Handpicked Search Industry Headlines And Posts
Issue #026: Metrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SearchReturn Discussion List
"Understanding Internet Search Technology"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Published by:
Disa Johnson SearchReturn
http://www.searchreturn.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
January 03, 2005 Issue #026
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEND POSTS:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Refer a friend: http://www.searchreturn.com/subscribe.shtml
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.....IN THIS DIGEST.....
// -- FEATURED POST -- //
"Metrics"
~ Mike Banks Valentine
// -- ESSENTIAL NEWS -- //
"Big Brand Black Hat SEO"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
// -- FEATURED POST -- //
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: METRICS
From: Mike Banks Valentine
Disa,
For several years I've ranted about a key metric that most in the
search industry seem to either ignore or keep mum about its
consequences. That is - search *referral* percentages (tracked by
server logs or software). Can we bring this dark secret into the
light for 2006?
I just saw the news on the "PEW Internet and American Life
Project" study, released Wednesday, which looks at gender
differences in Web use. That reminded me of the regular ComScore
Media Metrix reports on "Searches Performed" at each of the major
SE's and the similar "Higher conversion percentages from MSN
Search" reports which we hear routinely. "Searches Performed" at
Yahoo! and MSN are relevant only to the ad sales staff at MSN and
Yahoo! and almost entirely irrelevant to the rest of us. What
matters above all is "Searches Referred and Delivered" to our
client sites from all of those searches performed.
It matters not at all to a webmaster if 99% of his search
referrals from MSN convert to sales if MSN sends only one in a
hundred of his search referrals - which means that Google could
send only a tiny percentage who *convert* to buyers, yet still
ultimately refer *far* more buyers than MSN - because Google
sends vastly more traffic to the webmaster. Smaller percentages
of *much* larger numbers of visitors still buy far more stuff.
*Every* client I monitor traffic for shows between 60% and 90% of
their traffic coming from Google searches and only between 5% and
15% coming from either Yahoo! or MSN searches. I've asked search
engine reps from Yahoo why this is and get no meaningful
responses. (MSN seems not to send reps to the conferences I've
been able to attend.)
Is it any wonder everyone is focused on Google when it comes to
SEO? They deliver traffic while the others seem to hold on to
those searchers - no matter how highly ranked a site is! My own
sites are ranked better on MSN and Yahoo! than on Google - yet
Google sends as much as ten times the traffic on many profitable
search phrases. How is that possible? Why do so few pay attention
to this detail and fail to discuss it?
Is it possible that some of those referrals are somehow stripped
of their "referrer" through some multiple bounce clickthru
mechanism at Yahoo! and MSN - so that those referrals show up as
"No Referrer" or "Blocked Referrer" or "Direct Access" or
"Bookmarked" in log files? If that is going on - to what end?
Will 2006 see some meaningful discussion of this dirty little
secret of search?
Mike Banks Valentine
http://RealitySEO.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
// -- ESSENTIAL NEWS -- //
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> Big Brand Black Hat SEO
http://www.searchreturn.com/digest/refs026.shtml
Essentials: The search engines have a mixed record of doing
anything about spam. If you think they delete all spam, you would
be kidding yourself. When a big brand spams, they look the other
way saying they are protecting the search user experience. Search
users expect to see big brands in search results. If you are not
a big brand and you spam, search engines will show you no mercy.
However, they wouldn't be inclined to delete a big brand from
their search results.
Forget that with such a double standard it makes life difficult
for the white hat who encourages good practice SEO. It looks
foolish during the sales process to argue that big brands don't
get away with spam. This forces white hat practioners to be
better and smarter than their black hat counter parts. There is
little incentive for big brands to be good. That's the problem.
The spam is a bad experience for small-screen device users, the
visually-impaired and other display problems exist with spam.
This is purely the fault of the search engines themselves. The
world would not come to an end if big brands disappeared from
search results until they were no longer spamming. It looks like
the major brands that are spamming should be forced into the same
reinclusion queue that others are. Don't hold your breath though,
it's not likely to happen. It means we can expect that most big
brands will spam until they understand the incentive to quit it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Essential Headlines: http://www.searchreturn.com/newsworthy.shtml
Archives: http://www.searchreturn.com/digest-archive.shtml
Alternate formats:
http://www.searchreturn.com/info-formats.shtml
Manage Subscriptions:
http://www.searchreturn.com/help/manage-subs.shtml
Problems unsubscribing? Contact the postmaster:
mailto:postmaster@searchreturn.com
Information on how to sponsor this publication:
http://www.searchreturn.com/help/advertise.shtml
Published by SearchReturn
http://www.searchreturn.com
Website Membership:
http://www.searchreturn.com/register.shtml
The contents of the digest do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of SearchReturn or Disa Johnson. SearchReturn and
Disa Johnson make no warranties, either expressed or implied,
about the truth or accuracy of the contents of the SearchReturn
Digest.
Copyright 2006 Disa Johnson. All Rights Reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
