Until then, here’s my list.

Useful Search Operator Combination 1: Get (some) Google link information

Operators to use: intext: site: inurl:

This one’s really useful – if a bit of a makeshift – because Google’s own ‘link:’ command provides only a partial list of sites, as the full selection is reserved exclusively for site owners with Webmaster Tools installed.

I should point out that this is an approximation and only looks at links that use the URL (rather than those that use other anchor text), but It’s still useful as a lot of legitimate links reference URLs rather than using other anchor text.

e.g.To find external links to the main domain of C&M’s recommended provider of ‘Cheap UK Lunch Snacks‘, I’d search:

intext:www.findus.com -site:www.findus.com (to filter out internal links) -inurl:findus (optional; to filter out other Findus affiliated domains)

Finding links this way also affords the added bonus of Google’s sidebar filtering, so you can then sort results by date, region, etc. Very useful. Very moving.

Useful Search Operator Combination 2: Find blogs from a given region, source, or author that have mentioned your website or brand

Operators to use: intext: OR site: inurl: inblogurl inpostauthor: (in Google Blog Search)

e.g. to find mentions of the C&M brand from UK affiliated domains I’d search:

intext:C&M OR “Content & Motion” -site:www.contentandmotion.co.uk inurl:co.uk

And to find the mentions from a given source such as Wired Sussex:

intext:C&M OR “Content & Motion” -site:contentandmotion.co.uk site:wiredsussex.com

And to find mentions by the world’s leading writer of tasteful erotic fiction Jake Doran:

intext:C&M OR “Content and Motion” -site:contentandmotion.co.uk inpostauthor:Jake Doran

Note: as this search is made in Google Blog search, you can also easily obtain an RSS feed of the results to spy on monitor mentions of your brand.

Useful Search Operator Combination 3: Identify how many of your own pages are optimised for the same search terms

Operators to use: allintitle: allinurl: site:

Like death and wild religious visions, some things are absolutely inevitable. For instance, there comes a time when every human being needs to take a second look at their website’s keyword optimisation.

And, if you’ve reached that stage in life, you’re in luck. The handy command outlined below allows you to see how many of your own pages are optimised for the same term – in either page titles or URLs – helping to identify where search term focus needs to be refined and improved.

e.g. if I wanted to look at how many internal pages on the C&M site are optimised around the term ‘Facebook Marketing Strategy’ within page titles, I’d search:

allintitle:Facebook Marketing Strategy site:contentandmotion.co.uk

And to check URL optimisation:

allinurl:Facebook Marketing Strategy site:contentandmotion.co.uk

In the above examples there’s only one page that is optimised – which is fine. However, if the results returned showed a plethora of pages optimised for the same term, then it would be time to sharpen things up.

Useful Search Operator Combination 4: Find out how many competitor sites are targeting the same keywords as you are

Operators to use: allintitle: site:

e.g. to find the number of competitor sites that are optimising around the term ‘Social Media Agency’, I’d search:

allintitle:social media marketing -site:contentandmotion.co.uk

This operator combination is a useful keyword research tool – the fewer competing results that are actively optimising around the term by including it in page titles, then the less competitive the term is and the easier it will be to rank for searches on that term.

Useful Search Operator Combination 5: Get a list of sites that others are linking to and identify influential hubs

Operators to use: linkfromdomain:

Also-ran search engine Bing is needed for this one and the operator ‘linkfromdomain:’ is your man.

e.g. if I wanted to analyse the links from the C&M site, I would type linkfromdomain:contentandmotion.co.uk

This is also useful for identifying useful hubs and communities around given topics that are being linked to from authority domains.

e.g. if I wanted to look at blogs that focus on gourmet food – which are linked to from an eminent newspaper such as The Guardian – I’d search:

linkfromdomain:guardian.co.uk gourmet food blog -site:guardian.co.uk

Note: You can also use ‘linkfromdomain:’ to find expired domains with authority links, by searching for:

‘linkfromdomain:guardian.co.uk domain expired‘ or ‘linkfromdomain:guardian.co.uk domain for sale’

Then acquire these domains and 301 redirect them to your own. Furtive (but rewarding).

Useful Search Operator Combination 6: Find backlinks to competitors from trusted authority domains (then approach the same sites with useful content)

Operators to use: linkdomain: inurl:

Google is perceived to place a higher importance on links from trusted domains, such as those affiliated with governmental organisations or universities.

Identifying links to competitor sites from such domains can be a good way to pinpoint potential linking opportunities. The sites that are revealed can be worth trying to get links from, as authority sites are less likely to host spammy/paid-for links.

To achieve this, it’s best to search for the common URL extensions of so-called authority domains that belong to the likes of Universities or government institutions (like .ac.uk, .gov.uk and .edu) alongside Yahoo’s ‘linkdomain:’ command.

e.g. if I wanted to analyse the links to Econsultancy from educational domains, I’d search (in Yahoo, not Google):

linkdomain:econsultancy.com inurl:”.ac.uk”

To check competitor links I would simply replace the C&M URL with that of a competitor.

Alternatively, you could go the other way around and use the command ‘linkfromdomain:’ (covered above), to arrive at a subset of links from a specific site.

Useful Search Operator Combination 7: Find Twitter mentions over a given time period

Operators to use: linkfromdomain: site: daterange:

Twitter only provides a week’s worth of mentions from its own search engine but sometimes it’s necessary to get figures for a longer time period.

So, if you’ve just got to have the figures, you can search for @contentmotion site:twitter.com , (replacing our twitter account name for your own) then filter using the daterange: operator or – more easily – Google’s advanced search options on the left sidebar.

Note: this is also an approximation as Google’s results aren’t 100% accurate, but it’s a worthwhile system in the absence of more complete information.

Useful Search Operator Combination 8: Launch stark-naked Michael Barrymore into the stratosphere at 6x the speed of sound

Operators to use: Coming soon

This one can only be used on a single occasion and will cause a critical syntax error if someone has already used it. I’ll include it in my next post.

We’re slowly moving towards something glorious.

Bonus resource coming soon.

But I’m strong, and eager to ensure that no one else has to go through the same pain, I composed myself, wiped away the tears with a Brillo pad, bandaged myself up and made my own. That’s fighting spirit. So, without further ado, here it is.

Common Google Search Operators

“Search Term”
This operator searches for the exact phrase within speech marks only. This is ideal when the phrase you are using to search is ambiguous and could be easily confused with something else, or when you’re not quite getting relevant enough results back. For example:

“Tinned Sandwiches”

This will search for only the finer tinned variety of the bread based snack, at the exclusion of all others.

OR
This self explanatory operator searches for a given search term OR an equivalent term. For instance, if you have an unhealthy fascination with the famous ‘Sheens’ you could search for:

“Martin Sheen” OR “Charlie Sheen”

Then immediately seek psychiatric help.

- (and +)
The - operator removes pages that mention a given term from search results. For example, if you were searching for information about Manchester, but didn’t want your results to be polluted by information about the city’s red clothed football team, you could search for the following:

Manchester -united

This would return results for “Manchester”, while removing any that feature the word “united”. Using + forces Google to return common words that might ordinarily be discarded, for example:

Peanut Butter +and Jam

~
Adding a tilde to a search word tells Google that you want it to bring back synonyms for the term as well. For example, entering “~set” will bring back results that include words like “configure”, “collection” and “change” which are all synonyms of “set”. Fun fact: “set” has the most definitions of any word in the dictionary.

site:
This searches only within a given domain – delectable when you want to only search within the confines of a particular site. For instance, if I were looking for members of my close peer group that I regularly go drinking with, on Twitter, I would search for the following (in turn, not all at the same time):

site:twitter.com Paul Daniels
site:twitter.com Geoffrey Archer
site:twitter.com Alan Hansen
site:twitter.com Nicholas Lyndhurst

link:
Use this operator to find links to a domain. Bonus note: Google only provides a sample of backlinks, meaning that this operator isn’t very useful for uncovering the complete selection of links to a site, but it is good for quickly identifying a sample of sites that link to a specific domain. For example:

link:contentandmotion.com

For a more complete selection of backlinks, use the Yahoo! operator – linkdomain: – which we will cover later.

Less Common Google Search Operators

allintitle: (and also intitle:)
Searches only for sites with the given word(s) in the page title. Intitle: does the same thing but for single words and can be used with more flexibility. For instance, if I searched:

intitle:hammer nails

The results would show pages with just “hammer” in the page title, and with “nails” elsewhere. Note: in blog search this same function is performed by inblogtitle: and inposttitle:

allintext: (and also intext:)
This operator searches only for sites where the given word(s) are in the text of the page.

allinanchor: (and also inanchor:)
This shows sites which have the keyterms in links pointing to them, in order of the most links. For instance, if I searched for allinanchor:helicopters, Google would show me the top sites which are linked to, where the anchor text for the link is “helicopters”.

allinurl (and also inurl:)
Similar to the last few, but fetches results where the key words are in the URL. This is useful if you’ve forgotten the exact URL of a website, but can still remember bits of it. Note: in blog search this same function is blogurl:, making it handy for searching for topics on specific platforms. For example:

blogger blogurl:wordpress

Would find Wordpress blogs that are – paradoxically – talking about Blogger.

inurl:view/view.shtml

Will reveal a list of webcams – useful for voyeurs.

allinpostauthor: (and also inpostauthor:)
Exclusive to blog search, this one picks out blog posts that are written by specific individuals. For instance, if you wanted sound advice on how to use Online PR and Social Media to improve your company’s ROI, you could try:

allinpostauthor:Roger Warner

Note: If you do want to use Online PR and Social Media to improve your company’s ROI, Roger can be contacted on 01273 478 278.

*
Putting an asterisk in a search tells Google ‘I don’t know what goes here’. Basically, it’s really good for finding half remembered song lyrics or names of things. If you put the asterisk in a search like:

I’ve got a brand new pair of *

Google will fill in the blank and tell you that you’ve got a brand new pair of Belgians, hopefully. Though it’ll more than likely be rollerskates.

+ (immediately before query)
Google is now craftily providing a wide range of synonym results in response to relevant search queries. For example, if I search for “California”, Google knows that this is the same as “CA” and will also return results for the latter but – and it’s a huge but – if I suffer from abbrphobia (fear of abbreviations), then just looking at the word “CA” will hurl me into a massive world of terror. I want to avoid these words like my life depends on it. So, I use:

+California

Google: providing safety and reassurance for abbrphobics.

related:
Simple: it returns searches for sites that are related to a given domain. This one is interesting for testing Google’s semantic perception of a given domain, for example:

related:www.guardian.co.uk

..
Use two full stops to search in a range of numbers, for example:

I own 1..100 cats

Will bring back results that encompass searches on “I own 1 cat” to “I own 100 cats”. Totally useless.

info:website
Using this operator will tell Google to bring back information about a certain domain. It reveals:

• Google’s cache of the site
• Pages that are similar to the one you searched for
• Pages that link to the domain you searched for
• Other pages on the same domain
• Pages that contain the domain text on their page

This operator brings back results from pages in a given place. Even better, it can be used to search for specific types of places within that location, for example:

loc:Brighton pub

Will mostly return pages for pubs that are in Brighton. It’s clever.

define:phrase
Google can do anything. If you search:

define:ululate

It will bring back six definitions from different websites, from Wiktionary to encyclopedia.com.

daterange:
This query will search within a given date and time range, but is a bit unusable because dates must be entered in the tricky Julian format. For example, the string:

beagle daterange:2455332-2455334

Will search for beagle-based articles over the last two days. Bonus link: calculate Julian dates here.

source:
This is one that only works in Google News search. If we look for:

Gordon Brown source:the_guardian

Google will show all the mentions of Gordon Brown in articles where The Guardian is identified as the news source.

location:
This is another news operator that allows you to search for articles by location:

location:London

filetype:
This lets you search for a certain filetype. For instance:

filetype:mp3

Will bring back only MP3 results. Useless note: you can also use the extension “ext:” to do exactly the same thing.

movie:
If you search:

movie:Iron Man 2

And then enter a location, Google will tell you where you can see the film and at what time. This operator can also be used in conjunction with the aforementioned “loc:”

phonebook:
This seems to only work in the US, but if you search:

phonebook:john smith

You’ll be given a worrying list of phone numbers for people called John Smith.

weather:
This is a great and simple one:

weather:brighton

Will bring back results both for Brighton pages on weather websites, as well as a little weather widget at the top of the results page.

stocks:
I use this query to track the stock price of my investment portfolio – AND NOW YOU CAN TOO. Just use the operator followed by the company ticker symbol that you wish to receive information on, for example:

stocks:BAC

Will show stock information for Bank of America.

cache:
Shows Google’s most recent cache of a webpage.

map:
Adding the word map after a locational search forces Google to produce map-based results.

in
Google can be used as a calculator. As part of this functionality, “In” is a superb function that can be used (among many other Google calculation operators) to work out the number of units of something in something else. For example:

mph in speed of light

Non-Google Search Operators

In Yahoo!:

linkdomain:
This operator, followed by the URL of the site, will return a fairly comprehensive list of links to a page or domain (more comprehensive list than Google provides, anyway). For example:

linkdomain:www.contentandmotion.co.uk

In Bing:

linkfromdomain: (note: don’t include http://)
This operator, followed by the URL of the site, returns a fairly comprehensive list of links from a page or domain, although this information is restricted to domain level, rather than page level. This is handy when you want to see the type of content that is linked to by influential domains. e.g. linkfromdomain:guardian.co.uk.

inbody:
Similiar to Google’s intext, this searches for mentions of a given term in the body of the page

feed:
Simple: finds feeds on a website, based on searched-for terms. This is a good way to find blogs.

contains:
Finds pages that link to particular filetypes. For instance, if I wanted to find pages containing MP3s of my favourite band – Mike and the Mechanics – I would search for “Mike and the Mechanics” contains:MP3. You can also use this query with the site: command, to search within a given domain.

IP:
Finds results based on a given IP address.

language:
Finds results in a given language, for example:

ocelot language:fr

In my next post I’ll outline some handy combinations and operator-based SEO strategies.

BONUS CONTENT!

A Comprehensive List of Advanced Search Operators

Still, Google has recently jumped on the bandwagon by adding sentiment analysis to Google Map reviews. But does the industry-leading search engine perform any better than a spaced-out terrier? Is sentiment measured with any reasonable level of accuracy?

Let’s find out. Let’s find out now. And let’s stick to the dog theme.

There were no sentiment analysis reports on kennels; most reviews are of restaurants and hotels. So, I’ve tenuously chosen to analyse the sentiment reports of  ‘GreyStoke House’, a pet-friendly hotel situated in the idylls of the Lake District.

Before looking at the comments, it’s worth explaining that Google seems to pick out categories based on keywords within comments and reviews. Therefore, if a high proportion of reviews mention the word ‘hosts’ (as below), this becomes a category that reviews are extrapolated from.

These reviews are also chosen from a seemingly consistent and authoritative database of sites. TripAdvisor – one of the most respected travel communities on the web – features in most review listings, and most of the others sites are similarly respected and recurrent.

Moving on to the reviews, clearly the breakfast in this place is spectacular. Just look at the comments:

This many mentions of ‘breakfast’ has created a unique category. We can see that this morning meal is clearly life-changing, but what does Google think?

Superficially, the analysis is good. Most comments are positive (apart from the last if you’re a dog or dog-owner) and the sentiment gauge is accurate. So far, so good.

Second example: The ‘Dog House Hotel’ in Oxfordshire, “looks nice” but there’s a stunning caveat – “don’t expect to feel full after a meal”. The sentiment analysis reveals a shakier system than the first example.

For instance, the sentiment gauge for the ‘dining’ category is full despite the presence of some negative comments. One, regarding a cheesecake, is savage:

“The cheese cake desert was still half frozen, and the coffee cold.”

There are a few other interesting patterns to note. While some comments are ambiguously judged, others – like the enigmatically psychedelic comments below – are explicitly marked with sentiment.

1. “Negative: Room 7. Think should be put out of use.” – booking.com
2. “Positive: The wood effect surrounds of the room.” – booking.com

It’s also unclear whether the comments are being analysed in isolation, or the within the context of the overarching reviews. There’s little comment from Google on this, so inferences have to be made. This lack of transparency makes analysis difficult. There’s very little information beyond vague cryptic comments.

For me, the overall insight is in Google’s general approach. There are a few main strands to consider here. Google has achieved:

a) A decent grasp and understanding of which sites are authoritative in their field
b) The ability to determine what constitutes a review or subjective piece of commentary
c) The ability to (quite accurately) group comments semantically, based on keyword mentions
d) A basic grasp of sentiment

Conclusion

These insights speak volumes. The keyword-worshipping Google of old is evolving: interpreting conversations, analysing sentiment, collecting subjective information, and (potentially) assimilating this information into results.

The pretentious dandy!

Actually, why not? It makes sense. This information has to be included to produce better results.

The future will reveal how accurate this interpretation can be.

With that fact in mind, I’d like to briefly run through which content types regularly appear and how to use this content to clamber through the sweaty throng of competing pages.

Firstly, here are some broad content principles that you should be focused on:

Keywords

…need to be selected, based on competitiveness, search volumes, and long-term trends.

Research

…the content themes and formats (eg, Videos, Blog posts, Tweets) that your target audience is most interested in.

Create

…good, interesting, valuable, sharable, content – and publish it freely where possible. Create something of unique value that can’t be found elsewhere.

Optimise

…this content. I’m not advocating a selfish SPAM approach, but why wouldn’t you want to give your content the best possible chance of being indexed, noted and linked to? Search Engines need to be given explicit cues (in titles, headers, links) – regardless of quality, content, and context.

Identify

…influential hubs and make sure that you promote your content within them (responsibly). The mantra of ‘build it and they will come’ won’t usually work.

Done That… What’s Next?

Here are the main forms of content you should be interested in. The key to a lot of content optimisation is getting search terms in a) The Page Title b) The URL, and c) including links to raise awareness, link equity, and the likelihood of others linking to you.

SEO Tip 1: Blog Posts

It’s also best practice to register your blog with Google and Technorati.

Why?: Good blog content can quickly appear on the front page.

Ideal when: Your blog is well-read, established, and has garnered some respect (from both users and Google).

Example: (Term = ‘Social SEO’, Results no 5/6 / PageRank 5)

SEO Tip 2: News Articles / Press Releases

Also, make sure you’re indexed by Google News and add selected keywords to your XML news sitemap if you’re using one.

As with blog posts, most CMSs can be used to add keywords to the most important places.

Why?: News articles rank (transiently) in most SERP sectors – increasingly at the pinnacle.

Ideal when: You’re regularly producing good, neutral, and newsworthy content and have the resources to continue to do so. Even better if your competitors aren’t using the same technique.

Example: (Term = ‘Hotels in London’, Result no 1)

SEO Tip 3: Facebook Pages

Why?: Social Profiles are becoming more prominent within the SERPs. Facebook pages are publically viewable and ranking with more frequency. Within pages, discussions and sub-sections can also infiltrate the results pages.

Ideal when: Your page has attracted high membership and you’re in a market that isn’t saturated with similiar pages. It’s also more auspicious for your page if your brand name is highly searched for.

Example: (Term = Hackett London, Result no 3 / 1,090 fans)

SEO Tip 4: Twitter Profiles

Don’t worry too much about links and the language used within them, they don’t pass any value or PageRank. However, I generally don’t shorten links unless I have to: user experience is improved if link text is explicit and descriptive.

Why?: Recent Google updates have led to Twitter profiles becoming far more prominent in the SERPs (although this trend has tailed off in recent weeks).

Ideal when: Your profile becomes established and linked to. Most profiles that rank are well established, highly followed, frequently updated, and continually on topic.

You’ll also stand a better chance of ranking with a valued brand name and a comfortable ‘social’ fit. eg, if you’re a known quantity in the Art or Tech sector, you’re likely to be followed in high volume.

Example: (Term = ‘Social SEO’, Result No 10 / 894 followers)

SEO Tip 5: YouTube Videos

It’s also best to include links back to your page in the video description and whenever possible.

As YouTube is effectively an independent search engine, make sure that tags are optimised so internal searches are returned in response to keywords.

Why?: Google owns YouTube and loyally places its video content within SERPs.

Ideal when: You’ve created a video that really is going to be viewed, rather than a thinly veiled corporate advertorial: most videos that rank are fairly popular.

Also helps if you’re in a relatively uncompetitive search sector and competiting against few similiar videos.

Example: (Term = ‘Social Media’, Results no 2 / 3 , 320,400 / 697,381 views)

SEO Tip 6: Images

Why?: Images regularly appear within the SERPs. Note, Google isn’t affiliated with one particular channel (like Flickr) and uses a slower bot (googlebot-image) to crawl images for inclusion within its image search index.

Ideal when: You’ve got a hefty selection of quality images to use on your site

Example: (Result no 1 for ‘Lesser Spotted Woodpecker’- the highest volume term on the teletext internet)

SEO Tip 7: PDFs / White Papers

Why?: Within niche, emerging, sectors, white papers and focused PDFs are vessels of valuable knowledge. Framing the paper by a key term also increases the chance of users linking using search terms as anchor text.

Ideal when: You’re in an emerging sector and have something interesting to say. As the sector grows, (early) established rankings can stick like muck.

Example: (Term = ‘Social Media Marketing’, Result No 7)

SEO Tip 8: Listings (Products/Jobs etc)

Why?: Product items feature heavily on the first page for specific search terms, and other items are Increasingly – but still sparingly – appearing.

Ideal when: You’ve got a steady flow of products to release onto the web that cover a wide range of long-tail search terms

Example: (Term = ‘Board Game’, Result 4)

There are a few other relevant content formats, but the principles remain the same.

Stick to the above and you’ll stand a good chance of ranking – even in more competitive sectors.

Adios.

As I write this post, at least two essential global inter-species combat tournaments are taking place. On the one hand, Microsoft has declared war on Google with its new(ish) search engine, Bing.  On the other, in a field in the middle of Kent, a Fox is locked in an epic battle against three Azure Winged Magpies and a Chaffinch.

And who cares?  Well, we do.  We have a vested interest in SEO, and we’ve just stuck a fiver each way on the Chaffinch. (Bite those ears! Bite them off!)

Back to Business:  Google vs Microsoft’s Bing

The rivalry between Google and Bing is now even more pertinent due to Microsoft’s recent alliance with Yahoo. A move which has also led to a plethora of bad portmanteaus – like Microhoo*

Nonetheless, If the Bing/Yahoo team does manage to wrestle more power from Google, then the algorithmic and presentation differences need to be analysed and understood. I’m starting here, through the nepotistic medium of C&M search queries.

Notes from the field…

Search Term 1: Online PR Agency

First things first: in Bing we’re first (and third) for the query and in Google we’re a shoddy second. And, In Bing our results generally seem higher, but our social content ranks lower.

Bing’s meta descriptions are neater than Google’s due to a less savage use of the guillotine. The handy pop-up meta description on the right hand side, with additional info, is useful.

A final quirk to observe: when I tried the query at an earlier date I was presented with a weird (but fleeting) local result at the top of the Bing SERP, concerning an Online PR agency from the hedonistic paradise of Preston.

The presence of this result implies that Bing’s either confused – interpreting the PR query text as a postcode – and/or approaching search from a more local angle and returning results to a wider range of queries. Local SERPs for local people.

Search Term 2: Social Media Agency

The key observation this time is in the way that Bing seems to be (non-) handling, and (non-) indexing, social content. Within the Google SERPs we rank for very recent posts and content, but in Bing, our results are older. The Bing result below is from January 2009.

Another historical observation: a few days ago I was presented with a Bing result referring to a blog post, but framed by the URL and title of the broader blog page – which is unusual, since SERPs usually just return the meta title of resulting page.

A final observation: Google’s content is also ‘richer’ – there seems to be a dearth of video, image, and news results in the Bing SERPs. However, this could be due to a lack of uptake for Bing’s ‘enigmatic’ listing services.

This, alongside the less prominent blog posts in the Bing SERPs implies that Bing is a) less social (it cares less for social content and profiles) and b) placing more filters on social content within it’s SERPs (it cares less for optimised social content).

Search Term 3: Social SEO

First shard of insight. It looks like Bing is less focused on exact keyword term matches – with four exact matches for this search phrase on the first page (within URLs and page titles), compared to Google’s nine.

The second thing to note is that Bing has less of a tendency to group results together from the same site. With Google, it’s common to see one or two pages smashed together, like this:

Bing has potential plus points here: if two results are grinning together like The Chuckle Brothers, then users are less likely to click through on both and, from a usability perspective, not using this technique will provide searchers with a more diverse selection of results (it becomes possible to render a more varied set of results on a single page).

Illustrating the increased importance of social content – and the need for SEO to embrace Social approaches, is the ninth result on Google (now 11th). It’s interesting to note that the ‘twitterer’ in question is an influential twittizen with over 1,000 followers, and a low following/follower ratio.

This content is transient, and won’t stick around on the first page for too long – however, it does show that Google is paying more and more attention to relevant social content and Social Media in general.

Meantime, Bing’s results are  – once again – far less rich and socially inclined that Google’s.

Once again, we rank higher in the Bing SERP: second as opposed to number six in Google.

Conclusions: The Bing vs Google Smackdown

This is a work in progress: Google is constantly evolving and Bing is still developing. These nuances could evaporate as new ones appear. There are already a few historical observations in this post.

It’s going to be interesting looking at the differences in the two engine’s differing approaches over time, and a full analysis of the importance of backlinks will be even more iluminating.

More soon…

*I like Yahmsoft. Or Yaft. Both could be successfully adopted by industry leading butter brands.

But is ‘Social SEO’ – connecting ‘Social Media’ approaches and SEO thinking – the new approach to doing SEO?

How, and why, should Social channels be used? Where are the similarities, cross-overs, and (brace) synergies between SEO and Social Media?

Here are 10 thoughts on the matter…

Social SEO #1: Social recommendations = the new backlinks?

Looking into a future that (disappointingly) looks nothing like Blade Runner but a lot like Brazil,  it’s likely that Google’s algorithm is going to place more importance on Social recommendations and pointers. Backlinks have held the power for a long time – and will continue to do so – but there’s an array of Social information available and practices such as URL shortening have mangled the language of the web. Google’s already placing more importance on sentiment related content – particularly reviews – and these cues are being assimilated to create a more Social approach to ranking pages.

Social SEO #2:  Brand updates = more need for Social SEO?

Google’s recent algorithm update has placed more emphasis on brand value in order to filter out the rivers of SPAM that burst from the levees of competitive SERPS. Although this update has only had a noticeable effect on a few competitive sectors, it does mean that SERPs are becoming more reliant on intangible ‘brand’ attributes when ranking pages.  How can these brand-dams be built? By being socially active and conversational on the web.

Social SEO #3:  Useful content (publicised through Online PR) = backlinks

Engaging content encourages backlinks: but consider the caveat that ‘build it and they will come’ won’t work. If your content is talked about by, and know to, influential Social hubs then backlinks will stream in like british-sunbathers-to-a-half-sunshine-sky. Crispy.

Social SEO #4:  Online PR and Social Media activity + good content optimisation = good backlinks

Aye. Further to the last point, if you use the language of search to frame your content and – crucially – get keywords into your URLs, then you’ll increase the likelihood of others using your key terms when linking to you. URLs are frequently used as anchor text (I’m briskly sidestepping URL shortening issues).

Social SEO #5: Content curation – a new affiliate channel?

Useful content shouldn’t be static or ephemeral. It should be gathered together and curated to expand its lifespan. Facebook, Netvibes, Ning, et al, all allow this to be easily achieved and when the container spaces can be optimised, a nicer, kinder, affiliate page is born.

Social SEO #6: Offline Marketing (and memorability) = SEO?

Just like the pre-Altamont 60s, all strands of content can exist in in peace, love, and harmony. Online and offline don’t have to be inimical and memorable TV adverts and catchphrases are still effective. Take my favourite shoulder-melting, appendix-assaulting, soft drink Red Bull: I like their sketchy adverts and their memorable catchphrase ‘Red Bull gives you wings’. ‘Offline’ content can quickly spread Online (when it’s good) and will be frequently viewed, searched for, and linked to. So, is it a step too far to SEO your offline communications in preparation for Online crossover using influential Social channels? Maybe. Maybe not. But there’s no penalty for framing your content in this way from the start.

Social SEO #7: (Social) semantic data is the new meta data

This deserves a post of its own – but the Web is changing and, in the (indefinite) future, we’ll be given much more than just meta descriptions and page titles in our SERPs. We’ll be presented with reviews, profiles, and all sorts of related content in response to keyword searches from dystopian devices. Being Social may be the future equivalent of writing a good (and more persuasive) meta description: those that add semantic data to their pages will have the advantage over their search competitors. Interesting developments on this score include the ‘common tag’ and Google’s recent support for rich snippets.

Social SEO #8: Good user experience – the new no-follow plugging?

This isn’t strictly a Social point, but there’s been a lot of wailing about Google’s recent announcement that nofollow links don’t actually conserve PageRank flow for ‘follow’ links on the same pages. This is a complicated issue. However, there is a solution: provide a logical, user-centric structure to your web site and make sure your most important content has single pages. Clarity, brevity, succinctness: these rules are good for users and for PageRank flow.

Social SEO #9: Well optimised content is the new… well optimised page

Simple one this – not at all new – but still important. Google (increasingly) likes placing all breeds and species of content – web pages, blog posts, video, images, etc – in its ‘standard’ SERPs. Content should be submitted to relevant search engines, talked about on as many Social channels as possible (eg YouTube, Flickr, etc) and Google’s probably-soon-to-be-more-important content database – Google Base.

Social SEO #10: Local and Social is the new Long Tail

With reference to semantic data, local and niche search results are becoming more important, widespread, and relevant. For instance, Instead of just search + location, Google is beginning to list local results for less strict searches such as ‘search near x landmark’ and this trend could continue to permeate its SERPs for anything that could be interpreted as regional. This trend could place some emphasis on building a brand with a strong regional (and therefore Socially-grounded) association, using Social channels and recommendations. Interestingly, Google also seems to be using user recommendations and reviews when returning local search results.

Conclusion: SEO has to be Social

‘Social Media’ and SEO approaches need to work together. They are two distinct entities but compliment each other like Yin and Yang, Superego and ID, Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus from Milli Vanilli, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant from Led Zeppelin. Take one away and the other’s less effective. I’m just thinking through the connections – any other ideas about where they lie?

P.S. I’m leaving out a review of Google Wave here as it’s a whole new post and this one’s already longer than it should be….!

But with URL shortening comes search problems: links are one of the most important ranking factors used by Google and its search engine competitors.

The more inbound links to a page, the greater its chances of ranking for key terms. Google needs these cues to decide which pages to place in its SERPs (Search Engine Results Pages) and the largest portion of ranking benefit is often delivered by links.

So, are Social Media link shortening services a force for good or evil?

But – and this is a critical point – link language is also important.  Google (and other search engines) looks at the words within a link’s anchor tag to judge what a page is about. For instance, a page that has many inbound links that contain the text ‘customised infinity gloves for mums’ has a high chance of ranking in response to an (unlikely) search for that term.

Bearing this in mind, the scrambled, unpredictable syntax of oompa-loompa (shortened) links is not necessarily good for search engines and their understanding and mapping of the web.

Shortened links also create user confusion – despite their brevity, convenience, and rudimentary measurement potential.

Take this link for example: http://bacn.me/8ok. Being from the bacon loving folks at bacn.me, there’s obviously a bit of salty meat promotion going on, but where does it lead? At face value, for all I know, it could direct me to an article on the artistic abilities of the greater bullfinch. It doesn’t – I’d love it to – but the URL tells me absolutely zilch about the page I’m going to be directed to.

Many URL shortening services offer a ‘custom’ option, so relevant anchor text can be added to the shortened url – good for user understanding and search engine crawling – but these features are not commonly used.

And, to add to the confusion, it’s also worth noting that links created on sites where shortened links are most commonly found (e.g Twitter) are not valued by Google as they’re ‘nofollowed’.

’Nofollow’ means that Google won’t pass on any ranking benefit to the destination page – in fact, it won’t even bother to follow the links (even though other search engines may handle them differently).

So, could the rise of link shortening on Social Media sites affect the quality of our search results?

If users and webmasters continue to link more frequently through services like Twitter, then the paradigm of using links to rank sites could be rendered less important – and more difficult to influence – as the cues are sucked into a vacuum.

Taxing.

It’s still early days but I wouldn’t rule out an algorithmic tweak or an official statement from Google in the near future.

Any opinions?

Further Reading…

A good review of the relative benefits and disadvantages of the main URL shortening services that are available – from Searchengine Land.

Unlike reality TV, new Google tricks get us genuinely excited here at C&M. Quite a few new-cool-things have been added – although only to a limited series of domains at first. Many of these changes are in response to the challenge of sprightly search-engine-upstarts who could pose a threat to Google’s search supremacy.

Throwing down the gauntlet are (among many others):

Wolfram Alpha: Hyped as a Google beater, but still quite a different beast. Go and sample its utopian streets and avenues – or just type something in. It speaks another language, based on a different grammatical system. English. Basque.

Mahalo: A ‘Human Powered’ search engine, results are filtered through user participation and involvement. Good idea but, alas, the results aren’t great….yet.

Twitter: Not strictly a search engine – but it’s real time updates are appealing for some searchers and newshound journos, as opposed to the more static default Google SERPS.

Google has responded with:

Support for Microformats: An extended, semantic, form of meta data, that allows extra meaning and context to be displayed in response to a search engine query. For instance, a search result for a specific product search may contain a review rating – a bit like a mini website preview rather than a description.

Added search options: Results can now be categorically filtered. Much of this functionality (e.g – search by date) was previously available through advanced search. Other new bits ‘n’ bobs like the ‘wonder wheel’ add an extra visual and semantic edge to searches – along the same lines as Hakia.

So what does this mean and, two weeks on, how are things looking/changing/(brace)evolving?

At the top level, this means that users are given more scope for customisation of search results (arguably bad for SEO), rather than being, effectively, lumped with the ten sites that Google chooses. However, this isn’t really anything new – a few months back, ‘SearchWiki’ was introduced, allowing results to be deleted and adjusted (using the two icons at the side of each result).

In my humble opinion, it’s unlikely that the majority of users will take much notice – at least not for a while. Of course, the web amigos (and amigas) will embrace these changes like their lost daschund that’s just returned after five gruelling nights in the hills; others will just click on. Web literacy still has to catch up before there is any behavioural or, even, psychological change.

It will take a while for the billions of web pages to catch up with most of the changes. Even finding a representative query for this post was tricky.

While some of us are infuriated with the SPAM, irrelevance, or just plain dullness of the ten results that fall onto our screens in response to our keyword demands; others won’t take too much notice. Sometimes people can be strangely resistant to the new, even if it makes something easier or better, providing that ‘something’ was never too much of a problem in the first place.

It’s easy to get caught in the internet bubble but l don’t think these changes represent any immediate, or significant, change in the way the general public searches…yet.

Poor Susan.

Agree / Disagree?