Skip to content


Even Google says Google UK sucks

So there’s been a lot of talk about .com domains appearing in Google UK results over on Matt Cutts’ blog recently. Personally I’ve definitely noticed some very poor results from Google UK over the last few months, quite often seeing .au, .nz, .ca, quite a lot of irrelevant results from Indian .org and .com domains, and even .gov.jm (Jamaican) results.

Something seems to be scarily wrong with Google’s local algorithms, at least for the UK – Matt’s assurances that this is a .com boost or an unrelated experiment simply don’t wash as far as I can see. So much so that even Google reports a problem with Google UK…

The chart below shows Google Trends search data from searches originating in the UK, for searches including the keyword [uk]. This is commonly appended to searches when users don’t find what they’re looking for on the first try – for example [car rental uk]. People may even do this more often than clicking the “results from the UK” radio button.

uk-trends

It seems pretty clear that at some point in late March, something happened that caused searches including the term ‘uk’ to rise sharply, and this is backed up by the more detailed data at Google Insights. Not having noticed much jingoism in the last 6 months or so, I can’t think of much else that might have caused this – especially since seaches have been declining steeply for the past 5 years.

So is Google’s own data revealing a flaw in their algorithm or what?

Posted in seo.

Caffeine Update & AJAX results

google-beansThere’s been a lot of buzz around Google’s recent announcement of the upcoming ‘Caffeine’ update to its search engine. Some coverage has been insightful of Google’s move towards the real-time web, and of course some of it has been woefully misinformed (as noted elsewhere).

However, almost nobody (bar a lone commenter on Matt Cutts’ blog) has seemed to mention the fact that Google Caffeine appears to serve AJAX results by default, at least in Firefox (oddly not Chrome or IE7 though).

caffeine-ajax

Google has played around with AJAX results before, to some criticism over the potential effect on web analytics of removing keyword data from the referrer string. However it appears Google has done some work on this, and every AJAX result in the Caffeine SERPs is redirected through a URL that sends the required referrer information, as shown below:

http-headers-2

This referrer string was talked about on the Google Analytics blog back in April, notable for including the &cd= parameter, which tallies exactly with the ranking of the result clicked on.

So if this is rolled out along with Caffeine’s other changes to Google’s foundations, could this spell the beginning of the end of automated rank checking? I suspect it probably will in the long run.

It’s a logical direction for Google to go in, as it’s one of the longest standing issues with the accuracy of their search data. If Google could stop rank checking bots tomorrow, I doubt they would, because from an advertising perspective, the volume of their impressions for competitive terms could drop dramatically, and advertisers may start spending less on AdWords. For this reason, a soft-launch that slowly begins to disrupt rank checkers makes sense.

However, with Google’s increasing focus on conversions and CPA models, the volume of impressions becomes less important while at the same time the accuracy of their historical search data becomes far more important. If Google can show stronger correlations between impressions, CTR and ultimately conversion rates, they can legitimately charge more for their ads, and advertisers will be happy to spend more as their profit margin increases.

So where does this leave SEOs in a world without rank checkers? Well, most experienced SEOs have been banging on about conversions for years, and SEO’s close correlation with usability, accessibility, information architecture and ultimately findability makes us pretty well placed in a world without rank checking. I suspect Google will add after the fact ranking data to Google Analytics, and there’s already some fantastic data available through Webmaster Tools. I think as an industry we need to start working towards claiming the field of conversion optimisation for ourselves, before others such as the paid search lot, or other online marketing departments with less expertise in this area start claiming it for themselves.

Posted in seo.

Multiple indents for generic terms in Google

Just noticed this while searching for [digital camera] in Google UK. With &filter=0 and &num=100 I can see ~200 Amazon product results. Other ‘brands’ also seem to be getting large numbers of indented results, which seems odd for such a generic, highly competitive phrase.

digital-camera-google-searchSeems weird to me, especially with relation to the recent Vince “change” – anyone else seen this kind of behaviour?

Posted in seo.

Google using breadcrumbs in SERPs

Just came across a very interesting Google search result which used breadcrumb data in the URL area – shown in the screenshot below. Very interesting implications beyond just the display here – it proves that Google is reading and understanding breadcrumb data. Weirdly in both examples below, the page title structure reflects the breadcrumb structure quite closely.

motability

If you’re not already using breadcrumbs in your website architecture, now’s the time to start adding them…

Posted in seo.

Valid HTML is bad SEO

I’ve been amazed at how many SEO firms I’ve seen recently touting “W3C valided HTML” as one of their core SEO recommendations – a fundamental misconception I thought had disappeared years ago.

It’s an easy mistake to make, but linking it directly with SEO is plain wrong, bad advice for SEOs to be giving to their clients, and gives our industry a bad name. Why is it bad advice? Consider the cost to an enterprise client such as Amazon (1,451 home page errors) of implementing W3C validated HTML throughout their website, and then consider the following:

Search engines index the majority of their content by parsing HTML files, so there is a link between parseable code and efficient indexing (and therefore ranking). However, parseable HTML is not the same as W3C validated HTML. This is an important distinction, illustrated in the examples below:

<br> <– Not valid in xHTML 1.0 Transitional, easily parseable

<a href=”http://www.example.com/” Link to example.com></a> <– Not valid HTML, easily parseable, will not pass any anchor text, you won’t see it in your browser

<META name=”keywords” content=”useless tag” /> <– Fully parseable, invalid HTML 4.01, invalid xHTML 1.0

<p <a href={example.com}> <h1 Cheap flights</p> <– Completely unparseable, completely invalid, you won’t even see the text in your browser.

From the examples above, a general rule of thumb might be, if you can see it in a text browser (such as Lynx), it’s more than likely it can be parsed by search engines, regardless of the HTML’s W3C validity.

Another reason why W3C validated HTML is not an SEO recommendation is shown in the code example below:

<p>Cheap Flights</p>
<h1>We fly to destinations across the globe from London to New York, and offer the best service from check-in to your destination</h1>

Now that’s clearly valid HTML, but what SEO would say that’s a good, optimised snippet of HTML? The W3C validator tool cannot check for semantic validity, which is far more important for SEO.

I knocked up a script to prove this to those who still aren’t convinced. The charts below show the number of HTML errors in the W3C validator on the y-axis, with the Google natural positions along the x-axis. Continued…

Posted in seo. Tagged with , , .