Listed

By simply showing Listed as a major metric Twitter encourages comparisons. Listed will be the new Followers. We’ll see Followers to Listed ratios cranked out by the companies who traffic in these sorts of meta data measures of authority and influence.

Instead of using lists to help users manage the stream of data, they’ve turned them into a competition.

Following Twitter Lists

The ability to follow lists also creates competition. Which SEO list is best? Who’s Ruby Rock Stars list should you follow? Lists allow users to segment, but how many instances are you really going to follow? Does it help me to follow 25 instances of an SEO list? Probably not.

Suddenly a person’s lists are going to have an attached Followers metric. You could argue that the number of Followers helps define comparative quality, but that hasn’t worked for users has it? So why would it work for lists?

My motivation for creating a list isn’t to attract followers, it’s to help me turn data into information.

Twitter Lists Do Not Equal Authority or Influence

The impetus for creating a list is for the user to manage their data flow. (Or it should be!) Using a data segmentation taxonomy as a proxy to show authority just doesn’t compute. The motivation is not to grant authority to those on a list, but to simply shape data.

Lists is a grouping, but it assigns no weight to an individual within that group. We all know people who are ubiquitous but might not be well regarded. Nevertheless you’d likely put them on a topical list.

Volume is essentially what Listed measures. People with varied interests will be added to many lists. People who have played the Followers game will be added to many lists. Quantity wins, not quality.

Furthermore, once people understand that lists are the new Followers you’ll have people asking to be added to lists, trading list additions and new accounts will spring up for the sole purpose of getting users on the ‘right’ lists. It’s an obvious gaming nightmare.

Twitter Lists Don’t Define You

There’s an offhand defense of lists I’m hearing many employ: “lists show how others think of you.”

Who cares! Guess what, I stopped caring about that my sophomore year in high school. But isn’t that the DNA of Twitter? A navel-gazing popularity contest that somehow is supposed to validate value and contribution.

Thanks but no thanks.

The Real Problem with Lists

The idea behind lists seems to be around user discovery.

It’s supposed to help you find “interesting accounts.” But lists (of any kind) don’t effectively do this because people are multi-faceted.

I have a varying level of expertise and contribution in many fields. My inclusion on Danny Sullivan’s Search Marketing list is nice, but will people following that list get value from my bicycling and book related tweets?

Lists give you a complete timeline for a group of people to whom someone has assigned a certain user defined attribute. It doesn’t mean you’re going to actually get content matching that user defined attribute. This mismatch makes it difficult to find ‘interesting accounts’.

Lists are simply a blunt instrument in the transformation of data into information.

Comcast was last on the list since I review my bills in reverse chronological order and the Comcast bill notification arrived in my inbox on Friday.

Comcast Fail

I clicked through on the bill and entered my user name.

I tried three times, paying special attention to ensure I didn’t fat finger something. Each time, same thing.

So I contacted customer support using their Live Chat feature. I was quickly connected with Vanessa who after a brief back and forth provided this explanation.

Vanessa > I wish to inform you that we did an upgrade with our system and we merged the 2 accounts which is the comcast.net and .com

Vanessa > And due to this upgrade since you do not have internet service I am afraid that you need to register it again online, AJ.

That makes as much sense as a fish riding a bicycle! To Vanessa’s credit she was apologetic (even though it wasn’t her fault) and very helpful. Thank you Vanessa.

Comcast System Upgrade?

I’m not an engineer or a coder, but I know enough to know that a database merge can be done far more elegantly. Boiled down, isn’t this a simple left outer join?

Even if there is more complexity (and there usually is) wouldn’t it be wise to deal with those issues instead of inconveniencing your customers?

Comcast Error Messaging

Even if Comcast chose to go ahead as planned, they could have avoided in-bound customer service issues by applying proper error messaging.

A simple statement about a system upgrade requiring users to re-register would have made the situation clear. Inconvenient but at least Comcast would have provided an immediate answer to the problem they created.

But here’s the rub. You need your account number to register!

That account number is not on the billing email and since I use paperless billing I have no material with my Comcast account number. No matter what, I’d still have to contact customer support to retrieve my account number.

Comcast Customer Service

Despite the buzz Comcast has generated around their use of Twitter they still don’t seem to understand customer service.

If they did, they’d have created use cases from a customer perspective and realized that this upgrade would be detrimental for users and would cause added customer support costs.

AT&T U-verse is looking better all the time.

Twitter is the Underpants Gnomes of the Internet

If you’re not familiar with the Underpants Gnomes, they were featured in a South Park episode in which the Gnomes devised an … interesting business plan.

Replace underpants with users (or VC cash) and you’ve got Twitter. Oh, sure they’ve alluded to some sort of business plan, but even as recently as a few weeks ago Evan Williams wasn’t willing to divulge a real revenue model despite John Battelle’s prodding.

I remember the Web 1.0 days of grow fast, grab market share and monetize later. Only a few survived this kowabunga style of business.

But who knows, maybe Twitter can turn underpants into profit.

You could even include ancillary search innovations like Sidewiki (9/23) and fetch as Googlebot (10/12).

It’s been so fast that Google launched a series of weekly blog posts (This Week in Search) to keep up with the changes.

Pent Up Search Innovation?

For the past few years Google has stated in numerous venues that they didn’t particularly want to grow their share of the search market. They explained that extending their market share lead could incur the wrath of government oversight or create user backlash.

The jaded in the audience rolled their eyes and even the purists probably furrowed their brow. Sure, it makes a bit of sense but … really?

Yet, the timing of these recent search innovations is intriguing.

Bing Allows Google To Innovate

Microsoft’s latest dedication to search could be the reason for Google’s recent spate of search enhancements. Before Bing went live Google rolled out rich snippets, making Google last to the rich listings party. The preemptive move secured a certain search parity in the space.

That box checked off, Google sat back and watched as Bing innovated, advertised and finally partnered with Yahoo. Bing’s share began to inch up toward 10% and that seemed to be enough for the search behemoth to release the hounds engineers.

One gets the impression that projects that had once been stashed in a drawer were suddenly taken out, dusted off and quickly deployed.

What else does Google have in store for us?

Keyword Density is Dead

The well respected SEOmoz says keyword density is a myth.

A complete myth as an algorithmic component, keyword density nonetheless pervades even very sharp SEO minds. While it’s true that more usage of a keyword term/phrase can potentially improve targeting/ranking, there’s no doubt that keyword density has never been the formula by which this relevance was measured.

Yet, looking at their 2009 Search Engine Ranking Factors report you’ll note that keyword density does appear as a factor. In addition, you’ll see factors such as using the keyword in the first 50-100 words of text and keyword repetition in the text.

So, what’s going on?

Keyword Targeting Matters

Keyword targeting helps a search engine understand what a page is about.

There is a fringe element who would have you believe that unique content is enough. They assume that the search engine will understand the content as written, no keyword targeting required.

But how does a search engine understand content? A search engine doesn’t read the text on the page like you or I. They’ll always fail a reading comprehension test. No, search engines have to assess and understand content in a mathematical way.

Keyword Targeting Strategies

While search engines use a mathematical approach to understanding text, they try to emulate human reading behavior. The use of the keyword in the title tag is important, just as the title of a book is important. Imagine the confusion of an organic chemistry textbook titled ‘Sunshine Boogie’.

The use of the keyword in the H1 tag is essentially a chapter heading. Headers are usually the biggest text on the page and size matters since it conveys the relative importance of text on the page. To a lesser extent, any emphasized text (bold, italics) may also provide a clue to search engines as to comparative relevance.

Using the keyword as the first word in the title as well as the H1 and in the first 50-100 words of text points to a bias toward natural left to right reading. What’s on the left - first or early on - is most important.

And then there’s the repetitive use of the keyword in the text. If you’re reading a chapter on the history of the Crusades you’re likely to see the word ‘crusades’ quite a bit. A blog post on Twitter is going to have the word ‘Twitter’ repeated numerous times. The repetition helps to define the topic of that content.

Keyword Targeting Measurement

Search engines may use a number of different methodologies to extract meaning and determine keyword targeting. Proximity, distribution and co-location have been around for ages. I understand linearization, tokenization, filtration and stemming and grok lexicographic analysis. Yet, I’m not sure to what extent search engines really use any of these methodologies.

I’m particularly suspect of linearization since Google has indicated it can distinguish and weight text and links by where they reside on the page.

But enough about the search engine, how does the every day person measure keyword targeting?

You’ve written a new piece of content - an article or blog post. You know what it’s supposed to be about, but did you stray too far from your original keyword target? You know you’re supposed to use the keyword a number of times but did you use the keyword enough?

Long Live Keyword Density

Like it or not the easiest way to determine if you used the keyword enough times is … keyword density. When I use keyword density I’m looking at the percentage and frequency of that keyword compared to other non-stop words. Usually I’m not even looking at numbers but instead use Wordle for visual keyword density.

Remember, you’re not using keyword density in a vacuum!

Getting the keyword density from 4% to 5% probably won’t do squat. And keyword density isn’t going to matter if you simply stuff the keywords into an incoherent, keyword bloated final paragraph.

But if you have 5 or 6 keywords with the same general density, or if your target keyword has a density of under 1% you’ve got some problems. The search engine will be confused. It might figure it out (with or without additional SEO help), but why take the chance when you have full control over this part of the optimization!

If a number of keywords have the same density, which can happen when you have a very long piece of content, you can choose to target the ‘right’ keyword. Or you may come to the conclusion that the content covers too many topics and should be split (or paginated) into smaller, more focused articles.

If the keyword density is low, it’s a reminder to review your writing to look for dreaded pronouns, to make sure you’re using the keyword in the first and last paragraphs and to remove any leaps in logic.

Keyword density isn’t about density it’s about enforcing proper keyword targeting.

Keyword Density and Readability

Research shows that people scan web content. They very rarely read word by word. People are in a hurry and our broadband tabbed browser environment allows us to go even faster than before.

Steve Krug’s Don’t Make Me Think! has this to say about scanning content.

The net effect is a lot like Gary Larson’s classic Far Side cartoon about the difference between what we say to dogs and what they hear. In the cartoon, the dog (named Ginger) appears to be listening intently as her owner gives her a serious talking-to about staying out of the garbage. But from the dog’s point of view, all he’s saying is “blah blah GINGER blah blah blah blah GINGER blah blah blah.”

So, when someone comes to a piece of content, you need them to instantly understand what it’s about. Sure, a big H1 with the keyword goes a long way but if they’re scanning the text, you’ll want that keyword to show up numerous times. Don’t make them search for Ginger.

Keyword repetition helps the user make a conscious determination that the content is about that keyword. Unconsciously you’re bouncing a keyword rich visual image off the user’s retina. In a five second test environment, that type of visual osmosis might count for something.

Is it a stretch to think that keyword density might help users read content? No.

The real myth is that keyword density degrades content, when in fact it often does the opposite. Well written keyword dense text is generally easier to read.

Why Keyword Density Matters

Keyword density matters because it is an easy measure for keyword repetition and helps users access and engage in your content. It is not the biggest ranking factor (by a country mile), but keyword density is completely in your control and is one of the building blocks upon which other techniques are balanced.

Keyword density isn’t about hitting a certain percentage, it’s about ensuring that your content is highly focused and easy to read.

It was a red leaf.

Being a bit sentimental, I left the red leaf on my shirt for the day. That decision led to a renewed appreciation for the power of iconography.

Are You Canadian?

That was one of the first things a co-worker asked me that day. The question seemed rather random and out of left field. In reaction to my puzzled expression, he pointed to the red leaf.

Later that day another co-worker asked if I liked maple syrup. And yet another started up a conversation about the upcoming hockey season. (Go Flyers!)

The Power of Iconography

I suppose it does look like the Canadian maple leaf. And the sticker was out of place and likely attracted attention. But all that aside, I wasn’t wearing a Canadian flag sticker. It was a simple, small red leaf.

The meaning that this red leaf conveyed was impressive. A single red leaf created an instant association with Canada and then, like a needle skipping on a vinyl record, to maple syrup and hockey. A stream of data, of experience, of knowledge, was trapped inside that red leaf.

How does that happen?

Semiotics

Semiotics, or the study of signs, helps explain how a simple red leaf can have such a profound impact. The field of semiotics is both dense and ambiguous, filled with academic rhetoric and debate. Even a beginner’s guide to semiotics clocks in at over 5,500 words.

The main elements of semiotics are syntax, semantics and pragmatics, described in as follows in an icon design article.

Syntax: the internal grammar of parts that enable a properly formed sign to be parsable by someone or some system—think of the computer throwing a “syntax error”

Semantics: the intending meaning of the sign by the maker(s) of it

Pragmatics: how the sign is received, perceived, and acted upon by some person or interpreter by the confluence of syntax and semantics; the resulting effect

Pragmatics is where it really gets interesting in my opinion. Pragmatics deals with the impact of context and experience as it is applied to the perception of signs.

Now, back to the red leaf.

The syntax is fine. You know it’s a leaf. However, the intended meaning (semantics) changed through the prism of pragmatics.

The bag of colored leaves was intended to be a sign of Fall. Yet, the one red leaf taken out of context is instead perceived to be a sign of Canada, which opened up a whole new flood of associations based on personal experience and perspective.

Icons and Marketing

The Internet is a vast landscape of icons. My red leaf experience reminds me that iconography can be a very effective marketing tool. It is done wrong and badly for the most part, but when done well can have a tremendous impact. (For more on semiotics and advertising I recommend the retro semiotics hypercard essay from Thomas Streeter at the University of Vermont.)

The challenge is figuring out how to create icons that unlock that stream of data. Creating icons that tap into shared experiences and personal histories can deliver a tone to your website that you simply can’t convey otherwise.

The Icon Test

Sometimes you’re capitalizing on ancient archetypes and sometimes they can be recent and repetitive shared experiences. Don’t believe me? Lets try a little icon experiment. I’m going to show you an icon of sorts.

Tell me what you instantly think about after seeing it.

Post the first three words that came into your mind in your comment.

This image, from Google Street View, shows the ‘Giants Building’ sign with a SF logo underneath and a ‘Home Of The Giants’ as a type of sub-header.

My response was simple. That’s good SEO.

This brought me a round of good-natured chiding from my client about being a bit too SEO focused. But really, this was a great example of Blind Five Year Old SEO. The sign was simple and instructive. (Perhaps also a reaction to the frequent name changes that Park has undergone.)

Could the San Francisco Giants be SEO savvy?

Let’s say I’m a tourist from … Sweden. What name tells me more: AT&T Park or Giants Building? That’s a no-brainer, right! Better yet, I’ve got that nice SF logo there for some context. And if I’m still confused I’m even told that this is the home of the Giants. Without a doubt I know the building in front of me is the home of the Giants.

Whether or not they’d know that the Giants are a baseball team is another thing entirely.

So am I too SEO focused or is this just a good real world case of providing easy, instructive signage?

At SMX West 2009 Bruce Clay stated that Yahoo! didn’t ‘like’ pipes. I’m a big fan of pipes so I made a beeline for the Yahoo! representative at the show and he was nonplussed. He saw no reason why Yahoo! would treat pipes any different than dashes.

What are pipes and dashes?

I’m talking about the delimiter used in the title tag, which ultimately shows up as the first line in your search engine result. The two most frequently used title tag delimiters are pipes and dashes.

Are pipes better than dashes?

So, it seemed like Yahoo! had no preference but what about Google? I asked Matt Cutts and got the following video reply. (Thanks Matt.)

The answer seems to be the same. Google most likely handles pipes the same way it does dashes.

Do users prefer dashes or pipes?

Matt brings up an interesting point surrounding click through rates on pipes versus dashes. And maybe that’s what Bruce was referring to - a study of click through behavior, specifically on Yahoo!

The real problem is you can’t really do an A/B test like you can on AdWords. But wouldn’t that be an incredible tool Google could provide through … say, Webmaster Tools! Because what you’d really want to do is take the same URL and send half of the traffic to one treatment and half to another.

In the interim I suppose you could conduct an eye tracking study. But Matt’s probably right, there’s likely little to no difference. Until then you can feel safe using both pipes or dashes for your title optimization.

Google wants to see long clicks not short clicks. That’s the new SEO terminology coming from Google.

What’s a Long Click?

A long click occurs when a user performs a search, clicks through on a result and remains on that site for a long time. They don’t come back to the result set immediately to click on another result or to refine their query. In general, long clicks are a proxy for satisfaction and success.

What’s a Short Click?

A short click is the opposite of a long click. (No duh!) A short click occurs when a user performs a search, clicks through on a result and quickly comes back to the result set to click on an alternate result. In general, short clicks are a proxy for dissatisfaction and failure.

How is Google Tracking Click Length?

No, it’s not through Google Analytics. They’re not peeking at bounce rates. Instead Google is measuring pogosticking activity by leveraging their current tracking mechanisms. Remember, Google already tracks the user, the search and the result clicked. All Google needed to do was to accurately model the time dimension.

Why are Long Clicks Important?

Long clicks are important to Google because it gives them a way to measure the satisfaction of the result based on downstream behavior. Sure, a result might get a lot of clicks but did it actually satisfy the query?

Is it a success if 100 people click but 98 go back within 10 seconds? What if those 98 people all clicked on an alternate result?

Google knows that the search algorithm still isn’t that smart. It routinely makes mistakes and can often be led down the wrong path by aggressive search engine optimization. Long clicks provide a feedback mechanism, a type of human quality assurance that is lacking in the algorithm.

Long clicks are important to you because they will may help increase your SERP rank.

The chatter from Google makes me believe that it is part of the algorithm. How much it is weighted now and in the future remains to be seen. One way or the other Google is saying that longer is better.

What is a Google OneBox?

When Google wants to display information that is not exactly in the algorithm, but is related to the query, it does so through what is called a OneBox presentation. Think of it as a promotional unit.

The OneBox terminology was used by Google when the unit was first introduced and seems to have survived, at least externally. SearchEngineWatch (sorta) confirmed the OneBox terminology in an interview with Google Product Marketing Director Debbie Jaffe in 2006. (Jaffe never actually refers to it as OneBox.)

OneBox can display a variety of different information from news to weather to books to products and can be placed anywhere from the top to the bottom of a result page.

The OneBox presentation is controversial because it creates a very prominent listing that provides … cherry-picked results. As an example, Google has begun to implement a health OneBox.

The health OneBox for the query ’stroke’ brings Mayo Clinic, Medline Plus and WebMD to the top of the page instead of where they’d wind up under natural results. In this case WebMD would be 3rd, Medline Plus 6th and Mayo Clinic 11th.

Google Shopping OneBox

The shopping OneBox or product OneBox brings the same cherry-picking controversy to the surface. It’s exacerbated by the fact that Google Product Search essentially competes with shopping comparison engines and review sites, many of whom have spent time and effort to perform search engine optimization.

If you’re not participating in Google Product Search (aka Google Base) then you’re never going to be in the shopping OneBox. And even if you do participate, there’s no guarantee that your listing will be featured. Here’s an example of the shopping OneBox for the query ‘proform 980 cs treadmill’.

Sears, JCPenney and Best Buy are all featured in the shopping OneBox. At least Sears and Best Buy have a natural listing but JCPenney has essentially circumvented normal SEO and is now a preferred result for this query.

Sites such as Buzzillions, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Shopping.com and even Amazon suddenly lose out on this query despite matching and delivering a very good experience for this product search. Even Best Buy might not be thrilled since they’d be first retailer listed and not the third if the OneBox wasn’t presented.

Today, Google is a huge part of any product based business, so changes like this will have an immediate impact on traffic and sales.

Shopping OneBox Evolution

The evolution of the shopping OneBox shows an increasing interest by Google in this vertical. First there was the old Froogle presentation.

Image from Google Operating System.

In 2008 Google experimented with a compact version with a product image.

Image from Google Operating System.

By early 2009 Google had reverted to a slightly less compact text version again.

Image from Best Rank.

Now the shopping OneBox has a large product image and is not compact at all, taking up a tremendous amount of real estate.

Importance of Shopping OneBox

On September 2nd, the Google Base blog announced new features for marketplace and aggregators on Google Product Search. This is a real change from the initial launch of Google Base, where Google seemed interested in having individual sellers upload to Base and use Google Checkout on their sites - middlemen be damned!

The change in direction for Google Base coupled with the focus Bing has had on shopping seem to have accelerated Google’s interest in the vertical. They’ve been toying with it for many years but have never really made it a priority.

The new shopping OneBox indicates that might be changing.