Google+





RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

Tag Cloud

Posts Tagged ‘Search terms’

Finding the Right Wrong Words

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

This is a great article by Keri Morgret over at SEOMoz in which she shares her extensively in-depth methods for finding negative keywords for your AdWords campaign. It’s refreshing to see articles written about the importance of negative keywords for once, as a quick mosey around the internet has revealed that their significance in campaigns is often vastly ignored. They’ve sometimes even avoided, due to the perception that they kill traffic.

So, what are negative keywords?

Simply put, negative keywords keep the riff raff out. By excluding certain words from your keywords you’re saying to Google “don’t show my ad to people who search for these words or phrases”. Anyone with an AdWords campaign should be closely monitoring their search terms report, as this will highlight any problem terms which are bringing them irrelevant traffic.

The issue many people have with negative keywords is the idea that it reduces the reach of their ad—and while this may be the intention—there is the perception that they’re missing out on potential impressions. But try to think of this as a good thing. Rather than shouting to the masses through a megaphone from your soapbox, you’re have a nice chat with your idea customers. So in many cases, yes, you will see a decrease in your impressions, but think of this as a good thing as your Cost per Click goes down too. It’s important to remember with that AdWord campaigns you want to show up in relevant (quality), not just a high quantity of searches. (Note: Not to be confused with the Google AdWords Quality Scores.)

Be particularly careful when including geographical negative keywords as a way excluding particular search locations, as this can achieved through the geo-targeting options.

However, also be warned that you can over do it with the negative keywords, particularly when you start including broad search terms (and this applies to keywords too). While you may be able to see if the wrong keywords are directing traffic to your site through the search queries report, there is no way of knowing how many relevant search queries you miss through excessive use of negative keywords.

That said, it’s sometimes nice to get a funny keyword in your SQR- what are some of your most giggle worthy?

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Is Wikipedia skewing search results?

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

A study conducted by Sam Silverwood-Cope over at Intelligent Positioning has revealed something rather interesting about Google search results and Wikipedia. It seems that the two are inseparably enamoured; Google just can’t get enough of Wikipedia’s dashing looks, GSOH and wealth of knowledge.

In a study of 1000 random noun searches, Wikipedia came up top trumps in 99% of the searches.

The Specifics: A random noun generator was used to establish 1000 keywords. These single words were then entered into a Google.co.uk search using the Google Chrome Incognito browser to reduce the chance of personalized results messing with the results. There was no other filtering involved, there were 10 search results per page as standard, and all shopping or video results were ignored (at this would make it more than 10.) And this all happened in sunny Brighton.

It’s reassuring that encyclopaedic style searches, like Nitrogen, came up top. Why? Because this means Wikipedia is doing its job. The worrying part is that Wikipedia disambiguation pages were showing up at the top too. According to Intelligent Positioning’s research, if you throw “air” into Google you’ll get the disambiguation page which is just a page of links; not really the most relevant and useful page.

So what does this mean for SEO?

It’s an interesting find, but it isn’t the end of the world.

True, if Wikipedia has an iron grip on at least one of the top spots in Google searches, then you essentially only have nine spots left on that coveted PR1. So being ‘top ten’ in Google just got a little bit trickier.

However, it’s also interesting to note that this study was only carried out using single nouns, which isn’t an accurate representation of how we use search engines. So, while “Aries” might present us with a Wikipedia page in the #1 spot, a search for “Aries horoscope” doesn’t show up a Wikipedia result until #20.

So, in human search behaviour terms, there’s really nothing to worry about. (But it might be worth getting your Wikipedia page up and running, just in case.)

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS