Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Google Places Is Over, Company Makes Google+ The Center Of Gravity For Local Search
When Google+ and Google+ Pages for business were introduced a little less than a year ago many people in the local search arena began anticipating the day when Google would merge or integrate Google Places and Google+ Pages. Well, today is that day.
Google Places pages have been entirely replaced by new Google+ Local pages. As of this morning roughly 80 million Google Place pages worldwide have been automatically converted into 80 million Google+ Local pages, according to Google’s Marissa Mayer. It’s a dramatic change (for the better) though it will undoubtedly disorient some users and business owners.
(See our related Google+ specific coverage, New Google+ Local Tab Unveiled, Will Replace Google Places, at Marketing Land.)
A Range Of Changes Implemented
Here’s a brief overview of what’s new and what’s changing:
* The substitution of the new Google+ Local pages (as mentioned) for Google Places pages
* The appearance of a “Local” tab within Google+
* The integration and free availability of Zagat reviews (its entire archive across categories)
* The integration of Google+ Local pages across Google properties (search, Maps, mobile)
* Integration of a circles filter to find reviews/recommendations from friends/family/colleagues
Static Places now give way to more dynamic Google+ Local pages. Google’s star ratings are also being replaced by the Zagat 30-point rating scale (for user reviews as well).
For details please visit to: http://searchengineland.com/google-places-is-over-company-makes-google-the-center-of-gravity-for-local-search-122770
Google Places pages have been entirely replaced by new Google+ Local pages. As of this morning roughly 80 million Google Place pages worldwide have been automatically converted into 80 million Google+ Local pages, according to Google’s Marissa Mayer. It’s a dramatic change (for the better) though it will undoubtedly disorient some users and business owners.
(See our related Google+ specific coverage, New Google+ Local Tab Unveiled, Will Replace Google Places, at Marketing Land.)
A Range Of Changes Implemented
Here’s a brief overview of what’s new and what’s changing:
* The substitution of the new Google+ Local pages (as mentioned) for Google Places pages
* The appearance of a “Local” tab within Google+
* The integration and free availability of Zagat reviews (its entire archive across categories)
* The integration of Google+ Local pages across Google properties (search, Maps, mobile)
* Integration of a circles filter to find reviews/recommendations from friends/family/colleagues
Static Places now give way to more dynamic Google+ Local pages. Google’s star ratings are also being replaced by the Zagat 30-point rating scale (for user reviews as well).
For details please visit to: http://searchengineland.com/google-places-is-over-company-makes-google-the-center-of-gravity-for-local-search-122770
Friday, March 23, 2012
How Google's Semantic Search Will Change SEO
While the SEO game has changed drastically over the past months, one thing has remained fairly consistent: It’s been driven by keywords — keywords in your URL structure, your META tagging, your content, your links. Whatever way you slice it, keywords are everywhere in SEO.
Even among Google’s most recent algorithm updates — Panda, Search Plus Your World and Venice, to name a few — keywords remained relatively unscathed. But the upcoming update to move Google to semantic search technology, according to top Google Search executive Amit Singhal, is adding a whole new element to the game: the human element.
What Is Semantic Search?
Semantic search uses artificial intelligence in order to understand the searcher’s intent and the meaning of the query rather than parsing through keywords like a dictionary. When you search now, Google gives you results based solely on the text and the keywords that you put in that search. Essentially, Google gives you its best guess.
When you use semantic search, Google will dive into the relationship between those words, how they work together, and attempt to understand what those words mean. Google will understand that “their” and “they’re” has two different meanings and when “New” and “York” are placed together, it changes the meaning.
When you use semantic search, Google will dive into the relationship between those words, how they work together, and attempt to understand what those words mean. Google will understand that “their” and “they’re” has two different meanings and when “New” and “York” are placed together, it changes the meaning.
Semantic search isn’t a new concept. As early as 2008, search engines were popping up that focus on natural language over keywords. But we’re really only taking notice now because of Google. And Google is really only taking notice because of Siri and Google’s response to Siri, Google Assistant, which will be out on Android devices later this year.
The Knowledge Graph
The support system of this semantic search will be Google’s Knowledge Graph, a conglomerate of information aimed to answer possible queries that people will be searching for. Not only will Google understand what is being searched, Knowledge Graph will aim to give you more contextual information about it, not just a list of 10 other websites that could answer that question for you.
What Does It Mean for SEO?
Keywords are easy to manipulate; intent, not so much. In order to rank well in semantic search, you don’t just have to put your keywords in the right places, you have to figure out the actual meaning behind those keywords and create content around that specifically. That puts more emphasis on your keyword research.
When people search, they aim to answer a question. They just search in the truncated version of that question. Keyword research is largely data-driven around the popularity of the terms in their question. Keyword research in semantic search will have to focus on what that person actually means when searching for that keyword.
For example: Yoga. What could people mean they search “yoga?”
* What is yoga?
* The different types of yoga
* How to do different yoga positions
* The best fit of yoga pants
* Yoga exercise videos
The possibilities are endless. When you’re framing your content in a semantic search world, it has to be around answering the specific questions people have as it relates to that keyword. With every sentence you write, ask yourself: How does this answer the searcher’s question? You will have to focus on the natural language even if those users are still focusing on keywords.
With Knowledge Graph, Google will now be answering questions itself, instead of relying on another website to provide the information. (You’re probably already seeing some of this in action.) So, not only will you have to be competing with companies for ranking, exposure and clicks in Google, but you’re competing against Google itself. And users aren’t going to leave something familiar like a result page to go to a website they’ve never heard of before.
What do you think? Will semantic search provide better results for users? Will it seriously disrupt the way brands engage in search engine marketing? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Keywords are easy to manipulate; intent, not so much. In order to rank well in semantic search, you don’t just have to put your keywords in the right places, you have to figure out the actual meaning behind those keywords and create content around that specifically. That puts more emphasis on your keyword research.
When people search, they aim to answer a question. They just search in the truncated version of that question. Keyword research is largely data-driven around the popularity of the terms in their question. Keyword research in semantic search will have to focus on what that person actually means when searching for that keyword.
For example: Yoga. What could people mean they search “yoga?”
* What is yoga?
* The different types of yoga
* How to do different yoga positions
* The best fit of yoga pants
* Yoga exercise videos
The possibilities are endless. When you’re framing your content in a semantic search world, it has to be around answering the specific questions people have as it relates to that keyword. With every sentence you write, ask yourself: How does this answer the searcher’s question? You will have to focus on the natural language even if those users are still focusing on keywords.
With Knowledge Graph, Google will now be answering questions itself, instead of relying on another website to provide the information. (You’re probably already seeing some of this in action.) So, not only will you have to be competing with companies for ranking, exposure and clicks in Google, but you’re competing against Google itself. And users aren’t going to leave something familiar like a result page to go to a website they’ve never heard of before.
What do you think? Will semantic search provide better results for users? Will it seriously disrupt the way brands engage in search engine marketing? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Google plans to penalize 'overly optimized' sites
A Google engineer says the company is rejiggering its search results so that sites with excessive optimization don't trump sites with solid content.
Google is planning to penalize sites that overuse search-engine-optimization techniques, according to a report.
Barry Schwartz over at Search Engine Land has posted an audio clip from a panel discussion at the recent South by Southwest confab, in which Google engineer Matt Cutts discusses the plans.
In search results, Google wants to "level the playing field" regarding "all those people doing, for lack of a better word, over optimization or overly SEO--versus those making great content and great sites," Schwartz quotes Cutts as saying, in a rough transcription.
"We are trying to make GoogleBot smarter, make our relevance better, and we are also looking for those who abuse it, like too many keywords on a page, or exchange way too many links or go well beyond what you normally expect," the transcript continues.
Schwartz reports that the changes will begin affecting search results "in the upcoming month or next few weeks," though he adds that Google had no official comment on the matter.
Google is planning to penalize sites that overuse search-engine-optimization techniques, according to a report.
Barry Schwartz over at Search Engine Land has posted an audio clip from a panel discussion at the recent South by Southwest confab, in which Google engineer Matt Cutts discusses the plans.
In search results, Google wants to "level the playing field" regarding "all those people doing, for lack of a better word, over optimization or overly SEO--versus those making great content and great sites," Schwartz quotes Cutts as saying, in a rough transcription.
"We are trying to make GoogleBot smarter, make our relevance better, and we are also looking for those who abuse it, like too many keywords on a page, or exchange way too many links or go well beyond what you normally expect," the transcript continues.
Schwartz reports that the changes will begin affecting search results "in the upcoming month or next few weeks," though he adds that Google had no official comment on the matter.
Major Changes Coming to Google Search
Google is working on the most drastic overhaul of its search technology in its history, the Wall Street Journal is reporting.
The Journal alleged that this update will shift Google search to rely heavily on technology called "semantic search," which taps into the actual meaning of words. However, it will not ditch the current keyword-based search, which determines the relevance of a site based on items like the words it uses, how often other sites link to it, among other criteria.
Google Search would also display more facts and answer direct questions at the top of the page, rather than just presenting links to other sites.
The Journal stated that this will directly affect between 10 and 20 percent of queries, which comes down to billions upon billions of searches every month.
The Journal alleged that this update will shift Google search to rely heavily on technology called "semantic search," which taps into the actual meaning of words. However, it will not ditch the current keyword-based search, which determines the relevance of a site based on items like the words it uses, how often other sites link to it, among other criteria.
Google Search would also display more facts and answer direct questions at the top of the page, rather than just presenting links to other sites.
The Journal stated that this will directly affect between 10 and 20 percent of queries, which comes down to billions upon billions of searches every month.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Think Before You Pay Too Much for Social Media Monitoring
With the meteoric rise of social media marketing, it only makes sense that tools to monitor those marketing efforts would proliferate. Paid tools run the gamut, from blessedly affordable (for solopreneurs and small businesses) to outrageously expensive (only the big guys can even hope to afford them)
Just like Web analytics tools, social media reporting systems can provide a wealth of data. But, is all that data necessary? How much of it is even useful? For most small and even medium-sized organizations, I would argue that only a small slice of what most reporting tools spit out is actionable.
Please note: I am not suggesting that you cast your social media strategies out like proverbial bread upon the waters. If you’ve decided to add social media to your marketing mix, then you need to keep track of what’s going on and how it benefits your business. However, before you decide to sign up with the monitoring tool that shows up first in your Google search, you need to determine what you want to get out of your investment.
Read more...
Just like Web analytics tools, social media reporting systems can provide a wealth of data. But, is all that data necessary? How much of it is even useful? For most small and even medium-sized organizations, I would argue that only a small slice of what most reporting tools spit out is actionable.
Please note: I am not suggesting that you cast your social media strategies out like proverbial bread upon the waters. If you’ve decided to add social media to your marketing mix, then you need to keep track of what’s going on and how it benefits your business. However, before you decide to sign up with the monitoring tool that shows up first in your Google search, you need to determine what you want to get out of your investment.
Read more...
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Is Google Plus an Empty Hangout?
When faced with a social site that boasts 90 million members, it's valid to ask what all of those people are actually doing on the site. The answer, it seems, is “not much.” At least, that's the case when the network is Google+, and the site reporting the activity is comScore.
For myself, I have to admit that I rarely check out my Google+ account anymore. Even Debbie Ohi, a very talented friend of mine who took to the new social site like a duck takes to water, wrote in a public post that “as much as I prefer Google+'s interface to that of Facebook's, I'm spending way more time on Facebook these days.” One reason for this is that the people she most needs to keep in touch with professionally are on Facebook rather than Google+, and she only has so much time for social media.
She and I are hardly alone. For whatever reason, lots of Google+ users hardly seem to remember the site is there. David Angotti revealed some eye-opening figures on this from digital business analytics site comScore. The report revealed how many minutes per month, on average, users spent on six different social networking sites. While no one will be surprised to hear that Facebook led the pack by a huge margin (close to seven hours per month per user!), you might be interested to hear where the others fell.
Pinterest/Tumblr came in as the next most “sticky” social site, with users spending 98 minutes on average. Next came Twitter, at 21 minutes – a little shorter than a sitcom, which somehow seems about right. LinkedIn users spent 17 minutes per month on the social network known for its dedication to business professionals. Even MySpace, considered a has-been social network by some, enjoys eight minutes per month of participation, on average, from each of its users. So where did Google+ finish?
The search giant's social network came in dead last – not only behind MySpace, but painfully behind it. On average, Google+ users spend only three minutes per month on the site! After such a promising start, with a nice set of features and an easy-to-use interface that forced Facebook into playing catch-up, why is Google+ being all but ignored by so many of its members?
Part of the problem could be explained by Ohi's comment: there's only so much time for online social networking, so users go where the people they most need to contact hang out. But Google also created this problem with a relatively recent change in policy. Angotti reported that “Now, when a new user creates any type of Google account, the system requires that the user register a Gmail account, fill out a Google profile, and join Google+.”
Since these new users may be signing up for some other Google service, and might not be the least bit interested in Google+, this forced sign-up policy could be skewing the figures. While it's possible, even easy, to delete your own Google+ profile by going to the accounts setting page, it's likely that many users simply don't bother doing this. Instead, they just forget the have a Google+ account, or simply ignore the social service completely. You might want to keep this in mind the next time you're trying to decide how much time to spend on any particular social site networking for your company. Phenomenal growth in membership may be a good thing – but you should be looking at other numbers as well. Good luck!
For myself, I have to admit that I rarely check out my Google+ account anymore. Even Debbie Ohi, a very talented friend of mine who took to the new social site like a duck takes to water, wrote in a public post that “as much as I prefer Google+'s interface to that of Facebook's, I'm spending way more time on Facebook these days.” One reason for this is that the people she most needs to keep in touch with professionally are on Facebook rather than Google+, and she only has so much time for social media.
She and I are hardly alone. For whatever reason, lots of Google+ users hardly seem to remember the site is there. David Angotti revealed some eye-opening figures on this from digital business analytics site comScore. The report revealed how many minutes per month, on average, users spent on six different social networking sites. While no one will be surprised to hear that Facebook led the pack by a huge margin (close to seven hours per month per user!), you might be interested to hear where the others fell.
Pinterest/Tumblr came in as the next most “sticky” social site, with users spending 98 minutes on average. Next came Twitter, at 21 minutes – a little shorter than a sitcom, which somehow seems about right. LinkedIn users spent 17 minutes per month on the social network known for its dedication to business professionals. Even MySpace, considered a has-been social network by some, enjoys eight minutes per month of participation, on average, from each of its users. So where did Google+ finish?
The search giant's social network came in dead last – not only behind MySpace, but painfully behind it. On average, Google+ users spend only three minutes per month on the site! After such a promising start, with a nice set of features and an easy-to-use interface that forced Facebook into playing catch-up, why is Google+ being all but ignored by so many of its members?
Part of the problem could be explained by Ohi's comment: there's only so much time for online social networking, so users go where the people they most need to contact hang out. But Google also created this problem with a relatively recent change in policy. Angotti reported that “Now, when a new user creates any type of Google account, the system requires that the user register a Gmail account, fill out a Google profile, and join Google+.”
Since these new users may be signing up for some other Google service, and might not be the least bit interested in Google+, this forced sign-up policy could be skewing the figures. While it's possible, even easy, to delete your own Google+ profile by going to the accounts setting page, it's likely that many users simply don't bother doing this. Instead, they just forget the have a Google+ account, or simply ignore the social service completely. You might want to keep this in mind the next time you're trying to decide how much time to spend on any particular social site networking for your company. Phenomenal growth in membership may be a good thing – but you should be looking at other numbers as well. Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)