Google Search in 2010 SEO Top 10 Impacts

For completeness, a timely general review of how much Google’s ‘on-screen’ presentation of its Top 10 search results has changed over the last couple of years: how it effects clients/users/customers and companies who are engaged in, advise on, and claim to ‘know’ about SEO/PPC.

In the beginning …. Google’s mission was “to organise the world’s info” and to that end they just did it and presented their (free/organic) Top 10 list of search results for any given search keyphrase on a simple, ‘uncluttered’ white background - many loved them for that.  In terms of ‘on-page’ display/presentation, dependent on individual screen settings, it was typical to see most of the Top 10 results above the fold (ATF) on-screen in those days.  Then came the ‘claim-jumpers’ … as the ‘infant’ SEO industry formed and jockeyed to try to grab those ‘uncluttered’ Top 10 spots with various White Hat and/or Black Hat techniques: many were content at that but just as many were ‘miffed’ because their website didn’t feature in the Top 10.

Google itself introduced the first little bit of on-page ’clutter’ with the introduction of its (paid for) Adwords programme. But even then ’on-page’ demarcation lines were pretty well drawn: paid for/sponsored results on the far right of the page … free/organic results on the left.   Then the first seeds of confusion were sown as Google decided to promote up to three of the paid for/sponsored results to the top of the page … immediately just above free/organic results and the free/organic results were pushed further down the page: many people didn’t even notice, the Adwords supporters were content but many in the SEO community were ‘miffed’.

Then came major ‘clutter’ to the on-page real estate with the introduction of Google Local (now called Google Places) where Google added free local listings (allied to their Google Maps product) that were strategically placed immediately below their three top of the page Ads, but just above free/organic results and further seeds of confusion were sown as the free/organic results were pushed further down the page to the point that ATF, free/organic results would be rare.

Subsequently, Google repositioned their sponsored adds away from the ’right-hand-side’ and moved them significantly to the ‘left’ so as to ‘butt-up’ almost next to the free/organic results.  Google also added an option to Adwords users to ‘enhance’ their sponsored links by adding Site Links to their Ads  … the nett effect of which is to push the free/organic results even further down the page, where even the No. 1 ‘organic’ result would be below the fold (BTF).

Another Google search enhancement that had predictable impact, particularly on the SEO community, has been Google Suggest … that, in effect, pre-empted many searchers, carrying out individual searching at all, as they let themselves be influenced by ’suggest’.

In the meanwhile, Google introduced blended/universal search results …. and ‘personalised’ search results …. including images, locations, business listings, videos, news.

And, of course, Google wasn’t alone in driving change in search: the new Social Media innovations like Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube et al, with dynamic ‘real-time’ updates took centre stage and Google had to respond.  Along the way … it was becoming more of a challenge for the SEO community to know what was going on, as there was no longer a ’single’ view as to exactly what results were being displayed to their core audience.

More recently, in April/May 2010, there was Google’s roll-out of its Caffeine index update and soon afterwards its complete overhaul of its Home Page ‘look-and-feel’ with ’usability’ improvements that they claim are a natural progression to provide a much richer end user experience – you may or may not agree with that statement!  Users can select from the ’pick-n-mix’ menu of presentational styles (some of which are listed below) that suits their individual preferences … but all in all, compared to the ‘uncluttered’ point from where we started, some may take the view that it’s an awful lot of  ’clutter’.

• The Web, Pages from the UK
• Any time, Latest, Past 24 hours, Past week, Past month, Past year, Custom range…
• Standard view, Related searches, Wonder wheel, Timeline
• Standard results, Sites with images, Fewer shopping sites, More shopping sites, Page Previews, Transalated Search

For whose benefit was all this being done? For Google’s of course! Google’s Q2/2010 revenues of $6.82bn for the quarter tells its own tale. The sure-fire winner is Google’s Adwords programme and those involved in PPC which now pretty well dominates the ATF ‘on-page’ real estate, but not much sunlight there for the SEO community.

But reflecting on all the foregoing, is all this ‘clutter’ signalling the end for the SEO community? We don’t think so. It’s a ‘game-changer’ for sure … and presents a ’different’ set of challenges, that’s all. There’s a slew of evidence (source: The Info-Tech Group) that even in these ‘different’ times, by undertaking SEO you are 6 times more likely to increase the ’stickiness’ of your website and by achieving high ‘organic’ rankings on key search terms, you bring a lot of value to your brand. In a survey of 95 IT companies, The Info-Tech Group found that 100% of companies that pursued a very high amount of SEO saw their brand gain value.

Although undoubtedly ‘different’ in these days of Social Media et al., the business model for ’search’ is still pretty much the same as ever: get the right online marketing mix of PPC and SEO and you’ll do well. Win by doing!

URL Shortening Twitters To Success

Not being a great ‘ideas’ man myself  it’s never actually happened to me - but it must be really annoying when you develop something that you think is the bees-knees, you’re positive that it’s a real winner  but then it doesn’t really ‘catch the wave’! How disappointing must that be? And then, maybe when you’ve just about given up hope, something else becomes hugely popular and almost by accident, your  ‘killer application’ is a perfect-fit, it comes of age and takes off big-time.

IMHO such is the current role of the URL shortening companies: if you’ve never heard of URL shortening/condensing, then you’ll need to be aware that these companies developed an application that took really long ugly URLs and hugely reduced them in length-size. They’ve been around for a while (TinyURL for example has been around since 2002) but there was never that much of a compelling interest in their services but then … along comes the current social media behemoth Twitter with its twit-posting service that’s predicated on limiting the number of characters in every post to 140 characters.

So there you have it – a massively popular posting service where character saving isn’t just a ‘nice-to-have’ but it’s an absolute must that’s suddenly found it’s place in the market.  Twitter have aligned themselves with TinyURL as their default solution but there’s loads of others out there and who knows which is the best to use, when so many are offered and new ones seem to appear each day? Well look no further! That much read Internet icon Danny Sullivan  has posted a detailed analysis after reviewing various services and how they stacked up in a variety of features and you can read it all here (for reference I’ve shown the long and short URLs).

http://searchengineland.com/analysis-which-url-shortening-service-should-you-use-17204 (86 chars)
http://bit.ly/ZuUw (18 chars)

In terms of what’s the best URL shortening service to follow, I’ll add no further commentary to what Danny’s written apart from to give personal added focus to the passage he writes on Stability.  If you want the ‘little URL’ in your Tweet-post to live on, there’s little point in aligning yourself to a ’shoestring’ company that’s not going to give adequate support because as Danny says, “Nothing is more annoying than tweeting a link using a URL shortener and then having people tweet back at you that the link isn’t working, because the URL shortening service has gone down.”  … or if the service just suddenly shuts down for whatever reason and all your links are ‘toast’!

Ultimately, you’ll make your own individual choices and Danny’s review is fantastically helpful in that regard. There’s little doubt that TinyURL has got the wind in its sails at the moment, although personally I’m a devotee of the newer service Bit.ly.

So URL shortening has at last Twittered to its place in the sun – well done to the innovators for holding on: rewarded at last!