Blind Five Year Old

Do I think Google’s policy around encrypting searches (except for paid clicks) for logged-in users is fair? No.

But whining about it seems unproductive, particularly since the impact of (not provided) isn’t catastrophic. That’s right, the sky is not falling. Here’s why.

(Not Provided) Keyword

By now I’m sure you’ve seen the Google Analytics line graph that shows the rise of (not provided) traffic.

Sure enough, 17% of all organic Google traffic on this blog is now (not provided). That’s high in comparison to what I see among my client base but makes sense given the audience of this blog.

Like many others (not provided) is also my top keyword by a wide margin. I think seeing this scares people but it makes perfect sense. What other keyword is going to show up under every URL?

Instead of staring at that big aggregate number you have to look at the impact (not provided) is having on a URL by URL basis.

Landing Page by Keywords

To look at the impact of (not provided) for a specific URL you need to view your Google organic traffic by Landing Page. Then drill down on a specific URL and use Keyword as your secondary dimension. Here’s a sample landing page by keywords report for my bounce rate vs exit rate post.

In this example, a full 39% of the traffic is (not provided). But a look at the remaining 61% makes it pretty clear what keywords bring traffic to this page. In fact, there are 68 total keywords in this time frame.

Clustering these long-tail keywords can provide you with the added insight necessary to be confident in your optimization strategy.

(Not Provided) Keyword Distribution

The distribution of keywords outside of (not provided) gives us insight into the keyword composition of (not provided). In other words, the keywords we do see tell us about the keywords we don’t.

Do we really think that the keywords that make up (not provided) are going to be that different from the ones we do see? It’s highly improbable that a query like ‘moonraker steel teeth’ is driving traffic under (not provided) in my example above.

If you want to take things a step further you can apply the distribution of the clustered keywords against the pool of (not provided) traffic. First you reduce the denominator by subtracting the (not provided) traffic from the total. In this instance that’s 208 – 88 which is 120.

Even without any clustering you can take the first keyword (bounce rate vs. exit rate) and determine that it comprises 20% of the remaining traffic (24/120). You can then apply that 20% to the (not provided) traffic (88) and conclude that approximately 18 visits to (not provided) are comprised of that specific keyword.

Is this perfectly accurate? No. Is it good enough? Yes. Keyword clustering will further reduce the variance you might see by specific keyword.

Performance of (Not Provided) Keywords

The assumption I’m making here is that the keyword behavior of those logged-in to Google doesn’t differ dramatically from those who are not logged-in. I’m not saying there might not be some difference but I don’t see the difference being large enough to be material.

If you have an established URL with a history of getting a steady stream of traffic you can go back and compare the performance before and after (not provided) was introduced. I’ve done this a number of times (across client installations) and continue to find little to no difference when using the distribution method above.

Even without this analysis it comes down to whether you believe that query intent changes based on whether a person is logged-in or not? Given that many users probably don’t even know they’re logged-in, I’ll take no for 800 Alex.

What’s even more interesting is that this is information we didn’t have previously. If by chance all of your conversions only happen from those logged-in, how would you have made that determination prior to (not provided) being introduced? Yeah … you couldn’t.

While Google has made the keyword private they’ve actually broadcast usage information.

(Not Provided) Solutions

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not happy about the missing data, nor the double standard between paid and organic clicks. Google has a decent privacy model through their Ads Preferences Manager. They could adopt the same process here and allow users to opt-out instead of the blanket opt-in currently in place.

Barring that, I’d like to know how many keywords are included in the (not provided) traffic in a given time period. Even better would be a drill-down feature with traffic against a set of anonymized keywords.

However, I’m not counting on these things coming to fruition so it’s my job to figure out how to do keyword research and optimization given the new normal. As I’ve shown, you can continue to use Google Analytics, particularly if you cluster keywords appropriately.

Of course you should be using other tools to determine user syntax, identify keyword modifiers and define query intent. When keyword performance is truly in doubt you can even resort to running a quick AdWords campaign. While this might irk you and elicit tin foil hat theories you should probably be doing a bit of this anyway.

TL;DR

Google’s (not provided) policy might not be fair but is far from the end of the world. Whining about (not provided) isn’t going to change anything. Figuring out how to overcome this obstacle is your job and how you’ll distance yourself from the competition.

Mozilla’s search partnership with Google expires at the end of November. What happens next could change search engine and browser market share as well as the future of Mozilla.

The Mozilla Google Search Partnership

Originally entered into in November 2004 and renewed in 2006 (for 2 years) and 2008 (for 3 years), the search partnership delivers a substantial amount of their revenue to Mozilla. In fact, in 2010 98% of the $121 million in revenue came from search related activity.

The majority of Mozilla’s revenue is generated from search functionality included in our Firefox product through all major search partners including Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Amazon, Ebay and others.

Most of that search revenue comes specifically from Google. The ‘Concentrations of Risk’ section in Mozilla’s 2009 (pdf) and 2010 (pdf) consolidated financial statements put Google’s contribution to revenue at 91% in 2008, 86% in 2009 and 84% in 2010.

Using the 2010 numbers, Mozilla stands to ‘lose’ $3.22 per second if the partnership expires. Mozilla is highly dependent on search and Google in particular. There’s just no way around that.

What does Google get for this staggering amount of money?

Google is the default search bar search engine as well as the default home page. This means that Firefox drives search after search to Google instead of their competitors.

Browser Share

Clearly browsers are an important part of the search landscape since they can influence search behavior based on default settings. As Mozilla points out, in 2002 over 90% of the browser market was controlled by Internet Explorer. At the time it made perfect sense for Google to help Mozilla break the browser monopoly.

The rise of Firefox helped Google to solidify search dominance and Mozilla was paid handsomely for this assistance.

However, it doesn’t look like Google was comfortable with this lack of control. Soon after the announced renewal of the search partnership in 2008 Google launched their own browser. At the time, I wrote that Chrome was about search and taking share from Internet Explorer.

I still think Chrome is about search and the trend seems to indicate that Chrome is taking share (primarily) away from Internet Explorer. In short, Google sought to control its own destiny and speed the demise of Internet Explorer.

Mission accomplished.

Chrome is now poised to overtake Firefox as the number two browser. That’s important because three years ago Google had no other way to protect their search share. Chrome’s success changes this critical fact.

Toolbars

Toolbars were the first attempt by search engines to break the grip of Internet Explorer. Both Google and Yahoo! used toolbars as a way to direct traffic to their own search engines.

What happened along the way was an amazing amount of user confusion. Which box were you supposed to search in? The location (or address) bar, the search box or the toolbar?

This confusion created searches in the location bar and URL entries in the search bar. Savvy users understood but it never made much sense to most.

Location Bar Search

The result? For those that figured it out there is evidence that people actually enjoyed searching via the location bar.

How many searches are conducted per month via the address bar? MSN wouldn’t release those figures, but it did say that about 10 to 15 percent of MSN Search’s overall traffic comes from address bar queries.

The company has analyzed the traffic from users who search via the address bar and discovered both that the searches appear intentional in nature, rather than accidental, and that those making use of address bar searching do so frequently.

This data from 2002 indicates that the location bar default might be very valuable. Sure enough, the location bar default is part of the search partnership Mozilla has with Google.

This also happens to be the most difficult setting to change. You can change the search bar preference with a click and the home page with two clicks, but the location bar is a different (and convoluted) story.

Most mainstream users aren’t going to attempt entering about:config into their location bar, but if they do this first screen will likely scare them off.

I recently had to revisit the location bar default because I took Firefox for Bing for a spin. This add-on, among other things, changes the location bar default to Bing and it remains that way even after the add-on is removed. That’s a serious dark pattern.

All of this makes me believe that the location bar might be the most valuable piece of real estate.

Omnibox

Having helped create confusion with their toolbar (now no longer supporting Firefox 5+) and seen the value of location bar searches, Chrome launched the omnibox, a combined location and search bar. The omnibox reduced confusion and asked users to simply type an address or search into one bar. Google would do the rest. Of course, the default for those searches is Google.

The omnibar seems to be a popular feature and why wouldn’t it be? Users don’t care what field they’re typing in, they just want it to work. You know who else thinks this is a good idea? The Firefox UX Team.

While these mockups are for discussion purposes only, it’s pretty clear what the discussion is about. According to CNET, a combined Firefox search-and-location bar is being held up by privacy issues. That was in March and the latest release of Firefox (just last week) still didn’t have this functionality.

Back in late 2009 Asa Dotzler had a lot to say about the independence of Firefox and how they serve the user.

Mozilla’s decisions around defaults are driven by what’s best for the largest number of users and not what’s best for revenue.

It’s not about the money. The money’s there and Mozilla isn’t going to turn it down, but it’s not about the money. It’s about providing users with the best possible experience.

Great words but have they been backed up with action? Both users and the Firefox UX Team are lobbying for an omnibox, the Firefox for Bing add-on is a clear dark pattern and the ability to change the default location bar search engine is still overly complicated.

Is this really what’s best for users?

Don’t Count On Inertia

If Mozilla were to switch horses and cut a search deal with Bing, they’d be counting on inertia to retain users and their current search behavior. The problem is that Firefox was marketed as the solution to browser inertia.

Before Firefox many users didn’t even understand they could browse the Internet with anything but Internet Explorer. Those same users are now more likely to switch.

It’s sort of like being the other woman right? If he cheats with you, he’s also liable to cheat on you.

With a search bar still in place users can easily change that default. Firefox would be counting on location bar searches and the difficulty in changing this default to drive revenue. You might get some traction here but I’m guessing you’d see browser defection, increased search bar usage and more direct traffic to the Google home page.

With an omnibar in place Firefox would be running a very risky proposition. Many mainstream users would likely migrate to another browser (probably Chrome). More advanced Firefox users would simply change the defaults.

You could move to an omnibar and make the default easy to change, but both Firefox and users have made it abundantly clear that they prefer Google. So how much would a Bing search partnership really be worth at that point?

Can Bing Afford It?

Bing is losing money hand over fist so it’s unclear whether Bing can actually pony up this type of money anyway. If they did, it could cause browser defection and other behavior that would rob the search partnership of any real value and put Firefox at risk.

Even if Bing pirated half of the searches coming from Firefox, that’s not going to translate into a real game changer from a search engine market share perspective.

Mozilla could partner with Bing but I don’t think either of them would like the results.

Mozilla in a Pickle

If Google is the choice of users (as Firefox claims) installing a competing default search engine may hasten the conversion to Chrome. This time around Mozilla needs Google far more than Google needs Mozilla. I’m not saying that Google doesn’t want the search partnership to continue, but I’m betting they’re driving a very hard bargain.

Google no longer has a compelling need to overpay for a search default on a competing browser. I have to believe Mozilla is being offered a substantially lower dollar amount for the search partnership.

I don’t pretend to know exactly how the partnership is structured and whether it’s volume or performance based but it really doesn’t matter. Google paid Barry Zito like prices back in 2008 at the height of the economic bubble but the times have changed and Google’s got Tim Lincecum (Chrome) mowing down the competition.

Mozilla and Google are playing a high stakes game of chicken. The last renewal took place three months prior to the expiration. We’re down to two weeks now.

This time the money might not be there.

TL;DR

The search partnership between Mozilla and Google expires at the end of November. The success of Chrome gives Google little incentive to overpay for a search default on Firefox. This puts Mozilla, who receives more than 80% of their revenue through the Google search partnership, in a poor position with few options.

I’ve seen a number of people asking why the cached page link has disappeared from Google search results.

Don’t worry, it’s not gone, it’s just been moved.

Cached Link in Instant Preview

The cached and similar links are now in the instant preview which is activated when you mouse over a result and then hover over the double arrow.

My guess is that these links are not widely used, so moving them to the instant preview retains the functionality but removes some weight from search results. That’s important given all of the rich snippets, site links, social annotations and authorship being packed into search results.

In all, I like the change. However, the fact that so many can’t seem to find the link does make me wonder about the instant preview feature and whether the interaction is truly intuitive.

I hate mega menus. There, I said it.

Here are five different perspectives that illustrate why I dislike mega menus.

As a User

Many mega menus are often hard to use. Some are like a game of whac-a-mole, trying to get a cascading menu to expand and stay open so you can click on the right link.

Other times they’re too sensitive, opening when you nick them with your mouse and interrupting normal browse activity. Not to mention some simply don’t behave the same in different browsers.

Sure, some mega menus don’t create this type of technical frustration. Yet even when they don’t there is no standard mega menu interaction. Click to open or hover to open? Click to destination or click to reveal sub-menu? Users have to learn what actions produce what results.

Is this how you want your user spending their time?

As a Scientist

The theory behind mega menus is that they’re supposed to get us to the ‘right’ information faster. Clicks are seen as pesky obstacles to be avoided at best and inherently bad at worst.

In the quest for fewer clicks, more choices are offered. But more choices often lead to fewer productive outcomes and less satisfaction. This is The Paradox of Choice, something I’ve blogged about numerous times. Studies have shown, again and again, that more is less.

Mega menus usually present an overwhelming number of choices to the user. As the adage goes ‘a confused mind always says no.’

You’re also trusting that the user knows exactly what they want and forcing them to find it. Mega menus are the Where’s Waldo of navigation. You’re making the user do all the work. Frankly, I don’t need to be a scientist to know this is not a good thing.

As an Editor

An editor is supposed to bring focus to an endeavor, whether it be a book, magazine, website or film. Their job is to trim what is unnecessary and highlight what is important. Instead, mega menus make everything important. We know that’s just not true.

Mega menus are often born out of the ‘but what about’ problem. It’s the idea that if you don’t show the user everything you offer (all at once), then they’ll never find it.

Imagine if this same philosophy was applied to a magazine cover? Every section and article would have teaser text on the cover shattering any type of editorial tone or direction.

Mega menus are an abdication of the editorial process and thereby fail to provide guidance and expertise to your users. Even from a profit perspective, do you want to feature your low margin categories as prominently as your high margin categories? Seriously, think about it.

You might as well fire your editor if you’re just going to pack every sub-category under the sun into your mega menu.

As a Marketer

Marketing is about telling a story and providing context to help users make a decision. If a user jumps to the end without any of the background, you’ve lost the ability to tell that story and provide vital guideposts along the way.

An article in UX Movement does a great job of describing this journey.

As users view page content, they can click on any link they find interesting. This takes them to another page of content with links they can click that leads to another page of content with more links and so forth. Before users know it, they will have consumed multiple pages of content through the clicking of content navigation links. That’s true engagement.

Clicks and additional page views are not evil. Users feel good about a click when it leads to appropriate information and content. I made a decision and I got what I was looking for. Even if that leads to yet another decision tree, that’s okay!

Create easy and rewarding decisions that allow you to lead your users through an experience. I’m reminded of the Choose Your Own Adventure books where certain decisions throughout the story lead to certain outcomes. It wouldn’t be nearly as satisfying if the first choice you made was between all the different outcomes.

The story matters.

As an SEO

Mega menus often result in an astounding number of internal links that ruin any sort of contextual relevance between categories or content. Take L.L. Bean for instance.

Their mega menu is displayed on each and every page. Here I’ve triggered the mega menu for Hunting & Fishing from the Luggage category. Even on a product page there are over 400 internal links.

Now, I’m not saying that PageRank is the end all to be all, but you’re doing yourself no favors by splitting trust and authority into 400+ pieces.

Not only that but the links wind up being completely illogical. A page about sleeping bags also links to one about lunch boxes. A page about carry-on luggage also links to one about blouses. And that page about blouses links to one about gun accessories. Huh?

Mega menus can wreak havoc on internal link structures. You can minimize the problem by only showing portions of that mega menu based on context, but all too often that isn’t how they are implemented.

But Jakob Nielsen Says …

Yes, in March 2009 Jakob Nielsen endorsed mega menus. I have a great deal of respect for Nielsen and have found most of his research to be enlightening and extremely useful. Yet, I find it tough to determine what exactly was measured in that study. Was it the ability to navigate? Task completion? Satisfaction?

Nielsen himself backed away a bit from the ubiquity of mega menus in November 2010, though he maintains it’s about how mega menus are constructed and designed.

My own research and experience (not just personal anecdotes but in working with clients) leads me to different conclusions. I’ve never been one to blindly follow experts and instead bring my own critical thinking to the task and look to test assumptions. I encourage you to do the same.

TL;DR

Mega menus are often difficult to use, shift the burden of navigation to the user, reduce or eliminate editorial expertise, hamstring marketers and create SEO headaches. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Mega menus mean well but usually wind up doing more harm than good.

How tough is it to use SlideShare to rank for a keyword term? Here’s my experiment with SlideShare SEO.

The Term

I selected the term ‘what is bounce rate’ because I see a number of questions surrounding this topic and had wanted to expand on my Bounce Rate vs Exit Rate blog post.

According to Google ‘what is bounce rate’ (exact match) gets 2,400 monthly searches. Not bad.

Using SEOmoz the keyword difficulty for ‘what is bounce rate’ is 59% or Highly Competitive.

Unfortunately I didn’t capture this before my test. So what you’re seeing is the current keyword difficulty including my own contribution at position 6.

The Presentation

Your presentation should be awesome. That’s right, awesome. Don’t start doing SlideShare SEO, before that read the article with the idea that you’ll crank out a bunch of half-assed PowerPoint presentations and call it a day.

You are marketing your brand so you better put your best foot forward (and your brand in the header or footer on each page.) You want people to share your presentation on social platforms and you want them to click-through to your website as a result of being blown away by your deck.

Here’s the presentation I created for this experiment.

What Is Bounce Rate?

Account and Upload

I started a brand new account for this test, which ensures that the strength of a SlideShare account (however that is measured) is not influencing the rankings.

You can upload your presentation as a document, PowerPoint Presentation or PDF. While I don’t think the file name is used for ranking purposes, it can’t hurt to make it a keyword rich file name.

It should also be noted that you can replace the file after the fact without completely destroying the SEO value you’ve built up. Do have a peek at this web-site to know about the SEO working and its importance.

I know this because I realized that part of my footer was text instead of an image and that my diagrams were too small. I made changes and replaced the presentation without losing any of the social signals I’d built up previously. This is a really nice feature.

On that first upload you are asked to fill out the Title, Description, Tags and Category for your presentation. These are important sections that can make a difference in whether your presentation gets seen on SlideShare or Google.

Title and Meta Description

The Title and Description fields of your SlideShare presentation match up with traditional browser title and meta description.

Title

For the Title you should follow normal SEO guidelines and keep it under 70 characters. However, Google is appending the domain name to the title so you may want to keep it to 50 characters to ensure your title appears the way you want.

I chose to match the query with my presentation title. I strongly recommend you do this if it makes sense. In addition, the title of your presentation is the default link used in the embed code. That means very strong keyword rich anchor text for every embed.

Description

SlideShare gives you a massive amount of space for the description. Perhaps this helps on SlideShare itself but it’s not doing much for you from an SEO perspective. Instead I’d work on creating a meta description of no more than 160 characters that matched the query and user intent.

Tags

You get up to 20 tags so use a number of them to account for all the ways in which people might search for this type of content. Tags provide some added exposure on SlideShare since you’ll be included on topic pages for these tags. As an added bonus, the tags also count as text on the page. They do not, however, translate into meta keywords, not that those would be useful any way.

Category

The category is SlideShare specific and is only important to SlideShare SEO in that picking the right category ensures that your presentation finds the right audience, racking up views, shares and embeds. Frankly, the category selections are pretty weak and are too broad for any type of meaningful targeting.

Transcript

SlideShare transcribes your presentation. This is how search engines are able to ‘see’ the presentations! Optimizing SlideShare for SEO starts with ensuring that your presentation is focused and contains keyword rich text.

From what I can tell SlideShare does not transcribe alt image text nor do they include text in notes fields. The latter seems like a way to prevent spamming and ensures that the user and search engine are seeing the same thing.

Social

Social signals, the number of Tweets, Shares, Likes and +1s, play a part in ranking SlideShare presentations. How much is tough to tell.

I sent out Tweets and posted on G+ a few times. But I didn’t exactly knock it out of the park with social unless you count the number of views, which at nearly 1,500 is pretty substantial.

Does the number of views play a part in ranking? I’m not sure, though I suspect it helps. Even if it doesn’t, it does help you get more exposure on SlideShare (via the popular navigation) and you’ve gotten your brand in front of a lot more people.

Finally, the number of embeds is important since they both increase the number of views and produce back links to your presentation.

Links

What about those links? After I uploaded the presentation I took a spin around Quora and answered a few questions on bounce rate and linked to this presentation. I also went back to my Bounce Rate vs Exit Rate blog post and linked to it from there as well. In all, I generated four links across two domains.

In short, I didn’t do much.

Time

I opened the account on August 17th, 2011 and uploaded the presentation on August 19th, 2011. The next day I ranked 10th for the term and for the next 6 weeks moved back and forth between 9th and 11th.

And then one day, out of nowhere, I began to rank higher. This is actually a very good lesson for any SEO. Time can be valuable and patience can be rewarded. Sometimes things have to cure for a while before they click.

Results

At present my SlideShare presentation sits 7th for the term ‘what is bounce rate’.

That’s not bad, though I’d like to see if I can push it up farther over time. Looking at the downstream traffic from SlideShare I’m pretty sure I ranked well above 7th for at least a day.

Thus far I’ve received 125 visits from this presentation. Better than a sharp stick in the eye.

What I Did Right

I found a good keyword, created a valuable presentation (that was keyword rich), optimized the title and description and scraped together a few social signals and links.

What I Did Wrong

I used a lot of images in my presentation which reduced the amount of text search engines are seeing. I also botched my first upload which may have extended the amount of time it took to get things rolling. Finally, I didn’t do nearly enough to market this presentation to obtain social signals and links.

SlideShare or Blog?

While I may have 1,500 views I only received 125 direct visits. I’m sure some people come back later to my site via other channels (based on viewing the presentation), but it still looks like I’m only getting ~8% of the post click traffic. I could upgrade to SlideShare Pro to get more analytics but I’m not keen to spend $190/year right now.

So is it really worth it to use SlideShare?

One thing to remember is that you’re piggybacking on SlideShare’s domain authority. So a good SlideShare presentation may be an easier way to land a high rank rather than your own blog. And there’s nothing that says you can’t target the same term, or an associated term with your blog. It would be interesting to see if you could take up shelf space on a SERP with your own blog and a SlideShare presentation. All roads lead to Rome!

There are also some topics that are best covered with a presentation versus as blog post, and vice versa. So don’t fit a square peg into a round hole.

Finally, SlideShare is about marketing. Not just search marketing, but marketing yourself, your brand, your business and your services.

Is information overload a problem our new digital society must solve or are we changing how we learn?

Information Overload

We’ve gone from a handful of TV channels to more than 500; from a few radio stations to streaming music on demand; from reading the local newspaper to reading publications from around the world.

The Extracting Value from Chaos report from IDC iView provides a staggering overview of our digital footprint.

In 2011, the amount of information created and replicated will surpass 1.8 zettabytes (1.8 trillion gigabytes) – growing by a factor of 9 in just five years.

It’s not just digital either. We see this trend in the publishing industry where print-on-demand and self-published books have skyrocketed (pdf).

This does not include Audio or eBooks.

Of course, we’re also sharing all of this information at an accelerated rate.

Zuckerberg’s Law of Sharing states that sharing activity will double each year.

You know that information is increasing, but you might not realize just how much and how fast it is increasing.

Curation

As the amount of information increases many have looked at ways to sift through and make sense of it all. The goal is to find signal amid the noise. Plenty of folks are trying to apply different techniques and algorithms to winnow things down to only the most interesting and relevant.

KnowAboutIt, XYDO, My6Sense, Trunk.ly and Summify among others are all trying to cull the web and deliver the ‘right’ information to your inbox.

Aggregated social curation sounds logical but I haven’t found it very valuable. I find the stuff I already read (or would have found) anyway. Maybe it works if you’re not drinking from the information hose, but most of us are doing more of that in one way or the other. I can’t imagine relying on just these services for my information.

Many believe that serendipity is an important part of information consumption, but most of the services give this lip service at best. They’re doing more of what a good brand marketer would do, cranking out extensions to a known product. In this case that product is the type of content that you and your network of ‘friends’ are reading. I think you quickly reach a local maxima where you’re not finding new things and making new connections.

Today’s curation seems more like an echo chamber.

Distraction

Nicholas Carr thinks the Internet is doing evil things to us and Google might be making us stupid. NPR books summarizes Carr’s thesis as follows.

Carr believes that the Internet is a medium based on interruption — and it’s changing the way people read and process information. We’ve come to associate the acquisition of wisdom with deep reading and solitary concentration, and he says there’s not much of that to be found online.

Carr might be right about the distraction of the Internet. But this is but one way in which we acquire information. I watch two hour movies straight through, can read a book for hours at a stretch and still conduct lengthy phone calls. The idea that we can only process information in one way seems like an odd conclusion. It would be like saying that because we possess the ability to drive that athletic prowess will decline.

Taking it a step further, there is an assumption that we process information uniformly. Here’s where fiction helps reveal a greater truth. The Ghost In Love by Jonathan Carroll explores the division of personality. We are different people throughout our lives, day-by-day and even different people at the same time.

How can we be kind when you were so mean to that stranger the other day? How can we be intelligent when you made such a stupid mistake the other week? Many people struggle with this seeming paradox. But we’re not robots! We’re not just one monolithic entity that does things the same way every day. Not only do we evolve over time (just think about your musical tastes) but we’ll react to information in different ways on an hourly basis. Much of this has to do with context, but I think there are more complex factors at work.

So why do we persist in this notion that we can only comprehend information in one way. That’s just patently untrue.

Cut-Up Learning

The cut-up technique was made popular by William Burroughs and is performed by cutting up content and putting it back together in a different order. By doing so, it reveals new words, new insight and new meaning. It’s a type of non-linear learning.

I believe the Internet, the great distractor, is a digital version of the cut-up technique. It is actually more powerful because we can cut-up more information from a wide variety of topics and mediums.

We’re so consumed with capturing just the right thing, those few articles that will provide insight, that we miss the opportunity to piece together and make connections to a larger puzzle.

The goal isn’t to curate and aggregate the content into neat little packages but to cut up the information to unlock trends and insight.

Skimming

I read a large number of RSS feeds, a diverse blend of literature, photography, analytics, SEO, technology, life hacking, science, local, marketing, design, UX, humor and start-up related blogs. I also let the river of information flow through platforms like FriendFeed, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

Do I read every post word for word? No. I’m skimming a lot of the time, both in terms of the type of content that is being generated (the theme and pulse of activity) and the actual content itself. Skimming doesn’t mean I’m not getting value from that content. By skimming through a variety of pieces, topics and media I create a very different view of the data that is swirling around me.

That also doesn’t prevent me from taking a deep dive on any given piece I find. In fact, I’d hazard that I locate more of these pieces through the act of skimming.

Cut-Up Example

So lets go from theory to practice. I believe Google is extremely interested in creating some sort of AuthorRank based on the quality of and engagement with the content that author produces. Here’s the cut-up that leads me to this conclusion.

I watch Steven Levy interviewed by Matt Cutts, and find both Levy’s mention of being outranked by Huffington Post interesting but also note the look Cutts gives someone in the audience directly after this remark. I watch this video after authorship is rolled out by Google at SMX Advanced. This is an example of how the cut-up technique doesn’t need to be linear.

I keep track of the debate around identity on Google+ and see how their inflexibility on the issue is rooted in ensuring confidence in authorship. I watch the high rate of iteration in the rel=”author” program and note who is leading those efforts. I look at which Google Webmaster Central videos in this latest series are released first. Because they record them in large chunks, so the authorship video getting to the head of the line signals a sort of priority.

I read about the acquisitions of companies that measure engagement with content. I ask questions about what Google is doing with PostRank and (repeatedly) get no response. Silence can be a very loud signal.

Those are all signals within the actual topic, though they might be in different media. But I also pay close attention to how Facebook is implementing EdgeRank and note the direction LinkedIn is going as well. Again, those are closely related to authorship and identity so it’s not going too far afield.

But there are other vectors that might seem unrelated. I listen to artists who are irate at how their work is taken and used without credit. I key in on articles that highlight the music that is most often sampled by new artists. I listen to the Rick Astley and Nirvana mashup. I laugh at the misattributed quote meme but also think about what it represents. I uncover distasteful social proof manipulation and dive into the argument about influence and whether Klout is accurate.

Alone, each of these things are of passing interest, but with access to so much information I find greater context and meaning.

Mind Hacking

The digital age allows us to peer over the shoulders of more people. A lot of them may provide little to no value but some will be intelligent and provide thoughtful commentary and links. I’ve become adept at quickly recognizing the difference. It’s reminiscent of what Gladwell talks about in Blink.

Maybe I am an outlier and my information consumption behavior is non-traditional, but given the rate in which information is accelerating I believe more and more people will adopt (or be forced into) this type of cut-up learning.

I used to scoff at the number of people Robert Scoble followed, invoking Dunbar’s Number as my defense. What I’ve realized is that there is a vast difference in social relationships versus information discovery.

I still believe in Dunbar’s Number as it pertains to relationships but not when it comes to information discovery. I doubt highly that Robert is truly friends with the 32,000 people he follows on Twitter. But he is adept at taking the stream of information those people create and gaining value from it.

Tools

Certain tools can help to make cut up learning easier, in part by simply letting you organize what you’ll skim. Google Reader is an absolute stellar resource. And no one has beaten the original FriendFeed friend of a friend functionality in delivering new and random things to my worldview. G+ is slowly getting better since I do find a diverse blend of technology, science, art and business that I can peruse.

The curation services? I’ll use them. But they’re more like an information safety net. My interaction with them is limited to no more than a 10 second skim and scroll of the content for confirmation.

But in the end, the biggest tool we’ll have is our mind and our own ability to collect and process all that information. Maybe our brains are being rewired but who’s to say that’s a bad thing?

TL;DR

I found an article the other day that opined that the way to succeed in business was to know where the customer was going, not where they were now. This was a proxy for how I felt about the difference between curation services and cut up learning. Curation can tell you where things are now, while cut up learning can tell you where things are going.

Information overload may not be a problem we have to solve but instead could lead to a new way of learning. Skimming things does not make us shallow, it may actually make us rich.

Facebook rolled out the razzle and the dazzle during f8 2011. Yet behind all the glitz, all the music and all the cool were fundamental changes that put Facebook in direct competition with Google.

Facebook Launches Search

 

Did you miss it? I almost did too. It was wrapped up in the Social News Apps part of the presentation. Zuckerberg demonstrated how you would see all of the stories your friends were reading about a certain news topic.

That’s search.

Facebook is returning a set of results on a topic curated by your friends. In search speak that’s returning a set of documents based on a query, sorted by a social signal. They’re talking about it in relation to news but they could do this with any type of document or media.

The Open Graph

Facebook can do this because of the Open Graph. Both Zuckerberg and Bret Taylor spoke about building on and expanding the Open Graph with Apps. The original Open Graph App is the Like button, and we’ve been dutifully clicking that button for well over a year now, telling Facebook where we are and what we Like. People are buzzing about the new Open Graph Apps, and they should be excited.

Web Intents

The new ‘Read’, ‘Listen’ and ‘Watch’ functionality is essentially a frictionless, more nuanced Like. Some of these new verbs will be delivered through Open Graph Apps from media companies like Spotify and Netflix. Facebook doesn’t want to interrupt your activity attention.

No more clicking.

But this isn’t something that Facebook is sitting in a room dreaming up laughing a Dr. Evil laugh. A lot of this is also being explored via Web Intents, a reference to an Android feature. A great post by Glenn Jones describes web intents and an idea for a web intents management dashboard, banishing pesky button sluts from the Internet landscape.

At f8 Facebook announced it wants to be that dashboard.

Patterns

There was a lot of talk about uncovering patterns in the behavior of your social graph. Maybe Facebook thinks patterns is a more palatable term than algorithm, but that’s basically what they’re talking about. The Open Graph contains a representation (i.e. – index) of the Internet, but ‘crawled’ and ‘indexed’ by people through social gestures or web intents (choose your buzzword).

Thus far the only real social gesture has been Like. New Open Graph Apps reduce the friction and increase the diversity of social gestures entering the Open Graph. Facebook wants more data to mine and they want better context with that data.

Facebook is making it easy for you to help them build a better web index.

Timeline

So why all the focus on the timeline? I think there is a human desire to delve into our past, whether it be scrap-booking or genealogy or plain nostalgia. Facebook seems to be the platform where a lot of those connections (to those high school ‘friends’) persist. So it makes sense from that stand point.

But it also provides a very clear infrastructure for ensuring that important documents are preserved. It’s not easy to find certain pieces of content from five years ago. Even with savvy search parameters locating old content can be difficult. Trust me, I do this a lot and I’m amazed at how tough it can be.

Remember, digital content is exploding! Capturing the ‘right’ and ‘good’ content is getting more difficult. Facebook is using crowdsourcing to tackle this problem via Open Graph Apps and tucking it away in a time based archive for easy retrieval.

If the timeline works, Facebook creates a well curated repository of documents and social gestures.

GraphRank 

The other concept introduced was the idea that Facebook can understand what is personally relevant to you through GraphRank. I’ve seen a lot of people complain about EdgeRank (which I assume has now been replaced by GraphRank). People didn’t want Facebook to make those decisions and Eli Pariser was irked and sold a lot of books.

But Google wants the same thing really. They’ve talked about psychic search and about knowing what you want before you realize it yourself. Here’s what Eric Schmidt had to say four years ago.

“The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?’ ”

“We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don’t know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google’s expansion.”

That puts Google+ into perspective doesn’t it?

Search Re-imagined

GraphRank seems like the introduction of a continuous frictionless search. Sure, it’s passive search but there are more and more ways to pivot that into an active search. Isn’t this just another take on what the Google Related Toolbar is doing?

My ‘More Like This‘ concept could now be executed without a click and instead deliver a set of related ‘stories’ when I hover over that item. One only needs to check out dontclick.it to see what could be.

Search as we know it today may not be what it looks like tomorrow. Facebook made me think that the way we discover information could change and that the definition of search is mutating.

TL;DR

Facebook launched their version of search at f8. It might not be the traditional search you imagine, but it’s search nonetheless. Building on the Open Graph, Facebook will rely on Open Graph Apps to create a more diverse and frictionless social stream that will become the bedrock for information discovery interfaces of the future … and past.

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

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

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?

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.

 

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.