commit: fb200d8 - #595 (2014-04-14 00:44:57 -0400)
Are people not clicking because of your face or because your website isn't giving them what they're looking for?
Interesting find nonetheless.
Amir - I think the point of the article is that after his face appeared the CTR changed. It's definitely true that most consumers I've spoken to expect authorship (pictures) in the search results to correspond to blog posts not actual products so this case study would seem to back up those discussions.
Exactly. I feel that this is an open-and-shut case for why you shouldn't implement sitewide authorship markup. For a macro recorder query, after seeing that first result I assume its just a write-up about a macro recorder. Also, you see CNET a couple spots down with rich snippets that make sense in this situation - ratings and reviews.
I ran into this same situation last week with a company who had authorship markup on their product pages, rather than proper schema. Like you said Steve, now I have a case study to point to on why this is a bad idea.
My advice would be to rewrite your title tag and meta description because right now there's nothing on there that tells me I'm clicking through to a page I can download where I can download a macro recorder.
My advice would be a Google+ profile with a better resolution and contrast. Look more stoic while you're at it ;)
Important to note that Matt Cutts commened on the HN article about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5792268 and seemed to suggest that the rankings had dropped and the site was affected by Penguin (though many commenters there disagree).
Yeah, eye tracking studies in the past have shown that people prefer text only results and snippets with additional images get overlooked due to banner blindness. This case study supports those findings.
Good follow up:
Inbound.org discussion of follow up article: