* Google users want instant gratification when they’re searching. How instant? The top 3 Google results get 79% of all clicks. The remaining 7 results share just 21% of the clicks. In other words, more than three quarters of Google users never click past the first three results.

(Source: Cornell University study – see full size Google results chart here.

The data are similar for AOL’s web search: the top 3 results in an AOL search get 63% of the clicks. (Source: AOL mistake)

Of course, you could explain this because search engines tend to deliver relevant results in the first three hits. But most websurfers wouldn’t know: Most websurfers don’t look past the first three results at all. Scientific eye-tracking studies used cameras to track exactly where volunteers were looking when they were searching for various topics. The vast majority of people looked only at the first three Google results, the power hits. They never looked at the rest of the results to know whether they were better.

(click to enlarge — Source: Eyetools promotional material)

The diagram above is a “heat map” of a Google search. Hotter colors represent areas where people spent more time looking; gray areas are places where nobody ever glanced. The “x” marks on the picture represent areas where people clicked.

The short attention span theory continues by comparing different pages. Almost 90% of clicks come from the first page of Google results, up from 80% a few years ago. (Source: Enquisite) And, 76% of French websurfers look only at the first page of Google results. (Source: French study).

There are many possible explanations for this sudden short attention span. The New York Times blames it on intrusive technology, like constant email, text, and instant messaging interruptions when trying to work. Web surfers make lots of fast queries and just go with whatever comes up first. Very few people examine their search results in close detail, and very few will ever find results buried beyond the first page.

What does this mean for you? If you’re trying to sell a new product, or to get information out about a cause, or do anything else in Google, you need to be in the top three results. You need to be one of the power hits. If you’re not in the top three Google results, you might as well be invisible. Some blogs have estimated that the difference between a #1 result and a #5 result is the difference between 50,000 monthly visitors and 6,000 monthly visitors. If your statement about a political candidate isn’t in the top few results, nobody will ever know about it. Ron Paul’s supporters knew this: Their motto was “Google Ron Paul” because they controlled the top three hits in Google (the power hits) for any search related to Ron Paul. They knew the top three hits in Google were positive and that they could keep them positive. That’s all it took for them to be comfortable sending traffic to Google.

The lesson: If you can control your name on the first page of Google, you can control your image. If you control the first page of Google for your political cause, you can make a difference.

Others have covered similar topics. In future posts I’ll share more information about making the most of your power hits. Of course, commercial services like MyEdge can help you get started in managing your image. MyEdge helps you to move positive content about you to the top of a Google search result for your name. Or, at the least, monitor your reputation using a service like MyReputation that will tell you what people are seeing when they search for your name in the “deep internet.” If you have need a custom reputation management service for a unique situation or for faster results, this is also available.

More interesting reads: Political dirty tricks and Google – The 2008 Election and Faces of MySpace (video)

* As always, it’s a pleasure to be guest blogging and this post doesn’t necessarily represent the views of RepDef or any of its defenders employees.

* In Vancouver, Canada, the magazine Maclean’s is on trial for allegedly publishing hate speech against Muslims. Back in 2006, the magazine published a controversial article called “The Future Belongs to Islam.” The article, an excerpt from the book America Alone, argued that Islamic countries will control the world by the end of the century. It sparked a flurry of responses and political debate in Canada about the confrontation between Middle East and West. Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress charged that the magazine violated local human rights law by publishing the article, and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is currently holding hearings to determine if the magazine will be fined or censured.

Many blogs (more and yet more) have covered the free speech aspects of the case. The result is clear: In the United States, for better or for worse, the article and the magazine would be protected by the First Amendment.

But it does raise a more important issue: What is the line between personal harassment and political opinion online?

In the United States, the First Amendment, has long been understood to protect all forms of political speech. There’s no doubt that bloggers are protected by the First Amendment when discussing Obama and McCain. (See our offer to Obama here, and our coverage of McCain here). (Note from the lawyers: the First Amendment doesn’t protect malicious libel of public figures, but there is an extremely high standard for malice –just because a blogger has said something false doesn’t mean that it’s malicious under the First Amendment. The courts have always been very protective of political speech and usually respond that the right answer is to spread the truth rather than to sue people who are getting it wrong. Anyway, very few politicians would ever bring a lawsuit.)

But, many forms of personal harassment are not protected by the First Amendment at all. For example, the First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to slander a private individual by saying false things about them. And the First Amendment doesn’t make it okay to publicize personal secrets, like medical history or a concealed sexual orientation, even if the information is completely true.

Until now, it’s been pretty easy to figure out what’s protected speech and what’s unprotected speech: If a magazine published an article about the politics of Islam, it would be protected under the First Amendment, even if the article wasn’t accurate. If a magazine published an article about a random private citizen that contained false information, it would not be protected. And, thanks to the massive staff it took to run a newspaper or magazine, the vast majority of publications were very careful about fact-checking: They had the resources to do it, and a lot to lose in court if they got it wrong.

But, what happens online? Now, anyone with a computer can publish a website attacking anything. There’s no requirement to check facts, and many bloggers have very little to lose. And any blog post is instantly available worldwide, unlike a dead-tree newspaper or magazine with a limited circulation.

Right now, the courts have said that the normal First Amendment rules apply. If the target of the attack is big–like an entire religion or government–then the First Amendment should still protect them. And if target of the attack is one person–like a neighbor or co-worker–then the normal rules for harassment under the First Amendment apply. But what if the target is somewhere in between? For example, if the blog falsely attacks the members of a particular church congregation, or falsely accuses the teachers at a school of wrongdoing.

In the case of an attack on a small group, the harm of false statements will be be felt by the members of that group. Google is incredibly powerful, and has a habit of bringing up negative information near the top of search results. Someone looking for information about the group or its members online is likely to see the false information, and it’s likely to be repeated across other blogs and websites until it fills the top search positions.

The answer isn’t clear. But we need to think about where we draw the line between protected political speech and unprotected personal attacks. The courts in the future will have to draw these lines in an age of instant global anonymous publishing. This is a conversation that will continue for many years.

* I thank Reputation.com for letting me continue to guest-blog. The views in this column don’t necessarily represent those of RefDef or its employees.

Reputation.com blogged about Barack Obama’s recent decision to fight negative rumors online. It turns out, this story has legs. NPR recently picked up the story and David Folkenflik has a great piece for All Things Considered that looks at Obama, his online detractors, and his camp’s move to fight back against online slander.

Barack Obama’s move to fight Internet Defamation of Character and control his Internet Reputation shows what a powerful reputation engine the internet has become in the modern world. It also reveals how politicians are using the web, not only to fundraise and spread the word about candidates, but also to manage their online reputation.

And seriously, Obama? Have your people call our people.

This Yahoo News story caught our attention at Reputation.com today. It details one aspect of John McCain’s quest to find a Vice President in the digital age. Quoting from the page:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain joked on Monday that Google, the popular Internet search engine, had made investigating his list of potential candidates a little bit easier.

“You know, basically it’s a Google,” he said to laughter at a fund-raising luncheon when asked how the selection process was going. “What you can find out now on the Internet — it’s remarkable.”

So it seems even aspiring politicians can benefit from controlling their Online Reputation and engaging in a little personal PR. The question then becomes, is it better to be web dead than well profiled; a clean slate or a well-managed professional? Either way, one’s Internet Reputation can have consequences in the real world.

Incidentally, we are a non-partisan blog, but this story reminded us of another prominent Republican who enjoyed using the Google.

Just read this. Obama is “recruiting senior staff” to “combat virulent rumour campaigns on the internet”.

Barack Obama is recruiting senior staff to a new unit which will combat virulent rumour campaigns on the internet that threaten to cost him votes in the presidential election against John McCain. The unit is part of a huge expansion of Obama’s campaign team as he shifts from the Democratic nomination race to the campaign for November’s election.

Yo, Obama. Recruit us. We’re standing ready, and we want to help you.