.
If my experience is representative, it could be that people are no longer including geographic keywords in their searches because they no longer need them to get the results they want.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:03 AM on June 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
If my experience is representative, it could be that people are no longer including geographic keywords in their searches because they no longer need them to get the results they want.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:03 AM on June 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm wondering if Google started looking at location around this time in returning search results? These days when I search for a business name - even a national chain - I'm more likely to get a result near the top that's specific to where I'm at now.
I believe this is exactly it. Google trained us to expect the computer to already know where we are. So we only add the location when we search for someplace we are not.
posted by gjc at 7:17 AM on June 21, 2013
I believe this is exactly it. Google trained us to expect the computer to already know where we are. So we only add the location when we search for someplace we are not.
posted by gjc at 7:17 AM on June 21, 2013
On the other hand there are increasing trends like indonesia india etc
I believe this is more due to normalization of data rather than any other factors.
If you look at the same 5 state comparisons in news search, they drop from 100,60,20, 18,15 for the 5 states to a relative steady-state. That does not mean news radically dropped off during 2009, there are normalization of factors here that are playing in the graph.
To illustrate this point more. add us to the above comparison and you will see the decrease is relatively minimal but affected largely by the scaling factors in the algorithm.
posted by radsqd at 7:33 AM on June 21, 2013
I believe this is more due to normalization of data rather than any other factors.
If you look at the same 5 state comparisons in news search, they drop from 100,60,20, 18,15 for the 5 states to a relative steady-state. That does not mean news radically dropped off during 2009, there are normalization of factors here that are playing in the graph.
To illustrate this point more. add us to the above comparison and you will see the decrease is relatively minimal but affected largely by the scaling factors in the algorithm.
posted by radsqd at 7:33 AM on June 21, 2013
Could it be the impact of search suggestions? If you start typing a place name, below the search field you'll immediately see suggestions for more specific searches -- "vermont state parks", "vermont lottery", etc. Either the user clicks on of those suggestions, or is encouraged to add some more keywords -- like showbiz_liz says, they're getting better at Googling -- rather than just searching the place name by itself.
I'm not completely sure how Google Trends works, but I'd say those more specific searches wouldn't be counted in the trend graphs, hence the downward trend.
posted by snarfois at 8:04 AM on June 21, 2013
I'm not completely sure how Google Trends works, but I'd say those more specific searches wouldn't be counted in the trend graphs, hence the downward trend.
posted by snarfois at 8:04 AM on June 21, 2013
Best answer: also clearer explanation
…a decline on the graph means a declining SHARE of all possible searches. To show a flat graph, a given keyword would actually need to be increasing in volume — assuming the total volume of all searches is increasing, and for most areas of the world this has been true.
from this site
posted by radsqd at 8:10 AM on June 21, 2013
…a decline on the graph means a declining SHARE of all possible searches. To show a flat graph, a given keyword would actually need to be increasing in volume — assuming the total volume of all searches is increasing, and for most areas of the world this has been true.
from this site
posted by radsqd at 8:10 AM on June 21, 2013
Best answer: People who are logged in to Google (and possibly others, I don't know) get customized and localized results. So you don't need to add "Vermont" to a search for "Springfield" anymore though you used to. I know that I personally don't do this anymore because I don't have to. Additionally if you're searching for single terms you're really unlikely to randomly find what you're looking for since SEO has really changed the playing field. So people are doing more targeted searches, Google is helping them target with their "relevance" rankings and the "instant search" thingie means you'll be more likely to click on your option (using more keywords) from a list of possibilities which means fewer "bad" (i.e. short) searches.
posted by jessamyn at 8:39 AM on June 21, 2013
posted by jessamyn at 8:39 AM on June 21, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
What do you get if you just search for 'Vermont'? Like, the Vermont government page, the wikipedia page, the main tourist site... a bunch of really basic, boring info. People now know that the best way to get relevant information is to search, say, "Vermont vacation lodge" or "Vermont maple syrup" or "Vermont legislature". Check the Related Rising Terms section of that site for examples of this, actually!
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:49 AM on June 21, 2013 [1 favorite]