There’s a persistent myth in SEO circles that anything beyond the first page of search results might as well not exist. The data seems to support this too, with studies consistently showing that the vast majority of clicks go to the top few results on page one. But this oversimplified view misses something fundamental about how real people actually search for information: we don’t all want the same thing, even when we type in identical queries.
The truth is that pages two, three, and four of search results maintain their relevance because people have genuine preferences for specific sources, and those preferences often override the algorithmic ranking that search engines provide.
Consider someone searching for health information. The top results might be from major medical websites like WebMD or Healthline, which are optimized to rank well and provide general, authoritative information. But many searchers have developed trust in specific sources over time. Someone who has found Mayo Clinic’s explanations particularly clear and useful in the past will scroll past those top results looking for that familiar institution. Another person might specifically want the Cleveland Clinic’s perspective, or prefer the way Johns Hopkins presents medical information. These preferences are built on personal experience, and they’re strong enough that people will click through multiple pages to find their preferred source.
The same pattern holds true across virtually every topic area. Tech enthusiasts often have strong preferences for certain publications. Some readers trust Ars Technica’s technical depth, while others prefer The Verge’s approach or Tom’s Hardware for specific product categories. When researching a technology question, these readers aren’t necessarily looking for whoever ranks first, they’re looking for the source whose perspective and presentation style they’ve come to value.
Academic researchers demonstrate this behavior even more clearly. When looking for scholarly information, a researcher might specifically want results from particular journals, institutions, or authors they respect. The first page might be dominated by general educational sites or commercial content, but the researcher knows that the specific academic source they trust is somewhere in those results, and they’ll keep clicking until they find it.
News consumption shows the same dynamic. People develop relationships with news organizations over time. Someone who has found NPR’s coverage balanced and thorough will often seek out NPR’s take on a story, even if it appears on page three. Others might specifically want to read what The Guardian or Reuters or their local newspaper has to say about an event. The search engine’s algorithmic judgment about which news source should rank highest doesn’t override years of built trust and familiarity.Local searches reveal another dimension of this phenomenon. When someone searches for a restaurant, service, or business, the top results might be driven by advertising spend, SEO optimization, or sheer popularity. But searchers often have specific establishments in mind that they’ve heard about from friends, remember from past experiences, or have seen mentioned in local community discussions. They’ll scroll through results looking for that particular business name, bypassing more prominent listings.This source preference also extends to different content formats and approaches. Some people learn better from video explanations and will scroll until they find YouTube results. Others strongly prefer written tutorials with step-by-step screenshots. Some want academic rigor, others want conversational accessibility. The diversity of human learning styles and preferences means that what works perfectly for one person might be entirely wrong for another, even though they started with the same search query.
There’s also the matter of comprehensive research. Anyone doing serious research on a topic doesn’t stop at the first few results. They want multiple perspectives, different angles, and varied sources. A journalist writing an article, a student working on a paper, or a professional making an important decision will deliberately work through multiple pages of results to ensure they haven’t missed important viewpoints or information. For these users, pages two through four aren’t an afterthought, they’re an essential part of the research process.
The persistence of source preference also reflects a healthy skepticism about algorithmic curation. Many internet users understand that search rankings can be influenced by factors other than pure informational quality, including SEO tactics, advertising, and commercial interests. By venturing beyond the first page, these searchers are essentially conducting their own quality control, refusing to let an algorithm make all their decisions about what information deserves their attention.
Geographic and cultural factors play a role too. Searchers in different regions or from different backgrounds might have affinities for sources that don’t dominate the global first page of results but are highly relevant to their specific context. Someone might be specifically looking for perspectives from publications in their country, sources in their language, or outlets that understand their particular cultural context.The design of search results pages themselves acknowledges this reality. Search engines continue to provide multiple pages of results specifically because user data shows that people do click through them. If pages two, three, and four received no traffic whatsoever, they would have been eliminated from the interface long ago. Their persistence in the design is a quiet acknowledgment that they serve a real user need.
This all suggests something important for anyone creating content: ranking on the first page isn’t the only path to reaching an audience. If you consistently provide value to a specific audience, those readers will seek you out, even if you appear on page three. Building trust, maintaining quality, and developing a distinct voice creates lasting value that transcends algorithmic ranking. Your audience will find you because they’re specifically looking for what you offer, not just whoever happens to rank first.
The relationship between searchers and their preferred sources is a reminder that human behavior is more nuanced than metrics might suggest. While it’s absolutely true that first-page results capture the majority of attention, the minority who click through to subsequent pages aren’t just random noise in the data. They’re people with specific intentions, established preferences, and the determination to find exactly what they’re looking for, regardless of where it ranks.