When we search on the Internet these days, we expect to be given a list of potential sites which will hold the answers we seek, be that a product, a specific data set, an answer to a question and so on. It is then down to us to seek the answers or research further until we find them. However, Google appears to be about to up the ante and head more towards providing direct answers to questions rather than links to sites where that answer may reside.
Potentially, this is huge.
For Google, it may mean that anywhere between 10 and 20% of all search queries could be answered directly within Google search, rather than on third party websites that currently pop up in the organic search results. This could have a drastic effect on traffic to websites, especially those who have not looked beyond the search engines to create broad spectrum marketing campaigns. Having all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea, and this change at Google may well prove it to those who have pitched everything at SEO and little to nothing at social media, mobile, PPC, article marketing, forum marketing, etc etc.
Optimising (SEO) may need to change in order to be more than just keyword rich, but also to be ‘answer rich’ ie to provide the answers that Google offers to searchers. Therefore, within the copy and content of a site, it may be necessary for the SEO expert to try to envisage more clearly exactly what answers are likely to be sought, and hence, the question(s) that may be in the mind of the searcher when entering the query.
On the plus side, trusted sites which continually create unique, quality content should have an easier time of it than those sites which duplicate other sources. Relevancy, creating author tags, correct labelling of content (as is required for Google shopping for instance), strong reasons for a user to stay within a site rather than return to Google, regular competitive analysis, and a need to co-ordinate marketing strategies towards Google all look likely to be required to ensure at least a modicum of success with Google’s semantic search.
There are likely to be some downsides in this ambitious proposal. There have been plenty of occasions where the algorithms have thrown up what could be considered irrelevant results; be these the type of results that Panda was introduced to eliminate, or inappropriate adverts, and Google will need to stick to facts first and produce consistently accurate results in that sphere (as it does now for simple search queries such as measurement conversions) or it could come under fire for losing yet more relevancy.
If you thought that the search engines’ algorithms were hard enough to optimise for, wait until you are up against AI (artificial intelligence) deciding what should show in the SERPs! Especially if/when the semantic search moves beyond factual e.g when is the full moon in April 2012? to the opinionated: e.g “Is SEO necessary?”
A report published this week by a cross party committee of MPs and peers recommended that legislation should be introduced to force Google to censor search results, particularly in relation to protecting privacy. The rise and rise of social networking and the Internet has meant that cases such as the super injunction cases last year have spread virally over social media – Twitter, Facebook, blogs etc. So, despite the law insisting that identities and personal details were not revealed, and the press bending over backwards to abide by the rulings, the news got out anyway. The Ryan Giggs super injunction was tweeted over 75,000 times before it finally became obvious that the injunction could not be made to work.
It was following this that the PM set up the cross party committee to investigate free speech and privacy. However, the recommendation to force Google et al to censor results is likely to come under fire.
The suggestion raises several issues.
Firstly, whilst it may currently be legislation regarding privacy, how easily could this legislation be amended to be more far-reaching? Censorship in any form bodes ill, and freedom of speech should be fought for. There is no reason for content that has been considered to be an invasion of privacy not to be removed, or for heartier self-regulation to take place, but attempting to prevent gossip – which appears intrinsic to human nature – is likely to continue to be an onerous task, and it is inevitable that we will see more and more online reputation management agencies appearing to protect brands and so on.
But should a search engine (or Facebook or Twitter) be forced into a level of censorship determined often only by a single judge? What if there is an appeal or what if the content should be released in the public interest? How could this possibly be policed and enforced?
As a spokesperson for Google said, “Requiring search engines to screen the content of their web pages would be like asking phone companies to listen in on every call made across their networks for potentially suspicious activity.”
The committee is arguing for protection of privacy laws to go beyond the current ‘press’ eg newspapers, magazines, TV etc and also include Twitter, Facebook, Google and so on. As we move into an age of higher bandwidth and hence more innovation, the likelihood is that new social networking sites and tools will continue to spring up on an almost hourly basis. Endeavouring to imagine or legislate for all new tools, apps, sites could prove not only burdensome but actually impossible.
How could such censorship affect businesses or brands? The vast majority of the high profile cases have concerned celebrities and many brands have had to distance themselves from their celeb endorsers after bad news has been leaked or made its way onto the Internet, where it can now spread far more quickly than ever before. Google currently offers the chance to report a page or offensive etc content, and the argument from the Big G is that no further action is required beyond the ‘victim’ (for want of a better word) requesting the removal of said content.
The vagaries of Google, as we all know, mean that frequently such requests appear to be ignored, or the process drags on interminably whilst the content just sits there in the SERPs. The protection of celebrities’ i.e. individuals’ privacy may need to come above protection of business and brands reputation but does existing legislation not already cover this without requiring to force censorship on some of the biggest sites in the world?
Do you feel that the UK government should have a say in what the search engines and social networks are permitted to show to UK audiences?
It is now a year since the first Panda update was rolled out and many sites have seen some alterations to the rankings as a result; for some, negative but for many others the Panda update provided a wake up call to update and add unique, quality content which has invariably improved ranking results post-Panda. There does also seem to have been the required cull of content farms and scrapers that were beginning to litter the SERPS and cost Google the reputation for relevance that it has built up over the years. However, in its wake comes the Search Plus Your World integration which many view as a less than positive advance.
Whilst it may seem logical for Google to integrate search with many of the other Google properties (G+, maps, etc) and personalise the results according to search history, known likes/dislikes, the social signals generated by others within your social network, and so on, the resultant SERPs when you are logged into your Google account are not to the liking of many.
For instance, a search may pull up discussion, opinion and social networking profiles rather than the original content, and there is an ongoing debate in the blogosphere about whether these ‘secondary’ layers of information are actually as relevant as the current emphasis on social signals in the SERPs would make out. After all, much of the commentary on a piece is often not as well researched or knowledgeable as the genuine article or the original information, particularly when the searcher is in ‘research mode’ rather than, say, shopping mode where reviews of products etc are of some value in the decision making process. It is this drop in the perceived quality of the returned results that appears to be taxing many in the SEO/SEM and search world.
One could also wonder whether it is forcing often reluctant businesses into the world of social at a time when resources to handle such an addition to any marketing campaign are often in short supply and there is only one thing worse than not doing social media marketing, and that is doing it badly. For the unknowledgeable, social media marketing can be a minefield, and even for those in the know, it is all too simple to make a PR faux pas in a mere 140 characters, or less. There are always going to be companies for whom social media is not a prerequisite to doing good business, but looking at the SERPs recently, it has become increasingly difficult to visualise that scenario as the social results start to take up more and more space, and Google becomes much more of a suggestion engine than a search engine.
There is a definite time and place for social results in the SERPS, but it is still difficult to see where a link to a G+ profile where a discussion is taking place about a link to an article or infographic elsewhere should take precedence over the original item. Social is where the buzz is at present, but should social results be included when you are logged in to the detriment of other, possibly more pertinent, results?
The personalisation of results is also causing problems for some in understanding their ranking from others’ point of view. For instance, if you regularly visit your own site whilst logged in to Google, this will automatically bump it up the SERPs for you. Ditto if you have an active social circle, whose own searches, likes, +1s etc will affect what results appear for you. However, someone who has never visited your site and has a different social circle will not see the same results as you, making it hard for SMEs and businesses with little understanding of the search engines to understand what their marketing budget is achieving unless they know to log out of Google (and preferably use another browser altogether to compare results).
It all comes down to quality and relevance and freshness, and yet it is hard to see how the latest changes within the Google search engine will continue to stick to these benchmarks. Are you seeing an increase in social results in your searches? How do they affect your SEO decisions? Do you feel that the results are of lower quality than previously or on other engines eg Bing and Yippy.com? Would you prefer a social option, or a research button, or some way of indicating to Google more precisely what you are searching for? Should there be an Unlike or -1 button for Google results to show them how many were not relevant, fresh or of good quality? We’d be interested to hear your thoughts in the comments…….
The Search Marketing Barometer from the Internet Advertising Bureau UK gives a useful snapshot of how the large companies are applying search marketing today. The most recent report, published in February, covering 2011, was based on a survey of 123 marketers from the top 200 brands across all sectors including entertainment, retail, FMCG and automotive. Although it’s based on the experiences of large companies, it has lessons for all companies using search around how to review and improve their search capabilities.
The barometer has many findings about use of search, but those that surprised me most were around customer insight and integration.
Surprisingly, 53% of brands had “little or no understanding of attribution modelling”. This surprises me for two reasons, first if you’re not using attribution you can’t really optimise your digital marketing mix, particularly if you’re making large investments in paid search, display ads and affiliate marketing as many of these brands will be. Taking the example of paid search, attribution helps you understand the influence of generic terms which searchers use early in the path to purchase. Since these are much higher by volume of searches than the long tail terms as users close in on purchase, it’s really important to know how they influence search. If you just use a last click wins model, then the value of these generic terms won’t be clear. I’m also surprised in that the analytics capabilities to understand customer journeys have been available for many years and are improving recently with new releases.
Google Adwords has had its Search Funnels feature available since 2010 to companies who have setup conversion tracking through Google. More recently, Google Analytics has added a multichannel funnels feature (see the official Google video) which provides a great representation of which digital channels are providing “assists” on the path to purchase. Many larger companies may not be using the free Google tools, but alternatives including agency tools also have attribution features, so lack of tools isn’t an excuse. My experience is that the tools may be configured in the organisation, but the lack of time, skills or process to interpret and action the results is more likely to be the problem. The report also found that only 13% of brands feel they have sufficient amount of performance data to help them with attribution modelling. I personally doubt whether lack of data is the problem, lack of people, process or skills to action it are more likely to be the problem.
The research also suggests that search advertising is still not fully integrated into the marketing mix, with 94% of UK advertisers believing there is a greater opportunity to link it with the rest of their communications activity. Of the marketers surveyed 94% said that there is greater opportunity to integrate search into the wider media mix. The survey found that online display and social media are most integrated with search in campaigns, at 65% and 62% respectively. This is followed by TV, with 43% of campaigns integrated with search marketing. With consumers using mobile more, this is also a missed opportunity – separate research by the IAB on the Mobile and Online Journey which they rather unnecessarily call “MOJO” shows that half of those following up adverts on smartphones have been watching TVs.
So overall, the research paints a fairly dark picture of how the potential value of customer insights is being used. I don’t think this picture will change until companies change the way analytics data is reviewed and actioned across the business.
As we have mentioned before, many people are incompetent at search, and the search engines and SEO experts (as well as hardware manufacturers) have not been slow in taking this into account.
In a video from the Google stable, we hear about how Google is taking into account the changes that are occurring in user behaviour and needs, as well as the interfaces being used to search for content and the content being created. Daniel Russell, who presents the video, has the rather marvellous job title of Uber Tech Lead for Search Quality and User Happiness.
It is interesting to see how search is changing, particularly with the influx of social media and the ever-increasing need for real time searches which bring up breaking news, for example.
It is worth watching the Google Maps example given from 9mins onwards. This example shows how Google has enriched the results during the period 2005 to 2012, by changing the underlying dataset from an outsourced dataset to Google’s own. Whilst many of us may not have noticed the sometimes subtle changes which each iteration has brought, it is difficult to miss the vast changes that a mere 5-6 years has had on our comprehension of what search is, and therefore how as search marketers we have reacted to those changes.
From ensuring that a client’s address was listed on Google Maps (and then Local before returning the name to Maps), through to ensuring that there were photos of the location or shop, to adding Products into what was Google Base and is now Google Shopping, to encouraging customers to review the products and services, and so on and on….. through to the latest development in search which is ensuring that as Google moves to integrate all products together, we are being actively encouraged to use the rel=author tag to have content by certain individuals showing up in search results.
In talking about social and how it will affect search in future, we find ourselves falling into the world of big data (which, in case, you have not heard yet, is one of the buzzwords of 2012). So, for instance, whilst you may think you understand all about social networks, try looking at stackoverflow.com which is a great example of a niche social network, where big data is created, along with answers to complex problems, simply by the members of a community of interest.
As Google gets a handle on more of this type of social activity, and therefore advances Google+ beyond being a Facebook repro, then we will see more and more results in the SERPS which reflect the social activity from authors within our immediate or extended circles. And especially from those who have been canny about including keywords when creating content, as well as using that rel=author tag!
One of the problems with the ever-increasing creation of content is that it is, of course, becoming ever harder to index this and provide the results in a meaningful way using algorithms. After all, the search algorithms do not know whether you are looking up “polar bear hide” for a research project, because you are shopping to make a furry belt, or you actually mean a hide as in somewhere to hide from polar bears.
The examples given include 48 hours of video uploaded to Youtube every minute, or the equivalent of the Library of Congress added in information each day to the Net – and the rate of acquisition of new content is accelerating, fast. This means that, theoretically at least, if you can craft the right search, the amount of time spent finding the data you require is decreasing, day on day, as companies such as Google do the hard work for us. BUT, many people, as we said at the outset, quite simply do not know how to search, and hence find the results they are seeking.
So, for those interested in search, the really interesting part is about critical thinking skills and educating users to develop these skills so that they can more accurately access the information they are searching for (24mins). Which, hopefully, is of course, your website!
How do we, as search marketers, solve the problem of directing the user to a specific client website via a photo of a particular meal that their colleague has recommended at the restaurant if the only info the user has is: “It was ‘beef and rice’”? And how do we convert that search into a booking and a satisfied customer who leaves a tip, a review on our site, checks in on Foursquare, leaves a comment on our blog, signs up to our newsletter and eats in the restaurant on the discount coupon they received as a loyal customer?
After all, isn’t that why we want them to find the website in the first place?!
This type of search query may well be where Google Goggles come into their own. Not just the smartphone Google Goggles app, which has been on release for some time, but the physical version of Google Goggles – smart shades or something similar they will undoubtedly be called.
Being able to take a photo of a real world object and then search for the answer to your query is undoubtedly a goal of all search engines, because it can be so difficult to phrase the question to find the right answer using only words. Adding images to the mix takes us into a whole new realm of optimisation for search marketers. Then there’s Siri and voice, sounds and music, videos….you get the drift? If you thought search engine marketing had got a whole lot more complex over the last few years, with client fees staying fairly static but the workload increasing exponentially……it’s about to get a lot, lot harder!
Where else do you see search changing over the coming years as users become prosumers, hardware becomes more affordable, the disconnecteds get connected, and the volume of information, particularly real time social data, continues to increase by the hour? Do you envisage your task as a search engine /internet marketer becoming harder or more easier as tools for automation become available? As a user, do you see it becoming simpler to find the results you seek or more complex? How can website owners ensure that their sites remain optimised for the correct keywords?
Google has launched a new initiative to get more small businesses using 360 degree and high quality images on search pages, G+, Google Maps, and Google Places and local pages. The new Google Business Photos site includes a list of Trusted Photographers in and around a limited number of UK cities, but Google are actively seeking businesses requesting photographers to join the program and help businesses to use images in search and on Google properties more effectively.
The resulting photos after a shoot are stitched together using panoramic technology to create a 360 image which allows zoom, pan, tilt etc and hence permits website visitors to get a great experience of how it will be to visit your business. This is not only suitable for retail outlets, museums, gyms and salons, but also for restaurants, cafes, hotels, B and Bs – infact, nearly every business could benefit from this.
The photos are stitched together – you can do this yourself with apps such as Photosynth – and can then be used on your own website, as well as on Google properties such as Google Places etc. You can also upload your own 360 photos to Google Places etc if you wish, and embed these photos elsewhere with a small HTML snippet.
There would seem to be a likelihood that Google is looking to add an extra dimension to Streetview by allowing users of SV to virtually enter businesses with these photos, which would be an interesting development, and make a useful marketing addition to SV for businesses.
AdWords Express vouchers are being offered to the first who take up this offer, but the vouchers expire on 31st March 2012 so you need to act fast.
Lily Bowron, SEO Executive at ClickThrough, explains why TDKs are an important part of on-page optimisation.
Lily Bowron, SEO Executive at ClickThrough, explains why Titles, Keywords and Descriptions are an important part of on-page SEO optimisation.
Writing the best Meta Titles and optimising Meta Descriptions has been a constant struggle for many websites since the dawn of SEO. With Google continuously moving the goal posts, and high competition for specific keywords, making the most out of the display space offered by a Google search has never been more important.
When it comes to optimising a web page, the first port to call for most is TDKs:
For years, ‘guidelines’ have circulated the Internet, providing glints of hope and some kind of direction as to how many characters to use for a description, in order to maximise conversions. Sadly, it’s often the case that people are left grasping at straws looking for authoritative sites to show them the way, so their descriptions don’t get cut off half-way through, and end with the dreaded ‘…’
Anyone else confused? Still looking for an answer? Here are some examples of previous guidance:
Guidance 1
65 characters for Meta Titles
Google displays about 150 to 160 characters for Meta Descriptions
Guidance 2
70 characters is the maximum for Meta Titles
Roughly 155 Characters for Meta Descriptions
Guidance 3
“Google shows 69 Characters (including spaces) for Page Title.
Google shows 156 Characters (including spaces) for Meta Description.”
Well, the answer is … drum roll, please! …Well, the answer actually depends on the letters you use.
Don’t get more confused. It’s quite a simple premise. When it comes to choosing your letters, some obviously take up more ‘font space’ than others. For instance, ‘M’ and ‘W’ are much wider characters than ‘I’ or ‘J’. Therefore, descriptions or titles with space-hogging letters or characters will provide much less space to display your targeted keywords than descriptions using thinner characters.
Writing a word like ‘Woolworths’, for example, would take up considerably more space than other, more svelte ten-letter words, such as ‘Illiterate’:
Now, knowing this, you may look at your wording choices a little differently in future. You could use alternative words, which may have the same number of characters, but use letters with less width. This will allow you to show more keywords for both searchers and Google robots, especially for words that are not a priority, or wide conjunctive words which are necessary to help the flow of your sentences.
For example:
Call instead of Ring
Note instead of Memo
Female instead of Women
Heater instead of Warmer
Cupboard instead of Wardrobe
Exclude instead of Without
This month, I will be researching the text shown by Google for a variety of search terms, then comparing the displayed number of characters depending on the use of thin and wide letters.
This, I hope, will provide a better indication as to how many characters will be shown on Google searches, depending on the specific letters used.
Follow this blog to find the ‘Perfect Size’ for Meta Titles and Descriptions, rather than the ‘Magic Number’, and it could help you get the most out of your Meta Titles and Descriptions.
In my next post I’ll be looking at title tags in more detail.
Lily Bowron, SEO Executive at ClickThrough shares some thoughts on optimising title tags
Lily Bowron, SEO Executive at ClickThrough, offers up some thoughts on changes affecting page title tag optimisation for search engines.
You may have noticed recently that Google seems to be altering title tags for branded pages – or rather, it is altering the way that a title tag is displayed, depending on the user’s search query relating to brand searches. This is frustrating when SEOs like us spend a long time writing and optimising TDK’s (Meta Titles, Meta Descriptions and Meta Keywords) to improve search rankings and maximise clickthrough rate.
For example, let’s say that your client sells unicorns (let’s keep it simple), and their page title is a simple, straightforward brand name:
Unicorn Corp
When users search for this brand, the page title would be displayed ‘verbatim’ – using exactly the same text as the search query.
Let’s suppose that your strategy is to show that your client’s website specialises in other mythical creatures, as well as unicorns, and you want to attract a user’s attention with additional title information. In this case, if Google decides to display the text in a different way to your carefully optimised, keyword-rich title, it would be very frustrating. For example, Google may not display the title below as originally optimised:
Unicorns Corp | High Quality Mythical Creatures | Fairy Tale Animals
The question therefore is, to what level do we spend time deliberating over our titles, if Google then decides to veto titles for the best interests of its users relating to brand names? In some cases, I can understand how it could be beneficial if the user was looking for something very specific such as:
Rangemaster Toledo 110 Duel Fuel Stainless Steel Chrome
In this instance, displaying exactly what the user had typed could increase clickthrough rate. But at what point does Google decide to change the Meta Title of a site? If the top 3 search results are all similar selling the same brand or product, would it display the same ‘Google-edited’ title for each of them?
At the moment Google seems to be experimenting with this idea of ‘Title Tailoring’, stating that changes are more common with sites that have left their titles blank – or pages with the title ‘Home Page’, which is not descriptive or useful to the user.
But does this present an unfair advantage to those sites that have not taken the time to optimise specific titles to specific page… ?
Will Google now add search-query influenced titles to these pages if the title tag is left blank… ?
Will this increase the popularity of these sites and result in competitive disadvantages to those sites that have taken the time to submit their own TDK’s…?
THEREFORE… Should we all delete our TDK’s relating to our brands and let Google do the hard work for us…?
Unfortunately – for the moment, at least – there seems to be no clear guide as to if and when Google may change Titles. Despite the efforts of many bloggers, the lack of clear information means that we’re in a ‘blind leading the blind’ situation. In our opinion, Google is experimenting with title tailoring to examine the change in clickthrough rate (CTR) if a branded page’s title tag is changed.
It would, after all, be a logical experiment to examine the CTR of a brand-only title for a home page, versus a title tag edited by Google. We just wish Google would make it clear when it is altering site search results in this way, so we could also measure it too. Otherwise Google is affecting our CTR without informing us, leaving us faltering in the dark, trying to justify any unusual activity. We can only hope that Google’s testing is reaping interesting CTR results, and that – hopefully – they will share these Title-editing gems with us in future.
We will keep you posted on how this testing should alter your search engine optimisation strategy…
Possibly the biggest differentiator at present between Google Plus and other social networks are Hangouts – the chance to video conference at the click of a button with up to 20 other G+ users. Hangouts are moving forwards quite quickly now as the G+ developers and third parties realise the benefits of making recording G+ Hangouts a one click process with Hangouts On Air.
The Dalai Lama, the Muppets and a few others were the first to be permitted to record their Hangouts On Air, and now the facility to do so is being extended more widely. Hangouts On Air is being turned on initially for celebs, public figures and those with large G+ followings, but it is likely that a full rollout will not be far behind. The really cute feature is that once the Hangout is finished, a private video clip will be uploaded to your account at YouTube.
For businesses and marketers, this new feature, once available to all, offers an infinite number of possible uses to reach a wider audience, to offer one on one training sessions, for recorded customer support ‘calls’, to archive webinars, to preserve fascinating discussions, meetings or focus groups – the list truly is endless.
Until this feature is rolled out fully by Google to all G+ users, there are plenty of other options for recording Hangouts, such as Camtasia, Camstudio (an Open Source version of Camtasia) and Fraps (which avid gamers will know for recording their gaming moves).
The benefits of Hangouts for businesses do not yet seem to be being explored by many businesses, large and small, and yet the content and collaboration and discussions created within Hangouts by those who do use them can be seen all over G+. Are you using Hangouts? For what purposes? Have you experienced any problems? What do you feel is the potential for this type of application within your business?
When it comes to making predictions, no-one has an infallible magic crystal ball. But here at ClickThrough, we’ve got Senior SEO Account Exec, Martyna Sroka – our very own Mystic (Marketing) Meg.
She’s gazed into the future of SEO and drawn some conclusions about the industry in 2012.
Of course, nobody can predict for certain what Google, Yahoo! or Microsoft have up their sleeves. But Martyna’s run the risk of embarrassment in 12 months’ time, and put together a list of her predictions for the coming year. We’ll be back in 2013 to mock her if she gets any of these wrong.
Do you agree with Martyna’s predictions for 2012? Get in touch and let us know your thoughts!
