By Duncan Parry, Search Engine Watch,  Nov 19, 2010

The search industry never stops. From AltaVista to Google, and GoToast to Search Ignite, the fortunes of companies and technologies evolve over time.

I was reminded of this recently when training new hires. They’d never head of names like AltaVista, Excite, Lycos, etc. — companies that defined the search space less than 10 years ago.

So, how do you keep up to date?

Ignore the Noise

It’s important to recognize that there are many, many blogs and articles published about search every day — and many more “experts” on forums and Twitter and in Facebook and LinkedIn groups.

You can ignore most of them. The ability of the search industry to report on, discuss, analyze, argue about, and regurgitate a fact until it has been distorted out of all proportion and attained myth-like status is legendary. There’s a lot of noise — so you need to spend your limited time on sites that are credible and, most importantly, correct.

It’s also important to note that the search engines are no longer search companies — they offer much broader product lines; so you will need to keep up to date on developments in all their products, too, as search is often integrated into them (and paid search revenues pay for them).

Select an RSS Reader

I can’t think of an industry news site that doesn’t have an RSS feed — so choosing a good reader is crucial. There are many available. I use Google Reader to collate and organize feeds by topic in folders as it’s tied to my Google login and easy to use on any computer, iPad, or mobile.

I often use Feedly linked to Google Reader as it offers a slicker interface that feels closer to a magazine. Another bonus of Google Reader is that you can add any URL to it — not just RSS feeds — and Reader will monitor the page for changes and present them as if a feed has updated.

Many sites offer several feeds — follow those most relevant to your area of work and interests; it’s easy to overload yourself with feeds and find you have more than 100 articles to wade through every morning. Pretty soon you’ll find you’re too busy to bother, and end up reading nothing.

Keep an Eye on the Mainstream Press

Sometimes announcements by the search engines receive mainstream coverage — or a story breaks about a negative issue, like the recent Google Street View privacy coverage. Add the technology sections of mainstream sites like the New York Times, USA Today, BBC News, etc., to your reader to ensure you know the stories your clients (and their bosses) are reading over their breakfast.

Digital Overall

To keep any eye on the wider industry I follow a few key sites — Mashable, The Next Web, Robert Scoble, John Battelle’s Search Blog, and Econsultancy, to name a few.

The Search Stalwarts

There are a few search-focused sites that are must-reads. Search Engine Watch and Search Engine Land are the two heavyweights; I receive their newsletters every morning as well as follow their feeds; they provide a summary of the most important search news and topics. Search Engine Roundtable is also important and often have details of new Google tests or rumors with some basis to them as reported on other sites or forums.

There are of course many other digital industry and search sites — the above sites link to good sources as they cover stories, helping you find other sources.

Don’t Forget To Cull

One last piece of advice: don’t forget to delete feeds. Over time, sites change editor, or their focus shifts or their writing declines in quality. So when a site seems to publish nothing of interest, delete it — your time is precious.

By Gareth Owen, Search Engine Watch, Nov 17 2011

Search engine optimization (SEO) is one of the most important factors for success when running almost any online business these days. Having the ability to ensure your customers can go to a search engine and easily find your business’s website is absolutely invaluable in both B2C and B2B markets.

For many, the answer is to hire an in-house expert and ensure that their recommendations are followed. However, for many — especially in more competitive online industries — the risk and costs of employing the one expert or even a small team is outweighed by the reassurance of using an agency and benefiting from service level agreements, broader knowledge bases, and insight from other SEO campaigns in different markets.

So what are the key factors in choosing an SEO agency and why are they important? These are my top five tips.

1. Look for an agency to show examples of using different SEO techniques to bring results.

Every client will have different requirements in order to achieve great results. For some there will be major content requirements; for others the focus may be on improving their link profile.

If your agency can show examples of achieving quick results by using a range of different on-page and off-page techniques then you can feel secure that they will be able to diagnose changes accurately and act appropriately. It will also mean that if results aren’t improving, they won’t simply carry on doing the same things in the hope of a change of fortune.

2. Find an agency that will be able to work closely with your developers, content teams, and other agencies.

Your agency should be like an extension of your team. With SEO a range of elements will lead to success. Your agency needs to be able to work closely with tech teams, creatives, as well as potentially with your paid search, PR, display agencies, and more.

3. Don’t underestimate the value of sector knowledge, but also ensure you won’t get the same approach as taken for another client (see point 1).

An SEO agency that knows your market can be valuable for a number of reasons, including having an understanding of appropriate keyword strategies, competitor insights, and an idea of how to engage with relevant link partners. What’s important to remember, however, is that you’ll need an approach that isn’t exactly the same as everyone else in the market.

4. Try and avoid any agency that claims to have a ‘network’ of their own sites for link building.

The ability to affect your client’s link profile quickly and cost effectively can be of huge value. But if you’re looking for an agency and they believe that one of the biggest selling points they have is that they have their own network of sites they can call on for links, that is generally a bad sign.

There are numerous examples of sites that link out exclusively to clients of the same SEO agency — this isn’t something you really want as part of your link profile. It’s better to use a range of different techniques to build links, not just the one.

Also, a network can be used as a way to force you into using the agency. Leave them, and they kill your link profile and lower your rankings.

5. Look for an agency that is willing to be completely transparent in how they work.

If you can find an SEO agency that’s happy to show you exactly what they do in building links, in investigating indexing issues, in understanding competitor site profiles, etc., then you can be more confident in seeing the value that they’re adding, and be sure that there will never be any hidden issues or any use of black hat techniques.

So, those are my recommendations based on my experiences both client and agency side. There are literally hundreds of individual questions you could look to get an SEO agency to answer but these are the areas I would suggest any in-house team focuses on when looking to appoint an agency.

By Duncan Parry, Search Engine Watch,  Oct 22, 2010

Recently I posted some tips for paid search newbies. This time, I’m focusing on five ways the stakeholders employing PPC experts can help (or hinder) their efforts.

Communicate!

I still hear of situations where agencies or in-house teams are told days (or even hours) beforehand of a site change — whether it’s a page moving, new product launch or worse, lots of changes. Sometimes they find out only when performance drops.

This never ceases to surprise — search has been around long enough for many marketers to know that on-site changes have an impact on campaigns and sales figures often suffer as a result.

Let everybody know about a likely change, even if it’s not signed off, so they can plan resources, assess any impact on performance, and provide feedback that might improve performance even further (especially in terms of SEO and AdWords quality score optimization). A “mundane” change might be the opportunity to use technical resource already secured to make additional changes that will have a positive impact.

Go Beyond The Click

Many brands give their experts the scope to significantly boost their traffic and achieve their KPIs — but don’t involve them formally in what happens post-click.

Optimizing landing pages can significantly improve quality score and aid SEO — that’s a given. Perhaps more significantly for the bottom line and senior management, combining this with optimizing all the steps to sale can create a further step-change across all traffic sources, not just search.

Recently, I helped a client’s internal team go from a 2 percent to 9 percent conversion rate in one redesign, which helped them exceed targets and invest more budget.

Optimizing pages and the path to conversion, as well as campaigns, creates a positive feedback loop; as every dollar spent on traffic works harder because the site works harder, so keywords or placements that were previously ruled out on a performance basis can come back into reach — exposing the brand to more consumers and potentially increasing market share.

Google knows this — hence Google Optimizer being provided for free.

Automate

PPC can become extremely time consuming — especially if inventory changes on the website a lot, whether in terms of stock levels or prices.

Feeds are a perfect way to automate much of the change required, and some paid search tools can work with them to automate this work. Yet many brands don’t have adequate feeds in terms of content, quality, or frequency of update.

Educate Upwards

A scenario I’ve encountered many times:

1.Campaign starts.
2.Initial data is used to optimize, changing average positions.
3.Client’s boss phones up and angrily asks “Why aren’t we number one for keyword X?”
4.Agency receives a worried or irate phone call or e-mail.
5.Agency diverts time to answering this with a presentation for the boss, meaning they have less time to make the client money by further optimizing campaigns.
This doesn’t need to happen. Much of this time can be saved by educating upwards.

Explain to senior stakeholder that positions are based on achieving targets, not ego building. This is a fundamental step in managing expectations — and yet so often, doesn’t happen and PPC experts find themselves under largely unnecessary pressure born of misunderstanding.

Challenge

After the initial launch period, it’s easy for campaign reporting and meetings to become repetitive and even stale. Challenge the teams — asking what they would do in perfect world of unlimited budget and resource (within reason!) can kick start interesting conversations and ideas — especially if you throw the doors open to other digital channels, the website itself, and business processes.

A client recently started a meeting with several agencies by saying “There are no sacred cows — everything is up for discussion and change today.” I wholeheartedly agree.

I doubt there’s a single PPC team that doesn’t have a mental wish list of three or four things they would fix if they were in control — tap into that. Your sales figures may well thank you.

By Gareth Owen, Search Engine Watch, Oct 20, 2010

The SEOMoz team caused an amusing furore when they calculated that a new metric they had discovered had more correlation between high LDA scores and high rankings than any other factor.

LDA, or latent Dirichlet allocation, is effectively one way of measuring relevance without counting keywords, so a crawling tool can “read” two pieces of copy and rate them according to which is better written. It does this by looking for related keywords rather than necessarily for the actual keyword itself.

As a quick example, I know that a block of text mentioning “petrol money,” “excitement,” “anticipation,” and “gutted” is more relevant to a keyword search for [Liverpool FC fan blog] than a block of text mentioning “Anfield,” “Kenny Dalglish,” and “Champions.”

Search engines need this type of insight into content to make their results more accurate. Plus, it has the added benefit of being able to pick out spammy, badly written, or spun content.

What was particularly amusing was how worked up some of the search engine optimization (SEO) community got about this factor. Taking away for a second that the original calculations were wrong anyway and that actually, having a high “LDA” score isn’t as much of a secret to top rankings as it was first claimed — it remains an important point that there are more than 200 ranking factors.

Some factors are certainly more influential on rankings than others, but in an increasingly competitive environment, it seems to me that it is better to do 100 things 1 percent better, rather than one thing 100 percent better. Sounds like the type of advice I would get from my dad, actually, but it’s probably right for SEO.

Let’s look at some examples to highlight what we’re talking about here. Here are the top 10 results for [car insurance] and the number of times each ranking page mentions “car insurance” specifically:

As you can see, there is actually an inverse relationship here, so Google can see that the content is about the same theme, and could even be penalizing content that mentions the keyword too many times.

Moving onto some keyword search for [televisions], the same is true here — fewer mentions = better results:

But here’s where it got interesting! Doing the same for [dresses] shows that the more times the keyword was mentioned, the higher the ranking!

One thing we sometimes forget to do in SEO is to look at a much bigger picture than numbers of links, LDA scores, keyword density, and remember to think about the full user journey — a human user journey — and optimize for that.

Google has a lot of very clever people working on a lot of very advanced algorithms. Rather than trying to keep up and discover ways of cheating the system, we should spend more time looking at how a human sees our sites and engages with them, and how a well-run advertising campaign or a brilliant social strategy would affect our link profile and try to mirror that.

When they manage to crack the algorithm for identifying sarcasm, they will truly be able to build a picture of the web and what people are thinking — plus they can sell it to the Americans as an app (joking!).

So, by all means, keep up with the latest metrics for success. Read into how the search engines are evolving their algorithms. But don’t forget that no single metric is 100 percent of the picture.

No top ranking site is the best for every ranking factor. Each keyword will likely have a different search relevance profile.

Most importantly, don’t forget people have to actually use your site and read your content when they get there.

Also don’t forget on-page optimization is dead.

As you were.

By Gareth Owen, Search Engine Watch, Sep 22 2010

In the last couple weeks we’ve seen the introduction of Google Instant results and subsequently a heap of excited blog posts about the impact it will have on the industry, SEO, and clients the world over. As often happens, the news became a trending topic on the media industry-heavy Twitter, and the impact of Google Instant on people who actually use Google for something other than their job was slightly lost in the noise.

Early results suggest it hasn’t actually changed anything to any large degree. Certainly my mother still doesn’t know what it is and my wife found it irritating and switched it off as soon as I showed her how. I’ll stick my neck on the line (hey, why not?) and bet that it will have disappeared by February.

While the impact of Google Instant is interesting for SEOs, there are plenty of other interesting strategies to discuss that can actually have an “instant” impact. Today.

How about a website ranking number one for [car insurance] with only four links pointing to it with “car insurance” as the anchor text? Pretty interesting, right? For such a competitive keyword you might expect somewhat more volume than this, out of a total number of inbound links less than any other site on the first page…

Last time, we discussed why you shouldn’t be afraid of URL links, and why they’re actually more likely to suggest a natural link profile. There have also been some other more detailed posts looking further into this and so it wasn’t much of a surprise seeing that a number of sites with very spammy-looking backlink profiles were penalized — it’s not like Google hasn’t been warning people about this for a while.

Right now we have instances of clients who are well-known within their markets — good websites providing useful content — but they aren’t ranking precisely because they have too many site-wide links, too many links that are dofollow, and too many contextual links (remember I said last month a good link looks like this — cheap viagra? — well forget it).

By “too many,” I mean as a percentage of overall links, all adding up to a link profile that is completely unnatural. We’re improving their positions by actively removing links, and the only links coming in are branded, URL links from highly relevant sites.

 More Link Building Tips
PR Tools for Link Builders
How Monitoring Tools Aid in Link Building
How to Find the Best Internal Site Pages Based on PageRank and Backlinks
The challenge this poses for some SEO agencies is that they have got their approach to link building so ingrained that they haven’t spotted some of these trends. Instead, they put more effort into building the wrong kind of links, making the situation worse for their clients.

This means that SEOs and agencies need to consider not just how to build quality links for clients but how to actively manage the link profile and ensure that the right links are being built.

For some, this will mean the normal contextual links, derivatives of them, and a few branded, long tail and URL links as well. For others, it will be weeding out site-wide contextual links, replacing them with higher quality branded and URL links, and even building some nofollowed links from social media and PR sites.

In short, it will pay to be able to take a step back from what you’re doing and analyze what the client needs in a bit more detail.

By Gareth Owen, Search Engine Watch, Aug 24, 2010

Search engine optimizers know what makes a good link. It looks like this – cheap Viagra - and it links through to your client’s page selling Viagra.

But half the job of good SEO is also keeping on top of what the search engines look for when deciding what’s important. The rules are always changing.

How Many Contextual Links Really Look ‘Natural’?

There’s a slight problem with doubting the importance of quality links with clear anchor text: they work. Without a doubt, the most important element of improving your natural search ranking is to get quality inbound links with anchor text that reflects your target keywords. SEO is still a numbers game at its heart — do enough of the right things and you’ll rank number one.

But this is where SEOs need to think about what the search engines see when they manually check what results are being served and decide if the best suppliers are ranking well, or if it’s just the biggest spammers.

What Makes a Link Relevant, Important, and Contextual?

There are plenty of examples of links created by SEOs with great anchor text. But if a gas and electricity link near the bottom of an article on cooking is actually “contextual,” then I’m the Pope.

The dictionary definition of “contextual,” just to labor the point, means “relating to, dependent on, or using context.”

Clearly, anchor text doesn’t always make a link contextual. We’ve all seen examples of irrelevant articles with links at the bottom. This is bad practice, bad for the user, and ultimately bad for SEO.

More SEO Strategies

You can certainly make the case that links with relevant anchor text are all that matters — that “Google isn’t actually as clever as you think” — and the SERPs will back up that view in the vast majority of cases. But staying ahead of the curve is just as important as finding ways to enhance your ranking in the first place. If Google is planning an update to reduce the power of spammers, then this is where they should start.

My Recommendation

Monitor and manage the spread of URL versus keyword-rich links across your client’s profile and don’t be afraid of getting really high quality links that only use your client’s URL.

At a broader level, it’s also important to try and build a database of the most important and relevant sites, and even individuals in each sector you target. Try to genuinely engage with them, through direct contact, through affiliate and display deals, and by using other more creative methods (where appropriate) to build strong business relationships online that add value to users and provide SEO value for the engines.

By Duncan Parry, Search Engine Watch, July 30, 2010

The Yahoo-Bing search alliance is gathering momentum. Watching this coverage from the U.K., where Google has close to 90 percent market share, I can’t help asking: will the deal succeed for both parties — and what does success look like?

Focusing on the Numbers

For Yahoo, the obvious win is cost saving — no longer employing staff or maintaining systems to process billions of searches a year and monetize them. We’ve already seen several waves of layoffs from Yahoo, including search staff.

For Bing, revenue is the win. More searches to monetize means more paid search revenue (although Yahoo will receive payments from Microsoft). Alongside this, they will no doubt hope to attract new advertisers from Yahoo’s bank of accounts, raising competition between advertisers, and therefore bid prices — further adding to their bottom line.

This is the virtuous circle any paid search division wants to fuel — more advertisers, increased keyword coverage resulting in an increased average number of advertisers per keyword, increased bid completion, and a higher average revenue per click.

This is the circle that both Overture and Espotting worked hard to fuel at the start of last decade when paid search was in its pre-AdWords infancy. Working at Espotting, I experienced how keyword coverage and bid competition were major concerns — and when the company lost Yahoo Europe as a distribution partner, I saw the circle slowing, coverage shrinking, and CPCs falling. Bids that once reached a high point of £15 (“serviced offices”) fell beyond the £3 mark as volume, quality and CPCs fell.

Which brings us to the risks…

The Risks for Yahoo

The risks for Yahoo are around revenue, market share, and brand differentiation. If the average revenue per click Yahoo receives under the deal is significantly lower than from Panama, they will suffer financially. However, the operating expenses they save may outweigh this loss. Overall, they will be in a better position.

Aside from CPCs, the long-term risk for Yahoo stretches beyond search into their wider business.

Yahoo has stated they intend to continue differentiating themselves via their search interface. Fine in theory, but there’s real risk here.

Doing this without a large search team of the ability to reach inside the machine is difficult. If consumers learn over time that Yahoo is effectively Bing, and decide there’s no reason for them to stick with Yahoo, will they go directly to Bing?

Inertia often rules our behavior as consumers, but with Bing running advertising campaigns and offering cash-back schemes to attract consumers, the lack of a unique search experience on Yahoo may be enough to push some consumers to go straight to source and get cash back on their purchases into the bargain. The word “frenemy” springs to mind.

Any lack of search market share could impact their wider business. Content is undoubtedly part of Yahoo’s core strategy — even more some with their acquisition of Associated Content — and one of the main ways visitors get to this content is via search.

So any decline in the flow of traffic from Yahoo search into their own properties will hurt their revenues from display advertising — and undermine the data gathering that is at the core of the behavioral advertising, ad exchanges, and other initiatives that in turn are crucial to Yahoo’s non-search advertising revenues.

Yahoo search traffic isn’t their only source of traffic and data. They receive traffic from the other engines and other areas of their properties, and they gather data from display ads across many other sites as part of their wider network (just like Microsoft does across its network).

Yahoo will have to innovate to ensure they can offer search retargeting for their display clients. Right now, Microsoft and especially Google are innovating in this area.

So for Yahoo, the risk is a decline of overall market share — and revenues beyond search alone.

The Risks for Bing

The obvious risk: the numbers don’t add up, and the revenues from the Yahoo deal are less than the costs of the partnership to Bing, even if they have increased their market share. This could vary significantly by country; in some, Bing-powered Yahoo may prove profitable; in others, average CPCs may make the deal less attractive versus costs.

The other risk is less obvious and more damaging for Bing’s ambitions. What if Yahoo’s users don’t like Bing search results?

If Yahoo’s audience perceives a decline in the quality of results, they may shift to Google — hurting both Yahoo and Bing in the process. However, Microsoft is investing a lot of money, time, and — crucially — talent into their search division, so this seems, on the surface, unlikely.

So, Will it Succeed?

I believe it will be a success — in terms of revenue, and in terms of market share (Google won’t be seriously challenged anytime soon, though).

The real story will be what Yahoo does next, and how the frenemy relationship works out while they compete in the display and mobile spaces — and Google builds their display armory around AdWords and DoubleClick.

By Gareth Owen, Search Engine Watch, July 28, 2010

My last post, “What’s Next for Search, SEO?,” managed to produce some interesting takes on the future, past, and present of devices and how we use them/optimize for them. Thanks for your responses. They got me thinking — what year am I stuck in?

The simple answer is that I never quite came to terms with the ’90s. Having been born in 1980, I just couldn’t accept that a new decade had anything to do with me. Plus, my football team was unbeatable in the ’80s and is now average at best. So if I were really pressed for an answer, I’d say I was stuck in 1988. Early May, to be precise.

But I’ve also noticed some definite differences in search engine optimization (SEO) campaigns and approaches to SEO from agencies and in-house teams that can give clues about when they last carried out a root and branch review of how they do SEO.

Since 2000, SEO has been developing as an art and as a defined function of marketing. Each year has tended to see specific approaches and developments that have helped to define how you should approach SEO. If 2005 was about internal linking, then 2009 was about optimized PR and advertorials.

What I’m particularly interested in is defining SEO in 2010. This isn’t necessarily about finding something new, more about what seems to really be producing results after the Caffeine update and the May Day changes.

The trend we’re seeing is that highly relevant links from sites with quality link profiles of their own are adding the most value to an SEO campaign, rather than those with outright PageRank (we have also seen a large number of sites suffer ranking drops due to an inordinate number of sitewide inbound links, but that’s another story).

This may not be anything new in itself — highly relevant links have always been important and difficult to come by for a number of reasons. But the reduction in apparent value of PageRank, and increase in the value of a purely relevant site and content, is interesting.

What is doubly interesting (and helpful) is that Google has a tool that can specifically identify what those highly relevant sites might be. (It won’t actually get links from them, you’ll still have to be creative there).

The tool? Google Ad Planner — allowing you to see what sites match the same user profile as your client’s site, and also filter by industry sector/classification of the site, giving a neat picture of what Google feels is a relevant link profile for your client. You can then export a list of the best sites to target for links — it can even tell you which ones are using Google text ads on their site, thereby giving you a foot in the door to discuss advertising rates, content hosting, reciprocal links, or whatever you feel is the right approach for each site.

So, if there’s a theme for 2010, it has to be that taking the time to identify your market and focusing on how to build relationships with those relevant sites will put you above SEOs that are still focusing on optimized PR and advertorials. They’re stuck in 2009…

By Duncan Parry, Search Engine Watch, July 2, 2010

The iPad. Surrounded by hype, adored by some, denigrated by others.

Like the iPhone before it, the iPad is a category igniter — it won’t end up being the dominant product in its category in terms of sales volumes, but as the poster boy of tablet computing it has drawn attention and media coverage, which has promoted the device category to the public.

However, it’s first to market — and as an iPad user myself, I’m beginning to glimpse how the device will have an impact on search and digital strategies going forward. Here are my thoughts so far.

Search Engines and Tablet Devices

Obviously search engine interfaces need to be tailored to the device. The iPad doesn’t support Flash, so any video content embedded into search results will need to be available as HTML 5 video — and for any other formats that different tablet don’t support. This is important as Bing in particular looks to integrated media content directly into the page as part of it’s entertainment channel.

Google has already launched an iPad app — similar to their mobile one — which incorporates search, e-mail, and other popular Google products, as well as a built-in browser. The iPad can only run one app at a time, so this makes it easier to switch between Google products and the web. However, most consumers won’t want to install an app, so ensuring search websites work with the operating systems and browsers of different tablets is key.

There’s an opportunity here to innovate. Google already offers voice-based searching on the iPad and Android phones; so far I’ve found the accuracy variable but no doubt that will improve over time. This innovation can go further: touch screens actively encourage the use of the fingers — so there’s an opportunity to enable uses to interact with search results in this way, for example, expanding plus boxes by swiping down or drawing circles on maps to find local businesses with that radius.

So experts are predicting the days of keyboards and mice are numbered — but I think they will be around for a long time to come. Just as we’ve accepted touch screens on phones alongside keypads, so will touch screen computing be a mainstream experience alongside the keyboard and mouse. However, this could lead to an increase in typos and misspelled search queries; we’ve all got fat-finger syndrome at times!

Geo-targeting

Tablet computers are ideal for using search on the move via a phone or wireless connection. So detecting the user’s location and personalizing search results accordingly is another important aspect of the tablet computing search experience, just like it’s increasingly becoming on “normal” computers.

This doesn’t just extend to search results, though — brands need to embrace geo-targeting, too, driving consumers to landing pages that are tailored to their location — whether that is with store information, products shipped to that area, or other customization. This is getting easier for brands to execute — alongside IP lookups, there’s a W3C initiative that HTML5 supports to develop a standard way for browsers to determine the user’s location after they opt-in to providing that data — so there soon won’t be any excuses. Firefox users can try it here; Chrome and Safari support it already, too.

Landing Pages

As well as localizing page content, brands will need to look at how well their pages work on the browsers and operating systems on tablet computers — some sites simply don’t work well, or at all.

Take Google Reader for example — it relies on a lot on scrolling up and down lists of feeds and within articles; but the scroll bars simply don’t always work when using the touch screen of the iPad, resulting in the user grabbing the whole browser window by mistake. This is a Google issue not an Apple one; other sites with some (but less) scroll bars are fine. Google have assumed that everybody has a mouse; a contrast to using Gmail on iPad, which has a well-designed interface suited to touch screens.

I’ve also noticed a few brands customizing the iPad keyboard in their apps, for example moving the @ key onto the first keyboard layer if the app requires it a lot. Little touches like this make apps and websites a joy to use — as opposed to a nuisance.

Time to Plan

Table computing is, of course, in its infancy and I’m not advocating widespread website redesigns for this device category over night. Brands that offer products particularly suited to the leisure-time orientated nature of the iPad should consider developing apps; most brands should concentrate on fixing any glaring bugs with their website on tablet computers while monitoring their analytics and market research reports for the growth of tablet computing. Now’s the time to plan for the future and ensure you have the CMS infrastructure and analytics capabilities to set up device-specific paid search campaigns and landing page in future.

Brands will need to learn how to offer a rich experience on tablet devices — or risk providing consumers with a poor experience they’ll associate with the brand across all devices.

By Gareth Owen, Search Engine Watch, June 30, 2010

One of the points that will be high on the agenda at this year’s Online Marketing Show will be that the web has finally graduated from our PC monitors and now exists firmly in the air around us, waiting to be accessed at any given moment. Internet usage on mobile devices is now growing at the rate that was predicted some three or four years ago, making this year definitely, officially, the year of mobile… hooray!

It’s not all about mobile. Any number of devices during the next decade and beyond will be able to access the wonders of the Internet, and all of them will need to be able to search and quickly retrieve the information or websites that people are looking for. This is where search engines need to think about how their interfaces and results will work on any number of new devices.

Even on the biggest, prettiest smartphones, Google’s search results don’t fit on the screen, removing the majority of paid search listings that make up so much of Google’s revenue. If everyone were to use mobiles only to search for info, Google might even go bankrupt!

Google has a separate index for mobile devices, so it’s not as though they haven’t thought about this. But as the web becomes ever more accessible, two questions remain:

1.How will search engines really help users find what they’re looking for, especially on the smaller devices?
2.How will they continue to know what are the most important results for natural search?
The second question is particularly important for SEO. So much of what we do boils down to ensuring that the myriad of connections on the internet make it clear that our sites, or our clients’ sites, are viewed by the search engines as important. Not only important, but important for specific themes and keywords, and we manage this using techniques on and off the website itself.

So how does that change when people are using the Internet in different ways via different devices and potentially being given different results depending on what device they use? How will search engines know what is important, or whether something is more important for a mobile user than a tablet or laptop user?

There are still a lot of “ifs” involved here. Ultimately, the search engines might feel that what exists now is good enough to tell them which are the most important sites.

In SEO we’ve become accustomed in more recent times to viewing off-site optimization techniques as having the biggest impact on rankings. But perhaps there is an argument that for each device you will need a site specifically optimized for each different version of Google. Google for mobile, Google for smartphone, Google for tablets — each version might prefer different types of web property to display higher in the listings.

Ultimately, there isn’t a definitive answer right now. However, in the near future it’s likely that SEO will not only encompass social media (that’s if you believe it doesn’t already), but SEO teams may well need to ensure their skill-sets include a large degree of developer knowledge specifically for ensuring websites are compatible with multiple devices.