Comments for » IP Blog: SEO, SMO and Web Development news http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog SEO web development social media consulting Thu, 17 May 2012 11:13:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Why are the results in Bing & Yahoo! so different? by Omnie Solutions http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2012/01/why-are-the-results-in-bing-yahoo-so-different/#comment-118208 Omnie Solutions Thu, 17 May 2012 11:13:40 +0000 http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/?p=3956#comment-118208 Hi Andy, thanks for your useful post because it gives us insight of the search results difference in yahoo and bing. Hi Andy,

thanks for your useful post because it gives us insight of the search results difference in yahoo and bing.

]]> Comment on The Value in Understanding the Customer Journey by Understanding the Customer Journey :: MKG Media Group http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2011/05/the-value-in-understanding-the-customer-journey/#comment-114202 Understanding the Customer Journey :: MKG Media Group Mon, 07 May 2012 14:52:12 +0000 http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/?p=2015#comment-114202 [...] The Value of Understanding the Customer Journey (via Intelligent Positioning)  [...] [...] The Value of Understanding the Customer Journey (via Intelligent Positioning)  [...]

]]> Comment on Libya is World’s fastest growing country on Facebook by Kef http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2011/11/libya-is-world%e2%80%99s-fasted-growing-country-on-facebook/#comment-113540 Kef Sun, 06 May 2012 05:43:15 +0000 http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/?p=3129#comment-113540 Most probably because each Libyan who is already on facebook has another new accounts every day either due to his revolution related positive idea so he needs an new account everyday to post on pages and groups which are supporting the previous era,or the old regime's people who ever trying to create a negative media to prevent building this unlucky country and to spread the false negative news and making it spread by hitting more like icon on facebook and this the true..Libyan are still so far from being a facebookhoilcs yet..either u belong to the lines party or the green party...if any Libyan doesnt like ur speach or words or ideology he will describe u as an algae or a member of the green party...though most of the lines party's leaders used to be greener than Ghadafi ...so stupid country..leaded by cowards who jumped over the positions and seeking a personal or finincial achievements...God protect this lovely country from Qatar and their slaves and kick NTC and bring a new pure clean wise person who can makes Libyan achieve what they want Most probably because each Libyan who is already on facebook has another new accounts every day either due to his revolution related positive idea so he needs an new account everyday to post on pages and groups which are supporting the previous era,or the old regime’s people who ever trying to create a negative media to prevent building this unlucky country and to spread the false negative news and making it spread by hitting more like icon on facebook and this the true..Libyan are still so far from being a facebookhoilcs yet..either u belong to the lines party or the green party…if any Libyan doesnt like ur speach or words or ideology he will describe u as an algae or a member of the green party…though most of the lines party’s leaders used to be greener than Ghadafi …so stupid country..leaded by cowards who jumped over the positions and seeking a personal or finincial achievements…God protect this lovely country from Qatar and their slaves and kick NTC and bring a new pure clean wise person who can makes Libyan achieve what they want

]]> Comment on Wikipedia: Page one of Google UK for 99% of searches by Adam Ainsworth http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2012/02/wikipedia-page-one-of-google-uk-for-99-of-searches/#comment-95194 Adam Ainsworth Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:47:53 +0000 http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/?p=3967#comment-95194 In our company, we have a feature known as Grim Graph of The Week. This week, this article was chosen as the subject. The reasons are as follows: Its gaudy appearance may have been chosen on purpose to encourage people not wanting to hear this "truth" to read on, but it's not just the colours that make it grim. Here are some other reasons: - There is no title on this chart and therefore it takes a while to figure out what it is showing us - and in fact we still have to resort to reading the accompanying article, which is never the sign of a clear chart - The article explains that a recent study looked at 1,000 search terms (generated using a random noun generator) in Google and found that Wikipedia ranked on page one for a huge 99% of them - This graph is therefore supposed to show the percentage of terms for which Wikipedia ranks in each position. Or to make it clearer, in 56% of the searches Wikipedia ranked in position number one, in 24% of searches it was position two... and so on - It's quite difficult to see the conclusion that Wikipedia ranked on page one for 99% of the terms clearly - in fact it looks like 100% instead because they've added a segment called 10+, which could be easily mistaken for 10 - It is also because they have rounded up the data to the nearest whole percentage point and that means there is no slice of pie at positions 8 or 10 - and since we look to position 10 as the cut off for page one, this is confusing - The rounding also causes there to be a visible pale green slice of pie for position 9 even though it is labelled with 0%! This data would be much better visualised in a more subtly coloured bar chart - and definitely should have been produced using non-rounded percentage values I hope this will encourages you to produce clearer graphs in the future :-) In our company, we have a feature known as Grim Graph of The Week. This week, this article was chosen as the subject. The reasons are as follows:

Its gaudy appearance may have been chosen on purpose to encourage people not wanting to hear this “truth” to read on, but it’s not just the colours that make it grim. Here are some other reasons:

- There is no title on this chart and therefore it takes a while to figure out what it is showing us – and in fact we still have to resort to reading the accompanying article, which is never the sign of a clear chart
- The article explains that a recent study looked at 1,000 search terms (generated using a random noun generator) in Google and found that Wikipedia ranked on page one for a huge 99% of them
- This graph is therefore supposed to show the percentage of terms for which Wikipedia ranks in each position. Or to make it clearer, in 56% of the searches Wikipedia ranked in position number one, in 24% of searches it was position two… and so on
- It’s quite difficult to see the conclusion that Wikipedia ranked on page one for 99% of the terms clearly – in fact it looks like 100% instead because they’ve added a segment called 10+, which could be easily mistaken for 10
- It is also because they have rounded up the data to the nearest whole percentage point and that means there is no slice of pie at positions 8 or 10 – and since we look to position 10 as the cut off for page one, this is confusing
- The rounding also causes there to be a visible pale green slice of pie for position 9 even though it is labelled with 0%! This data would be much better visualised in a more subtly coloured bar chart – and definitely should have been produced using non-rounded percentage values

I hope this will encourages you to produce clearer graphs in the future :-)

]]> Comment on Wikipedia: Page one of Google UK for 99% of searches by Sam Silverwood-Cope http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2012/02/wikipedia-page-one-of-google-uk-for-99-of-searches/#comment-86923 Sam Silverwood-Cope Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:02:56 +0000 http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/?p=3967#comment-86923 Yes Piskvor - perhaps i should have pointed this out more clearly in the article. Wiki has millions of links: Site wide: 8,450,000,000 (Majestic SEO) With Pages indexed: 41,000,000 (Google) I did suggest that Wiki gets referenced (linked to) a lot. In many cases it deserves it, in others it is a lazy link from the webmaster or blogger who can't be bothered to do more research. Some pages are indeed fantastically written and deserve all the links they get other pages are riding on the back of the general richness of the rest of the site. Yes Piskvor – perhaps i should have pointed this out more clearly in the article. Wiki has millions of links:

Site wide: 8,450,000,000 (Majestic SEO)
With Pages indexed: 41,000,000 (Google)

I did suggest that Wiki gets referenced (linked to) a lot. In many cases it deserves it, in others it is a lazy link from the webmaster or blogger who can’t be bothered to do more research. Some pages are indeed fantastically written and deserve all the links they get other pages are riding on the back of the general richness of the rest of the site.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia: Page one of Google UK for 99% of searches by Piskvor http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2012/02/wikipedia-page-one-of-google-uk-for-99-of-searches/#comment-86890 Piskvor Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:07:23 +0000 http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/?p=3967#comment-86890 What hasn't been emphasized yet in the discussion: the huge mass of links pointing *towards* Wikipedia's articles from the outside - lots, *lots*, and I mean HUMONGOUS HORDES of pages are linking to the W for explanations - and there are very different kinds of sites, from a one-visitor-per-year webpage to an online newspaper. IMNSHO, if they all were linking to a different source, you'd be seeing *that* one popping up quite high in the results. What hasn’t been emphasized yet in the discussion: the huge mass of links pointing *towards* Wikipedia’s articles from the outside – lots, *lots*, and I mean HUMONGOUS HORDES of pages are linking to the W for explanations – and there are very different kinds of sites, from a one-visitor-per-year webpage to an online newspaper. IMNSHO, if they all were linking to a different source, you’d be seeing *that* one popping up quite high in the results.

]]> Comment on How referral traffic improves your rankings in Google by Bill http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2011/09/how-referral-traffic-improves-your-rankings-in-google/#comment-83915 Bill Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:13:49 +0000 http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/?p=2463#comment-83915 Interesting. I always wondered if referrals had anything to do with traffic increases in Google (better SERP). I have no data to prove this, but it seems like it does play some sort of role. For instance, if you have a large StumbleUpon traffic spike, it isn't too unusual to see an increase in Google traffic afterwards, even if small. Interesting. I always wondered if referrals had anything to do with traffic increases in Google (better SERP). I have no data to prove this, but it seems like it does play some sort of role. For instance, if you have a large StumbleUpon traffic spike, it isn’t too unusual to see an increase in Google traffic afterwards, even if small.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia: Page one of Google UK for 99% of searches by Sam Silverwood-Cope http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2012/02/wikipedia-page-one-of-google-uk-for-99-of-searches/#comment-82142 Sam Silverwood-Cope Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:44:31 +0000 http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/?p=3967#comment-82142 Alec - great link thanks for that. Sorry i haven't responded. That shows that Bing gives Wiki as much love. Alec – great link thanks for that. Sorry i haven’t responded. That shows that Bing gives Wiki as much love.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia: Page one of Google UK for 99% of searches by BMG http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2012/02/wikipedia-page-one-of-google-uk-for-99-of-searches/#comment-81819 BMG Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:20:00 +0000 http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/?p=3967#comment-81819 For those finding that 990 searches returning wikipedia sites on the first page is not significant, I propose that they find 990 common words NOT giving a wikipedia result on the first page. It should be hard work.... More seriously, I think that Google gives maybe priority to wikipedia when using a single word in your search; in this case your search is quite general and wikipedia could be a good source of information. If you use two words wikipedia frequently disapears of the result. Take" Aardvark" alone, in my computer environment, wikipedia comes in second and third place and one more time on the first page. Making search for "Aardvark reproduction" in the same environment gives no more wikipedia result on the first page nor the second one, you have to go to the third page to find a wikipedia link. So I think that maybe one of the reason for the popularity of wikipedia in this type of research is the priority probably given by google to "not too specialised sites" in the result of very general searches based on only one word. The chance to give a bad result with a link to wikipedia is less than with a link to a very specialized scientific site or a specialized software possibly called Aardvark. You know, Google don't know if you are 12 year or 24 when you type "Aardvark" from a random computer.. For those finding that 990 searches returning wikipedia sites on the first page is not significant, I propose that they find 990 common words NOT giving a wikipedia result on the first page. It should be hard work….
More seriously, I think that Google gives maybe priority to wikipedia when using a single word in your search; in this case your search is quite general and wikipedia could be a good source of information. If you use two words wikipedia frequently disapears of the result. Take” Aardvark” alone, in my computer environment, wikipedia comes in second and third place and one more time on the first page. Making search for “Aardvark reproduction” in the same environment gives no more wikipedia result on the first page nor the second one, you have to go to the third page to find a wikipedia link. So I think that maybe one of the reason for the popularity of wikipedia in this type of research is the priority probably given by google to “not too specialised sites” in the result of very general searches based on only one word. The chance to give a bad result with a link to wikipedia is less than with a link to a very specialized scientific site or a specialized software possibly called Aardvark. You know, Google don’t know if you are 12 year or 24 when you type “Aardvark” from a random computer..

]]> Comment on Wikipedia: Page one of Google UK for 99% of searches by Qrystal http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2012/02/wikipedia-page-one-of-google-uk-for-99-of-searches/#comment-81145 Qrystal Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:23:15 +0000 http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/?p=3967#comment-81145 I'm pretty sure Google tunes their search results based on what people actually click on, so is it really any wonder that Wikipedia ranks so highly in this test? Who here hasn't done random searches for things, seeking more GENERAL information rather than specific information? When doing such a search and clicking the Wikipedia link from the results, every one of us is reinforcing Google's confidence ranking of Wikipedia as a source of decent and relevant information, and the feedback we provide perpetuates its position in the top search results. Besides, the single-word random nouns do lend themselves extraordinarily well to things that Wikipedia covers. Their corresponding article URLs will tend to contain the search term, which is one of the oldest SEO tricks in the book: it gives a really strong hint to any search engine that the page contains information that is relevant to the search term. The "air" example, getting a Wikipedia disambiguation page, also seems extremely reasonable to me. After all, the word appeared alone in the search terms, and the incognito browser had no recorded history for Google to make a reasonable judgement on which meaning for "air" was desired. (On the other hand, in a non-incognito browser belonging to someone who frequently shops for shoes, I'd imagine the Air shoes would be a higher-ranked result.) In fact, Google may have cross-referenced what other search terms often appear alongside "air", and then came up with a search result that contained as many of these pairs of search terms as possible. Personally, I'm impressed by this result, and your dismissal of it as a good result is the main thing that prompted me to write this comment. Still, I think it is interesting to note that Wikipedia is ranking highly, but I really do believe it is deserved. Long live Wikipedia! :) I’m pretty sure Google tunes their search results based on what people actually click on, so is it really any wonder that Wikipedia ranks so highly in this test? Who here hasn’t done random searches for things, seeking more GENERAL information rather than specific information? When doing such a search and clicking the Wikipedia link from the results, every one of us is reinforcing Google’s confidence ranking of Wikipedia as a source of decent and relevant information, and the feedback we provide perpetuates its position in the top search results.

Besides, the single-word random nouns do lend themselves extraordinarily well to things that Wikipedia covers. Their corresponding article URLs will tend to contain the search term, which is one of the oldest SEO tricks in the book: it gives a really strong hint to any search engine that the page contains information that is relevant to the search term.

The “air” example, getting a Wikipedia disambiguation page, also seems extremely reasonable to me. After all, the word appeared alone in the search terms, and the incognito browser had no recorded history for Google to make a reasonable judgement on which meaning for “air” was desired. (On the other hand, in a non-incognito browser belonging to someone who frequently shops for shoes, I’d imagine the Air shoes would be a higher-ranked result.) In fact, Google may have cross-referenced what other search terms often appear alongside “air”, and then came up with a search result that contained as many of these pairs of search terms as possible. Personally, I’m impressed by this result, and your dismissal of it as a good result is the main thing that prompted me to write this comment.

Still, I think it is interesting to note that Wikipedia is ranking highly, but I really do believe it is deserved. Long live Wikipedia! :)

]]>