Google's Matt Cutts: Anticipate The Query To Better Control Titles In Google

Google's Matt Cutts: Anticipate The Query To Better Control Titles In Google
Google's Matt Cutts posted a video explaining why and when Google may use something other than your title tag for the search results title snippet.

MattCutts suggested that it is best for your to try to anticipate what theuser will search for when crafting your title tags. When you do that and then when it matches the query, then Google will likely show your title tag.

Google uses three criteria when determining if they should use your title tag:

(1) Something that is "relatively" short
(2) Have a good description of the page and "ideally": the site that the page is on.
(3) And that it is relevant to the query.

If you fail on these criteria, then Google may use (1) content on your page, (2) anchor text
links pointing to the page and/or (3) may also use the Open Directory Project.

Other title tag related stories:

• Google Not Listening To Your Title Tag? You're Not Alone
• When Google Rewrites Your Title Tags
• Google: We Show Better Titles Than Your Title Tags
• How Google Picks Your Title In Search Results
• Google Appending Brand In Front Of Search Results Title
• Google Title Tags Measured By Width Not Character?
• A Shorter Google Title Tag After Redesign? Maybe.
• Title Tags Influence Over Outbound Links
• No Title Tag? Google May Use Text From Next "Large Font"
• Google Ignoring Your Page Titles?

by Barry Schwartz

Read More

Schema.org Actions: What Is It?

Schema.org Actions: What Is It?
On Friday, I reported at Search Engine Land that Schema.org launched Actions, a new markup that describes actions that have taken place in the past [past actions] or could take place in the future [potential actions].

Note, Schema.org is the centralized organization backed by Google, Bing,
Yahoo and other search engines, for standardizing markup that mostly
search engines use to better understand text and content on a web page
and is often used in rich snippets.

That being said, I was curious how Google and Bing might use them, but both companies wouldn't tell
me. Google wouldn't tell me anything, but Bing did give me some details. Bing emailed me answers to my questions:

(Q) Can you explain this a bit better in terms of use cases?

(A) The Action vocabulary is intended to be used primarily for describing
actions that have taken place in the past [past actions] or could take
place in the future [potential actions]. Let’s assume Barry shared an
MSN article on Facebook yesterday. This is an example of a past action.
Facebook might use schema.org to describe the action by indicating that
Jason is the subject (agent) of the action, the action verb is sharing,
and the object of the action is an MSN article. Now let’s say MSN wanted
to expose the ability for applications to programmatically share an
article on their website. This would be an example of a potential
action. MSN might use schema.org to describe the potential action by
indicating the action verb is ‘sharing’ and that you can perform this
action by calling a specific URL.

(Q) How may Bing use this in the search results and is it being used now?

(A) Bing currently uses a draft version of the Actions vocabulary to power the recently released App Linking service. You can learn more about that via the Bing Dev Center and
associated MSDN documentation. In addition to App Linking, there are a
number of ways in which we might use the vocabulary to power new
experiences in Bing and other Microsoft products. Unfortunately there
are no definitive plans we can share at this time.

Note that Bing uses other schema.org vocabularies to power its rich web result captions
as well. More information on that product is available in the Bing
Webmaster Tools.

(Q) What are the goals here for webmasters?

(A) The primary goal of schema.org has always been to provide webmasters
with a common vocabulary for use in describing their data. The new
Actions vocabulary, especially the terms associated with potential
actions, extends this goal to include describing services as well. By
providing these descriptions, search engines like Bing and other
applications that consume them can leverage the associated information
to expose the data and services in a relevant and useful way.

Here are the various definitions allowed in Actions:

• actionStatus: Indicates the current disposition of the Action.
• agent: The direct performer or driver of the action (animate or inanimate). e.g. *John* wrote a book.
• endTime: When the Action was performed: end time. This is for actions that span a period of time. e.g. John wrote a book from January to *December*.
• instrument: The object that helped the agent perform the action. e.g. John wrote a book with *a pen*.
• location: The location of the event, organization or action.
• object: The object upon the action is carried out, whose state is kept intact or changed. Also known as the semantic roles patient, affected or undergoer (which change their state) or theme (which doesn't). e.g. John read *a book*.
• participant: Other co-agents that participated in the action indirectly. e.g. John wrote a book with *Steve*.
• result: The result produced in the action. e.g. John wrote *a book*.
• startTime: When the Action was performed: start time. This is for actions that span a period of time. e.g. John wrote a book from *January* to December.
• target: Indicates a target EntryPoint for an Action.

by Barry Schwartz

Read More

75% Of SEOs Want Yahoo To Return To Search

75% Of SEOs Want Yahoo To Return To Search
A couple months ago new rumors surfaced around Yahoo making a return to search.

With those rumors, we asked you guys if you think Yahoo should indeed make those efforts or give up now? With over 200 responses on our poll I
wanted to tell you that the majority would like to see Yahoo return to
search 75% of you said yes, Yahoo should get back into search. Only 18% said no, they should not and 7% don't care either way.

I suspect the 75% said yes so that there would be more diversity and
competition in the search space. Or maybe they hate Microsoft?

Here is the pie chart with more purple in it:



by Barry Schwartz

Read More

Google's Cutts On Big SEO Myths Are...

Google's Cutts On Big SEO Myths Are...
Google's Matt Cutts released a video on the topic of some of the largest SEO myths out today.

He broke it down into two categories:

(1) Ads and their influence on organic results.

(2) Quick fixes to break Google's algorithm.

On the ads from, Matt Cutts said there are two myths. (1) If you buy ads,
your organic rankings will go higher. (2) If you don't buy ads, your
rankings will go higher. He also added that people think that Google
makes changes to their organic results to drive more people to buy ads.
All of this is untrue and a myth according to Matt Cutts.

On the quick fix end, Matt said there is too much "group think" in the forums
and black hat forums. He said he sees this all the time where for a
couple months one person will say tactic X works awesome, then a few
months later, tactic Y and so on. For example, someone might say
article directories work, then later guest blogging, then later link
wheels and this process goes on and on. Also, someone might say a
specific tool works very well. Matt said, the truth is, if someone
found a loop hole, they wouldn't sell it as an ebook or software
product, they'd use it themselves for as long as possible before others
catch on.

by Barry Schwartz

Read More

Google Panda Refresh Or Softer Panda Update?

Google Panda Refresh Or Softer Panda Update?
Let me start off by saying that I normally would wait another 24
hours before posting this because the chatter is so new, but I will be
offline tomorrow and the day after and I am going with what I see now.

It seems, based on the very very early chatter that a Panda refresh started late last night or this morning. Some are asking if it is that version two of the softer Panda update that Google's Matt Cutts promised.

The ongoing WebmasterWorld thread has posts from late yesterday and early this morning with questions about changes at Google that seem to relate to sites impacted by the Panda algorithm.

One webmaster said:

Ok, I see a bad sign of another silent update. Lowest traffic in the last 5 years. It looks like a Panda reiteration.

Another webmaster said this is the opposite of the "softer" update that they were expected:

My figures and search results seems very similar to the pre-soft-Panda...

A senior member agreed:

@Mentant, I can confim your observation. Lowest traffic ever. All our main keys
are gone, replace by brands that do not have anything in common with the
search string. For sure this is a Panda. I think they took an old one and let it go through the index. Google keeps going their way to destroy all ecom except amazon/ebay. There is no sign of "Leveing" or even Panda being softer.

So the questions we have now:

(1) Is Google pushing out an update?

(2) If so, was it just a typical monthly Panda refresh?

(3) Or was it the softer Panda update that seems harder for many?

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Update: Google told me on the record there was no update:

Just checked with the team and there is nothing we're aware of on this. Thanks for reaching out.

by Barry Schwartz

Read More

Matt Cutts: PageRank Not Popularity, Topical PageRank Helps & Authority On Subjects Coming

Matt Cutts: PageRank Not Popularity, Topical PageRank Helps & Authority On Subjects Coming

In yesterday's video from Google's Matt Cutts, Matt summarized three topics that aren't necessarily new but often confused by folks in the webmaster and SEO community.

In short, he said:

(1) PageRank is not a measure of popularity
(2) Topical PageRank may help determine if a specific site is a good match for a specific query
(3) Google has algorithm changes they are working on to improve their understanding of who is an authority

On PageRank not being a measure of authority, that makes sense to us but not all. Matt's example is key, porn sites are way more popular than government sites in terms of traffic and usage. But no one links to porn sites and thus their PageRank is not as high as government sites, which everyone links to.

On topical PageRank, that also makes a lot of sense and most SEOs get this. This is why anchor text was/is so important and likely more important than raw links. I won't go into this more, I am tired.

Finally, Matt mentioned again, Google is working on an algorithm for the authority in the space.

 by Barry Schwartz

Read More