Audience and Message Research

Search Intent Interview Notes

Compare what people say they need with the queries, result choices, page behavior, vocabulary, and follow-up searches they use during a real task.

Free editable Markdown · SEO researchers, content strategists, and user researchers · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Session context

Research question: [What content or search decision will this inform?]
Participant code: [Non-identifying label]
Task and trigger: [What happened before search?]
Desired outcome: [What would make the search useful?]
Prior knowledge: [What did the participant already believe?]
Constraints: [Time, device, location, language, access, or another]
Consent and capture: [Observation, recording, and retention agreement]
Session date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

Search sequence

First query: [Exact query if safely captured]
Expected result: [What did the participant hope to find?]
Result cues noticed: [Titles, source, date, snippet, format, or another]
Selected result: [Which one and participant’s stated reason]
First page action: [What they scanned or attempted]
Expectation mismatch: [What differed from the result promise]
Reformulated query: [New words or constraints]
Reason for reformulation: [Participant statement or researcher inference]
Stopping point: [Why search ended or paused]

Evidence discipline

The interviewer did not introduce the target keyword before the first query.
Direct observations and participant statements are labeled separately.
Researcher interpretations are marked as inferences.
Private, unrelated search history was not collected.
Position is not treated as the only reason for selection.
Failed and abandoned paths remain in the notes.

Synthesis and content action

Underlying need: [Situation, decision, and constraint]
Vocabulary pattern: [Words used, expected, or misunderstood]
Required information: [What must the content answer?]
Trust or selection cues: [Supported by session evidence]
Current coverage: [Page or gap]
Recommended action: [Improve, combine, create, retitle, link, or no change]
Cannibalization check: [Could an existing page own this intent?]
Validation plan: [How the change will be tested]
Confidence and limitation: [What this session can and cannot show]

How to use this template

Define the research decision, target task, recruitment criteria, consent, and safe observation method.
Ask about the triggering situation and desired outcome before exposing any suggested query language.
Capture queries, expected result, selection cues, page behavior, reformulations, and outcome in sequence.
Separate participant statements and observed actions from researcher interpretation.
Synthesize across sessions, compare existing content, and recommend one coherent change tied to evidence and validation.

Begin before the query

Search intent exists in a situation, not inside a keyword alone. Ask what happened, what the participant already knew, what decision or action mattered, and what would count as a useful outcome. Then observe or reconstruct how they translated that need into a query. The first words may be approximate because the person does not yet know the publisher’s terminology. Record device, location context, time pressure, and prior attempts only when relevant and appropriate. Do not seed the session with your target phrase; it can overwrite the language you intended to study.

Observe choices and reformulation

Ask the participant to think aloud without demanding a reason for every eye movement or click. Record which result cues they mention, what they expect before opening a page, what they scan first, and where expectations break. Pay attention to reformulations: added constraints, alternate terms, questions, brand names, locations, or comparisons. A follow-up search often exposes information the first page failed to provide. Separate what the participant says from the researcher’s interpretation and avoid treating result position as the sole cause of selection.

Connect behavior to coherent content

Summarize the task, required information, preferred vocabulary, trust cues, rejected assumptions, and next step. Compare sessions before assigning intent categories. Informational, commercial, navigational, and transactional labels may be useful summaries, but real tasks cross them. One clear page may support exploration and action better than several nearly identical pages. Check current coverage and search results, then decide whether to improve information, title clarity, structure, examples, internal linking, or the product experience. Preserve limitations and measure whether changes help users complete the task.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: bicycle locker search

Participant S04 and the Cityloop station service are invented.

Trigger: S04 planned a first bicycle commute and needed to know whether a fictional station had secure overnight storage.
First query: “Cityloop bike storage overnight.”
Mismatch: A result titled “Cycle facilities” showed rack locations but did not distinguish open racks from reservable lockers.
Reformulation: “Cityloop station bike locker booking.”
Content action: Improve one facilities page with storage type, overnight rule, booking action, price date, and clear headings rather than creating several query-variant pages.

Frequently asked questions

Is a search result screenshot enough to understand intent?

No. It shows an environment at a moment but not the person’s situation, expectations, decision, or later behavior. Combine result inspection with contextual research and site evidence, while respecting privacy and personalization limits.

Should participants use their personal search account?

Prefer a setup that avoids exposing unrelated history or account data. Explain any personalization effects and do not request access to private information. The appropriate method depends on the study, consent, and organizational policy.

How many pages should target one intent?

Create the minimum coherent set that serves meaningfully different tasks. Minor keyword wording does not justify duplicate pages. Check whether an existing page can be improved and use internal links for related but distinct needs.

Can interview findings predict ranking changes?

No. They help explain reader language and usefulness, not guarantee search performance. Use them to make evidence-backed content decisions, then monitor search and user outcomes without claiming causation from a small study.