search engines
Duplicated Confusion: The Canonical Edict From The Big Three
So virtually everyone has weighed in on the new instructions from Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. Apparently there should be joy in the cesspool today – the search gods have shown us the way to clean up part of the confusion with canonical pages in our industry.
Okay, I know that sounds a little cynical, but like the no follow tag from a few years ago – it falls upon the web site owners to clean up the search engines’ databases. Many knowledgeable site owners have already done a lot of this work in one form or another – though users of most dynamic sites have had a problem with multiple urls pointing to the same content (the same page really arrived at through different urls).
Interestingly even the engines themselves seem to have different views on what this new tag means. If you read the three announcements you could almost be excused for thinking they were describing different things.
Yahoo wins the most confusing explanation, while Google adds art that really adds little unless you need visuals of the same page with different text pointing to it – but does do a decent job of simplifying the instructions, but Microsoft does it briefly and clearly then tells us they will be implementing it “sometime in the near future.”
It sort of reflects the positions each has in the search space. Google with their monster share see us as children, Yahoo as number two tries harder, while Microsoft gives it the same attention it gives to its flagging search percentage – short but sweet.
To be fair Yahoo may offer the most thorough explanation (you just may have to read it a couple of times) and points out a caution “if URL A marks B as canonical, and B marks C as canonical, we’ll treat C as canonical for both A and B, though we will break infinite chains and other issues.”
Interestingly, if they had published a shared announcement they would have given an example of what many people think of when they hear the term duplicate content – the same copy/text/content on different websites. This is not about that issue.
It can, however act as a 301 redirect within a domain – good for removing those www.domain, domain.com, domain.com/index.html etc problems, but not from one domain to another domain
However, this tag “defines a relationship between a document and an external resource” as Microsoft states. The fact that they are calling it a link tag scares me a little, just like the no follow one did when it came out.
People are going to get this wrong, just like they did the no follow and it will dramatically impact sites. But, I suppose we can feel okay because none of the engines have committed to using it 100%.
Google has already stated there will be penalties for anyone using it to game their results.
Thanks should go to Vanessa Fox for a solid interpretation “this tag will only work with very similar or identical content, so you can’t use it to send all of the link value from the less important pages of your site to the more important ones.
If tags conflict (such as pages point to each other as canonical, the URL specified as canonical redirects to a non-canonical version, or the page specified as canonical doesn’t exist), search engines will sort things out just as they do now, and will determine which URL they think is the best canonical version.”
Kudos to Joost de Valk for his same day roll out of plugins for WordPress, Drupal and Magento E-Commerce. He did have a few days advanced notice but the effort will be much appreciated by many.
There have been a bunch of posts about this, so mine is just another, and comments throughout Twitter. I am not as enthusiastic as Rand Fishkin who sees it as “the most important advancement in SEO since sitemaps.” Guess I would be closer to Mikkel deMib’s view posted on Twitter. “The new canonical tag is like adding a cheap layer of pain to a crappy car. Sorry guys, it doesn’t make the car much better!”
It will be interesting to get more opinions on all this next week at SES London.
Yahoo! to Charge Developers for BOSS; Releases Structured Data
Yahoo! has announced that they will begin charging developers for their use of BOSS. It won’t take effect until sometime in the second quarter at the earliers. They also won’t be charging for the first 10,000 API calls per day (depending on the call).
Yahoo! is also releasing SearchMonkey structured data to BOSS developers. Yahoo! gets this data by crawling microformats and RDF, which include embedded semantic markup. Now, API users can access this data.
BOSS was launched last year and it gives web developers the ability to build search engines for websites using Yahoo’s search technology.
SearchMonkey was also launched last year to let site owners develop custom listings for search results. So far, several of these listings (aka apps) have been set to default in Yahoo’s listings including Yelp, LinkedIn, and Wikipedia.
Nielson Online Releases January 2009 Search Engine Share Rankings
Google experience 40% year-over-year growth in the number of searches in January 2009, according to Nielsen Online. Live Search experienced 18% year-over-year growth, but gained 2 percentage points over last month. Yahoo! grew a modest 8.7% year-over year, while the overall growth for all search engines was 27.5%.
UK Media and SEO Blogs are Buzzing about SES London
If you are on the brink of the verge of the edge of going to SES London 2009 next week, check out the buzz in the UK Media and SEO blogs about next week’s must-attend event, which will be held at the Business Design Centre, 52 Upper Street, Islington, from Feb. 17 to Feb. 20.
Kevin Gibbons of SEOoptimize has written a quick post entitled, “5 reasons to attend SES London 2009,” about why this is “one of the search conferences you should definitely consider attending this year.”
And read Duncan Bloor’s post, “Search Engine Strategies London ’09,” in CutTheMustard. He writes, “Apart from a lack of American buzz and razzamataz, the UK show is set to impress with substantial speakers and details released yesterday of an SEO ’round table’ event on day two where businesses, SEO’ers and anyone else with a vested interest in ranking highly on the search engines can access industry leaders thoughts and opinions.” Don’t worry, Duncan. American buzz and razzamataz is on the way.
Microsoft Advertising’s Mel Carson conducted an interview of Matt McGowan from Search Engine Strategies for Media Week’s DigiTales Blog. There’s even an incentive for reading the interview in these lean economic times. Hint, hint. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.
Or, check out Kasumi DeMarco’s “Amanda Watlington Interview for SES London 2009” in Kasumi’s sexy SEO blog. Although Kasumi started blogging on the theme “sex sells,” she’s discovered that Search Engine Optimisation helps you get noticed, too. Who knew?
And Lyndon Antcliff (aka Lyndoman) will be covering SES London 2009 this year for Cornwallseo.com. He writes, “My intention is to interview interesting people and get them to say interesting things. I will use my trusty mp3 recorder and microphone to squeeze juicy comments out of attendees. Mostly I am interested in the theme of how social media marketing is changing the online marketing world.”
Next, read Bas van den Beld ‘s post in Searchcowboys.com, entitled, “Exclusive: SES opens its doors in Amsterdam.” Yes, SES Amsterdam will be held for the first time. Nevertheless, the Searchcowboys will also be covering SES London 2009 as well as informing attendees, speakers, and exhibitors about their event in Holland on March 16 and 17, 2009.
And now for something completely different….The Yanks are coming! (I’m pretty sure you’ve heard that one before.)
Read Virginia Nussey’s “Six Questions with Greg Jarboe” on the Bruceclay.com SEO Blog. Virginia twists my arm and gets me to divulge the SES London sessions that I don’t want to miss. She also tricks me into revealing where people can catch up with me. Don’t you just hate it when that happens.
SEW Experts: Users and Search Engines Want the Same Things
Optimizing your site for users is just as important as optimizing your site for search engines. In today’s small business search engine marketing column, “Users and Search Engines Want the Same Things,” Carrie Hill explains that, while those are two very different things, you can often serve both audiences by being smart with your Web site development.
Serious About Local: GetListed.org
Need to get your small business better ranked on the search engines and don’t know how? Well there is a tool out there now that will give you help – and it’s free.
Pat Sexton and David Mihm have joined forces to help small businesses get better listed locally in the search engines with the launch of GetListed.org.
The tool checks how well your site is optimized for local placement in the search engines. It runs a placement test in Yahoo, Google and Microsoft Local as well as the Best of the Web Local Directory. They concentrated on these as they did not want to swamp people with unknown sites, Pat Sexton told me. “We have been approached by others but are staying with the ones we have for the moment,” he added.
The system allows you to see any errors in your listings which is handy, as well as any reviews that exist out there.positive or negative.
The site has been well received since its launch – small business blogs have helped push the information out, Sexton noted. “We got out to a lot of real small business people already so we are happy.”
While only connected for the US – at the moment – they will be launching in Canada, the UK and Australia in the near future. Other countries and languages are slated for later integration.
“There was a lot of small businesses getting screwed by services that cost way too much,” Sexton said. Not anymore Pat – great job – am sure this one becomes an overnight hit.
Google Holds, Yahoo Gains Search Ad Share in Q4 2008, According to Efficient Frontier
Efficient Frontier has released a search engine advertising report for the fourth quarter of 2008. They found that Google held onto its 76% market share while Yahoo gained 3%.
Here are additional trends they found:
- Large vs. Small Advertisers: Small advertisers in the U.S. accounted for a greater decrease in search advertising spend than larger, more established brands. Advertisers spending less than $50,000 per month cut spending by 23 percent year-over-year, with many of the cuts coming between Q3 and Q4 of 2008. Companies that spent more than $200,000 per month only reduced spending by 9 percent over the same time period. These margins are typical during a recession when larger, more sophisticated brands aggressively utilize the search channel to drive revenue and sales while strengthening their position.
- Overall Impression Trends: Overall impressions for search engines are down 6 percent year-over-year. From Q4 2007 to Q4 2008, Google experienced a 3 percent decrease, while Yahoo lost 13 percent impression volume. Microsoft Live garnered 21 percent more impressions in Q4 than in Q3 2008 and gained 18 percent more impressions year-over-year.
- Click-Through Rate Trends: Overall click-through-rates (CTRs) in search were relatively flat year-over-year, gaining only 2 percent. While Microsoft Live Search had higher CTRs than all other search engines from Q1 to Q3 of 2008, it dipped below Google Search in Q4 2008. Google Search CTRs decreased by 2 percent year-over-year, while Yahoo CTRs improved 3 percent year-over-year. Google Content CTRs increased 150 percent year-over-year.
- Cost-Per-Click Highlights: Overall search cost-per-click (CPC) is down 5 percent year-over-year. In the last quarter of 2008, Google Search’s CPC declined by 8 percent, while Microsoft Live Search declined by 3 percent and Yahoo Search declined by 1 percent. Microsoft Live Search has consistently maintained a higher CPC than all other search engines, indicating that advertisers are willing to pay a premium for a high quality, albeit smaller audience.
Here are some niche-related findings:
- Automotive: 15 percent decline in spending over 2007, due primarily to lower impression volume, reflecting weakness in consumer demand.
- Finance: 25 percent decline in spend over 2007, with impressions up by 5 percent reflecting high customer demand for financial services, with but fewer qualified conversions.
- Retail: 9 percent increase in spend over 2007, reflecting the strength of the channel in price comparison and shopping efficiency, particularly for more established online brands that increased spend to reach revenue goals.
- Travel and Entertainment: 24 percent decrease in spend year-over year, primarily due to reduced traffic volume, which is down in by 18 percent in the sector year-over-year.
“Search engine marketing remains the most accountable sales and client acquisition channel on or offline,” said James Beriker, President and CEO of Efficient Frontier. “To continue to achieve stellar results, the current recession has made it even more critical for search marketers to know their metrics and manage campaigns based on actionable market, sales funnel and conversion data. The reason we work with more than 150 of the most sophisticated search marketers in 20 markets worldwide, and manage more spend than any other firm, is that we use math to automate the process of accurately modeling data and making the right overall strategy and keyword bidding decisions to deliver optimal performance, no matter the market dynamics.”
Related Reading:
Online Display Ad Pricing Drops in Q4 2008
AdGooroo Releases Q4 2008 Search Advertising Data
Paid Search Spend up 12% in Q4 2008
Search Engine Share Remains Flat Month-Over-Month in December 2008, According to comScore
comScore has released its December 2008 search engine share rankings. Despite a 3% increase in overall searches, the share among the search engines changed little from November.
12.7 billion core searches were conducted in December, with Google seeing 8 billion of them:
Related Reading:
Online Video Views for November 2008 Up 34% Year Over Year
Paid Search Spend up 12% in Q4 2008
Top U.S. Ad Networks, November 2008
SEW Experts: Are Rankings Still Relevant?
Are we heading toward an age where site ranking doesn’t matter? By incorporating searcher behavior into their algorithms, search engines are no longer serving the same results to everyone. In today’s SEM agency issues column, “Are Rankings Still Relevant?,” William Flaiz wonders if search marketers have been relying on rankings as a crutch, when we should have been looking at the bottom lines.
Reciprocal Links And Yahoo: Some Interesting Reading
Okay I would not have bothered to read Yahoo’s latest patent on reciprocal links if it were not for two blog posts by Bill Slawski and David Harry. These guys thankfully can interpret patent details in a way that does not make my head spin and explode.
I mean look at the abstract of Timothy Converse et al application:
“A method for identifying reciprocal links is provided. At a particular host, the set of hosts which link to the particular host and the set of hosts to which the particular host links are determined. The intersection and union of the two sets of hosts are also determined, and the sizes of the intersection and union are calculated. The concentration of reciprocal links at the particular host is calculated based on the sizes of the intersection and union. A ratio of the intersection size to the union size is used to determine the concentration of reciprocal links. The particular host’s rank in a list of ranked search results may be changed as a result of identification of a high concentration of reciprocal links. “
David gets the nod for the most entertaining read – he even includes a cartoon – while detailing how the excess reciprocal links are spotted and flagged. Explaining three way link schemes and “suspicious clusters”.
Bill, on the other hand, gets the tip of the hat for his detail in simplifying various link related patents; taking the jargon and explaining it in terms even I can understand.
He notes – as does David – that:
“If the links between pages (or domains or hosts) is a small percentage of the links on each page or domain or host, the process described in this patent filing may not kick off. I say “kick off” because this is an automated process rather than a manual review at this point.
If the percentage of links is larger than than, a number of steps might be taken by the search engine.
The sites might be reviewed manually by “human investigators” or they might be examined by a program from the search engine that has been trained to look for signals of suspicious activity.”
Both articles should be read, despite the fact that they address much similar ground. With their different ways of explaining by the time you are done you will have a firm grasp of the state of reciprocal links as seen by the major search engines, Yahoo in particular.
Thanks guys!
Comments