« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »
October 24, 2007
PageRank Punches Perennials
[Cue Bob Eucker]
In case you haven't noticed, and judging by the attendance you haven't, the Indians have managed to win a few ball games . . .
. . . and . . .
[Cue 1982]
The Google PageRank for major sites is plummeting like the careers of Soft Cell, Dexys Midnight Runners, and Toni Basil.
Below are some articles discussing Google PageRank drop for the biggies:
Major Sites Taking PageRank Hits
Google Reduces PageRank of Many Sites
Google Changing the PageRank Algorithm?
The drop in PageRank is most likely a result of Google devaluing links pointing to major sites from very large networks. Because of the removal of the value of those links, the sites experience a drop in PageRank. You can call it a penalty, but that does not get at Google's intention or tell you anything about the process. These sites still have PageRank and they still show in results. We are seeing the cumulative result of one piece of the puzzle being altered.
Why is this distinction important? It tells you that you need to vary your links. Google is getting much better at categorizing links and devaluing certain types that exist solely to impact rankings. A huge, old site will survive because so many other links and/or so many other pieces of the puzzle are very strong. However, you will not survive if you are a smaller, younger site that relies on rankings based on an overwhelming number of one type of link pointing to your site.
[Cue Lloyd Bridges]
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Posted by tom at 01:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 23, 2007
Analyzing A PPC Campaign Without Analytics
In my mind’s eye I have an idealistic view of each paid search account that I manage. Of course it includes my clients achieving stratospheric ROI, but at heart I am a numbers guy. I know that in order to get the best possible results it requires the best possible data. However I do live with both of my feet on the ground and I realize that not all clients possess the ability to successfully deploy/integrate analytical tracking into their ‘web systems’ for a plethora of reasons.
The idealist in me wishes this were not so, while the realist tells me to move on. In that vein, and using the data that is readily available to all PPC campaigns there is still a lot of analysis that can be done to help guide us in making decisions. The hardest part is deciding which piece of the data that we do have should be ‘worth’ more than the others. In light of that, I try to visually represent things as much as possible so that they can stand or fall on their own merits and go from there.
To borrow a phrase from someone much wiser than me, I have found that where there is a will there is a way. Part of that way for me is described below in a section of a case study for a client that is not able to take advantage of analytics. Please keep in mind that this is not a complete analysis but rather highlighting how to find a way to gather useful data out the information that we do have.
Some Basic Facts:
•Who: A large client that has excellent brand awareness and a sizable spend
•What: Specific areas of interest are in brand vs. non-brand and key phrase length
•Where: Continental U.S.
•When: 3rd Quarter 2007
•How: Analyze the ‘big five’ data points (Impressions, Clicks, Click-Thru-Rate, Average Cost-Per-Click, Cost).
•Statistical Constraints: To be included in our data set each phrase must have had at least 1,000 Impressions and a Click-Thru-Rate of at least 5%.
Branded Terms
When I look at branded phrases the first thing that sticks out to me is the obvious dominance of the 4 word key phrase. In this instance the length of the brand name has a lot to do with this, also but notice that 1, 2, and 6 have roughly the same footprint. How do we make a judgment between 1, 2, & 6? Well, taking a more holistic view will aid us in this.
From the pie chart we can see that the 6 word key phrases rate far better than 1 or 2 word key phrase’s because of the negative impact of the higher cost associated with them.
Non-Branded Terms
When I look at the non-branded phrases I am first struck by fact that only key phrases with 2 and 3 terms qualified for inclusion in our data sample. The biggest difference, however slight, is in the impressions where 2 wins over 3.
The next fact that sticks out is how close the two phrases are together in overall performance. They may have individual nuances that can be tweaked but neither phrase should be overlooked in its importance to the success of the non-branded phrases.
Overall
The final piece that I will examine is comparing the branded phrases directly to the non-branded phrases. I find it important to introduce another measurement to the ‘big five’, number of keyword phrases, at this point to add weight to the question of reach.
The most striking thing besides the dominance of the branded keywords, is in looking at the enormity of the Average Cost-Per-Click for non-branded terms.
Conclusion
As a campaign manager one of my core duties is to make sure that I have collected as much important information as possible before we start to make decisions that guide the direction of the campaign. Although I would prefer a campaign with fully integrated analytics that is not always possible. In that case it is vitally important to make the best analysis that we can with the data that we do have.
Posted by brent at 03:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 22, 2007
HTML Form Selections Being Indexed
I had a client write in and ask a question:
"How do you prevent an engine from indexing a huge list of form selections?"
Initially I started to put together my own list of different ways to block, move or get rid of huge amounts of worthless text but then I dug a little deeper and realized this particular client's situation wasn't a problem at all.
For one thing the pages in question are buried deep in the SERP’s and only show in the index for this query because they support one instance of the “keyphrase”.
My reply…
The reason the form selection(s) are being indexed in these SERP's is because the form HTML is the only place the "keyphrase" is mentioned on those pages. Google is taking the only text around that “keyphrase” and using it in the SERP. If the "keyphrase" wasn't in that form selection (which is read by Google as text), that page would never even come up for that query.
1. Create content on the page that supports the “keyphrase” and Google will use it instead.
2. Change form application to a non-crawled script such as java. Then you can hold the text in a separate file. This option will decrease your indexed page count for that query because the one instance of the word that Google was using for the SERP will now be gone. Unless by chance there is some obscure link out there pointing to the page with “keyphrase” inserted.
3. Not a huge concern. We are more worried about what comes up in the first few pages of the SERP’s… not the last few.
Yahoo has code to stop the indexing of text snippets but Google still does not.
As complicated as stuff can get sometimes, it’s nice to see the simple things come across my desk every once in a while.
Posted by james at 07:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 19, 2007
Using Yahoo Search Assist for Keyword Research
In addition to using "typical" keyword research tools like WordTracker and Keyword Discovery, I frequently pop in to Google Suggest because I appreciate the quick interface and I like the "from the horse's mouth" approach to spotting keyword trends. While Google never really comes out and says it, I think it's defensible to suggest that the listings are ordered based on popularity. Here's a look at a Google Suggest query for [sports]:
A couple weeks ago, Yahoo announced Yahoo Search Assist, a tool similar to Google Suggest that helps refine and suggest queries based on what other people are searching for. Here is the resulting screen for a Yahoo Search Assist query for [sports]:
You should immediately see a critical difference in how the engines serve the suggestions. Google Suggest displays only those terms that begin with your search term.
Yahoo Search Assist shows terms and phrase that include your terms anywhere in the query. That's a huge improvement, and I hope Google Suggest takes a cue from that feature.
Both Google Suggest and Yahoo Search Assist contain a feature worth noting, and it can throw you if you're not paying attention. Typically, once you complete a word, that word disappears from the list of suggestions, because (I assume) the engine believes you're thinking beyond that single word. Here's a good example. At Yahoo, as you type the word vacation, you see the word vacations in the list of suggested queries:
But as soon as you completely type vacations, that term disappears from the list of suggestions:
As I said before, the same thing happens at Google. So if you typed too quickly, you might think the term "vacations" isn't popular. But nothing is further from the truth. So if you're doing quick, impromptu keyword research at either Google Suggest or Yahoo Search Assist, type slowly, because a lot can happen between keystrokes.
Posted by erik at 08:05 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
October 17, 2007
The Art of Honest SEO
Next month I will present a webinar on "What is SEO?" Instead of talking about key phrases, links and code, I will talk about what matters to my audience most: They want to know how online marketing can help them sell more widgets than their competitors. I can get into the nitty gritty explanations later. And to be honest, there are very few people out there who are totally unacquainted with the subject. This is my chance to show them a wholistic viewpoint; what my company is all about and how we can partner together to achieve the customer's goals.
I always like to start these presentations with a definition of what we're shooting for: I want the audience to understand that the goal is to improve the site's usability for human beings, along with its search engine friendliness. A no-tricks, no-spam approach delivers the best results over time, as Bruce Clay explains so well in his excellent article "Search Engine Optimization Standards and Spam Discussion."
What we do is part art and part science. I fall fairly heavily on the "art" side myself, and have always believed that creating content with human users in mind also reaps rewards on the search engines. Jill Whalen in her recent article "The Art of SEO" reiterates her longstanding belief that there is no magic SEO formula; in fact being too stringent with SEO "requirements" may likely trigger search engine spam filters. I'd rather get to know my customer and his business so I can apply my SEO knowledge to improve his website, instead of just overloading it with SEO elements.
All of this said, I won't pretend that I don't want to persuade prospects to work with my company. But I want them on board from the start for all the right reasons. Explaining "the art of honest SEO" has always proven to be time well spent.
Posted by lisa at 08:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 16, 2007
MSN's Hotmail Now Offers 5 Gigs Of Storage
Just last week I noticed my Hotmail account had undergone a complete makeover. Not only does Hotmail now offer 5 Gigs of email space but the interface itself seems less arduous to use than its biggest rival, GMail.
I have had my Hotmail account for about thirteen years now and just can't let it go for some reason. I think it may be because it's one of those comfort zones I just can't let go nor want to get out of for whatever reason. And with the new facelift, it has solidified my resolve to continue to use it for a looooong time to come.
Some of the new features are VERY Google-esque. A good example of this would be MSN's Calendar which like Google, allows you to jot down your to-do list for whatever it is ya got planned. Also similar to Google's GMail, you can search your emails and/or Live.com with MSN's own search technology via the hotmail interface.
There's a ton of other new features with Hotmail but I just don't have the time to list them all here.
I see solid progress for Microsoft with their Hotmail relaunch, but still see room for improvement, and of course, room for intrusion. Like GMail, I anticipate seeing content-matched ads appearing in Hotmail emails sometime soon.
Posted by sean at 08:56 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
October 15, 2007
Broad Match and “Other Relevant Variations”
I came across an interesting question in Google Adwords Groups this morning. Someone had posted a question that pointed out a little advertised ‘feature’ of Broad Match that struck a nerve.
Now I’ve never big a huge fan of Broad Match, but then again I wouldn’t characterize myself as a ‘hater’ either. Unlike Content Match, I have been able to find some positive return from using Broad Match, however, like an ornery child it requires a lot of supervision.
The question was basically this, How come I am getting clicks/being charged for key phrases that include words that are not in my {broad} list? Intrigued I did a little research to find chapter & verse from Google’s guidelines and came across an interesting explanation:
This explanation still leaves a lot to the imagination so I queried further by clicking the “other relevant variations” link and I received an eye-opening description of Broad Match:
With broad match, the Google AdWords system automatically runs your ads on relevant variations of your keywords, even if these terms aren't in your keyword lists. Keyword variations can include synonyms, singular/plural forms, relevant variants of your keywords, and phrases containing your keywords. "
Did I read that right? Are the phrases “automatically runs your ads” and “terms aren’t in your keyword lists” actually in the description of Broad Match, let alone a part of the same sentence? I usually find Google to be an exceptional product/service but this little nuance seems to take advantage of those who don’t know any better. To a new or even experienced user who doesn’t take the time to dig into the exact meaning of terms within Adwords this little nuance could end up costing them a lot of money in a hurry.
Now I’m sure this will add fuel to the fire of those who truly do hate Broad Match, but that is not the intent. Rather, the intent is to point out the fact that the default settings may not necessarily be the best for your particular campaign. More than ever, as new features are added to relative cornucopia of paid search options, it is vitally important to know how these features are being defined, defaulted, and designed to work.
One last thing, as I’ve been pondering and writing, I can’t help but hear that little voice inside my head say at at double the normal speed -
Posted by brent at 01:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 13, 2007
Web 2.0 and Social Media Optimization Trends: Memetrackers
I have been scoring the Internet the last few days trying to find resources related to Web 2.0 and/or Social Media Optimization and I came across the idea of “Memetracker Web Sites.” From a Web 2.0 perspective these sites are geared towards collecting information about “hot topics” or things that create a “buzz” in the news or Blogging communities and make this information readily available to the masses. Wikipedia defines the word “Memetracker” as “a tool for studying the migration of memes across a group of people. The term is typically used to describe Web sites that either: A) Analyze blog posts to determine what Web pages are being discussed or cited most often on the World Wide Web, or B) Allow users to vote for links to Web pages that they find of interest.”
The first Memetracker site was most likely Gabe Rivera’s news and politics site called “Memeorandum.com,” which used an algorithm to collect top stories from a plethora of news Web sites and Blogs.
Here’s a list of the top old school Memetracker sites online:
1) Blogniscient
2) BlogRovr
3) Blogrunner
4) Blogsnow
5) Buzzfeed
6) Chuquet
7) Daily Rotation
8) Feedable
9) Megite
10) Newroo
11) Slashdot
12) StrategicBoard
13) Tailrank
14) Techmeme
15) Technorati Kitchen
16) Tinfinger
17) Topix.net
18) TruthLaidBear
How do I benefit from visiting these sites?
Although these sites are viewed as old school Blog news aggregators, they can still be utilized from a “Reputation Management” standpoint. These Blog sites will enable you to see exactly what is being said about your company products, services, complaints, etc. Use these sites as monitoring resources and be proactive in terms of reputation management – don’t get caught being reactive!
Posted by brett at 12:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 12, 2007
Site Down Time Causing Drops in the Google Index
It's been a very busy week in Campaign Director land and now I'm ready to enjoy the weekend with my family. I've had to deal with many issues over the past few days but one particular problem I dealt with was a client's site down time and the affect this can have in the Google index.
Recently this client had been going through server changes and routine maintenance. Occasionally the site would be down from between a few minutes to a few hours at a time. Over the course of a few weeks they would lose and then regain positions (and indexed pages) in Google. The process of crawl, server down error, starting to be removed from the Google index, reappearance in the Google index, was only a few days.
This topic was discussed earlier this year (Site Down Time Can Remove You From Google Index) - (Site Downtime Can Delist You From Google) and it was understood then that:
1. Google can remove your pages from the index if they are down even temporarily.
2. "Googlebot will try a few times before the pages drop from the index." ~ Vanessa Fox
3. "As for how long it takes for a page to get back in once the site is back up, that really depends on a number of factors, such as how often the site is crawled in general." ~ Vanessa Fox
4. "Sometimes temporarily down pages turn into truly-gone-forever pages, so we have to drop those pages at some point. But it’s also true that we go back and revisit those pages pretty often and try to recrawl them in case the site comes back up." ~ Matt Cutts
I know this isn't anything new but it's an issue that I currently deal with and will probably continue dealing with in the future. Site down time has been a factor when trying to diagnose index problems with client sites and will stay in my checklist. It took my client a few days to reappear in the Google index and in those few days they lost major positions and traffic. For some Ecommerce sites, this "little" problem can turn into a major situation in a hurry.
Monitor your uptime, try to keep the downtime to a minimum, make sure your server returns the proper "server status" error.
See ya Monday, enjoy!
Posted by james at 03:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 11, 2007
Keyword Research + Research on Keywords = Better ROI
Most, if not all, Search Engine Marketers (SEM) will preach the importance of keyword research. If yours doesn’t, it’s probably past time to ask why not. When most people speak about keyword research they are referring to the work done at the beginning of an SEM campaign. This is unquestionably the backbone of an SEM campaign, however there are other interesting and important ways to do research on your keywords.
In the real world I actually find this step to be vital in trying to determine why in the world (pun intended) I’m not performing for a keyword that I think I should be. Take for example the phrase “ppc”. When I searched on Google Trends for “paid search, pay per click, ppc” these are the results that were returned.
As you can see “ppc” is far and away the traffic leader but as the bottom half points out there are quite a few different cultural groups that show up for “ppc”.
If we do a little digging we will find what we thought we would find, Pay Per Click results, but we will also find quite a few other results including Pocket PC, and even a Vietnamese power company.
Now, besides the obvious Geo-Targeting issues, some reasons for why I’m not performing the way I should for the keyword “ppc” have come into focus. Steps can now be taken to either Geo-Target, and/or change the way we advertise in the various marketplaces/cultures around the world.
The main thing to remember is that keyword research is a vitally important part of any SEM campaign, natural or paid, but research on your keywords can be just as important to your bottom line .
Posted by brent at 11:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 10, 2007
2007 MLB Playoffs Definitely Not Decided by Link Building
Apparently some variable other than Link Building was at play in the divisional playoffs. It's a good thing they decided to go ahead and play the games.
Below are the results from our 2007 MLB predictions.
NLDS
Prediction: Colorado Rockies lose to Philadelphia Phillies
Outcome: Wrong
Prediction: Chicago Cubs beat Arizona Diamondbacks
Outcome: Wrong
ALDS
Prediction: New York Yankees beat Cleveland Indians
Outcome: Wrong – Congrats Doug!!!!!!!!!!!!
Prediction: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim lose to Boston Red Sox
Outcome: Right
Back to the drawing board.
Posted by tom at 03:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 09, 2007
Online Video Social Bookmarking Anyone?
Online video submission sites have been popping up everywhere online for the last year or so. Due to this increase, online marketers are utilizing this form of marketing to get their clients’ Web sites greater exposure in the search engines. Video marketing is becoming a power force for companies seeking to distribute branding content online in a viral fashion. Syndicating video content through social bookmarking sites is a great opportunity to aid a company’s Universal Search Engine Optimization efforts. As we know, Google has changed the way it is displaying its search results (Universal Search) to give users more content options in one interface.
There are many types of video submission Web sites that exist online, the primary difference being the quality of the videos being displayed on these sites. If you have clients who are creating videos to describe their products, services, etc., then I would recommend creating a video submission strategy to get this type of media found in various places online. By utilizing social bookmarking sites you can ensure that your clients’ videos will be displayed in Google’s search results as well as other media hubs online.
Here are 55 video sharing Web sites I would recommend as a starting point for creating a viral video submission strategy:
AOL Uncut, Blip, Blinkz, Break, Brightcove, Clesh, Cuts, Dabble, Daily Motion, Dave.tv, DivX Stage 6, eefoof, Eyeka, Eyespot, Fliqz, FlixYa, Forscene, Google Video, Gotuit, Grouper, iFilm, JayCut, Jumpcut, Kewego, LiveVideo, Lycos Mix, Metacafe, Mojiti, MotionBox, MyHeavy, MyNumo, MySpaceTV, Ning, OneTrueMedia, Photobucket, Revver, SevenLoad, Soapbox, StashSpace, Sumo, Twango, Veoh, Viddler, Vidilife, Vimeo, Vmix, VodPod, Vsocial, Webshots, Yahoo Video, YouAreTV, YouTube, Yurth, Zeec and Ziddio.
Video submission and/or social bookmarking Web sites have a variety of guidelines for making submissions, so play by the rules and you will see your videos show up all over the place online. You don’t have to go overboard when making submissions, as long as you can get your video to show up on the top video submissions sites like Google and Yahoo video, Metacafe, Blinkz, etc., you will be fine from a distribution standpoint.
Posted by brett at 09:40 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
October 08, 2007
Yes, Virginia(,) SEO Philology
I was quite humbled to see via Link Spiel heute morgen that yours truly unwittingly birthed the SEO Virginia genre long, long ago, circa Summer 2001.
And while they say everything changed after September 11, really the only thing the genre lost in the aftermath was the Really Is convention I thought was authentic at the time. Turns out while I had invented Really completely out of thin air, but not the all-important Is, what we really lost in exactly half of the genre along with our innocence was the comma after the introductory Yes I had faithfully inserted at the time.
SEO Virginia genre history buffs will note Danny Sullivan took less than a year to catch, and correct, his own mistake, the only such self-correction on record. He really is that good.
UPDATE: Reader Brainmuffin e-mails to suggest the genre be officially known as The SEO Virginia Monologues.
Posted by john at 03:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 04, 2007
Search Budgets Are Predicted to See Increases in 2008
According to the latest Search Marketing Benchmark Survey from MarketingSherpa, search budgets for 2008 are predicted to increase by double-digit percentages. Although many respondents attributed this to PPC inflation, the signs still point to a strong SEM and SEO industry. With many offline-advertising budgets in crisis for various reasons it’s good to see the commitment is still there for the online marketing opportunity.
The desire to bring SEM in-house is still growing stronger but the amount of companies hiring outside agencies increased over the past year, this indicates an inability to find qualified employees may exist.
With the cost of bids increasing and click-fraud still being a problem, more companies are looking the natural search optimization to better the performance of their websites. Smaller companies are finding it harder to compete in the world of PPC.
Posted by james at 09:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Someone's Been Playing with Wikipedia's Google Coop Feed
I won't even bother trying to figure out what "Hannah is a silly billy" means (other than the obvious), but it's worth noting that Wikipedia's Google Co-op feed has been compromised. Or, at a minimum, poorly maintained, as the following shot shows:
For no particular reason, I subscribe to Wikipedia's Google Co-op feed, which means that if Wikipedia has built a custom query result around a particular query -- and I search for that exact query -- then Wikipedia's result will show up first on my SERP -- above all organic results (but not above paid listings).
For the record, here's how it's supposed to work. Following is a "real" Wikipedia Co-op entry, this time for [hank aaron].
The text on the Co-op entry isn't pulled from the actual Wikipedia entry for Hank Aaron. Typically, they're custom written and uploaded through Google Co-op and delivered only to Google account holders who have subscribed to a specific organization's feed.
Posted by erik at 01:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 02, 2007
Linking MLB Postseason
You've seen us handicap March Madness with alarmingly mediocre accuracy. Now we give you every series winner of the MLB playoffs. That's right! The same crew that predicted the New York Mets demise in secret is giving away October.
Disclosure: Our MLB picks are based completely on which team's site has more external links pointing to it from pages that contain the exact phrase "World Series" and the number 2007, according to Yahoo. [linkdomain:angels.mlb.com "world series" +2007 -site:mlb.com], for example.
NLDS
Colorado Rockies (1,400) lose to Philadelphia Phillies (3,630)
Chicago Cubs (10,700) beat Arizona Diamondbacks (2,570)
ALDS
New York Yankees (16,400) beat Cleveland Indians (2,330) Sorry Doug! Perhaps an LB campaign for the Tribe?
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (3,810) lose to Boston Red Sox (13,600)
NLCS
Cubs beat Phillies
ALCS
Yankees beat Red Sox
World Series
Yankees beat Cubs
Run to the MLB Postseason Bracket Challenge and reap the benefits. Let us know if you devise a method of picking number of games in each series. Our techies are still working on that one.
Posted by tom at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 01, 2007
Google Search Results Already Finding Columnist Articles
Frank and Maureen and Thomas, oh my!
The chipped cement still has yet to be cleaned up fully from the wall being torn down at that historical error known as TimesSelect, and already we are seeing NY Times columnists able to commune with readers freely at point of search, at least at the Frank and Maureen level:
As internet titan Alan Meckler noted in his posting of the Times e-mail to subscribers, search results like these were the driving force:
Since we launched TimesSelect, the Web has evolved into an increasingly open environment. Readers find more news in a greater number of places and interact with it in more meaningful ways. This decision enhances the free flow of New York Times reporting and analysis around the world. It will enable everyone, everywhere to read our news and opinion - as well as to share it, link to it and comment on it.
Sharing it, linking to it, and commenting on it are the currency of being able to find it in search, and that might be important to a newspaper if, as the latest surveys indicate, 91% of adults use a search engine to find information and 72% get news therefrom.
Ya think?
LATE UPDATE: We just noticed that similar to 1989, another Eastern Block Web Site is about to topple...
Posted by john at 04:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Descriptive Snippets for News Sites
On the heels of Google noting the importance of a strong meta description, I felt compelled to remind you that while I agree with that in theory for most sites, not all Google properties are using it the way publishers would like. Old media is a big enough ship to turn around, and it has finally swung around to see that search is important (see John's post about Times Select), so while they're feeling nimble, I want to offer them some additional advice on click-throughs from news sites such as Google News.
Descriptive snippets on news sites have a tough job. Newspapers need their descriptions to be the "hook" that entices readers like me to click through. They need to be written to fully reside in the confined character quarters that news SERPs allow them. They need to short enough to tease and convince me that I won't get the full story by skimming headlines, but they need to be long enough that I believe THIS SPECIFIC SITE has the full story.
But the problem is that Google News doesn't consistently pull descriptive data from the meta description. Instead, it tends to pull characters from the byline, wire data (if applicable), graphics captions (if applicable), and the first paragraph of the story.
Take the Houston Chronicle as a site that just doesn't get it. In looking through my customized home page of Google News, the algo determined I might be interested in the articles shown here:
The Chronicle messes up because the first text the engine sees after the author's byline is the error text belched out by the Flash sniffer. Not exactly your article's best foot forward.
In a situation like this (an algo-generated list of stories I might like), the Chronicle has the only article about Franchione (the Texas A&M football coach). So the headline itself might be enough to convince me to click through. But if I'd searched Google News for [Franchione], the Chronicle's article would be one of many, and due to the lack of description, my click would almost certainly go elsewhere.
So what's a poor paper to do, beyond making sure its no-Flash error text gets buried out of the way? Is the rest of the article set up to give your description maximum exposure? Take a look at the following headlines and descriptions and see who really gets it:
In the shot above, the green text is descriptive text about the story itself, while the yellow text is author/byline/wire information. The LA Times gets it because they bury the byline AFTER the story's lede, as shown in the shot at the left. Only the Times gets its WHOLE abstract on the SERP. The other papers' abstracts get cut off because they lead with author bylines. On the actual article page (shown at left), notice how the Times' placement of the intro paragraph followed by the byline is mirrored on the actual Google News SERP above.
Unless your story's author IS PART OF the story itself or is part of the brand (think Dowd, Ebert, Buckley, etc.), you'll need to experiment to ensure that your byline doesn't distract readers and keep them from getting the full benefit of the description you've written. Test, test, test, and make sure your readers get the most tempting view of the story you can manage.
Posted by erik at 03:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack