When you enter a query into a search engine, you are generally asking some kind of question. And search engines and search agents have gotten really good at parsing search results based on clues that you give in your query or that you reveal about your surroundings. For instance, if you search sushi from a mobile device, it is less likely that you are searching for information about sushi and looking FOR sushi. That makes sense. If you search for the name of a product, then you are likely in a shopping mode, so retailers and shopping results will likely come up first. ANd when you add in intelligent agents, like Siri for your mobile, you can have the power of contextual search with the intelligence of an agent. It is really slick and advanced stuff. But I feel like all the effort is being put into understanding what the searcher wants and translating it into some kind of structured search (Searching for food, location known, narrow result set to 10 miles from location…)

But as an SEO, my job is to help search engines understand the meanings of the content that I want found. And that is a significantly complex process. Understanding the meaning of a request is easier than understanding the meaning of content and positioning it so that it is available for any number of requests. So, how do we help search engines understand the meaning of content. I would argue that the days of page titles and meta-data as primary indicators of on page content are inherently limited and for some industries, completely useless. News organizations have a terrible time helping search engines truly understand the meaning of an article (and if the writer makes a good, compelling headline, forget about it…). The complexities of language are beyond the search algorithms at this point. Many news organizations and bloggers get around the complexities by tagging. WordPrees, which the software behind this blog, has a very simple tagging structure that allows me to provide as many keywords as I wish as tags to this article. And while that is helpful, it is still incumbent on me, as the writer, to distill my thoughts into a keyword (and hopefully I will choose a high volume one!). So, supplying a nuanced understanding of this article is still incumbent on me. I need to pick and choose the right words to match up with what the search engines can understand.

Many busy journalists, marketers and bloggers simply aren’t suited to the task. They have the wrong mindset, or aptitude or impulse.

How do we help search engines understand our pages better? How do we do it is a foolproof way? And how do we do it in a way that is meaningful for search visibility?

How do we leverage nuance to drive traffic?

Discuss.

This is the presentation that I did at SMX West. It is simple and short. The idea is that paid and organic search belong in the same channel. The techniques for managing the execution of the programs is different, but the campaigns need to be coordinated and the results thought of as a whole.
Why Peanut Buttercups

1. Twitter Works For Publishers: From Adam Sherk, 0.7% of traffic for folks like the NY Times comes from Twitter…now, 0.7% may not sound like a lot, but when you think about the huge numbers that NYT puts up (19.5ish million per month) that means over 130K visitors monthly from Twitter. That is HUGE. Twitter is a REAL traffic driver.
2. Video is a Key to Page 1 Listings: According to Danny Sullivan, it is 50x harder to get a traditional web page on to page 1 than it is to get a video on page 1. I am going to guess that this is going to change soon.
3. Search Optimization is Search Engine Marketing: I had several discussions with folks who were pretty clear (misinformed, but clear nonetheless) that paid search was real marketing and search engine optimization was largely an IT lead endeavor. Organic search optimization is search engine marketing. Creating content that is well constructed by search engine standards and is valuable enough to link to is truly a marketing activity.
4. I Did Not See Anything NEW at SMX West: I work at an SEO agency and we are always looking for new partners and new ideas. I saw very little at SMX that was NEW. There were a thousand variations on paid search bid management, but I did not see anything cutting edge in the SEO or social side. The world of search is exploding in images and mobile and geo-location…and I didn’t see any new ideas. (I have a bunch that we are working on, but I haven’t seen anything that was really cutting edge in a while…who is going to wow me and make me want to partner with them?)
5. Search (Wrongly) Lives in Silos: There is this very artificial wall between paid and natural search. Paid search is on one side, living by its own rules, managed often by a different client team. Organic search is kept by itself too. Organic and paid search need to have clear interdependence. They aren’t different. They are all search marketing, finding the right match between searcher and product. Paid search and natural search are two sides of the same coin. The walls aren’t real and marketers (and search providers) need to under stand that.

So, social media may be stretching it a little bit, but I have told EVERYONE I have talked to about this incident, so I guess I am being social about it.  I was at the local branch of a drugstore chain on Sunday morning. While I was there, I was my usual gregarious self. I talked to the cashier and wished her a Happy Valentine’s Day. After a bit of chit chat, she confided that she didn’t celebrate V-Day. Great, so I told her that I wished that she would have  terrific day nonetheless.

She said, “Yeah, I hope its not busy. That would make it a great day.”

I used to work in retail. And all I could think is OMG. How badly does this chain treat this woman that she would hope that her store isn’t busy? How unaware is she that she doesn’t understand that bad days mean that they store could cut staff? I was just astounded. How clueless was the store management in their training? What about a little scripting so that she might have some conversational hooks so that she doesn’t have to stray off the reservation too far?

Wow. I was just amazed.

I immediately thought  my employees and the folks that I am lucky enough to manage every day. I called them all to tell them  that they were doing a great job today, and we had already aligned their compensation so that they do better when we all do well. More revenue means that their paychecks are a little bit bigger. Perhaps it is time to bring a little performance incentive back into retail. Maybe my cashier would have asked me if I wanted a pack of gum with my New York Times rather than wishing that she wouldn’t be busy.

There is seriously something wrong with companies who can’t align their employees behavior with their company goals. Give this woman a reason to be engaged. Tell her she is doing a great job. Teach her how to do a great job. Make her compensation in line with some measurable metric. Give her a reason not to be miserable.

Retail can be great. Retailers can create environments that reward employees and make their jobs fun. I wish this drugstore chain was more like Trader Joes or Whole Foods.

So, I like Google Buzz much more than I expected. It is more intimate and has a more conversational tone than other social touchpoints. I was having CONVERSATIONS…how often does that really happen?

But that all changed this morning. I agreed to follow someone whom I know. We are “social media” friends. We aren’t real friends. We are in similar industry and from time to time he says something interesting. He is something of a connection hoarder. Scale of connections is very important to him. And he is a constant communicator…important, not important, insightful and banal all have the same weight.

With the start of Buzz, he jumped in with both feet and I suspect that he is following hundreds of people already. And he started collecting feedback from his hundreds of friends and publishing the results…and the result of his results? NOISE.

Suddenly my e-mail is blowing up with the latest feedback on his questions. My Buzz button always has something to say…it feels like Twitter…slapdash, fast-paced and very very very noisy. I know the solution is to unfollow him. That is no big deal.

But I listened to Sergey Brin talk about Buzz’ great signal to noise ratio. And my “friend” added a lot of noise with little signal. He just made the intimate coffee house talk I was enjoying on Buzz into your average Dunkin’ Donuts at 8am…noisy, busy and full of bad coffee.

The signal to noise issue is enormous. The scale of social networks (especially when it pops into your e-mail every 30 seconds through Buzz’ push notifications) can be intimidating. Buzz is a nice step for Google, but it doesn’t offer any more real communication value than Facebook, Twitter or any of the others.

OK. So it is a first iteration. Google is good at making a service with potential and adding to it over time (GMail bordered on BAD when it first launched, and now it is perhaps the finest e-mail interface in the cloud or desktop…) Google Buzz got me excited…because Google sees everything that happens…the torrent of Twitter, the flood from Facebook, the lavish from Linked In (sorry, had to do that). And now they’ve added Buzz.

The potential is HUGE. Google Buzz is an attempt to aggregate the social networks. This is a big play. Grabbing the social nerve from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or wherever is an enormous gambit…especially if you are an ad network. If you can grab the attention, eyeballs and minutes spent and emotion put into social networks, the revenue opportunity is as big as AdWords is today (and that is a lot!).

Has Google grabbed the social nerve? Not yet. In fact this is a pretty timid first step. There is no true integration with other services beyond Picasa and Reader. No mention of Facebook and Twitter is merely a repost of your tweets to Google Buzz…hardly interesting. It seems like they’ve just duplicated the most basic version of FriendFeed.

I know that Google is focused on a good signal to noise ratio…but so far, this Buzz is pretty quiet. But stay tuned…Buzz could be a stepping stone for Google Wave to get some traction.

The iPad is here. See my initial gut reaction to the iPad. Long story short, I am enthused about it with some reservations. But since I am usually thinking about how this stuff impacts search and social media, I’ve begun to contemplate the iPad (and by extension the entire slate computing universe) as it affects search and social.

Since the iPad is a giant iPhone and it is designed to be a mobile device, and as such, it will have a unique local bent to its searches. While it may not have GPS, the iPad will be generating tons of location-based searches. Because of its ease of use and instant on capabilities, I can absolutely see the iPad becoming the  weapon of choice for the coffee shop warrior. So, search will become more local, more contextual. That is great. That is incredible, actually. The iPad can be a boon for hyper-local sites like CitySquares and Patch. The search engines will continue to find that mix of location and contextual content to be compelling, and I believe that slate-based searches will be algorithmically directed towards hyperlocal information. It just makes sense.

I also think that the rise in touch based computing will change the way that search marketing works. We’ve already seen the way that Google is changing search with more images in the SERPs and the paid ads. And as slate-based computing ascends, seemingly the internet becomes a more visual place. Guiding a cursor to click on something has a different level of intimacy than pointing with your finger. Search marketing and display advertising collide in the world of touch screens, and I think display wins the day. (Granted, it is display 2.0, with incredible tracking, personalized targeting, etc. So, not banner ads that win…think more like super-targeted banners. The best of what AdWords has to offer with a dose of richness and interactivity.) It’ll be hot.

As for social media, and social interactivity, I believe that slate is the place to be. Rarely do I got to Facebook on my laptop…almost always my phone. Ditto Twitter. Slate wins here, too. The heavy textual base of social will change somewhat. I believe that most social media interaction will happen from mobile and slate devices. This will drive a slight change into the way things work. And as slate and mobile devices get better video capabilities (and HTML 5 video arrives in force) I think that video responses and interactions will increase. (This will really happen when the iPhone & Android phones get front facing cameras…).

So, in a nutshell, search becomes more visual and targeted. Social becomes more video & image, and less text. Whaddya think?

OK. So we will start out with this disclaimer: I have only bought 1 non-Apple computer since I bought my first laptop in 1993. (And that little Asus eeePC sits on the bookshelf…in case of a computing emergency.) I have an iPhone. I am writing this post on my MacBook Air. So, you might say that I am a fan. It’s true.

I watched yesterday’s unveiling of the iPad with some interest and a touch of excitement. And, by the end of the presentation, I came away with a feeling of intense blah. I expected that the iPad would be a major breakthrough in the way that I think about interacting with computers. Color me unimpressed…

But with a few hours to think about it, I realized why I was underwhelmed. Because I already engage with information in the exact same way on my iPhone. I already know how to do the iPad thing. I have had it in my pocket for a couple of years already. My iPhone is almost always my choice when I need the internet quickly. I can’t tell you the last time I shared photos on my laptop…always the iPhone. Looking for a phone number…never my laptop…always the iPhone. Need directions or hours…never my laptop…always the iPhone.

So, does the iPad add much to my iPhone experience? Yeah…I think it does…almost. I have three young kids, and I can absolutely see the iPad becoming the family computer. Easy to use, few crashes, few freezes, and no need for tech support from Dad or Mom. It is an internet world, so for kids, the browser is the OS. So the iPad does exactly what they need it to do. They have no need for client side apps…just the browser.

There are a few issues that would hold me back from jumping in with both feet. The first is no Flash. I get why there is no Flash. Flash is terrible. Flash crashes my browser more than anything else. So I get why there is no Flash. But that takes away a huge number of casual games (and if you’ve been to any kid-focused site like NickJr they are almost entirely Flash-based.) It also removes the revolutionary Hulu from the experience. That is a serious drawback. (I know that HTML 5 video is around the corner…but it isn’t here today…so no Hulu). Lack of Flash, as rotten as it is, is a serious drawback.

Another issue is lack of local file storage. The iPad looks like a great way to e-mail, and the touch version of iWork looks reasonably compelling. But without the ability to save files locally or attach them to e-mail (other than photos) it seems like this is a serious drawback. (Now, if iWork.com becomes more like Google Docs and if there is gracious integration with my iDisk, then we might be on to something.)

The lack of multi-tasking could be an issue, too. Cutting and pasting from Numbers into Keynote, or referencing a Pages file while editing or responding to an e-mail is pretty useful. That is a software thing that can be adjusted, I suppose.

The last thing that could be a serious issue is the ability (or lack thereof) to print over Wifi. We have a nifty Wifi printer, and there is nothing finer than a 4 year old printing out her latest creation from her Flash-based “Build a Princess” game. Not having that easy ability is a drawback. Again, that is a software thing that can be worked out, but it seems like that is a nice to have option.

Despite the drawbacks, I suspect that there will be an iPad in our future…

So, to answer the question…is it a game changer or gadget? Today it is a gadget. But it is a gadget full of potential. The ease of an iPhone with the grace of a laptop. That sounds pretty great. I can’t wait to see how this evolves.

It has been a while since I have posted…I have been busy merging SpinShark with PMDigital, and now I head up all of the search engine optimization efforts at PMD. It is heady and humbling. And, on top of that, there has been an incredible shift in the world of search.

The tried and true methods of determining the authority of a search engine result have changed dramatically. With the recent changes in indexing speed from Google Caffeine and the introduction of social activity into the search engines (see my thoughts, Here Comes The Flood at MediaPost) the search world is turned on its head. Age and linking were the strongest measures of authority for any page on the internet. But with the torrent of real time information flooding the search engines, there is simply no time for authority or age to accumulate. So what is a search engine to do?

Here is my idea. Instead of Google’s page rank as a determinative factor of authority, the metric needs to change. In a world ruled by URL shortners, 140 character bursts and a live Facebook feed, there is no replacement for page rank. The model simply falls apart. So I am going to suggest a new measure of authority that is based on engagement and impact:

THE REPUTATION INDEX (should I tm this?)

Let’s imagine that you are a prolific tweeter. To a search engine, your stream of tweets looks a lot like the tweets of a spammer. But you aren’t. Let’s imagine that you are Robert Scoble or Gary Vaynerchuk who are both prolific and informative. A constant stream of tweets is a great thing, but how is a simple search algorithm supposed to be able to differentiate you from a stream of get-rich-quick-internet-marketing-gurus? Here is my idea. A measurement of how much impact your social stream has on your follower base can replace the tried and true interlinking authority of page rank. Just a pure number of clicks or followers to your social stream is ripe for spammers, so I suggest that we look at importance of a stream as a relative factor compared to the total content of your followers total stream and that compounded with the actual level of interactivity with said stream.

I am sure that was as clear as mud. I will try to explain further.

Let’s imagine that between your Facebook friends, MySpace minions, Bebo buddies, Orkut posse, Twitter tweeps etc, etc, etc, you have presence on 1,000 social media streams. The reputation index would measure the total number of social media impressions your network has. In this example, it would be the aggregate number of events in Twitter feeds, Facebook feeds, MySpace feeds, etc that each member has times 1,000 (the number of members in your social sphere). So, let’s say that is 500 events times 1000 people in your network. You are now publishing into an ocean that is 500,000 events deep. Now, to measure YOUR influence inside that network, we would examine how many interactions( retweets, shares, etc) your postings receive relative to the entire number of interactions your entire network has.  And in this ocean of events, your network each engages with 5 events. That means that the total ocean is (1000 x 500) or 500,000 events and each person in your network engages with 5 events (5 x 1000) or 5,000 engagements. That means that the entire network has an engagement rate of 5,000/500,000 or 1% This is the Network Engagement Index (NEI).

So, let’s imagine that into this ocean of 500,000 events, you contribute 10 events. So you represent 10/500000 (.002%) of the total ocean. We could express your expected influence (if you were just an average member of the network) as the percentage of events added times the Network Engagement Index (NEI) times the number of people in the network. This would be .002% x 1% x 1000, or .002 interactions per day. Because I like bigger numbers, we would multiply that by 100 to get the expected REPUTATION INDEX (.002×100= 2). The expected reputation index of someone in your network is 2. But imagine that you are the the person that your network wants to hear from…and your 10 events are interacted with by 500 people in your network. Your engagement index would be 10×500/500,000 or 1%. To calculate your reputation index, we would multiply your engagement index multiplied by the network engagement index by the number of people in the network (times 100 because I like bigger numbers) 1%x1%x1000x100 or 10. Your REPUTATION INDEX is 5x that what is expected in your network.

If we apply a concept like reputation index as a measure of authority, it can help sort the visibility of social activity to folks outside your network. The higher your index, the more visible you would be for relevant topics….

Your thoughts? Is this a silly equation(I was an English major in college, so maybe you math folks can make this easier or more clear?) Is this a way to help engines and watchers determine the influence and authority of social media streams? How would you do it. (Oh yeah, if you want to jump into my social stream, check me out: Twitter/Tim Kilroy)

Bing is really starting to grow…on me personally, my wife, and the rest of the United States…Bing’s traffic is up 8% in June. This is very decent traffic growth. Good on you Microsoft!

Now, I am NOT a Bing convert (I use Google, and, frankly, I am too embedded into Google Apps, GMail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, etc. to think about changing…so Google won…) But what is interesting to me is the reaction that non-SEO, non-internet folks are saying (these are real things that I have heard):

• “Bing helps you decide”
• “Bing is easier”
• “Bing gives you cash back”
• “Bing is fast”

All of these are perhaps kudos to Microsoft’s advertising rather than fact, but the key here is that non-techie, non-internetty people are absolutely happy with Bing. They like it. The trust it. They don’t care that it is Microsoft. It is just Bing. And it works. What could be better?

I am happy that there is a fast-growing search engine in town. They have a long way to go to catch Google, but the most interesting thing is that Bing can have a Bang without beating Google.They are starting to change the discussion. It isn’t about depth of results, or the nuance of algorithm, but rather, the quality and trust in the results. While raising the bar might be a bit of an overstatement, Bing is making some noise…