How Google May Rank Websites Based Upon Their Databases Answering Queries

Sharing is caring!

NASA Computer

Databases Answering Queries

Imagine that some sites might be ranked by Google based upon how their databases answer queries. A patent from Google refers to this approach as one that looks at database service requirements to rank large sites such as sites that cover products, jobs, travel, recipes and movies. Such sites might include some static pages that provide examples of the capabilities of their databases, such as being able to provide answers to queries such as: “Brand X Cameras for less than $300.00”.

The patent provides some examples of the types of sites that are covered by this patent:

Many websites for which data available in resources store the data in large databases of structured information. For example, job search websites may have respective job databases, and respective resources (web pages) that include forms to search the databases. Likewise, recipe websites have respective databases for recipes, and movie websites have respective databases for movies. Requesting information for a certain recipe or movie causes the website to query its respective database and generate a webpage that presents the information in a structured format.

The patent tells us that most search engines do not account for the abilities of databases of such sites to respond to particular queries, which may make Google different from those search engines. The patent says:

However, many scoring algorithms do not score the search capabilities of a database when determining the relevance of a resource generated from data stored in the database. As a result, the search engine may not identify data that are particularly relevant to a query, and/or identify particular search capabilities that are available to the user that issued the query and that may help the user satisfy his or her informational need.

Imagine that Google may rank sites based upon “a service requirement score for the database,” or how well their databases answer queries.

That service requirement score would be a measure of an ability of the database to fulfill the service requirement, which would enable it to respond to a query. I just wrote a post that described how Google is working to create a database of questions and answers to those, to show as “people also ask” questions, in the post: Google’s Related Questions Patent or ‘People Also Ask’ Questions. It’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that Google is saving up questions that might be asked about Jobs, Travel, commerce, movies, and recipes, and trying to determine which sites might be best at answering those questions, and ranking those sites on their ability to answer questions with different parameters, such as “a recipe for X that is under 1,000 calories.”

Advantages Under this Patent

The patent provides a couple of examples of advantages of using the processes described in this patent that are practical and helpful:

Websites need not generate multiple “optimized webpages” that are optimized for particular instances of queries to ensure that the website is identified in a search result. Instead, the underlying capabilities of the website database and the authority of the website are used as metrics to surface websites and databases that are of high quality with respect to a particular query. This reduces the overall cost of website management, and provides users with data that are more likely to satisfy the user’s informational need than the optimized webpages.

The systems and methods can utilize the conceptual schemas of the databases to provide additional information for queries that may not otherwise be derived from the queries. For example, a user that types in the search query [Brand X cameras under 300] may be searching for Brand X cameras that cost less than $300. The user, however, may not know that the “Q” models of Brand X cameras are prosumer models that each retail in excess of $300. Thus, by use of a product database, the search engine may determine that “Q” model are each in excess of $300. Thus, the search engine may modify the query with an operator that excludes the “Q” models, e.g., [Brand X cameras under 300 OP:NOT(Q)], or, alternatively, modify the query to emphasize resources that include reference to Brand X models that are priced under $300. The search engine thus surfaces fewer resources that include extraneous information, thereby satisfying the user’s informational need more quickly than if the extraneous information were provided.

The patent is:

Resource identification from organic and structured content
Inventors: Trystan G. Upstill and Jack W. Menzel
Assignee: Google Inc.
US Patent 9,589,028
Granted: March 7, 2017
Filed: March 16, 2016

Abstract

Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer program products for structured content ranking. In an aspect, a method determines a service requirement from terms of a query, the service requirement being one of a plurality of service requirements fulfilled by databases; determines, for each of the databases, a service requirement score for the database, the service requirement score being a measure of an ability of the database to fulfill the service requirement; selects databases based on the service requirement scores; generates data responsive to the service requirement based on the terms of the query and one or more of the selected databases; and generates, from the data identifying resources that are determined to be responsive to the query and from the data responsive to the service requirement, search results that include first search results that each identify a corresponding resource that was determined to be responsive to the query.

SEO Based Upon Database Capabilities

This patent describes how sites might be ranked based upon their ability to answer questions from searchers instead of just how well optimized those sites might be based upon information retrieval relevance scores and link-based importance scores. We don’t know how much weight Google might give to a database service requirement ranking, but chances are, considering Google would be trying to find the most helpful sites, that may be considered an important metric. The detailed description for the patent starts off telling us this:

In some implementations, the search engine ranks results using a first ranking algorithm and based on non-semantic search terms, e.g., [nursing jobs]. The search system then accesses database information that describes the content and capabilities of website databases to determine which of the databases can fulfill a database service requirement. For example, if the query is [nursing jobs in Palo Alto over 100,000], the search system will identify jobs databases that have geographic and salary parameters that includes the values of “Palo Alto” and “100,000” or more. Using this information, the search engine may promote (or demote) search results referencing resources of a website that includes a database, and/or revise the query to include a constraint to filter out (or emphasize) resources that include certain terms.

The patent provides a definition of a service requirement:

a service that is requested, either implicitly or explicitly, by a query. For example, for the query [nursing jobs in Palo Alto over 100,000], the service requirement is a job search. Likewise, for the query [LAX to SFO] (or [Flights LAX to SFO]), the service requirement is a flight search.

Search Results Using Website’s Databases

The website databases may have different parameter types depending upon what kind of content is contained in the site. For instance:

…a flight search database may be configured to receive parameter values for the following parameter types: origin location, destination location, times and dates. Likewise, a job search database may be configured to receive parameter values for the following parameter types: location, job category, and salary.

These database parameters may be responded to by different parameter values, so

a particular job database may be tailored to only nursing jobs in New York and thus, the parameter value from the parameter type “Nursing Category” may be limited to specific nursing categories, e.g., Cardiology, Cardiothoracic, Hemodialysis, etc.

If Google is aware of the different parameters and values that respond to queries submitted to a site’s database, it can show those database results right in search results, as shown in this screenshot from the patent:

Database search results

I haven’t seen any search results quite like this yet, but it seems to be something to keep an eye open for.

Google may exclude some results from a query if they don’t fit what a person might have searched for as shown in this screenshot from the patent:

This makes search engines more like something that is searching a web sized database. This may be part of the future of SEO.

Sharing is caring!

110 thoughts on “How Google May Rank Websites Based Upon Their Databases Answering Queries”

  1. Thank you, Ryan.

    The process described in the patent changes SEO around a great deal. It also changes the role of a search engine, and what we might expect of search results as well. This goes a lot further than answering natural language questions with featured snippets.

  2. Hi Bill,

    Great piece of information. Looks interesting especially for large sites.

    Just trying to understand that how would Google be able to access the database of a website (of I understand right) if that is something which is first queried internally once the parameters are passed in the websites search features?

    Alternatively, static pages are created from the database based on certain filters and those pages have dynamic components which could update depending on dates and availability when accessed.

    So, how would exactly Google retrieve the results from a database? Please help clarify.

  3. Hi Akhil

    Google had a project in the past where they were crawling sites like the SEC website, and others where information was only available from filling out forms and looking at the results that show up from doing that. They produced a paper that describes how they were able to glean information from those databases, and I’m guessing that they could do something very similar with these large websites described in this patent. The paper is:

    Google’sDeep-WebCrawl
    https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~alon/files/vldb08deepweb.pdf

    That paper was co-authored by Google’s head of structured data Alon Halevy.

    As the first paragraph of that paper tells us, over 1,000 queries per second are answered by Google crawling and indexing databases on the Web:

    The Deep Web, i.e., content hidden behind HTML forms, has long been acknowledged as a significant gap in search
    engine coverage. Since it represents a large portion of the
    structured data on the Web, accessing Deep-Web content
    has been a long-standing challenge for the database commu-
    nity. This paper describes a system for surfacing Deep-Web content, i.e., pre-computing submissions for each HTMLform and adding the resulting HTML pages into a search engine index. The results of our surfacing have been incorporated into the Google search engine and today drive more than a thousand queries per second to Deep-Web content.

  4. Thanks Bill, will read through the entire paper to understand more.
    Filters would be quite useful in this case and the more structured and seggeregated the data is the higher chances of coming up I guess.

  5. Hi Akhil,

    I suspect that if the data is a little too structured or segregated, It might not rank very highly, because it might not apply to many queries.

  6. Hi Bill,

    Right, may be it just picks up things at random combinations as in from a whole lot.

    With seggeregated I mean the possibility of adding all variables available to sort the data and push that into a proper sequence when the output is thrown.

  7. Thank you for sharing,
    By the way, i ask myself how question derivation can be use to nurture a conversationnal assistant ?
    Possibly something more here.

  8. Hi Bill,
    Was reading the paper and thinking if it matters to have multiple fields in the form so that the combinations can access good amount of data with multiple variables or does it not really matter?

  9. Hi Bill,
    I did not know that Google is also using database queries for the ranking. Thanks for sharing this amazing piece of information.
    Keep up the good work.

  10. Hi Robin,

    We don’t know for certain if Google has adopted the approach in this patent and they are ranking sites based upon how responsive to queries their databases might be. The patent tells us that is possible; so if we start seeing other things from the patent, like those things in the screen shots which I included in the post, then it’s quite possible that Google has started to rank databases like they describe in the patent.

  11. Hi Renaud,

    Understanding which queries might be canonical queries – ones that people will ask about over and over, and making sure that an assistant knows how to respond to those can result in a better assistant. If Google has assess to databases that provide answers to many questions about things such as travel, recipes, movies; it may be capable of responding to questions that many searchers may have. It feels a little like opportunities are opening and becoming available to Google, being able to better understand databases it finds at different websites.

  12. Hi Akhil,

    It’s possible that choosing to use databases that provide a wider range of possible answers could mean richer search results. I suspect that we will see more patents on this topic that might give us more insights into how Google might rank databases, and use information from them in search results.

  13. Oh really !
    “Google Rank Websites Based Upon Their Databases”
    may google do that for technology related niches for every high quality websites.

  14. Great post Bill! Do you think this means that Google will start to show result pages from website search pages and also does this mean Google will start crawling and indexing Dynamic pages like internal site search pages?

  15. Hi Shohag,

    We don’t know for certain if Google will start doing this for any sites; but the patent does point on some of the types of sites that it is most likely going to be used with – travel, products, jobs, recipes, and movies. We will have to wait to see what types of sites they decide to do this with.

  16. Hi Adam,

    I don’t think it will just show results pages from website search pages, or will start crawling and indexing dynamice pages like internal site search pages. Google knows what people are searching for when it explores its query log files, and it may let those influence what it might show – we will have to wait and see, once Google starts showing this. Google does show a lot of results from its deepcrawl efforts – so we will have to pay attention and see what it ends up doing.

  17. Uhhhhmmmm… I hope this doesn’t open up the door for spammy databases to provide info – I suspect ‘trust’ and ‘authority’ will still be priorities 🙂

  18. I could see this being abused by companies with deep pockets creating databases than answer many different combinations of queries to capture the click – although I am sure Google will be right along to deindex them.

  19. Hi John,

    We don’t know how much control Google might give any site owners regarding how this would be implemented. Some things, such as Sitelinks, have limits to how much input a siteowner has in implementation. The same could be true of this service requirement approach.

  20. Isn’t it crazy how a little change from Google can have the SEO world scrambling to get back on their feet? Indeed the big G is a giant and has major impact on both small and big businesses. When you are just starting out with little to no income for paid promotion like myself , you have to rely heavily on google and its becoming harder to do so. It comes down to content and links.

  21. Hey Bill, just this week, there has been a lot of talk over AI. I guess when Elon Musk, says he’s throwing down a £1b into the industry, it’s going to get interesting. How you feel AI will impact search over the next 10 years?

  22. Hi Bill,

    It’s awesome.It’s very useful things which you share with us.
    and its wonderful information, especially for large sites.
    thanks for sharing.

  23. I have visited your site first time & read this article. Really appreciate your work, Awesome Article.

    Checked most of your post all are very informative, will stick to your blog and visit daily.

    Keep Post! Thanks once again for sharing this wonderful information.

  24. Thanks for keeping up on this Bill. There’s no way I could on my own. If I were a database provider I think I would be printing this post and handing it to my prospects.

  25. Hi Matt,

    I have worked on some very large Jobs and Travel and Recipe sites, and after experiencing those, it does make a lot of sense for this patent to exist.

  26. Agreed Bill, it totally makes sense that Google would make this play. If a site has issues displaying database queries it will muck up the experience of their users.

  27. Bill, I am from your tweets. Last night I retweet this unfortunately I didn’t read it. But, I come back and reading carefully though I appreciate with you for the issues of database quires because you’re the top influencer. But still a question in my mind, How can you do this!

  28. Hi Shakoat,

    This patent from Google describes something that they may start doing. I have worked with clients who have large sites with millions of URLs, which are run by very large databases. It looks like Google would study such sites, and submit queries to them that respond to the queries that someone searching at Google might submit, and show those as results, like in the screenshot from the patent that I included in the post. This is not something that I have any control over, but would have to wait to see if Google applies what it describes in it’s patent. Chances are that they wouldn’t have filed a patent if they can’t do what it describes. So, we have to wait and see if Google comes out with this.

  29. Hello Bill,
    I didn’t realize that Google is additionally utilizing database questions for the positioning. A debt of gratitude is in order for sharing this stunning snippet of data.

    Keep doing good job.

  30. wow great article i really feel appreciate t this content given.Thanks a lot for this awesome content

  31. Thansk for this great article.

    This actually can solve SEO-Problems for large datebase sites and the deep-web problem for Google.

    The deep web has been a problem for Google ever since:
    “[…] there is a wealth of information that is deep and therefore missed.[17] Most of the web’s information is buried far down on sites, and standard search engines do not find it.” Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_web

    Imagine you are a large job search engine, with millions of jobs in your database. As a job search engine you have to create millions of different landingpages to cater million of different queries.

    For example:
    “nursing jobs” is the basic nationwide query. If you are a job search engine and you find nursing jobs in every city with a population of over 100.000 you will have to create 253 additional landingpages for every of the 253 cities. If you are really god at job search, you will find those jobs also in smaller cities. Multiply that with thousands of job titels and you have to create millions of landingpages, just to let Google know that you can provide an answer to job searches.

    If you don’t create those landingpages, Google will never know that you are capable of answering those queries, because Google does not access your deeper content aka filling out forms, at least they didn’t in the past.

    But can Google figure out to handle your site? Yes, they already can.

    Google is already capable of identifing how your website respondes. Just look at the url-parameters reported in the search console. If Google can understand how the different parameters found on your site change the content displayed, it can use your site as a database, surfacing deeper content without the necessity of creating millions of landingpages for the Googlebot.

    Take indeed for example:

    This is a query you will sometimes find in the serps:
    indeed.com/jobs?q=marketing&l=new%20york

    “q=”changes the keyword
    “l=” changes the location

    Google can figure out how those parameters change the surfaced content and then make up their own urls.

    I actually made this url, although it works. The url you will find in Google is “/q-Marketing-l-New-York,-NY-jobs.html”, but both urls actually work the same. Try “/q-Sales-l-New-York,-NY-jobs.html” for example.

    This will also be important for voice searches.

    Imagine:

    User intent: Change jobs, but stay in your hometown

    “OK Google, where can I find nursing jobs in my town?”

    Google needs to identify a website that is good at finding nursing jobs. As a job search engine, you better have a landingpage for the query “nursing job” and the particular town, but if Google can actually access your content, based on the knowledge how different parameters affect your site, *and* is confident that you are capable of answering this query, it can use you as a database. Meanwhile you don’t need to create millions of landingpages for every single variation of a query.

    This is even more important if the user is refining their queries like “just 30 min drive from my place” or “in a large company”.

    My conclusion is, if you are a large data driven website with a huge database, you need to make sure that Google understands how to access your database aka content or even provide Google somehow with a manual which parameters actually exist for your website.

  32. I suspect this is only skims the surface as to what they would like to do. The logical extension is using the database to populate answer boxes. This could exponentially increase the number of answer box results.

    Long road it would be a first step to making Google transactional across any shopping site willing to give them the necessary access rights.

  33. Hmmm. very interesting post Bill! Becomes even more interesting if Google really use database queries for the ranking. This is a very informative piece. Thank you for sharing! Looking forward for more 🙂

  34. Hi Josh,

    Last year, Google told us in the Wall Street Journal that we would soon start seeing “buy” buttons in search results. We haven’t, but being able to see database results like shown in the screen shots for this patent would go well with such buy buttons – we will see if we start seeing both database query results and buy buttons together in search results. It wouldn’t be a surprise to see that start happening at this point.

  35. Hi Emmerey,

    It’s an interesting direction for Google to take. What will the future of SEO be – an integration of database results with search results like this is interesting. We will see if it starts happening sometime soon, likely.

  36. Hi Michael,

    After having worked on some large jobs sites and experienced some of the challenges that those bring, it was exciting to come across this patent that shows how they could be tied into search results so well. I am excited by the prospect.

  37. Thank you, Miles.

    It does change around basic ideas about how SEO may work in the future, and what Google will be looking for. I am working on how to word a “service requirements” analysis for future site audits.

  38. Thanks Bill, can browse through the complete paper to know additional.Filters would be quite helpful during this case and therefore the additional structured and segregated the info is that the higher probabilities of springing up i suppose.

  39. Hi securewebtech,

    I don’t think that a database that is more deeply structured and segregated is one where the service requirements indicated in it might be a good match for what people are searching on the web for, which is what seems to be important here.

  40. I never heard about this concept yet, google uses database queries for the ranking. Today, through your post, i learn something new about google. Thank you for sharing it.

  41. Thanks for sharing such a useful article, now sites do need to optimize their databases based upon the optimal query resolution statistics and hopefully people will get the desired search results, what they really asking for.

  42. Hi Marek,

    We don’t know if Google uses what is described in this patent, but we do know that it is a possibility now. If Google starts showing database query results (like in the screenshot from this patent I included in the post) then we will know for sure that Google is using the process described in this patent. I will be keeping an eye open to see if that happens.

  43. Hi Yogita,

    This is a possibility now; but we can’t be sure that Google is using this yet. I posted about this patent because I thought it was an interesting option that they might add. It possibly might be something that could affect rankings in the future.

  44. Interesting topic. There are times when I’m quite frustrated by the results of a data base search within a website. One type are forums where to get good results one (I) needs to often redo the search with advanced parameters. I used the search function on one of those “types” of websites (non forum) and saw what I thought were lousy results. Not a bad idea at all for an element of ranking IMHO.

    Now how would google “rate” the results of an internal search within a single website?

    Results most like a google search result gets evaluated as the best? :D. I don’t know but the premise is one I appreciate.

  45. Hi Dave,

    The “people also ask” patent I wrote about, they mentioned creating a question database, where they could store questions and answers to show people when they wanted to show off other questions that people often ask. Since they are collecting questions, rating how responsive databases are to queries isn’t that far of a move either. I could see Google rating databases based on their ability to provide answers close to what Google might show in search results – that may be what they might look for. Google does look like they are trying to understand how effective different websites might be when it comes to their ability to answer questions – thus turning the Web into one big database. They may be in the early days of exploring the idea, but it goes much beyond featured snippets.

  46. Man…
    “SEO Based Upon Database Capabilities
    This patent describes how sites might be ranked based upon their ability to answer questions from searchers instead of just how well optimized those sites might be based upon information retrieval relevance scores and link-based importance scores.”
    Not only are they trying to out-think us..rankbrain and all,they are beginning to change how SEO has been done.
    I suppose that the old days of gaming Google are disappearing.
    Thanks for the info.

  47. Hi Will,

    It is interesting that Google would start looking at databases on sites like this; but it would make results potentially more useful. It doesn’t replace capabilities of sites it finds online, but instead will lead searchers to answers found on sites. It probably is time to start thinking about SEO a little differently.

  48. Bill,
    thanks. Very thought-provoking reading. I like it immensely. Google ranking is a great mistery, which takes a lot for webmasters to reveal it. To my mind, the only way to find it out, work a lot, try different methods of optimization, analyze.

  49. Hi Jim,

    There are many hints about what goes into rankings at Google. This is another possibility in the future. Measuring the things that are important to you seems to be a good idea.

  50. I personally never heard about this process for google to rank websites. Thanks for this publication which helps understanding better search engines underground 🙂

  51. Are there examples out there? I tried “PIXMA printers under 50 dollars”. Rarely did I see an example that matches the patent.

  52. Hi Denver,

    Earlier versions of the patent (this is a continuation patent, with some variations) have come out; but I haven’t seen any results that look like the ones described in the patent. Difficult to say how much computational effort would go into setting Google up to be able to handle such an addition. I have been trying to keep an eye out for results like these for a while If you have seen at least one, I would appreciate you sharing it. Thanks.

  53. Hi Neqson,

    It’s a new process, as far as I can tell. This is an updated version of the patent, so the idea has been out for a while, and modified somewhat, so it may not quite be ready to be released into the world. We shall see.

  54. That’s a really interesting article Bill. I wondered a while back if Google was ranking databases. I guess it makes sense if the database is returning the most helpful answers?

  55. Hi Hazel,

    Google has been responding to queries with feature snippets; if it starts using the databases of sites it indexes, it can answer many more queries. We see how it could provide such results in the screenshot from the patent I inserted into the post. I think we will start seeing this happen at some point in the future.

  56. Hi!
    This is really interesting article! I’m always irritated by lack of good database filtering on most of the online shops. This is why normally I use only the biggest ones – Amazon, Ebay or (the biggest in Poland) Allegro. Good move from Google with ranking databases!

  57. Hi Przemek,

    It does make sense for Google to start paying attention to how effective the databases are of sites it is indexing; it provides a way to access that data directly, and to find the best resources to respond to someone’s query with.

  58. That’s really interesting post bill. Thanks for share this article with us with explanation of google answering queries.

  59. I love reading Google patents. I think you’re right on the money with this post; it seems to imply that Google will start to pull information from publicly available DBs and show that in a structured format for Google search users… Very interesting to know, but I wonder how this could be used from an SEO point of view. It seems like the Google books fiasco again – just because they can do it, doesn’t necessarily mean they are allowed to! Being an ethical hacker, I am well aware of public databases that shouldn’t be public.

  60. Bill,
    I really enjoy reading your prospective on things. Ya i think this is possible.

  61. Hi Adam,

    Good points and concerns. I included a link in an early comment after this post to an article about Google’s attempts to index the Deep Web, which includes many sites that require forms to be filled out to access information from those sites – they can’t be crawled and indexed otherwise. This includes sites such as the SEC site. That paper tells us that Google is returning many queries from such sources every day. Where that approach differs from what is in this patent is that those are government sites, rather than sites that have been made available to the public. As we see in the example that Google provided where they show off database query results from a particular site, they would be showing the source of those results when they show them.

    I suspect that if Google does start doing this, they will likely allow site owners to post something telling Google to not show database results from their site, similar to a noarchive tag – so if a site owner doesn’t want their results showing in search results, they would have an opportunity to tell Google not to show them. I suspect that Google would try to be careful with what they show in search results, and try to keep those safe, too.

  62. Hi Bill,

    The article was a good read.
    What action should be taken by the website owner to match this and what will be the right time to act?

  63. Hi Bill
    This is one of the most comprehensive post on this topic.
    I am not a techie person and SEO geek but the way you explained each and every point I never needed to Google it before going ahead.
    Many thanks for sharing

  64. This all ties into Schema markup and the tagging Google is encouraging us to implement on our websites. They don’t even need to “guess” how large your website is if you’re explicitly telling them via markup.

    They’re also good at scraping for sure – e.g. “1 of 205” XYZ cameras – and can follow pagination so they’re more than capable of figuring out a lot of it on their own.

    I see this expanding further to the point where your site won’t rank if a product is out of stock and/or unavailable (e.g. InStock, OutOfStock). It presents a poor user-experience and Google would prefer to send you to pages that actually have what you’re looking for (available for immediate purchase/access).

    They’ll only get more specific over time – all in the name of “what’s best for the user”. We have to play the game & keep up.

  65. Hi Cory,

    This patent doesn’t mention either schema or pagination, and while both of those approaches can give Google information about what the databases and database parameters are on a site, those may be steps along the path towards Google learning about those things on a site – and possibly helpful to give it an idea of what your databases on your site are like, so if you include those things, you aren’t relying on Google to try to guess those things because you are giving the search engine information which it can then act upon.

    A site that may be out of stock for a particular product that carries that product on a regular basis may be one that Google may let a searcher know about, especially with products that are possibly rare and difficult to find.

    Google hasn’t started showing these types of results, so we don’t know what they might do to implement this process. It will be interesting to learn about it once they do.

  66. Hi Mi Muba,

    I suspect that this is the most comprehensive posts on this topic, because it may be the only post on this topic, since it is about something it appears that Google hasn’t introduced yet. 🙂

  67. In a few shopping carts I help code, we use faceted search with fragment identifiers on a URL that can index a category list of products by price, color, etc. I assume this conforms with the patent?

  68. Hi Contentteams,

    Thank you.

    At this point, Google hasn’t started implementing the process described in the patent I wrote about yet. The details of how they might are possibly something they could be working upon at this moment. We may need to wait and see how they implement it to get a better sense of what might work best.

  69. Hi Denver

    The patent does talk about data parameters and values; so if someone searches for red shoes under $50 and your database offered shoes sorted by colors and prices, then the patent would consider yours a database that met with the requirements of that query. Google might then show database results within its search results that met with that search. I haven’t seen any results quite like that yet, but I could imagine them starting to show at any moment.

  70. Bookmarked! I really enjoyed reading your blog post. I found your information to be valuable, educational and entertaining. Please keep up doing it. I’ll be back for new posts you make. Thank you! 🙂

  71. Hey Bill,
    Glad to meet you.. 🙂 It also obligate me to think how Google may rank our websites based upon the Databases and it’s answering queries. It’s really amazing and the reason behind this is : a perfect algorithm keeps running in background. There are many secrets but some are discussed here that made me feel interesting but I’ll know how it works one day and explain it with others.

    You have provided a single and detail guide to learn it easily. Search results using the websites database is wonderful. The relevant and quality content works important role to rank your site first.

    Very informative post indeed. Thanks for sharing.
    – Ravi.

  72. Thanks Bill!

    I’m still having a hard wrapping my head around how you’d structure the database to make sure queries map to the attributes of the search.

    In your example of red shoes under $50 …if you only sell a pair of shoes for $50 — do you see having to create all the possible combinations with those attributes color & price just to have your “page with the $50 shoes” rank so having no shoes but having the price category of $70, $100 etc red shoes?

    How do you think this will change the way keyword research is done?

  73. Nowadays it is getting very difficult to rank for keywords that are popular. Google keeps changing the algorithm. The information you provided was of much use. thanks

  74. very good article, the information is also very useful I’ll use it to improve my site.

  75. Nice piece of info Bill.
    It really helps with how the SEs are changing and how to keep up with them.
    Thanks for the bit again.

  76. This is nice information but from last many years i am trying to find information regarding service keywords like Ecommerce Development Services and more for my IT company i never found this type of information on web, your information is good for my products base website but if you have any information as per my needs just share link with me.

  77. Hi David,

    I’m sorry but I don’t think I can help you in your concern over ranking for keywords involving “Ecommerce development services.” I would know how to help your site rank using ranking approaches such as information retrieval relevance scores and PageRank scores, but the approach that I described in this patent which might help with products or services offered through a database on a large site, such as travel, jobs, movies, doesn’t necessarily help you with ranking for Ecommerce development.

  78. it is really important information for SEO Services in India or elsewhere. All professional SEO Companies should keep this point in mind while they provide seo services for their clients.
    Nice writing.
    Thanks.

  79. Really very helpful article to me as i have built a new website, very useful to rank my website higher in google search.
    Thanks for sharing.

  80. I am not sure where you are getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic info I was looking for this information for my mission.

  81. If implemented, this is a significant change. Until now, we SEOs have always told our clients that search engines don’t fill out forms and click “submit” buttons. Only forward-facing content would be considered. This patent describes a process that is beyond crawling and goes into what more resembles a “scraper”. This opens up a huge new frontier of SEO. The proper structure of data, parameters, and URLs would bring even more data science to SEO.

  82. Hi Rudy,

    Google has been running their Deepweb project for a while, which involves filling out forms and clicking on “submit” buttons. I referred to it, and linked to a paper about it in the second comment on this post. Google returns thousands of search results taken from their Deep Web crawls on a regular basis. It’s worth reading about, because it isn’t that far removed from the process described in this patent.

  83. Great article Bill..was not aware of this. I really see this having a huge impact on data heavy sites such as those that sell a lot of products.

  84. I must say that this thing will definitely going to affect many of the websites.
    Thanks Bill Slawski for sharing this amazing blog.

  85. Hey,
    Thanks for sharing that’s kind informative information. People should keep this point in mind while they provide seo services for their clients. This blog really help me.
    Again thanks for sharing.

  86. Thanks for sharing the interesting post with us, it’s informative.

    Its completely changing the role of search engine and how google is accessing the database of a website is just amazing.

  87. Wow, what a great article. I may need to read it a few times to absorb. Thanks for sharing. I shared on my company page.
    Bill,
    I really enjoy reading your prospective on things. Ya i think this is possible.

  88. First of all, thanks for sharing this post. In my personal opinion, sites with bigger database will surely get higher on ranking. Google often give preference to big database websites, but yes, the off-page along with the database matters a lot.

  89. Thanks For Sharing this useful information i got so much knowledge through this topic and hope that on forward we ll
    get more info related to this seo pages and its utilities.

  90. “Hey,
    Thanks for sharing that’s kind informative information. People should keep this point in mind while they provide seo services for their clients. This blog really help me.
    Again thanks for sharing.”

  91. I am always looking for something new related to SEO. though I found it that’s new to me. I really want to know that how I can gear up myself with news updates. It would help me a lot to visit your site. thanks for sharing.

  92. Great article to come across, informative cum factful for seo people like us. Updates like these are much likely to help us in improving the websites ranking.

Comments are closed.