Blind Five Year Old

The Google search algorithm needs Digg. Why? It provides a human feedback mechanism that can help continuously refine Google search results. If you subscribe to my blind five year old principle, social search data would be a stream of higher intelligence that will make the algorithm smarter.

Social search results would be the algorithm’s tutor.

Predictions of SEO mayhem are simply unwarranted. Google knows that only a small portion of users would use the interface. And that’s all it wants and needs. It simply wants to augment the algorithm for the vast majority of Google searches with a human quality assurance mechanism. In some ways, it would be a volunteer version of Mechanical Turk.

Google experimented with social search earlier this year and has been in on-again off-again negotiations with Digg. Clearly, there is a build versus buy dilemma. Google built some of the infrastructure, but might be struggling with the logic and filters to prevent gaming the system.

A black hat filter is critical since Google wouldn’t want to feed the algorithm bad data. Garbage in, garbage out. But done right, social search results would help identify web spam and curtail over-optimization.

Microsoft has also been sniffing around Digg and this week launched U Rank, which is eerily similar to Google’s social search experiment. Could Microsoft leapfrog Google and begin adding an intelligent data stream into their search algorithm? I find it hard to believe, but stranger things have happened.

I do believe the U Rank test will reignite Google’s interest in the concept (if it ever really waned) and might again bring rumors of a Digg acquisition back to life.

Yahoo’s organic search results aren’t always organic. I don’t think the average Yahoo user has any idea that many Yahoo search results are paid listings via Yahoo’s paid inclusion product, Search Submit Pro. It’s sort of like buying organic apples and finding out some of them were sprayed with pesticide.

Yet, I can see my way past the ethical minefield paid inclusion presents. There is no expressed contract that states that the organic search results are 100% organic. That’s an assumption that many users make and which Yahoo simply fails to correct. There’s no 100% organic ‘sticker’ on the Yahoo search results.

The real question for me is how paid inclusion impacts search engine optimization (SEO). “Why do I get only 5% of my organic traffic from Yahoo when they’re 20% of the search market?” This is a common refrain I hear from a rising tide of companies. There are a number of possible explanations for this discrepancy.

Sites optimize for Google and not Yahoo

Google is the force in search with a 63% market share in August 2008. For that reason, sites optimize for Google first and Yahoo a distant second. The algorithm for each is different with Google placing far more weight on off page factors like links.

In particular Google seems to have a better quality link algorithm that helps place sites in appropriate neighborhoods of knowledge. Yahoo certainly looks at links but it seems tied to link popularity and link ratio. This means you have to overwhelm Yahoo with inbound links to really have an impact.

Result: Google optimization might not help you with Yahoo.

Yahoo’s index is slow to update

There’s no question that the Yahoo index is slow to update and is less agile than Google’s index. What Google indexes and categorizes in hours could take Yahoo weeks or months. It’s not that it doesn’t get into Yahoo’s index, it’s that Yahoo doesn’t categorize it so that it can be served to users for relevant searches. In many ways it might as well not exist.

Google is also constantly tweaking the search algorithm. If you’re working in SEO you’re accustomed to the changing nature of the Google algorithm. However, It’s unclear how often Yahoo changes its algorithm, but it’s far less than Google and it’s not nearly as big a deal when they do. The Yahoo search index has calcified.

Result: It could take a long time for your efforts to pay off on Yahoo.

Paid Inclusion takes up search engine result shelf space

While there are no guarantees that paid inclusion will get you top results, it certainly takes up shelf space on search results. As more companies use paid inclusion, the number of organic search results goes down, making it more and more difficult to optimize vital keywords.

It seems logical that Yahoo, particularly in its current financial situation, would want to increase the number of paid inclusion results. As a cost per click product it would mean a greater probability of generating revenue with every search engine result page.

What’s the keyword coverage for paid inclusion? What’s the average number of paid inclusion listings to organic listings? These paid inclusion statistics aren’t available, so it’s difficult to understand the real effect of paid inclusion. Instead we can only deduce from watching our SEO efforts and tracking organic search volume.

Result: Paid inclusion might not be the culprit, but it introduces another variable that defies tracking, thus obscuring all other SEO efforts.

Over the past few months it seems like Google might be experimenting with having multiple search algorithms in the field at once. We’re all well aware (or should be) of the A/B practice that Google has implemented for years. Google dances, when a major algorithm update goes live, are a normal part of SEO life.

But what if that changed?

What if Google decided to have 3 or even up to 5 search algorithms in the field at the same time. That’s what I’ve been seeing lately, though they seem to have stopped in the last week or so.

In a given hour I would see at least 3 different search results for terms related to my used books blog and those related to a number of my clients. (And yes, I had personal search off.) I’m now kicking myself for not documenting these very different search results.

This could simply indicate an accelerated testing framework for the algorithm or it could be an attempt to thwart web spam and those that try to ‘game’ the algorithm. Think about it. If there was no one dominant algorithm in the field at any given time it would become difficult to ‘game’ Google.

You might find a weakness to exploit in one algorithm but do you scale a program if it only represents 30% of the search traffic? Could Matt Cutts have found a creative way to prevent web spam?

As always there’s little concrete evidence of what is actually going on under the hood at Google. And the silo driven nature of Google’s workplace ensures that most at Google wouldn’t know either. I do find it interesting that during the same time period many search tools became inoperable. SEO Chat has the following message for a number of their tools.

Even if Google is not going to field multiple search algorithms, it seems clear that their testing mechanisms have evolved. The speed in which the algorithm evolves might be accelerating. As such, it makes it more difficult to determine when a true algorithm change has occurred.

If Google does implement a multiple algorithm strategy it would help encourage sites to focus on basic SEO principles which would wind up being good for search engines and users alike.

Keyword density is an easy way to tell search engines what your site is about. In other words, what words does the search engine find most often on your site or page or blog post. If you’re following my blind five year old principles you know how important this type of repetition is to a search engine.

There are plenty of tools you can use to figure out keyword density. However, most provide the results as a percentage which, while informative, doesn’t always help tell the whole story or provide the most impact. Instead, I suggest using Wordle.

Wordle is a toy for generating “word clouds” from text that you provide. The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text. You can tweak your clouds with different fonts, layouts, and color schemes. The images you create with Wordle are yours to use however you like. You can print them out, or save them to the Wordle gallery to share with your friends.

Copying your blog post text and creating a Wordle word cloud makes it much easier to quickly determine how a search engine might interpret your content.

Once you create your Wordle word cloud you’re looking to see which words immediately jump out at you. This is what the search engine will see. It’s as easy as that.

Here’s a Wordle word cloud from my first blog post.

Here are some simple guidelines for using Wordle as a keyword density tool.

If no words immediately jump out, you’ve got a problem.

If the wrong words jump out (e.g. – your post is on ‘iPhone battery life’ and the words ‘refurbished ottoman chair’ are most prominent), you’ve got a problem.

To make it even more interesting, print out your Wordle and tape it to the wall, then take three big steps back and find out what you can still read. Once again, this is a good proxy for how your post will be received by search engines.

The visual nature of Wordle makes it easy to quickly determine if you’re on the right track. It’s not rocket science. You’re not measuring whether the density is 5% or 8%, you’re simply using the quick (and fun) visual technique to make sure you’re giving your content the best chance of being seen by interested users

It might not have been created as a keyword density tool, but Wordle is a great tool for the casual blogger who wants to do some basic search engine optimization.

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) seems to be a dirty word in some circles. Many seem to think it’s some vile technique that only marketers use in an effort to trick people to get to their site. (The word marketers is spoken as if they’re an unruly bunch of war criminals.) When pressed for why they don’t implement even basic SEO, many of these same people will state piously “I blog for myself!”

So I say to these people, please, use the NOINDEX Tag.

If you are blogging for yourself then there’s no real reason for you to be in Google’s search index, right? I mean, why exactly do you have a blog anyway? If you’re blogging for yourself couldn’t you just write it up in Microsoft Word, read it over again with a satisfied smile, pat yourself on the back and be happy? Tell Google and other search engines to ignore your blog and use the NOINDEX Tag.

Yes, I’m being very literal here, but it helps to make my point.

You’re not blogging only for yourself. You do want others to read what you’ve written. Not every SEO technique is something a casual blogger should employ. However, use my blind five year old principles to help implement rudimentary SEO. Not only will this help people find your content but it will likely make your content just a tad more readable and accessible.

And that is what SEO is about. It’s about making sure the people interested in your content actually find it.

When I started managing my first search engine marketing (SEM) program at Alibris I quickly found that being the first ad on a Google search result wasn’t working. It seemed a bit counter-intuitive. The volume was great but the conversion was atrocious. But I had a theory for this phenomenon that I quickly dubbed MonkeyClicks.

My MonkeyClicks theory is that a user tends to click on the first result on the page regardless of whether it really meets his or her needs. It is plain ol’ human behavior. A knee jerk reaction of sorts. So you get a tremendous amount of volume. However, that first click doesn’t always match the needs of the user and even if it does they will often return to the search results to determine whether other options exist.

If you think of this outside of the small world of search engine marketing it makes perfect sense. If I’m looking to buy a car I’m likely not going to look at the first advertisement I see and then run off and buy that car. If I’m looking to buy a new bicycle on Craigslist I’m going to look at a number of matching results, not just the first one.

This makes sense but lets back it up with some data. (I like data!) Back in 2006 AOL accidentally released a chunk of user search results. It showed that 42% of all clicks on the first page of results came from the first position. In comparison, the second position racked up a distant 12% of clicks.

Another eye tracking study by Cornell, and reported by seoresearcher, showed the disparity in the % of clicks and % of time spent on each search result.

The ratio of clicks to time spent on the first position is a classic example of MonkeyClicks behavior. The first position garnered 56% of the clicks but only 28% of the time spent.

All of these studies are done with natural search results, but I’d argue that the paid results will look very similar. Not to mention that I’ve seen this time and again as I manage various SEM programs.

However, your mileage may vary! So don’t take my word for it, do a quick review of your own SEM program. If you’re running a Google AdWords program and Google Analytics, simply take a look at your Keyword Positions report.

And … beware of MonkeyClicks.

I often tell people interested in search engine optimization (SEO) that the trick is to think of search engines like they’re blind five year olds. Not only does this get people’s attention (and quick) but it helps to guide and simplify many SEO decisions.

Search engines don’t care if your site is pretty. They are essentially blind and can’t rate your site based on a gorgeous color palette, stunning photos or thrilling Flash animation. I’m not saying the site shouldn’t look good, but that isn’t going to help your SEO efforts, and in some cases it will actually hurt them.

You do need to tell search engines exactly what a page is about (a couple of times) and where to go next. In short, search engines are easily distracted. Sound a bit like a five year old?

Search engines are attempting to emulate our own evaluations of a site or page. The search algorithm is a form of artificial intelligence. I’m not an AI expert, but reaching the level of a five year old for such a complex task is quite a success. So please don’t misinterpret this as a swipe at search engines.

Words are of great importance to search engines. It’s one of the easiest ways it can categorize a page. But it is not reading the page like you or I. A search engine wouldn’t score well on a reading comprehension test. Instead it’s trying to understand the page by what words are most prominent, based on the number of times a word is mentioned and the size and placement of those words.

This is, in part, how a five year old is going to categorize something they’re reading. Repetition, as any parent can attest, is essential to a child’s comprehension. Green Eggs and Ham anyone?

Repetition is good for adults too. An old public speaking adage states that you need to repeat yourself at least three times since only a third of your audience is listening at any given time. In fact, most of the blind five year old principles will also help ‘real’ users better understand your site and content.

It becomes easy to come up with blind five year old examples once you embrace the idea.

A five year old will pay more attention to the title of a book and the synopsis mom or dad provides prior to reading. Done appropriately, these things provide the child an easy context. A search engine wants the same thing and craves a concise page title and seeks to compile a compelling snippet.

Search engines, like five year olds, will gravitate towards words that are bigger on the page or in bold. They’ll be equated with having greater value to the page than the smaller words. (Suspension of the blind portion of the principle is necessary here.)

Five year olds and search engines rarely understand wit or irony. That clever double-entendre you’ve used for your most recent blog post will only confuse the search engine. Use your wit, but use it judiciously and in the right places.

Give your five year old consistent easy to follow directions if you want them to get to a desired destination. Likewise, for best results, give a search engine consistent site navigation that is easy to follow.

A blind five year old will need detailed descriptions of any photos. A search engine is no different. IMG_001.JPG isn’t going to cut it.

A five year old can also, instinctively, determine if you’re ‘good’ or ‘bad’. You might fool a child with a ‘got your nose’ prank a few times, but deep down they’ve got your number. So don’t go off and try a bunch of black hat techniques in an effort to game the algorithm.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. While not all SEO techniques fit this model, blind five year old principles are the foundation of SEO and make your site and content easier to understand.