Marcus Tober: The Search [R]Evolution #SEJSF
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
5 likes•2,094 views
Marcus Tober of Searchmetrics: The Search (R)evolution & Why Hummingbird is the Most Important Change to Search, and What Panda 4.0 Means to You Recently Google retooled its search engine, introducing a new system called "Hummingbird" that moves us beyond keyword search into Search 3.0. Hummingbird is about conversational, contextual and semantic search. Find out what are Hummingbird's dominating ranking factors, and how will they evolve in the future. Marcus will also cover what you need to know about Panda 4.0, the first major Panda update in over a year. From the Searchmetrics June 13 conference at the Hotel Vitale: SEO, Content Marketing & Analytics: Three Pillars of Online Marketing Success in 2014.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (18)
Similar to Marcus Tober: The Search [R]Evolution #SEJSF
Similar to Marcus Tober: The Search [R]Evolution #SEJSF (20)
More from Search Engine Journal
More from Search Engine Journal (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Marcus Tober: The Search [R]Evolution #SEJSF
- 1. The Search (R)Evolution Ranking Factors after Hummingbird, the Panda Update and the Future of Search 2014 MARCUS TOBER 06/13/2014 San Francisco, CA
- 2. Marcus Tober
- 4. 2014 Edition
- 7. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 7 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 RANKING FACTORS 2014
- 8. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 8 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 RANKING FACTORS 2014Content/ Techniques Social
- 10. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Techniques 10 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 11. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Techniques vs 2013 11 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 12. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Techniques 12 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 ~98% Description existing 𝜌2014 = 0.05
- 13. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Techniques 13 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Description existing – vs. 2013 ~98% ~95% 𝜌2013 = 0.06 𝜌2014 = 0.05
- 14. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Techniques 14 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 𝜌2014 = 0.14𝜌2014 = 0.14 Sitespeed
- 15. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Techniques 15 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 𝜌2014 = 0.14 Sitespeed - vs. 2013
- 17. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Techniques 17 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Number of internal Links Brand Factor 𝜌2014 = 0.16
- 18. Click to edit Master title styleInternal Link Structure – Site Architecture 18 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 21. Less is More!
- 25. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 25 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 26. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 26 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 27. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 27 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Keyword in Description Brand Factor ~55% 𝜌2014 = 0.01
- 28. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 28 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Keyword in Description vs 2013 ~55% ~62% 𝜌2014 = 0.01
- 29. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 29 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Text Length (Characters) Brand Factor ~7.500 𝜌2014 = 0.13
- 30. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 30 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Text Length (Characters) – vs 2013 ~7.500 ~6.700 𝜌2014 = 0.13 𝜌2013 = 0.11
- 32. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 32 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Word Count Brand Factor ~650𝜌2014 = 0.13
- 33. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 33 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Word Count – vs 2013 ~650 ~540 𝜌2014 = 0.13 𝜌2013 = 0.11
- 36. Google Hummingbird Update What‘s behind? Contextual Search Conversational Search Semantic Search 6/15/201436 www.searchmetrics.com
- 38. Hummingbird – Contextual Search
- 39. Hummingbird – Contextual Search
- 40. Hummingbird – Contextual Search
- 41. Hummingbird – Contextual Search
- 42. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 42 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Content Complexity: Proof/ Relevant Keywords – NEW Quality: length, readability etc. Pretty high correlations!
- 43. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 43 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Content Complexity: Proof/ Relevant Keywords – NEW Quality: length, readability etc. Increasing
- 44. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 44 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Relevant Keywords 𝜌2014 = 0.34
- 45. Click to edit Master title style 𝜌2014 = 0.20 Ranking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 45 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Proof Keywords
- 46. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 46 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 „You shall know a keyword by the company it keeps” (Firth, 1957)
- 47. Click to edit Master title style Source: Google Ranking Factors 2014 – Onpage Content 47 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 What‘s behind?
- 48. Content Optimization 48 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 49. Content Optimization 49 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 51. 6/15/201451 www.searchmetrics.com Google Panda Update 4.0 Aggregators (few/ no own Content) • Couponing • Press Portals • Celebrity News Pages • Software Portals • Forums • Etc…
- 55. There are no tips and nothing the user expected on the page. Why should it rank?
- 57. Page 57 Hummingbird – Conversational Search 6/15/2014 ® Searchmetrics Inc. 2014 │ Android Chrome Glass
- 58. M O B I L E MOBILE vs DESKTOP
- 59. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors Mobile – OnPage Technics 59 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 MOBILE vs DESKTOP Sitespeed
- 60. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors Mobile – OnPage Content 60 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 MOBILE vs DESKTOP Filesize
- 61. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors Mobile – OnPage Content 61 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 MOBILE vs DESKTOP Text Length (Characters) ~7.500 ~6.000
- 62. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors Mobile – Backlinks 62 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 MOBILE vs DESKTOP Number of Backlinks
- 63. Click to edit Master title styleRanking-Factors Mobile – Social 63 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 MOBILE vs DESKTOP Facebook Likes
- 64. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors 2014: Desktop vs Mobile 64 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 What‘s the difference?
- 66. Topic (Complex Entity) Who is the richest person in the world? ? Verb Entitity 1 Entity 2 Complex Entitity (1+2) Single Keyword Complex Query with several Entities
- 67. Google “understands“ the question “Answer“ above organic results ? Source?
- 71. Hummingbird Query A1 Similar (or even synonymous) Keyword Queries SERP A1 Query A2 SERP A2 Query A3 SERP A3 Query A4 SERP A4 Query A5 SERP A5 Query A6 SERP A6 Pre- 71 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 72. Query A1 Hummingbird Query A6 Query A5 Similar (or even synonymous) Keyword Queries Query A2 Query A4 Query A3 SERP A Post- 72 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 74. Diversity of SERPs All Keywords 74 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 ~6.5%
- 75. Diversity of SERPs All Keywords 75 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 34 ~6% ~2.5% 1 2 3 What happened?
- 76. Week 33 2013 1 Week 45 2013 2 Week 03 2014 3 9 94
- 77. Ooops!
- 78. Week 33 2013 1 Week 45 2013 2 Week 03 2014 3 10 104
- 79. Diversity of SERPs Keywords with Question Words What, Where, Who, How, Why … 79 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 34 ~6% ~10%
- 81. Query SERP C SERP A SERP B Pre- Hummingbird SERP Y SERP J SERP I SERP H SERP G SERP F SERP L SERP K SERP M SERP N SERP O SERP P SERP Q SERP R SERP S SERP T SERP U SERP V SERP Z SERP X 81 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 84. 4/10 July 2013
- 85. 9/10 March 2014
- 86. 2/10 July 2013
- 87. 7/10 March 2014
- 88. HOLISTIC BE
- 89. LINK PROFILE
- 90. Ranking Factors 2014 – Backlinks 90 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 91. Ranking Factors 2014 – Backlinks vs 2013 91 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014
- 92. Ranking Factors 2014 – Backlinks 92 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Number of Backlinks More Backlinks! 𝜌2014 = 0.31
- 93. Ranking Factors 2014 – Backlinks 93 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Average SEO Visibility of linking URL Better Links! 𝜌2014 = 0.26
- 94. Ranking Factors 2014 – Backlinks 94 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 NEW Features
- 95. Ranking Factors 2014 – Backlinks 95 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Number of new Backlinks to Homepage of URL Fewer fresh Backlinks! more 𝜌2014 = 0.20
- 96. Ranking Factors 2014 – Backlinks 96 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 𝜌2014 = 0.16 Share of Backlinks with Anchor Text = Domain-Name
- 97. Ranking Factors 2014 – Backlinks 97 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Share of Backlinks with Anchor Text = Domain-Brandname / URL 𝜌2014 = 0.15
- 99. Evolution of SEO
- 106. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors – User Traffic Signals 106 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 User Traffic Factors
- 107. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors – User Traffic Signals 107 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Time on Site 𝜌2014 = 0.06
- 108. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors – User Traffic Signals 108 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Bounce Rate Ø 𝜌2014 = 0.01
- 109. Click to edit Master title styleRanking Factors – User Traffic Signals 109 www.searchmetrics.com 6/15/2014 Click-Through Rate 𝜌2014 = 0.58
- 110. ? SEO What‘s the goal of SEO for Content?
- 111. Content → Ranking → Traffic 6/15/2014111 www.searchmetrics.com What‘s the goal of SEO for Content?
- 112. Content → Ranking → Traffic 6/15/2014112 www.searchmetrics.com 1. Conserve Traffic – conventional SEO-Methods 2. New Traffic through fresh Content What‘s the best optimized website in the world?
- 113. S E O
- 116. Techniques Content
Editor's Notes
- What are the most important „factors“ for good rankings? Again: 10.000 Informational Search Keywords. Top 30 Particulary after Hummingbird, it‘s about relevant Content – not the best optimized Content.
- Low correlation, but in fact, nearly every URL in the Top 30 has a Description -> seems obligatory!
- Konsistently high average values. 2014 nearly 100% - even encreased from last year. Seems a „Must-Have“. Correlation even decreased slightly, but only because even more URLs in Top 30 have this Feature and therefore, the differences become even smaller.
- Average count of internal links. Again: Brand Factor. Interesting to see, that better ranking URLs have slightly more internal Links. That means: Housekeeping and Optimization of internal Link Structure is important
- Average count of internal links. Again: Brand Factor. Interesting to see, that better ranking URLs have slightly more internal Links. That means: Housekeeping and Optimization of internal Link Structure is important
- Page load Time is a very important performance factor. Google is pushing it for your and obvivously many websites got faster. Influences User Signals (CTR, BounceRate, etc) and User Happiness! – Correlation increased significantly!
- Average count of internal links. Again: Brand Factor. Interesting to see, that better ranking URLs have slightly more internal Links. That means: Housekeeping and Optimization of internal Link Structure is important
- Do you like this kind of remote remote control? I don‘t. Less bells and whistles – more focus
- Content alone is not enough. The technical environment as well as Site Architecture have to be at a top level to achieve good rankings. But: Content is still the most important thing. But it must be unique content with a benefit for the user.
- Brand Factor - „Keyword in Descritpion“ seems a rather rampant feature (weit verbreitet)
- Brand Factor - „Keyword in Descritpion“ seems a rather rampant feature (weit verbreitet) Last year: higher average of pages had KW in Description. Brand Factor was not that strong a year ago
- On average increased per Pos. about 12.5% (in comparison to 2013). Very interresting There seems to be the trend to have more and longer content. Is it a disadvantage to be short?
- Seems as if this would‘nt really work. As you know, Tom Cruise is a rather short guy. But it‘s about providing holistic Content. And this content is likely to be a little longer – not as short as Tom Cruise. Just did not fit for Katie Holmes.
- Word Count increased about 20% on average (compared to 2013)
- But the requirem,ents for good Content are constantly ioncreasing. The User becomes smarter and more demanding. So the Content has to become better and better. Because of the tough competition, you have to provide a considerable Added Value tpo be visible in the crowd.
- Hummingbird was the biggest update of the Google algorithm in the past 10 years. But nobody really recognized. Why? Because Google implemented methods in the algorithm to understand the meaning of the query and therefore they must understand the meaning of the content.
- 1. Keyword Context -> Topic + related Keywords 2. User Context -> Intention + related Questions
- Content doesn‘t necessarily mean location or time based. It could also mean the context and intention of the user and the whole topic. If the query is more in transactional or navigational direction.
- Analysis of (Proof and) Relevant Keywords in the Top Results with Searchmetrics Content Optimization. Keywords with high Relevancy for the Query (Focus Keyword) = Relevant Keywords Also: Keywords being used by most of the Top-URLs for that Query = Proof Keywords (of course: correlation is lower)
- Better ranking URLs contain more relevant Terms around the Fokus-keyword -> Holistic Documents rank better! Top results contain significantly more „relevant“ terms than lower-ranked results
- Top-Rankings containn significantly more „Proof“-Terms
- The distribution of Keywords and further relevant Terms compared to the absolute number of terms, helps Google‘s Algorithms to understand the topic and intention od texts. Googles Word2Vec Project is open source.
- Natural Language … Keywords become more Complex (Questions, hole sentences)
- Ca. 30 - 40% smaller
- Texts are shorter
- Top ranking Mobile Results have fewer Links than Top ranking Desktop Results -> That means: It‘s not the same results! Furhter back, the links are pretty similar, so these are likely to be the same results. Waht seems to be clear is: When using their smartphones or tablets etc. people do not actively link to URLs.
- Differences often regarding Keywords out of Movie-, Music- and/or Games-Sector. Examples (based on URL-comparison): Indiana jones 5 (only 40% identical) Simcity 4 mac (only 42.5% identical) Packers game (only 40% identical) mumford & sons - "i will wait“ (only 23.53% identical)
- Every word of a query, and more important, there sematic meaning, play a role
- Quelltext gecheckt. Kein Schema.
- In the Movie: „Food Replicator“ Machine reads your mind, figures out what you want to eat right know and delivers the desired dish.
- Google also tries to read the user‘s mind in interpreting the intention behind a query -> then delivering a knowledge graph as the „desired dish“ above / nerxt to the organic SERP.
- Example. „Italian restaurant san francisco“ / „italian lunch san francisco“ / „pizza nearby“ (local search in SF) / „eat pizza in san francisco“ / „san francisco pizza inn“ … etc.
- Example. „Italian restaurant san francisco“ / „italian lunch san francisco“ / „pizza nearby“ (local search in SF) / „eat pizza in san francisco“ / „san francisco pizza inn“ … etc. BUT: of course, the SERP is influenced by factors such as search history, user specific cookies, location, logged in/ logged out etc.
- So, what is good, what is bad? What is too much? Searchmetrics tells you.
- Achtung: Dass, die Kurvenverläufe von URLs und Domains sich teilweise stark unterscheiden, liegt auch daran, dass die Anzahl jeweils abweicht. URLs: ca. 3.5 Mio Domains: ca. 500.000
- informational keyword
- Navigational keyword
- More Focussed. -> Relevance …. Precise. Fast. Diversity decreases – more Competition !
- So, what is good, what is bad? What is too much? Searchmetrics tells you.
- Examples for SERPs for Keyword Pairs -> Before Hummingbird Universal Search Results removed (Bang = Pony)
- It‘s about relevant, related topics and terms. The Content is the „Face“ of a page being the most important thing, the centre. It‘s immensely important, to provide unique and high-class content being perfectly tailored for your users. That means, the content must not be always the same. It‘s rather the opposite. Because you have to be distinguishable from your cometition. Content has to be holistic and satisfy the user‘s intention.
- Number of Backlinks as such has increased! (Although correlation declined slightly)
- Absolute Number (average values) actually decreased! Penguin?
- Immensly increased (compared to 2013). Better rankign URLs have more links from pages with a high SEO Visibility
- Backlinks of the last 30 Days to Homepage of respective URL -> URLs on second half of SERP 1 (Pos 4/5 to 8/9) seem to have more fresh Backlinks (directed to Homepage) Obviously, Brands get significantly fewer new Links to their Homepage, compared to pages ranking behind Pos 4. In contrast, these (Brand)pages have significantly more and better links
- Share of „Brandlinks“. Z.B. spiegel.de / wsj.com URLs with more Brandlinks rank better.
- Z.B. Spiegel Online / Wall Street Journal (Share of the most frequent Anchor Text, being not the exact Domain Name with TLD compared to all Anchor Texts of the URL)
- Brands have more links, better links, more brandlinks – and they „need“ fewer fresh and/or news links. Your product must be good!
- So, what is good, what is bad? What is too much? Searchmetrcis tells you.
- Low correlation. Top rankings have some 20 to 40 seconds more
- Quiet stable average values over all positions. Pos 1-5 perform slightly better.
- Very high correlation. Actually the highest, we have ever measured.
- So, it‘s actually obvios. What must be the goal of SEO for Content?
- Increase traffic for existing content (through content updates, more relevant content) New content performs better because more relevant.