Worst SEO Title Ever

September 20 2011 // Rant + SEO // 16 Comments

Do as I say, not as I do. That seems to be Google’s philosophy when it comes to blog optimization.

Worst SEO Title Ever

Worst SEO Title Ever

What has finally pushed me over the edge into rant mode? It’s today’s Google+ announcement.

Bad Google+ Blog Post Title

A bunch of numbers for your title. Really? Instead maybe you’d, you know, want to mention the introduction of search or that Google+ was now open to everyone. Those are actually really interesting and noteworthy items.

This isn’t a John Barth novel. The meta information around the number of improvements isn’t really relevant. Really, it’s not.

What query intent are you trying to match here? And yes, that matters.

Snippet Optimization

Google also continues to fail on snippet optimization. Yes, we know that the meta description isn’t a ranking factor. But the description is more important today since it’s used in the transmission of information to other platforms. So what does the snippet for this post look like?

Bad Google+ Snippet

At a glance can you tell what this is about? I certainly can’t. The default image here is useless, the title is nonsense and the description simply tells me that it’s available in other languages. Google can count to 100, seemingly in different languages. Congratulations.

Best Practices and Role Models

Does everyone have to follow best practices? No. All of this is optional. But Google is in a position where they should be setting an example. Google might want to take the Charles Barkley approach, but like it or not, you are a role model.

Or perhaps this is a deliberate thumb in the eye to the SEO community? We know that Google is willing to change titles when they think they’re not quite right. So maybe they just don’t think any of this is necessary? But I doubt that’s the case. Remember the adage about malice.

So please Google, take the time to perform the minimum of optimization on your vast collection of blogs (or give me and my team a call and we’ll get you square.) It’s good for you and it’s good for the search community.

[Update] Well, it looks like the Google Mobile Blog wants to fight for the Worst SEO Title Ever crown with their own numbers post.

 

Google Influence Metric

September 19 2011 // SEO + Social Media // 7 Comments

Is Google building an influence metric? I think so. And they’re doing it by mapping the engagement graph.

Connecting the Dots

On June 3rd Google acquired PostRank. On June 7th Google began supporting authorship. On June 28th Google began to highlight authors in search results, the same day they launched launched Google+.

The next day +1 data began to appear in both Google Webmaster Tools and Google Analytics. On August 9 Google simplified authorship markup for single author sites and blogs. On August 24 Google connected the +1 button to Google+.

Finally, on September 15, Google rejiggered the Links section on Google+ profiles. The last change created three sections of links ‘Other profiles’ (Identity), ‘Contributor to’ (Authorship) and ‘Recommended link’.

Taken together I see a company aggressively building a new way to measure authority, influence and engagement.

What is PostRank?

PostRank Logo Big

The name itself is fairly self-explanatory, don’t you think? The service ranks blog posts. Here’s how PostRank describes it.

The social web connects people where they share, critique and interact with content and each other. PostRank is the largest aggregator of social engagement data in the industry.

Our platform tracks where and how users engage, and what they pay attention to — in real-time. PostRank social engagement data measures actual user activity, the most accurate indicator of the relevance and influence of a site, story, or author.

The emphasis is mine but , seriously, can it get any more clear? With this acquisition in place Google’s emphasis on identity and authorship makes perfect sense.

PostRank Data

If you’re a PostRank Analytics user you’re still getting a daily engagement report which gives a fair amount of insight into what is collected and tracked.

PostRank Daily Engagement Report

Social Activity is essentially an aggregate dashboard report. Directly below this is the Activity Stream.

PostRank Activity Stream

The data here is rich and ripe for further analysis. Google now knows who, how, where and when someone reacted to a piece of content.

The Ws

The Google Version of The Spanish Inquisition

I’ll bastardize the standard Five Ws journalism concept for my own purposes. Google wants to know who wrote the content, when and where was it published, what it was about and how it was received. (There’s an Inception like element here since how spawns another set of Ws.)

Google has long understood the when and where through their normal crawling and indexing activities. The what is an ongoing refinement process of relevance using various natural language processing and machine learning techniques. What is … what made Google the leader in the search.

Google+ and rel=”author” give Google the who (identity and authorship matter) and PostRank tells Google how that content was acted on.

The Engagement Graph

What we’re seeing is the emergence of an engagement graph. (I know, like we need another graph, right?) I think this differs from your social graph since many of the people who engage with your content are not part of a traditional social graph. For example, I don’t know everyone who bookmarks my content on Delicious.

An analysis of engagement might also help to mitigate social graph manipulation. Isn’t it curious how a minute after some sites publish a blog post they’ve already generated 20+ Tweets? Robo-syndication represents a very low level of engagement. Personally, I’d handicap any resulting engagement based on the manipulation of social proof. But I digress.

Mapping and measuring engagement is a difficult business. PostRank was able to create a very simple scoring metric. Activities were scored based on the level of engagement: Trackback (13), Comment (10), Tweet (7), Bookmark (5).

Google can do far more with the PostRank data and create a nuanced scoring metric. Was the trackback from a respected blog? Was it linked to contextually within the post or as part of an automated ‘related links’ block?

Was the comment from someone with subject matter expertise, authority and influence? What were the contents and sentiment of that comment? Was the comment free of spelling and grammatical errors? Did it include a link?

Who Tweeted the content? How influential is that person? Are they a subject matter expert in this area? What is the velocity of Tweets for that individual? The latter could be very interesting. You could conceivably apply a type of PageRank metric to a stream of Tweets, dividing the influence of a Tweet by the number of Tweets delivered within a specified time frame.

Beyond these silos they’ll likely look at whether it’s the same people engaging with your content again and again. The diversity of engagement should be a positive signal, whereas a very uniform engagement profile might raise some red flags. If you haven’t already figured it out, many of the same principles of the link graph apply to the engagement graph.

Of course Google will add other sources to the mix including +1 button data and all Google+ interactions.  They paint a picture of influence by applying a deep analysis of engagement against a large data set of actions from verified authors.

Influence By Numbers?

Color By Numbers

The debate about influence is as hot as ever. Does your Klout or PeerIndex number really provide an accurate picture of influence? I think these metrics are interesting but I certainly wouldn’t rely on them. In fact, AdAge recently had to change their Power 150 calculation because the PostRank API was no longer available. (Yeah, Google doesn’t seem to want to share this data. That should tell you something.)

A recent blog post by Mark Schaefer was refreshingly honest and insightful about the AdAge ‘apocalypse’.

I think this pokes about at a recent theme of this blog — social proof and the fact that oftentimes on the social web a numerical rating provides a more important symbol of accomplishment than actual accomplishment. But this time it really hit home. Even if it’s a fake badge, the business benefits of being on the list can be real.

I can’t think this is Google’s view of influence. In fact, I picture a passionate lecture about why this is completely and utterly wrong. It’s a meritocracy not a popularity contest. No, I don’t think that Google will be releasing an influence number. Ever. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Influence will exist where it counts most, in search results.

TL;DR

The launch of Google+, the promotion of rel=”author” and the acquisition of PostRank make it clear that Google is mapping the engagement graph and establishing a new metric of influence that will impact search results.

4 Search Trends To Watch

September 16 2011 // SEO // 2 Comments

A lot of time and energy is spent looking at the market share each search engine commands. But why? Google is still the king of search and there is little evidence to suggest this is going to change in any material way. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some interesting search trends to keep an eye on.

Here are four search trends I’m watching.

Search Volume

Search Query Volume Trend

Compiled from comScore qSearch and Neilsen//Netratings Megaview Search reports, this graph shows explicit monthly US desktop search volume. From a distance the trend looks rosy and those in the search industry have been riding a wave of growth. Looking closer, there’s a disturbing trend.

Search Volume Yearly Growth Chart

The rate of growth has slowed dramatically and 2011 is tracking toward single digit growth. I’ve written before about how this may create a shakeout within the SEO community. You can’t just show up, half-ass the job, and still wind up catching that huge wave of increased search volume.

Search Demographics

Why is the rate of search growth slowing? Part of the reason revolves around the penetration rates of Internet usage and search adoption. A May 2011 Pew Internet report showed that 78% of adults use the Internet and that 92% of them use a search engine to find information. 22% to go right? Wrong.

Internet Demographics by Age

You’re simply not going to make much headway in the 65+ group based on normal adoption curve theory combined with illness and attrition.

What’s more, we know that those younger than 18 are on the Internet and already use search. These two factors combined show that a vast majority of the target population (in the US) have already adopted search. There’s still room for growth, but it’s unlikely to be at the rates we’ve seen in the past.

But the changing demographics of search also has profound implications. We know that late adopters and laggards exhibit different behavior from innovators and early adopters. How will Google address these differences, particularly in how it measures user behavior and satisfaction as a feedback signal?

The 72 year old Internet novice may have a very different perception of what constitutes a trustworthy site than a 32 year old Internet veteran. This is one of the biggest reasons why I remain intensely interested in the composition of Google’s ‘human raters’ panel.

But it’s not just late adopters and laggards that are changing this dynamic. Some studies show that an over reliance on Google is eroding search skills, even among the young, whom many would expect to be more technologically savvy.

Who is searching and how they search are important variables. These are the real SEO questions.

Search Cannibalization

How people search is also influenced by the devices they’re using. In the last three years smart phones and tablets have become far more ubiquitous.

iPhone Sales per Quarter Graph

The graph above shows iPhone sales per quarter. And sure enough we’ve seen a rise in mobile searches as well.

Over the last two years, we have seen 5X growth in our mobile traffic.

That’s what Amit Singhal said during the June 14, 2011 Inside Search Event. He went on to show that the rate of mobile search growth has been similar to the early growth of desktop search.

Mobile Search Volume Growth Graph

Many claim that mobile search is additive, that these searches don’t take away from desktop search. Perhaps that was true in the beginning but even Google acknowledges that mobile searches are getting more interesting and complex.

Here’s what Scott Huffman had to say about it during that same June 14, 2011 Inside Search Event.

If you went back a few years and looked at the mobile searches that we were getting then, you might say, “Gee, Amit, that’s kind of a grandiose statement.” Besides not getting very many mobile searches then, the mobile searches that we did get, honestly were kind of boring, right?

People did pretty simple things. They would look up a stock price. They would look up the weather, things like that. We saw people just doing very simple search tasks on mobile phones.

An amazing thing happened when the mobile phone became a powerful computer in my pocket, with the advent of devices like the Android and iPhone and others. And sort of overnight, we saw our mobile search stream really transformed to something very interesting, where all of a sudden, we were still seeing people doing some simple things on mobile, but we were also seeing them do very complex search tasks, things like planning a trip, doing research, things that required complicated searches to get done.

Not enough for you? In addition, Google predicts that 15% of all ‘Black Friday’ queries will be mobile and an RBC report places the mobile search percentage at 9% today and rising to 20% by 2012. Furthermore, IDC predicts that more people will access the Internet via a mobile device than through a PC by 2015.

More recently we have the iPad tablets. The experience is more closely aligned to desktop search, but Google has already acknowledged a difference by rolling out a specialized tablet interface.

So, lets go back to those search volume numbers above. When I start matching up iPhone and iPad unit sales numbers on the same timeline it makes me believe that search cannibalization is very real.

Clearly the rate of growth for desktop search is declining. But perhaps total search volume is still growing at a more robust rate? It’s tough to tell really.

But the shift in search platforms creates new challenges and opportunity. Our understanding and expectation of search traffic is based on desktop search activity. The numerous click through rate by position studies may become unreliable in a short span of time.

With less real estate available in both of these new platforms, how much more important is it to be at the top of the results?

Search Diffraction

Not only do new platforms, and their interfaces, change our search patterns but we have new ways to input search – voice and image. In the last year alone, voice search on mobile saw 6X growth.

Voice Search Growth Graph

Mike Cohen drove the point home with the following piece of information.

To give you an idea of the volume of speech, every day these days, roughly two years of nonstop speech comes into our system.

The way we type and talk are different. If voice search becomes the more dominant method, how will you adapt to ensure you’re optimized? Are voice searches longer or shorter? Precise or broad? Is the rate of refinement on voice search higher or lower? Will people use a combination of voice search and text search to complete their searches? I don’t know, but I’m sure going to do my best to figure it out.

We haven’t even touched on image search. The new drag and drop functionality is probably not being used much now but I believe it will be in the future. And don’t forget Google Goggles. That’s search too!

Google Goggles Search

Search is no longer monolithic in nature and the continuing refinement and subtly of search will make SEO both more difficult and important.

TL;DR

The Dark Side of Nyan Cat

As the number of new search users slows and the demographics of search users changes, it’s time to begin tracking the shift in search platforms in earnest and understand how new platforms and search inputs will change the SEO industry.

PageRank Ponzi

September 09 2011 // Rant + SEO // 12 Comments

Why are you still submitting your site and articles to directories? Sure, there was a time when directories were valuable. But that time has passed. So stop feeding their business and build your own instead.

Totally Flabbergasted LOLcat

Page Rank Ponzi

Directories are essentially a form of PageRank ponzi. They use your content to build their business – to build their trust and authority – and, in exchange, lease a small fraction of that trust and authority (e.g. PageRank) back to you.

You either give away or actually pay to provide them with content. They take your assets, gladly, and use it to do what you should be doing. Even if you get a small benefit from this exchange, you’re getting the short end of the stick.

Directory Heyday

There was a time when directories were useful and valuable. From the mid-to-late 90s to around 2003, directories were used by many to find sites and content. This was before tabbed browsing and broadband connections made it easy to get from one site to another. This was before search became the dominant way to navigate the web. This was before social platforms allowed you to tap your social graph and crowdsource information.

One only needs to look at the search volume for the term ‘web directory’ to see that this is an outdated method of online discovery.

Search Trend for Web Directory Searches

Distribution

In the directory heyday it may have been difficult to get your site, article or blog post distributed. The web was not nearly as connected or fluid.

But today we have blogging platforms, a robust social graph and numerous social media outlets that give you an opportunity to capitalize on your own intellectual property instead of giving it away to others for peanuts.

We Are The Directory

Whether you call it curation or crowdsourcing there are other repositories that mimic and exceed the traditional directory. You might search Delicious. In fact, more people should. Or you might try out Trunk.ly.

We’re doing the work of directories every day.

Caffeine

In June of 2010, Google launched Caffeine and increased their ability to crawl and index the web. This was one of the last pieces of the puzzle in making directories obsolete.

Previously, directories might have been able to quickly surface new sites or content that hadn’t yet been found by Google. But that’s just not the case today. Google finds new content even in the dark and dusty corners of the Internet where Geocities pages lurk and survive.

Google Directory

So what does Google think about directories today?

Google Directory No Longer Available Message

Google shut down their directory. Read that again and think about what it means for the future and value of directories. And don’t get me started on the utter collapse of DMOZ. (No, I’m not even going to link there.)

As an aside, Google may want to consider a folder level URL removal so directory results (which return a 404) don’t clutter up SERPs.

Directory Spam

Most web directories are hastily thrown together arbitrage sites that serve as outposts for spam. Here’s a excerpt from an email sent to me by an ‘SEO Consultant’.

Directory Spam

This is not SEO, at least not the SEO I practice. Some may reject this carpet bombing approach but subscribe to the idea that a handful of paid directories are worthwhile.

I say save your money.

Paid Link or Paid Listing?

Jack McCoy from Law & Order

Frankly, I’m still a bit irked that Google doesn’t view a paid listing as a paid link. The argument for paid directories is that they provide a certain level of curation that makes them valuable. You’re paying for someone to curate that directory – not for the link. This seems a very thin argument at best, and a bunch of claptrap at worst. Most, if not all, directories are pretty much a free-for-all as long as what you’re submitting isn’t complete spam or off topic. The level of curation is marginal, and I’m being nice.

Not only that, but it comes down to intent. For some reason I hear Jack McCoy yelling ‘intent follows the bullet’. It’s not a perfect analogy, but the general idea is that intent matters. Today, the intent for a directory listing is, quite simply, to secure a back link. So, what exactly is the difference between a paid link and a paid listing? There is none as far as I can tell.

Link Value

REM Out of Time Cover Art

How valuable is that directory link anyway? I’m telling you that the value of these links declines every day. People aren’t using these sites. Newer technologies have replaced directories in the information ecosystem. The closure of the Google Directory should be a wake up call to anyone still clinging to this practice.

TL;DR

Traditional directories are an obsolete method of information discovery. Even if they provide some small benefit today, you’re paying a hefty price to support someone else’s dying business model. Stop PageRank ponzi and invest in the future and yourself instead.

Did You Mean Humor

September 04 2011 // Humor + SEO // 1 Comment

Last week I spent about two days in a WordPress PHP maze of death that, in exasperation, led me to type a cartoon-like expression of frustration into a Google search.

Google Did You Mean Result for Arrrugghghga

And I laughed. Because sure enough Google had four different versions for me to choose from. Four!

We know that Google has a sense of humor. Take the ‘did you mean’ result for recursion.

Google Did You Mean Result for Recursion

That’s right. The ‘did you mean’ result for recursion is … recursion. Clicking on recursion takes you right back to the same page. I’m amused. But don’t try to pay Google a compliment.

Google Did You Mean Result for Compliment

What ‘did you mean’ suggestions have made you laugh?

 

Optimize The Google +1 Button

September 01 2011 // SEO + Social Media // 14 Comments

Last week Google made a major change to the +1 button, allowing users to share a +1 with Circles on Google+. Essentially, the +1 button now has similar functionality to Facebook’s Like button. I’d been procrastinating on Like button optimization so this was the impetus I needed to finally do something about it.

Google +1 Button

Here’s what I did to optimize the Google +1 button. Let me state up front that I am not a coding guru. But I know enough to be dangerous, enjoy tinkering and am not afraid to break my site as I experiment.

I recommend this only for those using a self-hosted WordPress blog.

Speed

When the Google +1 button first came out it was s l o w. It was the last of my buttons to load. But that changed when Google released asynchronous code. If you haven’t made the switch yet, go and get the new code.

Google +1 Button Asynchronous Code

I use the Smart Sharing plugin for my floating share bar. So I just dropped the appropriate code snippets into the ‘Custom Codes’ area. This is really easy. After doing this, the +1 button is often the very first to load.

Placement

Where you put the Google +1 button matters. The floating share bar on this blog, powered by the Smart Sharing plugin, did require a fair amount of CSS customization to display properly. (Thank goodness for Firebug and other sites who use a similar display.) But the customization has been worth it!

It’s not just about where but how many buttons you present. A huge row or drop down full of buttons can cause indecision. Too many choices are bad. So pick the buttons that are meaningful to your audience and use them.

I get far more social engagement with a handful of  floating buttons than a slew of buttons at the top or bottom of the post.

Snippet

Now that speed and placement are taken care of it’s time to optimize the snippet. The snippet is the title, description and image displayed when someone shares your content through a Like or Google +1 button. Controlling what this looks like is important.

Here’s an optimized snippet from this blog.

Optimized Google +1 Button Snippet

And here’s a non-optimized snippet from the Official Google Blog.

Non-Optimized Google +1 Button Snippet

Now, maybe Google can get away with a poor snippet but the rest of us probably can’t.

Structured Markup

Optimizing your snippet means adding some structured markup to your page. This is a lot less complicated than it sounds. In fact, both Facebook and Google are omnivorous and will parse your site looking for any way to cobble together the best snippet.

How Google Populates the Google +1 Snippet

Google recommends using the new Schema.org microdata. But they seem happy to fall back on the more ubiquitous Open Graph protocol (funny how they don’t mention the word Facebook) or normal meta title and description tags. In fact, the only method they don’t recommend is having absolutely no structured markup at all.

Don’t obsess about implementing microdata because Google certainly isn’t.

Most of you probably have the title and description taken care of, but it’s the image that might be causing you some heartburn. In many ways though, that might be the most important part of the snippet. People scan content and a good image is like a stop sign for the eyes.

For a long time Facebook was using my Feedburner chicklet for my snippet image. I got tired of seeing this and created a default image for all of my posts. It wasn’t optimal but at least I didn’t look like a buffoon anymore. Read on to see how I took things to the next level.

Plugins

Like millions of others, I rely on a number of plugins to add features and functionality to my WordPress blog. It’s important that you understand the plugins I’m using since it will impact how you might implement snippet optimization with your own WordPress configuration.

I use the Like plugin to generate my Open Graph tags. It’s worked well, though I may think about doing it myself after going through this process. In general, this plugin is easy to use and efficient. It’s this plugin that allowed me to hard code a default image for my snippet.

I use All In One SEO to optimize title and meta description, among other things. I hear good things about WordPress SEO by Yoast, but haven’t had any real reason to switch. I may eventually, but I use other plugins that may have to be deactivated to take advantage of the full feature set offered.

I tried the Schema for WordPress plugin and admire the effort, but find it too complex and onerous. In addition, I don’t believe it supports the Schema meta tags which is what the Google +1 button seems to want.

How to Customize Your Google +1 Snippet

Frankly, this is part of the problem with the microdata implementation. Do I put it in the head or the body? Or both? It’s almost too flexible.

Custom Field

So, with all those Plugins in place, my main task was to find a way to generate a different image for each post. That’s where a custom field comes in handy. Custom fields sound complicated but they’re actually pretty straight forward. I created a custom field that would contain the URL of the snippet image.

You’ll see the Custom Fields option in your normal Edit Post window.

Enter a new Custom Field

Click ‘Enter new’ and you’ll now be presented with an entry field.

Configuring a Custom Field

Just enter the name of your custom field (I used og_img but you could name is something different) and the value you want to give that custom field for this post and click the ‘Add Custom Field’ button. In this case enter the full URL path of the image you want to use for this post’s snippet in the value field.

This creates that custom field in the database and associates the URL for that custom field for this post. This does not mean that you are assigning this value (this URL) to every post. This is just the way you get the custom field ball rolling.

Custom Fields in Drop Down Menu

Now you’ve got the custom field in place for that post and you can select that custom field from the drop down menu for all other posts from now on.

In fact, that’s how you’ll specify the image snippet for each post moving forward. You only use the ‘Enter new’ to create the custom field. Once created, always select it from the Name drop down menu.

Yes, this means that you’ll be taking one extra step each time you publish a blog post. I see this as a small price to pay for an optimized image snippet and lump it in with writing an optimized title and description. They’re simply part of the publishing process.

Image

The image you use can make or break your snippet. It’s not just about the content of that image but the size of that image. You could have the best, funniest image ever but if it doesn’t translate on social platforms then it’s all for naught. In this case size actually refers to the dimensions of the image.

A square image (e.g. – 300×300) is a safe bet. If you’re not using a square or squarish image then you want to pick vertical rectangles over horizontal rectangles. Obviously, really long vertical rectangles won’t work either. Use commonsense, test and learn as you go.

Image Snippet Size Guide

One other thing to note is that the image you use doesn’t actually have to be in the blog post. I personally think it should, but you can upload any image to use as your image snippet. This might come in handy if you don’t have any images in a post (not recommended) or images that won’t translate onto social platforms (such as a horizontal code screen capture.)

Header Code

Creating the Custom Field only gets you half way there. Then you have to use it within your theme. That means you’ll need to tinker with your header.php file by navigating to Appearance -> Editor -> Header (header.php)

Edit Theme Header

First things first. Copy your entire header.php file into a text file just in case you really screw something up and need to revert back. Just copy everything in that window into your favorite text application.

Next, you want to place the following code into your header.php file between the head tags (<head>, </head>). I recommend placing the code in just before the close (</head>) tag.

<!-- Facebook Open Graph Image -->
<?php if(get_post_meta($post->ID, 'og_img')){ ?>
<meta property="og:image" content="<?php echo get_post_meta($post->ID, 'og_img', $single = true); ?>" />
<?php } else { ?>
<meta property="og:image" content="http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/blind-five-year-old-150x150.png" />
<?php } ?>

This code creates an og:image tag using the image in your custom field (og_img) or, if there is no custom field for that post, will use the default image specified instead. This is essentially the code that starfly describes in this WordPress forum post.

Make sure you change the custom field name appropriately (if you didn’t use og_img as I did) and that you use your own default image instead of mine. The first line of this code is non-functional and is there only to help you identify it amid all the other code.

After you’ve entered this code, click ‘update the file’ and you’re done!

Validation

To test whether it works you can first look at your blog post and view source. Look for the og:image tag and make sure that it’s populating correctly. If that’s not your cup of tea, you can also run your blog post through Facebook’s URL Linter Debugger.

Facebook Debugger Validation Results

Finally, try sharing your post on using the Google +1 and Like buttons and make sure it’s optimized to your liking.

Where’s the Microdata?

I intended to show you how to cover your bases and implement an additional set of microdata in your header. It was going to be pretty darn clever. In fact, I spent two days figuring it all out, cursing PHP and breaking my site for hours on end. Trust me, I want to show it off!

But as I did due diligence on this post the microdata seemed to confuse Facebook and was, overall, just too brittle to use at this point. Honestly, do you really want to maintain two different types of structured markup?

I can see using microdata in other ways, but not for snippet optimization.

Google +1 Button Optimization

Two Birds with One Stone

So, in short, I’m using All In One SEO and the Like plugin along with a Custom Field to generate Open Graph tags that are then used by both Facebook and Google in their button snippets. Two birds with one stone!

I welcome questions on my implementation as well as feedback from others who can improve my code or have found other ways to optimize these snippets.

What Does Google Think Your Site Is About?

August 15 2011 // SEO // 7 Comments

Over the last two and a half years I’ve become convinced that Google performs rich categorization of sites and queries. The signs are plain as day and the impact is substantial. Categorization allows Google to apply algorithmic changes by category as well as deliver more relevant and diverse search results.

Scattergories

Site Categorization

In late 2008 I wrote about how taxonomic search could be used to create diversity in search engine results. Later, In May 2009, Google launched search options that included the ability to filter your results by Forums and Reviews.

Rich Snippets stole the show during this launch but it should have been crystal clear that Google was able to distinguish site or page type. How else would it deliver results in these filters?

Google made this even more transparent when they tested the ability to see more or fewer shopping sites. Obviously Google was able to tell (with relative accuracy) which sites were eCommerce enabled.

You may also come across search results for Q&A sites or forums that include a pseudo-rich snippet which includes the number of posts and authors.

Example of Google Discussion Rich Snippet

This is not structured markup. This isn’t RDFa or microdata. Instead, Google has identified patterns in these sites, extracting the relevant information and creating their own rich snippet. More recently, Google demonstrated that it could determine if a page contained search results.

These are interesting applications but it’s what is at the heart of it all that is really remarkable – the ability to algorithmically identify and categorize a page or site.

Query Categorization

If it were a snake it would have bit you already. Of course Google categorizes queries! You see this when local results are triggered, or when the Onebox is presented. Enter a query that is product based and the Shopping Onebox is likely to appear. Enter a query that is health related and the Health Onebox may appear.

Google Health Onebox

It’s not a matter of if, but how deeply Google categorizes queries.

Matching Queries to Categories

Matching queries to categories can help deliver the right information to users. You can already see this happening as Google changes the left hand search options based on the query.

Google Contextual Navigation for Recipe Queries

You won’t get a Recipes option if you search for ‘baked new jersey’.

Contextual Google Search for Books

You won’t get a Books option if you search for ‘crying of lot 23′.

These examples could be delivered by simply accessing relevant databases of recipes or books, but I’m guessing the relation is far more dynamic.

Matching Documents to Queries

The question then becomes how Google matches web pages (aka documents) to queries. What documents (or results) does Google return based on the query categorization?

A recent patent dissected by Bill Slawski shows how Google might think about matching documents, queries, keywords and categories. It indicates that what Google thinks your site is about could influence how and when it is returned for certain queries.

If you were to take all of that information that Google provides for your site, and try to guess at a category or categories that Google might assign for your site, could you?

That is an interesting question.

Google Ad Planner

One of the unconventional places I’ve looked at recently to give me a sense of what Google might think a site is about is Google Ad Planner.

Google Ad Planner Result for SEO by the Sea

The content categories are usually a mixture of accurate and bizarre, particularly around geography. Now, I’m not saying that the content categories here influence Google’s categorization. But I have found it illuminating to look at Ad Planner results when comparing competitors.

Beyond the content categories are affinity scores for sites also visited and audience interests. The latter is another interesting data point when thinking about how Google might categorize sites.

Google Ad Planner Sites Visited and Audience Interests

The good news is Google has a compelling reason for this data to be accurate (it’s attached to advertising) and the data seems to be updated frequently. As an example, the Ad Planner thumbnail for this blog shows my most recent blog post.

Google Ad Planner Results for Blind Five Year Old

Why Google Ad Planner thinks I’m in Canada is a bit of a mystery. I did do a blog posts about Hockey Memories and The Flyers 1987 Stanley Cup Playoffs, but I’m not in Canada (as lovely a country as it may be.)

Taxonomy within Google Ad Planner

After verifying site ownership you can change your categories, which reveals a fairly robust taxonomy. Is this the same taxonomy Google uses in their algorithm? Probably not. But it might help inform or update the one used for search. So, I’ve gone ahead and changed my categories and description.

It’s in my can’t-hurt-and-might-help category.

TL;DR

Google continues to work on matching categories to queries and queries to web pages to improve search quality. Understanding how your site might be perceived by Google is an important new step in search engine optimization.

Doppelgangers

August 10 2011 // Humor + Life // 3 Comments

I’ve thought about this post for a while but never pulled the trigger. But with the ruckus over names on G+ and the ridiculous Same Name reality show I thought it was finally time to blog about doppelgängers.

Doppelgänger

Merriam-Webster defines doppelgänger as:

1: a ghostly counterpart of a living person 2 a : double 2a  b : alter ego b  c : a person who has the same name as another

The emphasis is mine and I’m using that version of the definition here. It’s easy to find Internet doppelgängers by doing a vanity search on Google or setting up a Google Alert on your name.

So without further ado, let me introduce you to my three doppelgängers. (Who knew I was so talented?)

Pro Freestyle Skateboarder

AJ Kohn co-founded One Skateboard Co and is an accomplished freestyle skateboarder.

AJ Kohn at the 2010 World Championships of Freestyle Skateboarding

The odd thing is we both grew up near Philadelphia. Because of this, every now and again I get a random email from someone looking to reconnect with him. In a few cases it’s been tough for me to persuade them that I’m not that AJ Kohn.

Amateur Baseball Player

AJ Kohn is an infielder on the Plainview Bucks, an amateur baseball team in Minnesota.

Team Photo of Plainview Bucks

I don’t know which one is AJ Kohn, but I do know that he’s the star of the team, batting .424 with 31 hits, 11 runs and 12 RBI.

Marine Biologist

AJ Kohn was the first to report that some cone snails hunt fish by paralyzing them with a powerful neurotoxin. Their sting can even kill people!

Cone Snail

Now Professor Emeritus at University of Washington, he dedicated his professional life to “understanding of the evolutionary processes that have led to high biotic diversity in tropical marine environments.”

Passion

I take great comfort in my doppelgängers because they remind me to be passionate about what I do. Each AJ Kohn followed a passion, whether it be skateboarding, baseball or marine biology. I admire that.

What about your doppelgängers? Find yours and tell me what they’re up to. #doppelgangers

Comment Censorship

August 07 2011 // Rant + Social Media + Technology // 14 Comments

In the past month I’ve left a number of comments on blogs only to find they were never published.

Fry Meme Spam or Blog Censorship

I’d like to believe that the blog owners simply didn’t see my comment. That it fell into their spam queue which they rarely, if ever, look at. Because the alternative is that they saw the post and decided to suppress it. Now, it’s their blog – their little corner of the Internet – but this type of censorship is troubling.

Comments Content

What about the content of my comments? To be fair, in some instances I was disagreeing with some or all of the content in that post. But I did so in a constructive manner, using links to my own thoughts on the topic or to other material to help round out my argument.

I regularly publish comments on this blog that are contrary to my own opinion. One only has to look at the comments on my Stop Writing For People post for examples. I’m free to respond and defend myself, but having the debate in the open is important. It builds trust, much like having bad reviews on a product is actually a good thing.

Comments are incredibly valuable because they provide additional information on the content. They make your content better through clarification, confirmation, addition and debate.

Comments = Content.

Comments are a rich source of meta information that deliver value to both readers and search engines. This extends to links as well! Relevant links in comments help create a web of information that users now and in the future will find useful.

Yet it is those links that may be at the root of the problem.

Comment Spam

It’s like the Internet version of a plague of locusts. One of the most popular ways to combat comment spam is to screen comments that have links. This is one of the default setting in Akismet.

It makes sense since many spammers will drop a link or links in comments. But links are not the problem. Spammers are the problem.

What’s wrong with contextual links to relevant content? This is not behavior that should be penalized. In fact, it should be encouraged. In many ways, the comment spam problem threatens the link graph.

ratio of comment spam to real comments

Not only that but, anecdotally, it seems that comment spam sometimes pushes people to disable comments altogether. When the ratio of comment spam to real comments is too high, many simply give up. I understand the decision but it’s depressing that it gets to that point.

Outsourcing

Fed up with comment spam and general comment management, have we decided to outsource engagement to social networks? Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google+ are all happy to provide venues in which comments can flourish. Make no mistake, these venues understand the value of comments.

Is our obsession with amplification and generating social proof robbing us of the real value of comments and conversation? Certainly there is some hope that it’s like a rubber band. The content goes out, but then snaps back, drawing more comments to your content. It works to a certain extent, but by how much and at what cost is an interesting debate.

The Filter Bubble

Of course these bloggers may have seen my comment and simply decided not to publish it. Eli Pariser argues that personalization and ‘invisible algorithmic editing’ as a real danger but I think comment censorship (whether intentional or accidental) is the true menace.

I believe much of the hype around the filter bubble is FUD. Personalization is rather minimal in most cases though I do agree with Gabriel Weinberg’s view of how to deal with personalization.

Personalization is not a black and white feature. It doesn’t have to be on or off. It isn’t even one-dimensional. At a minimum users should know which factors are being used and at best they should be able to choose which factors are being used, to what degree and in what contexts.

Personalization deals with the fact that some content isn’t being made readily visible. Comment censorship excises content from the Internet altogether.

Identity

So what could help get us out of this morass? How can we ensure comments are once again a vital part of the content ecosystem? Identity.

Identity

The reason why many embraced Facebook comments was because comments are attached to an identity. Not only that, but an identity that people cared about. This obviates the need for aggressive moderation. You might run into a troll, but it’ll be a troll you can clearly identify and block.

Identity essentially stops comment spam because you can’t post as Best Miami Attorneys. Comment moderation is suddenly manageable again.

Censorship

A commenting system that uses identity removes most of the uncertainty around comment censorship. If my comment isn’t published, it’s likely because that blogger made an active decision to toss it into the HTML version of The Bermuda Triangle.

Cat Censors Blog Comments

If the filter bubble can be managed through making personalization transparent, so too can comment censorship. A third-party, identity-backed comment system could track the number of comments censored on each blog. A grade or score could then be shown to let users know how much of the conversation was being censored. In some ways it would be like Charity Navigator but for blogs.

So perhaps the blogger who touts the benefits of community actually censors 32% of blog comments. That might be an interesting thing to know.

Could this get messy? Sure. But you can build a system of checks and balances.

Reputation

Bad Reputation by Joan Jett

Joan Jett might not care about her bad reputation but you should. Whether it’s a thumbs-up, thumbs-down, number of Likes, sentiment analysis, length of comments, spelling and grammar or other metrics, a savvy comment system could begin to assign reputation to each user.

So the censorship percentage wouldn’t be flat in nature. If you blocked a known troll, no worries. If you censored someone who had a history of abusive comments full of foul language, no problem.

On the other hand, it would be disturbing if you censor someone who consistently adds value to conversations. The reputation of those you censor would matter.

Confidence

I’d like to be confident that I’m not missing good comments that wind up going into spam.

I’d like to be confident that if I take the time and effort to comment on a blog that it will be published and, hopefully, spark further comment and conversation.

I’d like to be confident that the comments I read are not biased and simply a form of self-curated cheerleading.

“Confidence is contagious. So is lack of confidence.” – Vince Lombardi

The Internet desperately needs more confidence.

Inside Google’s Search Office

August 04 2011 // SEO // 16 Comments

I had the opportunity to attend last night’s Churchill Club event held at the Computer History Museum that brought together Amit Singhal, Ben Gomes and Matt Cutts.

Amit Singhal, Ben Gomes and Matt Cutts at The Churchill Club

Inside Google’s Search Office marked the first time the three have appeared together. If that wasn’t enough, the event was moderated by Danny Sullivan who is both incredibly smart about search and a gifted moderator.

For someone who follows search closely, this was a can’t miss event. Thanks to Rick Bucich (who also helped this introvert mingle) for the heads up on the event.

This was not an SEO conference or event. Very few in the audience were hoping to capture that ‘gotcha’ moment. Instead, we were given a more human look at how these three Googlers think and feel about their work.

Passion

All clearly have a passion for search. Amit, in particular, was animated and visibly enthusiastic about the subject matter, at times perched on the edge of his seat as he told a story or answered a question. Matt was his usual self, mixing down-to-earth advice with a goofy sense of humor. Ben, the most reserved of the bunch, lit up when talking about specific challenges faced and overcome.

I saw Amit bristle at the idea that AdWords spending influences organic search. I watched Matt grimace at the mention of Eli Pariser’s Filter Bubble and the conclusion that Google was doing something untoward in personalizing results. These things generate a response because they care.

What they care most about is doing right by the user. This often sounds trite or contrived. Some claim that this altruistic goal is just a facade for greed. But I don’t think any of them would dispute that Google prospers when they do right by the user. They strongly believe that one leads to the other.

As an aside, I’m not sure who would win a gesticulation war between Matt and Amit.

Testing

We all know that Google does a tremendous amount of testing. Amit described the process Google goes through in approving an algorithm update. It reminded me a bit of Schoolhouse Rock’s How a Bill Becomes a Law.

Schoolhouse Rock Bill on Steps

Many changes are tested but only a few make it through the entire process and result in an algorithm update. Based on the ballpark numbers mentioned (20,000 changes and 500 updates), less than 3% of the tests result in an algorithm change.

Relevance

One of the things I’ve written about previously is the subjectivity of relevance and quality. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. This was the first time I heard Google address this issue head on. While they believe that their scientific method allows them to come closer to an objective relevance they know it won’t be perfect.

Matt talked about the fact that each algorithm update will make some certain amount of queries better but some much smaller amount of queries worse. The idea that each algorithm update will only have beneficial results is … fantasy.

The Needs of the Many Outweigh The Needs of the Few

I’ll paraphrase another quote referenced by Danny and Ben. Two humans will agree on relevance only 80% of the time. If you looked at that same result a year later, you may not agree with yourself, let alone someone else. The implication (one I happen to agree with) is that relevance is a moving target.

These statements showed a humility that I had previously found lacking. Google should rightly be proud of having the best search algorithm on the planet, but it was refreshing to hear them admit that it was an imperfect work-in-progress. Google is on the cutting edge of this field and they continue to work (hard) at getting it right.

Speed

Speed was a central theme in the discussion of search innovation. It got me thinking more about measuring quality and relevance based on the amount of time it took from query to click.

Obviously Google has worked to reduce that time through Google Instant and, most recently, Instant Pages. But might Google score search results on how quickly they satisfied query intent? That doesn’t mean the user clicked on the first result, it simply means that the results presented yielded the best user result as measured in time to productive click.

Think about that for a moment. Is Google less concerned with getting rank right and more concerned with optimizing for quick knowledge transfer? Clearly having the right listings at or near the top matters, but perhaps a combination of listings is most effective. We focus on the percentage of clicks by rank, but that may not be the dominant metric Google is using.

Social

Google seems both excited and cautious about how it integrates and uses social signals. Amit reduced social to ‘who knows who and about what.’ But there’s a lot more to be done here and identity is clearly on their mind as a way to strengthen this signal.

Google Plus Logo

In addition, I believe Google is a bit stunned at the quick adoption rate of Google+. I’m not saying they didn’t think it would be successful, but it feels like they didn’t expect these types of numbers. At this stage, I think they’d like G+ users to take a breath and provide them some time to iterate.

Googlers

This was also a fun event for me because I met a few more Googlers. I got to talk with Sagar Kamgar and Jeremy Hylton about rel=”author” and how it may change moving forward, met Jim Haljun and chatted briefly with both Amit and Ben. And I was happy to reconnect with Matt after missing him at this year’s SMX West.

I’m not a Google apologist. I think my writing makes that clear. But I find it difficult to stomach claims that Googlers are elitist liars who feed the SEO community misinformation. This irritates me because nearly all the Googlers I’ve met (online and in person) have been smart, friendly and very generous with their time.

Future

Fancy Feast Cat Food

Amit and Matt both shared their visions for the future of search. In five years Amit would like to see search behaving more like the ship’s computer on Star Trek. He’s keen on voice search and the growing impact of mobile devices.

Matt’s vision was limited to the next few years where the use of geo-location, mobile devices and other contextual data could allow Google to prompt users. Matt would never forget to pick up cat food again! He’d also like the voice to text ability to be refined so he can respond to email on his drive home. “That shouldn’t be that hard. I’ll file a bug when I get home.”

Beyond these predictions I was caught up in their passion and reminded of why I love search: it’s full of amazingly talented people with inquisitive minds working on something that is constantly evolving.