Search Console lets us examine which queries showed our site without sending it a click. We analysed our own export to separate brand demand from discovery traffic and compare click-through rates by average-position band. The results describe one property, not search behaviour across the web.
1. 763 of 995 non-brand queries (77%) earned zero clicks, across 474,117 impressions.
2. Ranking top-10 did not rescue them: 72 queries sat inside the top 10 and still earned zero clicks across 30,449 impressions.
3. Question-shaped queries were hit hardest. At positions 1–5 they earned 0.144% CTR versus 2.749% for conventional short queries — a ~19× gap at the same positions.
4. The country table shows different outcomes: the US returned 876,622 impressions at 0.07% CTR while India returned 28,702 at 3.35%. These rounded rates do not isolate geography as the cause.
theStacc sells SEO automation software, so we have a commercial interest in how you read this. We have tried to keep that out of the numbers: every figure below is computed directly from our Search Console export, the method is described so you can reproduce it on your own data, and the limitations section lists what this data cannot tell you — including the fact that it cannot prove AI Overviews are the cause.
The dataset
One property, thestacc.com, exported from Google Search Console on
2026-08-14 with the “Last 16 months” filter selected. The daily records actually run
from March 22 to August 11, 2026; the selected filter is not the observed duration.
The query-level export contains 1,000 rows totalling
557,424 impressions and 975 clicks. We separated brand queries (any
containing "stacc") from non-brand, because brand traffic behaves nothing like discovery
traffic and mixing them hides the effect entirely.
| Segment | Queries | Impressions | Clicks | CTR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand | 5 | 1,890 | 643 | 34.0% |
| Non-brand | 995 | 555,534 | 332 | 0.060% |
Five brand queries produced 66% of all clicks from 0.3% of impressions. Everything interesting is in the other 555,534.
Finding 1: click-through rate varied within the top 10
The table groups non-brand queries by their exported average position. It describes this query sample; it is not an expected CTR curve for other websites.
| Avg position | Queries | Impressions | Clicks | CTR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–3 | 16 | 2,876 | 12 | 0.417% |
| 3–5 | 31 | 2,529 | 28 | 1.107% |
| 5–10 | 120 | 30,360 | 108 | 0.356% |
| 10–20 | 192 | 141,813 | 92 | 0.065% |
| 20–40 | 320 | 201,303 | 53 | 0.026% |
| 40+ | 316 | 176,653 | 39 | 0.022% |
Two things stand out. Most of our impressions (68%) sit below position 20, which is a reason to investigate relevance and competition, not proof of a specific cause. At the top of the table, positions 1–3 returned 0.417% CTR. Sixteen queries, 2,876 impressions, twelve clicks.
Finding 2 — 72 top-10 queries earned nothing at all
Filtering to non-brand queries with an average position better than 10 gives 167 queries. Of those, 72 earned zero clicks across 30,449 impressions. The largest:
| Query | Avg position | Impressions | Clicks |
|---|---|---|---|
| social media scheduling tools free | 9.9 | 1,340 | 0 |
| what is a content audit | 2.4 | 1,295 | 0 |
| free social scheduling tools | 6.8 | 1,113 | 0 |
| characteristics of ai written blog posts 2026 | 6.9 | 1,070 | 0 |
| free scheduling tools for social media | 6.5 | 977 | 0 |
| free social scheduler | 6.0 | 921 | 0 |
| which ai sales rep is best for discovering and messaging… | 2.9 | 892 | 0 |
A query at average position 2.4 with 1,295 impressions and not one click warrants a query-level review. Average position alone cannot show the result layout, audience fit or position on each impression, so it does not explain the missing clicks.
Finding 3 — question-shaped queries were hit hardest
We split non-brand queries into two groups: conversational (starts with what / which / how / why / is / can, contains a question mark, or runs seven words or longer) and conventional (everything else — the short keyword phrases SEO has optimised for since 2010). Then we compared CTR within the same position bands, so position is held comparable at a broad level. This does not control for the exact position, query mix, devices or countries within each band.
| Position band | Conversational CTR | Conventional CTR | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1–5 | 0.144% (13 q, 4,168 imp) | 2.749% (34 q, 1,237 imp) | ~19× |
| 5–10 | 0.073% (32 q, 10,974 imp) | 0.516% (88 q, 19,386 imp) | ~7× |
| 10–20 | 0.312% (17 q, 3,840 imp) | 0.058% (175 q, 137,973 imp) | inverted |
In the average-position 1–5 band, the conventional group's CTR was roughly 19× the conversational group's CTR. This measures search clicks, not customer conversions. The relationship reverses in the 10–20 band; that conversational group contains only 17 queries, so we do not generalise from either direction.
The practical next step is to inspect the queries and their search results, not attribute the difference to AI answers. This dataset contains no observation of whether an answer surface appeared or whether a searcher clicked another website.
Finding 4: country-level click-through rates differ
| Country | Impressions | Clicks | CTR | Avg position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 876,622 | 646 | 0.07% | 26.5 |
| United Kingdom | 112,939 | 215 | 0.19% | 31.0 |
| Germany | 67,706 | 137 | 0.20% | 22.7 |
| India | 28,702 | 962 | 3.35% | 17.3 |
| Pakistan | 8,198 | 158 | 1.93% | 12.8 |
India delivered more clicks than the United States from 3% of the impressions. Average position also differs (17.3 versus 26.5). This country-level table includes brand and non-brand traffic and is separate from the truncated query table. It cannot establish which mix of rankings, queries or audience behaviour explains the difference.
Method — reproduce this on your own data
- Search Console → Performance → Search results: select a date range and export Queries, Pages, Countries, Devices and the daily chart. Record both the selected filter and the actual dates present in the daily rows.
- Split queries into brand and non-brand by substring match on your brand name. Report them separately; do not average them together.
- Bucket non-brand queries by average position and compute clicks ÷ impressions per bucket.
- Classify each query as conversational (leading question word, question mark, or ≥7 words) or conventional, then compare CTR within each position band. This is a descriptive comparison, not a controlled experiment.
- Count query rows with clicks = 0 and sum their impressions. Label this as impressions on queries with no clicks to your property, not a web-wide zero-click search rate.
What this data cannot tell you
One site, one niche. This is thestacc.com only, in SEO/marketing
software. It is a case study, not an industry benchmark, and our absolute CTRs are low
partly because most of our impressions sit below position 20.
The export is truncated. The Search Console UI returns at most 1,000
rows per dimension, so the query table is the top 1,000 by impressions, not the full
long tail.
No query-to-page pairing. The UI export does not join queries to
landing pages, so we cannot attribute a query's performance to a specific page.
AI Overviews are not measured. Search Console does not report whether
an AI Overview appeared. The link between conversational queries and near-zero CTR is a
correlation in our data. We are not claiming a proven cause, and neither should
anyone citing this.
Small samples at the top. The position 1–5 conversational bucket is 13
queries. It is directionally striking, not statistically robust.
Aggregate query rows, not a query time series. These totals cannot show
when a query's performance changed. Daily property records span March 22 to August 11,
2026, but they do not supply query-level before/after evidence.
No observation of clicks elsewhere. Zero clicks means no recorded
clicks to theStacc for that query row. A searcher may still have clicked another result.
What to investigate next
Separate commercial and informational queries, inspect important high-impression rows, and connect landing-page visits to qualified signups or enquiries. Evaluate each language with matching dates and conversion evidence before deciding whether to expand or consolidate. This study does not establish the business value of an individual page or language.
If you want the shorter version of the lesson: rankings are no longer the deliverable. If you are buying SEO on a ranking report, ask what it earned.
Want the same analysis on your own Search Console data?
Use the method above with your own export. If you are also evaluating SEO software, compare theStacc's product scope and plans with the workflow you need.
Questions about this dataset
What does zero clicks mean in this study?
In the exported query table, 763 of 995 non-brand query rows earned no clicks to theStacc. Those rows account for 474,117 impressions. This does not tell us whether searchers clicked another website or ended their search without a click.
Does ranking in the top 10 still earn clicks?
Some queries did and some did not. In this dataset, 72 non-brand query rows with average position better than 10 earned no clicks to theStacc across 30,449 impressions. Average position is an aggregate, not a record of every individual search result.
Did question-shaped queries have lower click-through rates?
Within the average-position 1–5 band, the conversational group had 0.144% CTR and the conventional group had 2.749% CTR. The groups contain different queries and impressions; this comparison does not measure conversions or isolate the effect of query wording.
Why is click-through rate so different between countries?
The country table shows different click-through rates, but it does not explain their cause. Countries can differ in query mix, brand demand, device use and average position. This export does not measure answer-surface prevalence or competitor strength by country.
What does this data not prove?
It cannot prove AI Overviews caused the missing clicks. Search Console does not report whether an AI Overview appeared on a query, so the relationship between conversational queries and near-zero CTR is a correlation measured on one site, not a demonstrated cause.
Data & sources
- [01]Google Search Console performance export for
thestacc.com, pulled 2026-08-14. Selected filter: Last 16 months. Observed daily records: March 22–August 11, 2026. Dimensions: queries, pages, countries and devices. - [02]Figures computed from that export: 557,424 impressions / 975 clicks at query level; 1,329,155 impressions / 4,107 clicks at page level (the two exports cover different row limits, so totals differ).
- [03]Method and limitations as stated above. No third-party study, estimate, or modelled figure is used anywhere on this page.
