Google Reviewing

When Google moved to secure search in October 2011, it was a blow to publishers, who began losing data about the search terms used to reach their sites. It also opened Google up to claims of hypocrisy, in that advertisers continued to receive the terms. Now, Google says it’s reexamining the issue and seeking a better solution.

Will clicks on non-paid listings go back to passing along search term data again? Will ad clicks have that withheld? Google didn’t say either way, and there could be other possibilities, as well.

Google Looking For Solution

The news came out of a keynote conversation with Google search chief Amit Singhal yesterday at our SMX West conference. I raised the issue of “not provided,” as it’s known as a short-hand term search marketers and many publishers in general.

I wasn’t really expecting much of an answer — in fact, I’ve written so much about the topic, with relatively little response from Google about the perceived inequities and hypocrisy, that I’ve felt like a broken record. I certainly got surprised. Singhal said:

Over a period of time, we [Google's search and ad sides] have been looking at this issue…. we’re also hearing from our users that they would want their searches to be secure … it’s really important to the users. We really like the way things have gone on the organic side of search.

I have nothing to announce right now, but in the coming weeks and months as [we] find the right solution, expect something to come out.

Here’s the complete segment. Note that references to “Sridhar” are about Sridhar Ramaswamy, who oversees Google’s ads

For More Click Here.

Google To Publishers

In the keynote session last night at Search Marketing Expo West, Google’s head of search, Amit Singhal tried to address the concern of publishers that their content is being scraped and used by Google’s Knowledge Graph, ending with the user not having to click on the search results to get the answer.

Danny Sullivan, in his interview of Amit Singhal, brought up the tweet that went viral showing how Google is considered by many as a massive scraper site. Amit addressed the concern with an analogy.

Amit equated Google’s knowledge graph to a swiss army knife while equating the publishers content as specific tools, such as “corkscrews,” “screw drivers” and other speciality tools.

Amit explained that while Google’s goal is to give searchers a quick answer, there is no substitute for the searcher to do deeper research by clicking into the sources provided in the Google search results. He understood that many searchers would likely just want the quick answer but there is still a need for a deeper dive into the sites and publishers providing that content.

In our live blog coverage of the keynote, here is a recap of part of that conversation:

DS: Are we gonna get to a point where every search gives a direct answer?

AS: If you look at a search engine, the best analogy is that it’s an amazing Swiss Army Knife. It’s great, but sometimes you need to open a wine bottle. Some genius added that to the knife. That’s awesome. That’s how we think of the Knowledge Graph. Sometimes you only need an answer.

The world has gone mobile. In a mobile world, there are times when you cannot read 20 pages, but you need something — an extra tool on your Swiss Army Knife. When you build a better tool, you use it more.

Does this help reduce some of the concerns publishers have that Google will be sending them less and less traffic over time? Will this reduce their ability to keep producing quality content that Google can index and searchers can discover because the publisher is having a harder time monetizing their content?

What do you think?

Source : http://searchengineland.com/

EU Settlement

Although the Google antitrust settlement in Europe isn’t final it appears we’re in the final minutes of the final act. There still may be a surprise or two in store but we mostly know how this story is going to end. Now it appears the Google antitrust drama is shifting to India, where an antitrust investigation against the company is ongoing.

According to a report in the Times of India, that country’s competition authority, the Competition
Commission of India (CCI), has the power to impose a fine of up 10 percent annual revenues, averaged over a three year period. That could mean up to $5 billion in Google’s case if competition “norms” are determined to have been violated. The CCI is also “empowered to pass orders to correct a company’s conduct in the market place. Also, the regulator can go for structural remedies that could see breaking up of dominant enterprises into separate businesses.”

The Times of India reports that there’s no comparable settlement process available to Google as there was in the US and Europe. Thus it’s implied that there’s either a finding of a violation or an exoneration. CCI was established by the parliamentary Competition Act of 2002 (embedded below). The act seeks to protect competition in India by regulating and prohibiting anticompetitive mergers, abuse of dominant market position and anticompetitive contracts and agreements. The investigation against Google is still in process. It’s not clear what the outcome will be although the Times of India says that there was “prima facie evidence of violations,” taking the investigation to the next level.

Google Stepping Up

Got some slop in your Google product feed? Now’s the time to revisit all those pesky identifiers and tidy things up. Google is upping itsenforcement of product feeds in Google Merchant Center again.

Google began this process last year by disapproving products without unique product identifiers such as GTIN (which also must be conform to standard specifications), MPN and brand and demoting products with incorrect usage of the identifier_exists attribute.

The identifier_exists attribute was added last year for merchants selling custom goods that don’t have unique identifiers like brand names or MPN codes. In categories where unique product identifiers are required but don’t exist for an item, you enter “False” for the ‘identifier exists’ attribute. “False” should only be used only for custom products and not when you can’t locate the proper identifiers for a product.

Now Google will begin to disapprove products with incorrect GTIN, MPN and brand identifiers and globally demote products with incorrect identifier_exists attribute

Begin reviewing the warnings and disaprovals in the Data Quality and Data Feeds tabs of your Google Merchant Feed. Pending product disapprovals that show up as warnings now will eventually show as errors when the new enforcement takes effect.

BrightEdge Uses SEO

Oh no they didn’t: BrightEdge has sued rival Searchmetrics using multiple SEO patents, which were granted last year. The concern being expressed by some today is that this could be the beginning of a wave of litigation as BrightEdge seeks to capitalize on its newly granted IP or goes after competitors that it perceives to be infringing.

The patents in question broadly pertain to various automated SEO software tools:

• 8,577,863: “Correlating web page visits and conversions with external references” Granted 11/5/2013
• 8,478,700: “Opportunity identification and forecasting for search engine optimization” Granted 7/2/2013
• 8,478,746: “Operationalizing search engine optimization” Granted 7/2/2013
• 8,135,706: “Operationalizing search engine optimization” Granted 3/13/2012

Reading the complaint (embedded below) doesn’t clarify much about the specific factual allegations of infringement other than plaintiff’s contention that infringement is happening and ongoing. The complaint asks for standard IP-related damages (i.e., monetary damages, injunctions, etc.).

It goes without saying there are lots of SEO-related software tools in the market. Doing simple keyword searches in the USPTO database or in Google Patent Search reveals thousands of documents that discuss or in some way implicate search optimization. Google itself has filed and been granted many patents on SEO-related software and inventions.

Bill Slawski has written extensively about SEO patents and only scratched the surface.

As a basic legal matter, the existence of a patent does not mean there will be a finding of liability by a judge or jury. Patent litigation is complex and can be confusing and messy. Patents canalso re-examined by the US PTO upon request with the submission or citation of alleged “prior art” (earlier, related patents).

Regardless, this will be a case to watch. We’ve asked both companies for a comment and will update if we hear back.

Postscript: We have a statement now from Searchmetrics founder and chief technology officer Marcus Tober who emailed:

I appreciate that BrightEdge understood the value of Searchmetrics SEO platform and that they see us now as a serious competitor. That’s great. I’m looking forward that much more of their customers are switching to us because we have inventions, better data and we deliver to our customers what we promise. I’m absolutely not afraid of a lawsuit because as I see it we are not infringing any patent, especially not patents that were filed after we had these features already.

Postscript 2: We now have a statement from BrightEdge CEO and founder Jim Yu:

BrightEdge filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Searchmetrics in federal court in California yesterday.  The complaint alleges that Searchmetrics’s products infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Numbers 8,577,863, 8,478,700, 8,478,746, and 8,135,706.  A copy of the complaint will be posted on BrightEdge’s website later today.

As company policy, we take a “no comment” approach to all inquiries regarding litigation, including this lawsuit.

You can also refer to our website and content found at: http://www.brightedge.com/patents, which includes the following:

“BrightEdge Technologies, Inc., the leader in enterprise SEO, believes that investing in R&D is critical to delivering the advanced technology that sophisticated customers and marketing professionals increasingly need to keep on top of the dynamic world of digital marketing. The Company has spent millions of dollars on research and development, and our growing patent portfolio largely reflects fundamental innovations important to our industry. During the course of our history – since the earliest days when our founders worked relentlessly around the clock late into the night over months and months to invent their first new solutions and systems to tackle the needs of large enterprises – we have invested heavily to innovate and to deliver solutions that add significant value to customers.”

Bing Saves

A month ago, Microsoft started testing a new search feature named Bing Saves. This feature enabled searchers to save URLs and searches to their personal Bing/Microsoft account, in order to build an index of their own saved searches.

That feature seems to now be available as public beta for anyone who wants to try it. To try it yourself, go to bing.com/saves and you should see this dashboard:

You will also see a link in the top Bing navigation that says “SAVES beta.”

There is a disclaimer on the footer of the page that reads, “This feature is an experiment. Saved results may not be available later.”

Google

Over the past few months, Google has been testing many, many layouts that made the search results look a bit easier to read by increasing the font size and removing some of the underlines for the hyperlinked content.

It seems Google has increased those tests, as we are seeing more and more searchers post about seeing these updates on Twitter, Facebook and other areas. Both Danny Sullivan, Matt McGeee and myself are able to replicate the new design either using our native browsers or via incognito mode in Chrome.

Here is a side by side image of the old and new user interface for Google’s search results:

You can click on it and notice the side by side comparison showing the larger font, more white space, no underlines for hyperlinked content and more.

Here is a zoomed in view of the old design:

Here is a zoomed in view of the new design:

Google has not responded to our questions about this design but if we had to guess, we’d see this new design launched in the near future.

Source : http://searchengineland.com/

Google Bug

Lorem Ipsum is boilerplate text commonly used by the design community to illustrate how the text on a website or print design will look within the visual graphical creatives. It turned out that the boilerplate text of Lorem Ipsum was used on every webpage, according to Google.

On Friday, Gabriela Vatu picked up on the weird issue with Google showing Lorem Ipsum content in the search results snippets when you search for the term [Consectetur] plus any site name.

We were able to replicate the issue and asked Google what was up. Google told us this was “an internal indexing issue,” and they fixed the behavior on Saturday. A Google spokesperson told us, “this behavior was due to an internal indexing issue, but we’ve removed this behavior going forward.”

Here is a screen shot of the issue from Friday:

Google Adds

That Google menus experiment we told you about a couple weeks ago?

It’s now official. But it’s only available in the U.S. at the moment.

Google announced that it’s now showing restaurant menus as a OneBox-style answer at the top of its search results. It seems to be primarily triggered by searches that involve both the restaurant name and the word “menu,” although Google’s example involves a query that starts with “show me the menu for….”

The menu OneBox shows multiple food options and is divided into different categories, depending on how the individual restuarants (or chains) organize their menu. You’ll typically see tabs such as lunch, dinner, entreés, sandwiches and the like.

There’s actually more that we don’t know about the menus than we do. For example:

• Where is Google getting the menu details? It seems to be from sites like AllMenus.com and Gayot.com, but there’s no official list.
• Has Google made a deal with its sources to show the menus, or is it just scraping that information?
• What should a restaurant do if it wants its menu showing like this?
• What if it doesn’t want its menu showing this way for some reason? (It’s outdated, for example.)
• How often will Google be updating the menu information?

We’ve put some of these questions to our contacts at Google, but since it’s Friday evening, we may not get a reply immediately.

Google Maps

Google Maps users can once again right-click anywhere on the new Maps to get quick directions to or from the spot that they’re clicking. They can also use the "What’s Here” option to quickly get the lat-long coordinates for any spot on the map.

These are two of many features that users have asked Google to bring back from Classic Maps to the new Google Maps. There are still several other missing features — some of which Google has promised will eventually show up again.

The screenshots below show what happens when you right-click on the new Google Maps (left) compared to a right-click in Classic Maps (right).

As you can see, there are other right-click options not brought over to new Maps. There are other ways to zoom in and out on the new maps, but the “Center Map Here” feature isn’t available at all.

Bing Improves Tax Related Search Results

Microsoft Bing has added new features to the Bing search results when you search for tax related queries. This is being done because Bing and other search engines see a huge increase in the number of tax related queries between January and April, i.e. before your taxes are due on April 15th.

Bing now shows smarter results when you search for [tax forms], [IRS forms], or even specific forms like [irs form 1040]. Bing will show you the most searched-for forms as you type your query, show you where to mail your taxes or where to e-File, and links to download the necessary forms you searched for.

Bing also said they’ve upped their relevancy for those queries and now shows more “authoritative and relevant web results on filing your taxes.”

Finally, Bing added a portal for taxes at Bing.com/taxes where you can search tax tips and tricks, watch tax instructional videos, and even get “little tax humor” from Bing.

Search Results Inside Mobile Apps

Quixey, which describes itself as a search engine for apps rather than an alternative app store, has announced deeper “functional search” within apps. Previously, Quixeyallowed app discovery by keyword or category, delivering users to the “front door” of relevant apps. Now, Quixey will surface information that “lives inside of apps.”

Quixey offers web-based app search across platforms, an Android app (no iOS app today) and powers app search for a range of partners including Ask, Skyfire, Dolphin Browser, DuckDuckGo, StarHub, Sprint and others. The company’s CEO Tomer Kagan told me there are other partners not yet announced.

Kagan is essentially positioning Quixey as a general alternative to Google when it comes to in-app search. Yet Google is also trying to get to the same place. Last October Google announced app indexing to enable content discovery from within Android apps only.

The screenshot immediately above is a Quixey provided search result for the query “how to bake a cake.” It shows specific content and references to cake baking within multiple apps. The Quixey Android app doesn’t yet reflect these new search results. They’ll be rolling out in the near future however.

Quixey says that its deeper, functional app search will also empower developers and allow them to present their content as desired, not in terms that are dictated by app stores and major search engines. The company said this morning in a blog post, “[W]e’re also opening a new developer program that will help developers champion this approach to the web and search, and help them build their apps so they’re searchable and indexed. Developers can sign up at developers.quixey.com.”

The functionality and content are needed and I believe desired by consumers, for whom app discovery remains a challenge. However for Quixey the challenge is generating awareness and usage. Its growing partner network helps but when it comes to app search and discovery Google Play and the Apple App Store remain the dominant sources for consumers.

The positioning of Quixey as a search engine and not an app store alternative will likely help differentiate the company and gain new usage.

Google Maps Missing Features

Google took its new Maps site out of beta this week, but many users noticed that some of their favorite features from Classic Maps were missing.

Not to worry, Google says. It’s aware of that and plans to bring at least some of those missing over to the new Maps site in the near future.

The team will continue to work to improve the new Google Maps, so look out for better performance and additional features, like send to car, in the coming weeks.

That mention of the Send To Car feature is as specific as Google would get in its replies to our questions about the missing features we’ve noticed. That list includes:

1.) Send To Email and/or Car. When looking at a place or address in Classic Maps, there’s a “Send” option under the “More” tab that lets users email the place/address or send it to certain vehicle navigation systems.

2.) Default location. There seems to be no easy way in new Maps for a user to set his/her default location.

3.) More Info link on business listings. In Classic Maps, every business listing popup includes a “More Info” link that gives searchers quick access to the business’ Google+ Local page. On the new Google Maps, the only way to get from the business listing to its Google+ Local page is to click the link that says how many reviews the business has.

4.) Terrain maps disappear when looking at directions. You can see terrain maps in the new Google Maps, but the option goes away when looking at directions between two (or more) places.

5.) 3D Directions. In Classic Maps, there’s a 3D/2D toggle when looking at directions. The 3D version autoplays a moving drive-through of the route between your start and destination.

These are a sample of the features that we’ve found to either be missing altogether, or perhaps just very difficult to find in the new Google Maps. Google’s statement that at least some of these will be brought over from Classic Maps “in the coming weeks” is good to hear. Some more specifics on which ones would be even better.

Backlink Relevancy

In today’s video from Matt Cutts, Google’s head of search spam reaffirms the significance of backlinks.
The video is in response to the following question:

Does the big G have a version of the search engine that totally excludes any backlink relevancy? I’m wondering what search would look like and am curious to try it out.

While Cutts says there is no public version of the search engine that excludes backlink relevancy, he confirms his team has run internal tests to see what would happen.
According to Cutts, excluding backlink relevancy resulted in “much worse” search quality.
“It turns out backlinks, even though there’s some noise and certainly a lot of spam, for the most part are still a really, really big win in terms of quality for search results,” says Cutts.

Google Publishes Full Text Of EU Antitrust Agreement

This afternoon on its European Blog Google’s General Counsel Kent Walker exposed the full text of the company’s third-proposed and tentatively accepted antitrust settlement agreement with European Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia. Almunia previously declined to make the full agreement available.

The document, dated January 31, 2014, is quite long (embedded below) and contains extensive examples of how search results will look in Europe under the new agreement. There are the four areas that will see change or modifications, as summarized by Walker in his post:

• Changes to our AdSense terms to make it even easier for publishers to place ads on their sites from multiple providers;
• Changes to our AdWords API terms to make it even easier for software providers to build tools for advertisers to manage campaigns across platforms;
• New rules regarding how we will use website content in vertical search services; and
• Changes to our UI that will give rival services significant prominence (and valuable screen space) on our search results pages.

The screenshot below is taken from an appendix in the document. It reflects one presentation of alternative vertical results or “rival links,” here appearing under Google’s hotel results.

Source: Google

The rival links provision of the agreement was the most contested aspect of the settlement. Objections to the prominence and visual presentation of the rival links derailed Google’s two previous settlement proposals.

Google opponents such as FairSearch.org remain quite critical of the new agreement and want the EU to allow another “market test” (extensive evaluation of the proposal). Previous market tests resulted in calls for further modifications.

Three rival links will appear in prominent positions in organic results or in sponsored results. The document contains detailed discussion of when and where they will appear, which sites and publishers can “apply” to be included and what practices might get publishers ousted. The criteria are fairly extensive.

Here are a few brief excerpts of those discussions:

For each category of Google Specialised Results Triggers subject to display of Rival Links, Google will create a pool of eligible Rival Vertical Search Sites (a “Vertical Sites Pool”). Google will use the process described below to select from the relevant Vertical Sites Pool three eligible and distinct sites for linking (or as many sites as qualify from this process, if fewer than three) . . .

For Vertical Site Pools serving the display of Rival Links under paragraph 3 of the Commitments, the applicant site’s domains must meet a minimum popularity threshold based on usage data from one of three alternative reputable data sources. Google will set this threshold based on Alexa, comScore, and NielsenNetratings ranking data or equivalent thresholds from alternative reputable data source. If Google applies the threshold based on Alexa, comScore, and NielsenNetratings ranking, a domain of the applicant site will qualify if it meets one of the following three conditions: [top 1,000 Alexa ranking or top 500 comScore or Nielsen ranking] . . .

If a site admitted to Vertical Pools for Paid Rival Links engages at any point in the harmful practices set out in Section II.B.(e), or violates the quality principles set out in paragraphs 15(d) below, Google may take one of the following measures: It may block non-compliant Paid Rival Links of the site in question from display. It may remove the site from Vertical Site Pools. . .

As indicated, some rival links will be free and some paid. For paid rival links Google will run an auction separate from AdWords. Here’s another excerpt from the agreement discussing the bidding and selection process:

For each instance that triggers an obligation to display Rival Links, Google will select up to three Rival Vertical Search Sites from the set of sites within the appropriate Vertical Sites Pool that have submitted a bid for the relevant keyword. For the purpose of selecting and ranking these sites, Google will multiply the sites’ bids and the relevant position-independent predicted click-through-rate (“pCTR”). Accordingly, as in AdWords auctions, the winning bids will not necessarily be the bidders with the highest cost-per-click bids. If several of the winning bids are from the same bidder or link to the same site, then Google may de-duplicate the Rival Links by exchanging the lower ranked duplicate Rival Link with the next ranked, non-duplicate Rival Link. 

There’s much more discussion of how the auction will work and what content will be permitted. Conceptually it’s very similar to AdWords with some externally imposed constraints on pricing/bidding.

Source: searchengineland.com