Posts Tagged ‘Google’

Google+ – Google’s combination of search and social

January 19th, 2012

Google’s announcement of the uplifting of Google+ (or G+) pages within search results has been eliciting reactions from a number of people in the search industry. Everyone seems to have an opinion about how they feel Google’s new preferences will affect search results, but in the furore that this has raised, businesses have to ask “How will the average searcher react?”

I think there are a number of ways in which this could play out for Google and, in turn, the businesses that get traffic from their search results. First I think it’s best to examine exactly how Google came to make this change. The rise of social media has put “the big G” into competition with “the big F”, even though they are in similar, but not the same, markets. For a large part, this decision seems somewhat ego-driven, because Google has confronted Facebook with their foray into Social through G+. So far G+ just hasn’t captured audience share from Facebook that Google hoped it would. So, to keep G+ front of mind, Google wants to increase its importance to searchers, in the hope that companies will flock to G+, bringing their fans with them.

Now those motives are not necessarily pure, it leaves search engine aware businesses with the realisation that Google’s results are no longer pure and neutral. However, for the average searcher, with little to no knowledge of how search engines actually work, will this make a difference? They will see these new details (like the result below), but their reactions are hard to predict.

Searchers seeing G+ or affiliated results, which their circles share, may believe that those pages are more trustworthy because Google and their friends endorse them. They are therefore more inclined to click on them as their level of trust in Google is high, which means that businesses could start to see G+ pages visited instead of their pages when people are searching for generic terms. This could draw greater numbers of businesses to create G+ pages as they believe their competitors’ G+ pages are gaining greater prominence in key search result pages.

Another alternative is that people start to distrust the entirety of Google’s search results because they no longer see them as neutral and unbiased. This is heightened by the fact that it is only G+ elements that are being integrated, not Facebook or any of G+’s other competitors. With this lack of trust, it could mean searchers have to find another trustworthy way to find new sites. This could mean a gap for a new search platform, becoming to Google what it was to Yahoo, or it could mean that Bing has an opportunity to seize market share. However, a new search platform would mean and entirely new problem for businesses to solve, as predicting where people will go is something that no one has completely nailed down yet.

At the end of the day, word of mouth is great when people are searching for a great place to have supper, or the new cool place to buy clothes, but friends and circles don’t know everything. We know that our closest friends don’t all have the same likes and dislikes as us, and that’s not taking into account the drive to acquire as many friends as possible. It’s a phenomenon we’ve seen in Facebook, where people collect friends to try and compete for the biggest number of friends. If people start to do that on G+, then all of those people will impact what search results they see, even if it’s a second cousin twice removed that you emailed out of family duty.

As a business, you obviously won’t know who your potential visitors are connected to, and how populated their search results will be by G+ results. This can cause businesses to potentially overestimate the impact of the new integration on their potential customers and panic. However, what they needed to bear in mind is that Google has been integrating social elements into their search results for a while, but never so overtly. Therefore without downplaying the effect that the change may have, it serves little purpose for businesses to panic that they’ll lose masses of searches overnight. For the moment, businesses need to ensure that their sites are well setup, and that they have a G+ page as well as one on Facebook.

[A potential side effect could be for those businesses with extremely poor customer service or some PR disasters in their cupboard. People are more likely to share information about bad experiences with their circles. This means that even if someone didn’t see a piece that was shared in their circle, future searches for the brand concerned could highlight the negative press. An example of this would be an article about Easyjet discriminating against a disabled businessman, which is likely to be shared in a G+ circle, so that could appear prominently when someone is considering booking a flight with Easyjet. This would make online reputation management even more important, as measuring this would be very difficult]

Blog post by Juliette van Rooyen, Search Consultant at Reform

Google SSL update and its impact on SEO, SEM and more.

November 8th, 2011

At Reform lively debate and conversation is encouraged as we develop our take on the latest developments in the ever-changing world of digital. Digital marketing is far from black or white (no search-related hat pun intended!), and through these debates we believe that we can better relay our thoughts on both sides of the fence to our clients and colleagues.

This week we’ve been discussing the latest Google SSL update, how Google Analytics now reports some SEO traffic as ‘(not provided)’ and the potential user / privacy issues driving the change.

Here are different takes on this development from two members of our team – one positive, about what Google can do as the innovative leader in this field, the other perhaps more pessimistic about what Google has become.

Niall Madden, Director at Reform says…

The big story here is that when a user logged into Google (Gmail for example) does a search, they are being taken through an encrypted query on Google’s https website, stripping out all the tracking parameters in the process, resulting in that traffic showing in Google Analytics as ‘(not provided)’.

This means that Google, and ONLY Google, know not only what keyword was used, but where the listing ranked in the SERPS (the “cd=” parameter correlates with the SEO rank in all occasions).  Why I hear you ask? Apparently this is due to a concern about protecting the privacy of Google users.

Since the change, if you’re logged in and in the US, you can’t even enter a search query with JavaScript turned off any more (UPDATE – NOV 18 – This is no longer the case, as now we can search with JS off, even when logged in, though some interesting features include one where the sub-links are shrunken into the older link only versions). Combine this with the recent announcement about the algorithm tweak emphasising content freshness (affecting around 35% of results) and there’s a lot of buzz within the SEO industry.

But the big issue is Google Analytics, a free service that’s been great for SEO practitioners over the past few years. Many users started seeing a few SEO visits listed as ‘(not provided)’ in the keyword list, and even a few days ago shrugged it off as overhyped news – since they only saw it affect 1-2% of traffic, people weren’t concerned, life went on.

Then, by last Friday, that 1-2% hit as much as10% on a couple of sites, and people started getting concerned.

There is potentially another layer to this story.

Google recently launched Google Analytics Premier, which it is aggressively pushing to larger scale clients. The introductory price of $150,000 per year provides a service which, according to the brochure will enable you to ‘track more than ever’, ‘own your customer data’ and ‘analyse ALL of your data’.

To me this sounds like music to the ears of clients worried about losing keyword data for 10-20% of SEO traffic to their site, and it has caused many to think that Google might be using this data exclusively like many third party ad providers do theirs.

However, this statement has not been accepted by Google, and their reps and other parties have informed us that this is not currently the case, (so conspiracy theorists can rest, for now). Still, it seems like the logical next step if Google is going to be selling their product, and many people have said that the answers they receive from Google on this subject are vague at best.

Face it, Google has changed. The data is valuable, and they need to generate revenue beyond AdWords. Hey, call me a cynic, but it just seems like the path that Google is taking, regardless of what Google tells me. I mean, really, who’s going to pay $150k when 10-20% of the keyword data is missing!?

And as for user privacy, consumers tend to complain more about targeted advertising, like remarketing perhaps, not SEO results. Ironically for PPC – “If you choose to click on an ad appearing on our search results page, your browser will continue to send the relevant query over the network to enable advertisers to measure the effectiveness of their campaigns and to improve the ads and offers they present to you.”

So where’s that valued privacy now?

Richard Fergie, Consultant at Reform says…

Yes, you are a cynic. As far as I know, it’s all speculation and conspiracy theory at best.

Firstly, I think it is important to be clear that Google *could* do everything that Niall is talking about; there is no technical barrier to them operating an exclusive web analytics service in this way. My argument is not that Google can’t, but that Google won’t.

What will Google gain from this? If this change increases uptake of their premium analytics product so that it grows to twice the size of Omniture it will increase Google’s revenues by only 2% (based on 2010 figures).

Not the type of return shareholders are looking for.

2% at Google’s scale is still a lot of money but I think this reward is not worth the anti-trust risk for Google. Google are already walking a fine line in the anti-trust courts; I say that using their dominance in search to help them dominate the premium web analytics space will put them so far on the wrong side of the line that the US Government will have to take action.

So what is the real reason why Google have made this change? I genuinely believe that they are doing it to protect user data. Not because they care about user privacy but because user data is being used to compete with Google in the online advertising space.

Google Remarketing is an excellent retargeting solution but it is nowhere near being the best in the space. Giving these ad networks additional data in the form of the user’s search query makes their targeting even more efficient and harder to compete with. Google can reduce the effectiveness of their competition and gain brownie points with organisations who care about user privacy – win/win.

So who is right?

Only time will tell (though at this moment Google have claimed that the data will currently NOT be added to Google Analytics Premium). In the mean time, this surely provides an opportunity for innovation and development within the SEO industry.

Every business in every industry suffers setbacks at some point, and from an SEO practitioner point of view, this certainly feels like a step backwards for SEOs that analyse keyword data as a key sign of the overall project’s value.

However, workarounds will be developed, new KPIs will emerge, and the industry will continue to grow. This isn’t the first time data has been closed off, and presumably it won’t be the last.

Blog post by Niall Madden, SEO Director of Reform

Google testing a redesigned search results page for US search users

May 7th, 2011

In the U.S. Google users are seeing a different look and feel to their search results page. This is the latest of several “tests” on Google.com – such as some users seeing “Google Voice Search” earlier this week.

New Google Search Result Test - May 2011

As seen above (click the image to see a full size version) – the search results page has more white space, a sort of muted colour tone, and PPC ads are not as obvious as before, since the colour of the PPC ads shaded much lighter.

Several users will notice the “cache” option has been removed from Google, much to the chagrin of SEO’s and users who want to check out a page before it loads in its entirety. However, they have replaced this from a visual standpoint, with “Google preview” – though this shows a page that one can hardly delve much information from.

Each result is also split by a dotted line, so that one can see where result one ends and two begins. And there is space between the result link and the snippet below. Overall, many people are guessing that this spacing below and above the title / link text may be a space for Google to later put their “+1″ button and various other social networking based aspects.

Last but not least, the results are not underlined anymore, which also has received mixed reactions. Unlike the recent layout changes on Google, this seems a bit more drastic. Several sites covered the story immediately with many users reacting to the change so shocked, that they thought it was a virus!

Let us know what you think.

Google Instant Suggestions Misleading Users And Businesses Alike

March 23rd, 2011

This isn’t exactly recent news, and maybe more along the lines of criticism. But so many clients and people in the industry have referred to it that we had to take a closer look.

It has been six months since Google Instant officially became part of the default search results in the US (and since then in some other countries too), and actually there is an interesting transcript of a presentation at SMX in New York that touches base on this.

But that’s more of a side note. What I want to talk about here is that when people type in a query and see keyword or brand variations suggested, they think that these are the top terms people are querying based on the main term. For example, if you look for “Reform Digital”, Google will suggest “Reform Digital Limited” or “Reform Digital SEO” or “Reform Digital London”. Fair enough. Google Instant will often suggest up to five terms as you conduct your search, and they are often some of the top variations of the query; however that is not always the case and they don’t appear in any particular order.

A recent test, based on data from different clients and companies that we work with, as well as Google data, showed that the suggested terms were actually a selection of five key terms found in what Google considered to be the top ten queries around a term. From as long ago as 2006 you could go to a URL on which Google was testing what was then known as “Google Suggest”, where they used estimates of Google impressions (perhaps query estimates?), which differ by market. Google then took the top ten variations that it sees in terms of impressions and lists them out. Have a look at the following URL which we generated using the term “mobile phone” as an example, to see what we’re talking about http://www.google.co.uk/complete/search?output=toolbar&q=mobile%20phone (or http://www.google.com/complete/search?output=toolbar&q=mobile%20phone if you want to see the US variations). This kind of query can be done with any term to see what terms Google Suggest would return (ie first four or five listed on the page) and to see what the other contenders are (based on query totals next to most terms).

So what we saw is that Google picks the five search terms that it’s going to show via various parameters, but to have a decent chance of being listed amongst those five, you need to at least be in its list of the top ten (or know how to automate queries etc). In terms of timings, we saw that Google Instant’s suggestions don’t respond immediately to changes in impression volumes, there is some delay. When checking for AT&T following the announcement that they were buying T-Mobile at the weekend, it wasn’t until late on Monday that a T-Mobile variation appeared in the list of top ten key terms, and even then there was no “impression total” next to it (it’s the only keyword suggestion with no data on that above URL).

Or, for another example, for the term “Reform” (including the space, as if you were going to add another word), Google’s top ten list includes the term “Reform Digital”, and it actually now gets the most queries of the group. But as a newer addition to the list, it’s not one of the five being suggested when you search in Google proper.

So Google Suggest is definitely sensitive to a combination of historic data and trends, and, like everything else on Google, it’s subject to manipulation. Website owners have looked at getting users to query variations to make their business look cleaner, for example “Business Name scam” is a common suggestion. Tools such as Amazon Mechanical Turk – where users are paid very small amounts to do basic tasks such as “like” or tweet something – have also been used by sites in the past to try and manipulate the results, as have several other methods of pushing query data.

This issue comes into play when looking at brand reputation. What if one of the ten terms was some other negative comment about your company? How can we get a more positive variation up there in its place? Of course, if all five of Google’s suggestions were negative, you probably have other problems!

Blog post by Niall Madden, Search Director of Reform

Update: “Scam” variations of a keyword are now blacklisted in Google Instant – so… “Business Name scam” won’t reveal a drop down. Nor does it appear in the URL that lists the 10 keyword variations. However, some brand names still have the “scams” variation, for now.

Update on International Search Review 4 – India

December 28th, 2010

Well, our review on the Search Market in India was the fourth in our series of International Search Reviews from Reform. It was an interesting piece, but I figured the best way to learn how the market really works and to generate insight is to actually go there (for a holiday of course). So here are some things that I inadvertently learned while in India, from a search and web perspective.

Things I learned in India:

1) The Market – As we’ve all been hearing, India is a market that’s barely tapped when it comes to internet usage, and the online population is set to explode, like it has in China.

Now that I’ve been there, I’m not sure if I agree 100%. While things like food and transportation were much cheaper in India than in the west, broadband was actually pretty much the same price as in the west, if not more expensive in some places. Many “offers” were still in the 15-45 dollar per month range, at the very least.

Considering that buying a home is significantly cheaper in India and an average salary is about $3.5k (though figures online do vary quite a bit, so to put it in perspective, some of the top jobs in India are in IT and they still make under 10k USD on average), broadband is proportionately an expensive offering and only for the well off. And from being outside the major cities part of the time, it felt even more far fetched (mainly because broadband was not available everywhere yet).

Though I did see a fair few billboards advertising “high speed internet access coming soon”. So at least it will be an option outside the major cities soon.

2) Google Billboards – Speaking of billboards. Google buys billboard advertising spaces on the highways of Delhi. However it took a few passes to realise it was a Google advertisement, and considering how manic the traffic is in India, with constant horns blaring and cars cutting in from all angles in their attempt to convert a three lane road into eight lanes – I doubt anyone even notices it.

Plus, they probably shouldn’t encourage speed on these roads anyway. By that I mean, the ad is for Google Chrome and it’s mainly a picture of a Windows-esque folder that says “Install Speed” on it – with Chrome’s logo in the bottom right corner. Google does dominate the search market here, perhaps because the search market is mainly those who are quite internationally savvy to begin with. Ask the regular people on the street and some of them will have no idea who Google is.

So putting an ad up that is mainly for people who already know who you are is a bit misleading.  The ad looked too subtle perhaps.  Where as every other ad on the road had the brand name in big letters, pushing the big brand name as much as it can.

3) Use PPC and Affiliate Networks To Make Money At Home! – I did manage to get a camera shot of this (shown below), seen all over trains and lampposts especially in Mumbai. Yes, perhaps some of the stereotypes are true unfortunately. Just click away on affiliates, fill surveys, click PPC ads, enter data, etc and make money at home! Ezeeincome.com was one of several sites advertising here, the shot above was from an “economy car” in one of Mumbai’s overland trains, which were busy as expected, but still worth using, though perhaps not during rush hour.

Beyond search, big name sites like TripAdvisor.in will “reimburse” you for reviews, with credits and vouchers one can use elsewhere.  On a computer in India, I saw a pop-up saying I could earn money with each review made on tripadvisor.in, but taking a screenshot was the last thing I was thinking of at that moment (plus it wasn’t my computer!).

4) Mobile Phones – The government is discussing a national broadband plan for the coming years. But with current offerings costing a fair portion of many people’s monthly salary – hopeful predictions like http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/infotech/internet/237-mn-internet-users-in-India-by-2015-Report/articleshow/6479094.cms are still far away. However, mobile broadband will make it much more possible.

Everyone seemed to have a mobile phone out there. Some looked like the one I had ten years ago. But I also saw many phones that were perhaps newer than my current phone. Even outside the cities, I saw kids calling and texting away – while piled on a 3 seater vehicle that had more than ten people in it, so this is definitely a market ready for mobile broadband. But 3G mobile broadband is not readily available yet, especially outside the big cities.

So why the big mobile takeup? Well, it doesn’t require a full computer, and it’s cheaper. Basic plans started from under $6 per month, with text messages costing less than two pennies. Calls were also about one cent a minute. But again, adding wireless internet access to the mobile phone was expensive. And 3G wireless access is just being launched – so even though many people had 3G compatible phones, they were using them for traditional means such as phone calls! Chances are the mobiles might have came with the plans, as the actual mobile device costs are again similar to that in the west, which means too expensive for most.

Articles like http://www.domain-b.com/industry/telecom/20101227_mobile_network.html are perhaps misleading. Yes, there are more mobile phone subscribers and their phones are connected to a wireless network, but the network is not necessarily one with any real internet access, let alone 3G. Major provider Tata only launched 3G in November 2010, while Airtel delayed their launch till 2011.

So will people be using their 3G phone for things like video chats and internet access when ready? Not if the Indian government have any say, as they look to delay plans further – http://www.slashgear.com/india-faces-3g-data-video-call-ban-over-real-time-security-fears-22120687/

On a side note, I didn’t see a single iPhone.  Everyone had Nokias!  I even looked this up when I got back and turns out that most of the top phones in India are in fact Nokias and iPhones are not nearly as popular here.  There’s an interesting report by Google/Admob at http://metrics.admob.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/AdMob-Mobile-Metrics-May-10.pdf if you’re interested in more details.

Summary – Is India a booming market with loads of potential in the internet marketplace? Yes. But it might take a little longer than expected before it fully expands across the country’s population.

How does it look today? Take a look at our India search market review (with downloadable PDF). Or view information about other countries in our series of international search market reviews. Thanks again to all those who commented and gave us feedback and help in 2010, Issue five of our series is set for release in early 2011.

Is It Good To Be Bad In SEO?

December 2nd, 2010

There’s an old saying that all publicity, even bad publicity, is good publicity. In a recent article from The New York Times, Search Engine Optimization through search juggernaut Google proves that the old saying may be the current truth in ecommerce.

The story details a consumer who purchased a pair of Lafont sunglasses from DecorMyEyes.com, a website ranked at the top of Google’s search results. While she believed that the high Google ranking and the look of the site brought assurances, she had no idea of the nightmare to follow.

Within a few weeks, she received the glasses in the mail, but, a loyal follower to the brand, she immediately spotted them as counterfeit. In investigating the purchase, she discovered that she was also overcharged by 125 dollars. When she called the website support to inquire about the purchase and ask for a refund, she was berated by the owner of the site, who called her a bitch and threatened her with graphic sexual violence. He also told her he knew where she lived and sent her a picture of her front door.

The consumer immediately called her credit card company but unfortunately, they also gave her trouble in investigating the matter and getting a refund.  Her requests for refunds landed her more harassment from the owner of the site, including calls at three in the morning and e-mail threats against her.

How then did this website get such high status from Google? The answer, according to the article, is simple. Many times consumers expect a smooth transaction and when they receive it, they don’t leave feedback. But when they get a horrible transaction, they need a place to vent their frustrations and the jilted consumer will go a review based website to describe their experience, throw caution to other consumers and link to the website to show where to consumers must avoid. The problem: This actually helps them.

DecorMyEyes saw that while consumers left feedback and provided links to their site on reputable sites on Google’s augustness scale, their Google ranking would increase… and so their sales would follow. They realized that bad publicity is not only good publicity, it’s also free publicity.

Since the Google algorithm may not be able to discern sentimentality, the search engine looks at the added content on a reputable as a benefit and gives DecorMyEyes a greater ranking. The website, seeing the potential, has taken the SEO philosophy and run with it, spurring on more comments by frustrating reviewers on websites into even more action. According to the article, their goal is “NEGATIVE advertisement” and that goal is garnering SEO great dividends.

A Google ranking leading to productivity of the site, even with bad reviews and now a scathing New York Times article about it, reaffirms the great power that SEO has on ecommerce business. Getting a high Google ranking, DecorMyEyes has built an ecommerce site that the owner claims to be “fantastically profitable.” Yet his completely unethical and terrifying business practices show that, in the wrong hands, SEO could be a powerful tool for unlawful sites intending on trapping consumers.

As of Tuesday night, Google was yet to comment on the article but many replies commented on how the search engine algorithm should be altered to punish sites receiving bad reviews, protecting consumers from sites that use SEO to prey on them. Google have now responded on their official blog, announcing that they have developed an algorithmic solution in an initial response to this problem, but they can’t guarantee that people won’t find further loopholes in the algorithm.

The outcry over the site has spread significantly throughout the week and one may wonder if the owner of DecorMyEyes is already relishing the profits of getting his website in the very prominent online version of The New York Times.

Read the full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28borker.html

Google Instant: the PR coup of the year?

September 9th, 2010

The Search industry waited with baited breath as to what Google’s big announcement would be this week.

Matt Cutts, Google’s search community ‘idol’ was excitedly tweeting, galvanising the search geeks across the globe.

And then the announcement came: the launch of Google Instant (to continue with the coffee theme, following Caffeine?)

Well! All I can say is that Google’s PR team are really good at creating an almighty hype over something very minor: the auto-completion of your search query.

Google reckons Google Instant will give us all 5 seconds of our lives back – per search. So that’s something, I guess!

So that’s it really. After all the hype prior to the big launch, it’s just a functional / usability improvement. Nothing particularly strategic or impactful on Google’s index.

Google Instant is potentially controversial in that this is perhaps another example of Google trying to second guess or pre-empt what users may – or may not – be searching for. One step too far in terms of Google’s sphere of influence? Those trusting souls paying little attention to their typing may find that they end up with a completely different set of unrelated results.  It will be interesting to read the subsequent industry opinions on this subject in the coming weeks.

But for now, I think this article on Telegraph.co.uk best sums up Google’s announcement this week…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7991057/Google-Instant-the-technology-anti-climax-of-the-decade.html

“Our key technical insight was that people type slowly, but read quickly,” said the boffins from Mountain View in their blog post announcing Google Instant”

- if this is the kind of insight that Google’s boffins are paid to come up with, I’m definitely in the wrong job!

Blog post by Amanda Davie, Managing Director of Reform

Search Engine Marketing in Russia – International Search Review Issue 2

February 16th, 2010

Thanks to everyone for their feedback on the first issue of Reform’s International Search Review. Issue number two is now available, as we move north into Russia.  Like China, Russia is a large market where Google is not the search engine of choice, playing second fiddle to Yandex.ru.  As a result, SEO and general search marketing strategies from international companies looking to expand into Russia often find obstacles here.

For instance, it can be difficult for foreign companies to do PPC advertising on Yandex. Their PPC service is known as Yandex:Direct – which has a user interface for accounts that is entirely in Russian. Unless you have a fluent Russian PPC person on your team (and even then), potential advertisers are advised to let Yandex manage the PPC accounts on your behalf. This is known as the “Yandex.Direct Carefree account” – which their site says will provide you with a dedicated, English speaking account manager who will help you create and run your campaign (assistance with keywords selection, composing the ad text and advertising strategy consulting).

The initial take up of broadband was behind the pace of many other markets, but in the recent years Russia has started to really experience a steadier increase, becoming one of the top countries in regards to take up and usage of Mobile internet usage and Social Networking.   Russia is currently the eighth largest country in terms of internet user population, and is set to overtake the UK into seventh place.

Download a copy of the full “Russia Search Review” issue here

Take a look through the PDF and hopefully we can answer any questions about the search market share in Russia, along with the habits of the local internet user population there.

We look at the Yandex natural search algorithm, along with recent changes in Gogo.ru and Mail.ru, which had made an agreement with Google to use their natural search results, but instead opting to build their own algorithm first and using Google’s as a back up. Gogo.ru and Mail.ru do however use Google’s PPC results, which has helped extend its reach (and earnings) there. Considering Google had a 5% market share in Russia only 4 years ago, it has come a long way. But like in China, there are many factors which will try hard to make sure it never crosses the 50% line.

The overall search market share in Russia currently (along with other key stats from the PDF include):

- Yandex – 54.5% (62% when including Mail.ru) / Google 34.5% / Rambler – 1.9% / Bing – 0.4% (Source: Comscore, August 2009)

- 42,000,000 Internet users as of Jan 2010 and only a 33% estimated internet penetration.

- The average user in Russia spent 6.6 hours per month on social networks (highest in the world out of 38 countries that were reported), compared to a worldwide average of 3.7, 4.6 in the UK and 4.2 in the US. (World Metrix / Comscore: July 2009). The top choice of social network was Vkontakte.ru, followed by odnoklassniki.ru and mail.ru – while Facebook was a distant seventh.

- Twitter integration into search results was done on Yandex first in 2009 (before Google or Bing), yet Twitter usage in Russia is still relatively low, holding less than 0.5% of the overall global Twitter market share.

To get more details on this and everything else, download a copy of the full issue here – and let us know any comments / feedback.   Contact us, and we’ll get the next issue out to you before anyone else gets it!

You can also leave a comment below too.

Blog post by Niall Madden, SEO Director of Reform

Search Engines in 2009 & Predictions For 2010

December 22nd, 2009

It’s that time of the year again. End of year roundups and predictions for 2010. It’s been a busy year in search, well in fact its been a busy decade (but we won’t go there)! If 2009 was the year of Bing, Wolfram Alpha, Google Caffeine and expansion of AdWords usage, along with everyone’s attempts at Real-Time search integration, then what does 2010 have in store for the search industry?

From a user perspective, search engines were looking east. Taking from insights in the far eastern search markets, Bing and Google focused more on becoming a one stop destination hub. From the second you type your query into Google, suggestions are sent your way. In 2009 they upgraded the suggestions to include direct links and elements such as the latest weather reports, or even parcel tracking information, all before you even click “submit”.

Personalisation was a key objective for search engines too, as user data continues to get used to determine future results and trends. However, it met a lot of critique, from many who cited that personalisation may take away from independence (with less and less “new” perspectives given to users). Just like the improvements in audio/video searches and real time search though, 2010 looks to be a big year for the development of these technologies.

As far as traditional SEO and PPC goes, Google impacted these strategies too. Lines began to blur between the two, as Google integrated local results (map results) and expandable PPC ads (integrating PPC and Google Base results together) to include sitelinks and product prices / listings. From an SEO perspective, Google spent the latter part of 2009 emphasising the need for speed – advising that a sites load time may become a big factor for optimisation in 2010.

And Google didn’t stop there, continuing their foray into a vast range of things – some of which it has been working on for a few years, such as voice recognition search, along with working on more efficient translation tools and various apps for the Android operating system. And then there were the many mash-ups of their existing offerings, such as City Tours and Social Search.

It wasn’t all bright lights for Google though, as they continued to seem out of place when it came to other forms of media, including a much criticised attempt to push the Google Chrome browser on TV and print media ads. They also took what many people felt were a step back with a more traditional pricing on “paid placement” local listings, and YouTube ads, opting away from their cost per click rates – and instead going towards the old CPM rates in some cases.

At the same time though, marketers looked closer at the impact of TV on search. Going beyond slogans that say “search for (name of brand) on Google” – marketers looked at having the celebrity presence on their search listings too. Hilary Swank, Scarlett Johansson, Oprah Winfrey and Jessica Alba were celebrities used to endorse PPC ad copy in 2009.

The merger between Bing and Yahoo looms ever present for 2010, while Yahoo Search Submit Pro calls it a day. Yahoo site explorer is rumoured to be next in line, which was the source of many an online SEO tool that analysed links. When this will happen is unclear, but it does remind many of a search marketer of the times when the Yahoo / Overture keyword tool was silently put to sleep.

And of course, it wouldn’t be an end of year / new year posting without some predictions, so here goes. Among our predictions for search in 2010, are:

1. SEO will become the darling of marketing, as recession strapped companies look to get the most of their budgets

2. SEO’s will need to know how to communicate with designers and developers (and vice versa), as factors such as load time, script usage and site coding become key SEO factors

3. Data (advertiser and customer) debates will heat up over the year, as companies like Facebook, Google, Bing, etc tread the line between insight and privacy

4. Local and retail advertisers will see Google Maps and Google Base traffic volumes soar

5. Launched in 2009 – Scoopler.com will become one to watch in the “real-time search” race

6. Search becomes the marketing channel for geniuses (or genii), as from keyword research to semantic psychology – things are about to get really interesting!

7. International SEO and PPC strategies will evolve fast in 2010, as search engines such as Baidu spent late 2009 moving towards a more westernised search methodology in both paid and natural search listings

8. Real time search still needs a fair bit of work and will look vastly different this time next year

9. Mobile search will finally catch up to all the hype its received in the last few years

Drop us a line and let us know what you think is in store for search in 2010.

Blog post by Niall Madden, SEO Director of Reform

Google and Bing to Add Twitter Tweets in Search Results… Is That a Good Thing?

October 22nd, 2009

News came out yesterday that claimed both Google and Microsoft Bing are going to include a bit more tweets from Twitter in their search results.  The search marketing world was abuzz, with comments and ideas for how they can expand their search marketing capabilities and how Bing and Google will benefit greatly from these “real time” updates being integrated in their search results.

Really?  This is good news?  Perhaps I should tweet it to the contrary.  I say, hold on a second.  How relevant are most people’s tweets to the general public anyway?  Lets have a look.  Bing is already doing a beta of this in the US.  All I can say is that it’s good that it’s separate from the real results. 

Google’s blog at http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/rt-google-tweets-and-updates-and-search.html tells me that with Twitter integration, I can now find up to date snow conditions at my favourite ski resort.  So I tried to look for the “weather in Chamonix” and “weather in Whistler” on Twitter Bing (http://www.bing.com/twitter/).  Which by the way is the same as http://search.twitter.com for the most part.

One had no results, the other had ONE.  And it wasn’t even of any use.  No real time info, just some person tweeting that the weather was nice…. yesterday – so much for real time.  

Lets try something more commercial then… what’s more commercial than insurance!!  Here the results are split between blatant sales pitches (that came from automated twitter accounts and have links that redirect to affiliates) and people’s every day lives – such as one that reads “I just got car insurance, what up yall!!!”  True story, not mine.

Don’t get me wrong, Twitter has a lot of use for people that already know you or your company, your brand, etc, and want to know more or be kept posted – such as our Reform Digital account that lets followers know the second this blog is posted (quite ironic I know).  But if you’re a complete stranger that happens to query something related to this page’s content, I’d rather you find this posting in the search results and not the much briefer condensed tweet – which will of course put this lovely page an extra click away. 

While I know many brands have taken advantage of Twitter, to launch unique offers to users who “follow” them, in some ways like the email lists of old – putting this sort of thing on the regular search results sort of defeats that purpose.  Brands lose out from the quality of direct connections that are more likely to convert, and users lose out by seeing a wave of search results that get valued by the engines, but don’t really have much use in most instances. 

From the user end, will it open more Twitter accounts?  Maybe.  Critics such as Steve Rubel of Edelman Digital believe that Twitter already has the users who want to use it.  For the most part, he feels “everyone who wants to publicly tweet is already doing so”.  And I agree.  But, I do think there will be a wave of new accounts and more traffic for Twitter with this search engine integration. 

Brands, advertising, just like the profiles that went astray when mainstream media looked at MySpace and Facebook as revenue generating opportunities.  Its one thing to make sure your brand reserves their presence, and I’m all for proactive campaigns – but there’s a difference between a Tweet about a product offer from a person I know and a search result featuring a tweet from a stranger that tries to befriend me.  Can I really trust the latter? 

One positive that Bing’s Twitter integration claims to have is that it will only expose the tweets from the last 7 days.  This is a good start, as the last thing I want is an archive of tweets muddling up the index in Bing or Google for that matter.  On the other side, all the tweets I see in the results are pretty irrelevant.  Only time will tell I guess.   Twitter can be easy to spam also, which is why I liked the fact that it wasn’t fully integrated in search.  And it’s very easy to post an article and just get loads of accounts to link up to it.

Some articles cite that you can get real time weather, news opinion from regular people and sports information now that Twitter will get integrated on search.  Hmmm, I could get that stuff online already.  This just makes sure I get to see everyone who bangs on about it and thinks I care.  Lets see how Google fares. Good luck.

Blog post by Niall Madden, SEO Director of Reform

Update: Here’s what the US version looks like (for those that can’t see it).

Bing Twitter Homepage in US