Has an improvement in how Google understands the layout of pages, and understands and classifies different elements found on page had an impact on the titles and snippets that we see in search results? Google may classify queries to decide what to show for those page titles and snippets in search results, but it’s possible that they might also be classifying the contents of “original titles and snippets and URLs” when deciding to show different titles and expanded snippets. Might Google do that in combination with a classification of page elements (a portion of HTML containing some text) found on the pages in search results to try to determine the best representation of a search result in response to a query?
Google May Chose Titles and Snippets for Pages
When you search at Google, the search results displayed for web pages include titles, URLs, and snippets for the pages listed in the results. In those, the query terms you used, or sometimes synonyms for them, may be included in the title and snippet, and Google will highlight those. As a site owner, you should have unique and engaging titles and meta descriptions for each page you want indexed by search engines. Not only does that make it more likely that search engines will crawl, index, and display those pages, but if you use the keywords you’re optimizing those pages for within those titles and descriptions, Google may show your choice of title and meta description within search results.
Continue reading How Classification of Page Elements and Search Results May Influence Alternative Titles and Snippets Displayed in Google
Somewhere in an alternative universe, it’s possible that one of the most feared hitters in baseball might have instead been known as one of its greatest pitchers. Babe Ruth started out as a pitcher for the Boston Red Sox in 1914, and when approached about getting his bat into the lineup on a daily basis in 1918, his manager Ed Barrow responded that “I’d be the laughingstock of baseball if I took the best lefthander in the league and put him in the outfield.” A couple of years later, Ruth was sold to New York’s team for an unprecedented $125,000 where he proceeded to hit 54 home runs for the Yankees, and begin a pretty good career hitting a baseball instead of throwing it at people.
In 1920, anyone looking for information about the Babe probably weren’t too interested in his pitching career. Likewise, when someone searches today for [world series champion], it’s likely that they are looking for fresh results. How does a search engine like Google determine when searchers might prefer fresh results, and when they might prefer older results?
Continue reading Google’s Query Based Analysis and Reranking of Search Results
Yesterday, I wrote about how Google may be looking at the semantics associated with HTML heading elements, and the content that they head, and how the search engine might be looking at such content with similar headings across the Web to determine how much weight to give words and phrases within those headings.
That post was originally part of the introduction to this post, but it developed a life of its own, and I ran with it. Here, we’re going to look at semantics related to other HTML structures, primarily lists and tables.
I’m going to bundle a handful of patents together for this choice of one of the 10 most important SEO patents, since I think they work together to illustrate how a search engine might use semantic structures to learn about how words and concepts might be related to each other on the Web. Some of these patents are older, and one of them is a pending patent application published this week. I’m also going to include a number of white papers which help define a process that might seem to be very much behind the scenes at Google. I’m going to focus upon Google with this post, though expect that similar things may also be happening at other search engines as well.
Continue reading 10 Most Important SEO Patents: Part 7 – Sets, Semantic Closeness, Segmentation, and Webtables
How important are heading elements to the rankings of webpages by search engines?
I’ve seen arguments by people who write about and study search engines and SEO very closely, which often appear written up in “SEO Expert Ranking Lists,” that HTML heading elements (<h1>, <h2>, etc.) are very important, arguments that heading elements were once important and are no longer, and arguments that heading elements were never important. Sadly, all of those arguments are likely wrong. Not so much about the importance or lack of, but rather about the reasons for that importance.
It’s possible that a search engine might notice when a word or term or phrase appears near the top of a page, or above a wall of text. It’s also possible that a search engine pays attention when those are shown in larger font sizes, or bolder than the rest of the page text, or in a different font than the remainder of the words on the page. But that prominence and that display isn’t really what a heading element is about. HTML has a font size large attribute and property. There’s also a bold property. Any words on a page near the top of that page might be said to be more prominent than others.
You can use many HTML element attributes and values and/or cascading style sheet properties to make words within different HTML elements bolder and larger, and to transform them to all capitals or a different font or color, or all of those if you want. You can purposefully place certain text at the top of a page to make it appear that the rest of the page is described by those words.
Continue reading Heading Elements and the Folly of SEO Expert Ranking Lists
In the last installment of this series, we looked at how Google may be using phrase based indexing to use the fact that many phrases often tend to co-occur with other phrases within the content of web pages, to re-rank those pages. When we look at phrases, we also need to drill down to a special set of phrases describing named entities, or specific people, places, or things. In addition to trying to understand which phrases might tend to co-occur with those named entities, the search engines may look to other sources such as Wikipedia, Freebase from Metaweb, the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), and different map databases to attempt to understand when a phrase indicates an actual (or fictional) entity.
Google, Bing, and Yahoo all look for named entities on web pages and in search queries, and will use their recognition of named entities to do things like answer questions such as “where was Barack Obama born?”
Continue reading 10 Most Important SEO Patents: Part 6 – Named Entity Detection in Queries
Back in 2007, I wrote about a Yahoo patent describing how Yahoo! might crawl a webpage, and then recrawl the same page around a minute later to see if any of the links on the page had changed. It might do that to try to identify what it called “Transient Links,” or links that pointing to things like advertisements that might change on every visit to a page, which aren’t links that the search engine would want to crawl and index. The post is A Yahoo Approach to Avoid Crawling Advertisement and Session Tracking Links.
Google was granted a patent this week on a similar topic that looks at “transient” content on web pages. While this kind of content might include advertisements as well, that change regularly on return visits to page, it could also include things like current weather forecasts (Warrenton, Virginia, 40 degrees and cloudy) for example. That kind of content changes on a regular basis, but often has little to actually do with content found elsewhere on a page.
Google would want to be able to identify transient content so that it wouldn’t index pages based upon it, and it wouldn’t show advertisements that focus upon it either.
Continue reading How Google Might Identify Transient Content on Webpages
The builder of the largest search engine in the World during the first decade of the 21st century joined Google shortly after building that search engine, and possibly licensed the technology behind it to Google. She worked for Google for a number of years, creating a way of indexing pages based upon the meaningful phrases that appear upon those pages, looking at how phrases co-occur on pages to cluster and rerank those pages, using the phrases to identify spam pages and pages with duplicate content, and creating taxonomies and snippets for pages using phrases. This phrase-based indexing system provided a way to defeat Googlebombing, and to determine how much anchor text relevance should be passed along with links.
Then Anna Patterson left Google to start the search engine Cuil, which was supposed to be a Google killer. Except it wasn’t. Now she’s back at Google, and looks to be working on phrases again.
Continue reading 10 Most Important SEO Patents, Part 5 – Phrase Based Indexing
PageRank is a measure that stands for a probability that if someone starts out any page on the Web, and randomly clicks on links they find on pages, or gets bored every so often and teleports (yes, that is official technical search engineer jargon) to a random page, that eventually they will end up at a specific page.
Larry Page referred to this person clicking on links as a “random surfer.” Thing is, most people aren’t so random. It’s not like we’re standing at some street corner somewhere, and just randomly set off in some direction. (OK, I confess that I do sometimes do just that, especially when faced with a sign like that below.)
Imagine someone from Google waking up in the middle of the night, with the thought, “Hmmmm. Maybe we’re not quite doing PageRank quite right. Maybe we should be doing things like paying attention to where links appear on a page, and other things as well.”
Continue reading 10 Most Important SEO Patents: Part 4 – PageRank Meets the Reasonable Surfer