What’s Fresh?

Over the weekend, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales provided further insight into his company’s community-developed, open source search engine. Wikia purchased a web crawler platform called Grub and released it under an open source license.

According to Wales, the combination of wiki and open-source web crawler will provide an even better search experience than current search engines. His aim is no less than to unseat both Google and Yahoo.

The real challenge is that a user-driven search engine will be a constant target for spammers and search engine optimization hackers looking to improve their results. Both Google and Yahoo are constantly tweaking their search engines to keep search spammers from being able to achieve rankings that are not relevant to searchers. It is not clear how SearchWikia will deal with this issue.

Mr Wales has commented that, in contrast to Google and Yahoo, open and transparent searches are the “model of the future”. That seems like a bold statement, but only time will tell if Mr. Wales can deliver again.

A public version of this search engine is slated to launch by the end of the year.

A new book has become must read in the world of search

Many of us already deal with information overload, and the trend clearly is pointing to even more of the same. So, how do we filter constant streams of complex data to be able to pull out that which is relevant to each of us? Peter Morville’s new book Ambient Findability begins to address this issue. It examines the convergence of information and connectivity and how things are “findable” to us now (think Google) and how will we find them in the future.

We often assume that search engines in their current form are final manifestation of online search. Morville shows us that it is just the beginning. Ambient Findability doesn’t pretend to know all the answers, but presents and supports some novel ideas. The book also puts SEM into a broader context and provides deeper insights into human behavior.

So, if you are interested in how Search will impact us in the not-to-distant future, I would recommend that you take a look at Morville’s book and see how the evolution of findability will impact your world.

AOL has announced its plan to acquire Tacoda, one of the leading behavioral targeting firms that allows marketers to serve ads to online users based on their search behavior. This acquisition may not be as large in scale as Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick for over $3 billion, but it does reflect an emerging trend in the online advertising industry.

According to eMarketer, the behavioral targeting market is expected to increase to $3.8 billion by 2011, indicating the rapid growth of this necessary technology. More and more publishers are utilizing this form of targeting to reach their audiences in a direct and personal approach. As more and more publishers adopt this technology, marketers will request that they practice greater transparency with reporting to allow them to better gauge their users’ search behaviors in order to better serve targeted ads.

Other companies now under the Time-Warner/AOL umbrella include advertising.com, Tacoda, AOL and 3rd Screen Media, showing that AOL is trying to become a one-stop shop for interactive advertising.

Yahoo! has taken the next step in contextual advertising practices by launching a new application called “Smart Ads.” The search engine giant’s new display ad units use everything from behavioral to demographic to geographic targeting to identify the user’s interests and behavior. Smart Ads account for users’ age, gender, geographic location and search activity to serve specific ads that are in line with the user’s information, making every campaign completely customized.

Of course, with Yahoo! taking this initiative, it is only expected that Google will follow in their footsteps. As long as Google offers more inventory; however, they will continue to lead the race. Smart Ads will provide advanced targeting potential for advertisers and marketers across the board, making it a great innovation, whether it is Yahoo! or Google that is taking the reigns.

Google’s VP of Engineering, Udi Manber, made waves last week when he presented the following statistic during a presentation: At this point in time, 20 to 25 percent of the queries entered into Google are completely new. That is, Google has never seen them before!

This surprising reality poses a huge dilemma for search marketers. Arguably the most important part of crafting a successful search marketing campaign is keyword research — the process of identifying what a client’s customers are searching so we can craft site content around those targeted keywords. But if 20 - 25 percent of search queries have never been seen before, how can search marketers target those keywords? Short of developing ESP, search marketers have a major challenge on their hands if they want to reach searchers when they enter completely unique queries.

I recently read an article on Yahoo Buzz about using search counts for the new Simpson’s movie as a predictor of the success of the movie. While I am not convinced that low search counts will translate into an unsuccessful film, I began to think about how else search trend data could be applied. Could keyword search trend data be used to demonstrate presidential candidate popularity and therefore the winner of the election? If I did an analysis of blu-ray and hddvd search counts, would it be possible to know what format will come out on top?

In his book “The Search”, John Battelle refers to the search engine’s data as the “database of intentions.” Never before has mankind had such a window into the collective brain and desires of our fellow earthlings…what are some other possibly applications of this data?

What’s going on between eBay and Google? Some reports say it’s a feud between the two online corporations, while others claim it is merely a testing mechanism for eBay to see how much of their traffic is actually being driven by their ads on Google.

eBay reportedly removed all their ads from the search engine giant and will keep them off for the next week, which could cause some interesting backlash. According to Schaeffer’s Research, eBay is currently one of Google’s biggest advertisers, generating 1% to 2% of Google’s annual revenue and spending tens of millions of dollars a year on keyword ads that generate links to eBay listings when Google users type in specific search terms.

If the feud is the true reason behind the removal of the ads, then it will be interesting to see how this affects their relationship, Google’s response and eBay’s sales. If this is merely a test to see how much traffic Google actually generates for eBay, this could be an interesting lesson for online marketers to see how effective the search engines are for their online campaigns.

Published in this Sunday’s edition of the New York Times, Saul Hansell’s article about Google’s constantly tweaked ranking algorithms has sent a ripple through the world of search marketers as well as those with more of a casual interest in Google’s search results.

The article elucidates some key points about Google and has numerous take-home messages for search marketers and casual Google users alike.

First, it reminds us that despite Google’s numerous shiny new offerings like Street View and Google Reader, Google’s focus is still search. Second, the article reveals that Google’s ranking algorithms are tweaked at multiple times a week — by real humans whose mission is to improve search for other humans, and often in response to input that a certain search isn’t returning optimal results.

In addition, the Google engineers in the article revealed that more than 200 pieces of information are taken into account when Google’s algorithm ranks a page. To search marketers, Google’s complicated and increasingly sophisticated algorithm means that using tricks and gimmicks in trying to garner rankings is more self-defeating than ever.

Search marketers know a few of the things Google’s algorithm takes into account — longevity, inbound links, and so on. But, increasingly, unlocking all the secrets of Google’s algorithm is impossible — and a fruitless pursuit, given how often Google’s engineers tweak the search algorithm. The article reminds search engine marketers to get back to basics: to build quality websites that, through their intrinsic virtues, become destinations for searchers.

It is more than a year before the first presidential primary and the field of Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls is crowded as usual. Each candidate, from famous figures such as John McCain and Hillary Clinton to lesser known candidates such as Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, has a vested interest in getting their message out. More specifically, they have a significant stake in controlling the conversation and consistently and effectively branding themselves when a Web user searches for them or their position on a certain issue.

To gain traction with Web-savvy voters, candidates must have high visibility on search engines – both for their names, misspellings of their names (“hilary clinton,” “sam brownbak”), and issues-based search terms (“barack obama abortion,” “mitt romney iraq”).

So why, as many bloggers have noted, do the official websites and blogs of so many presidential candidates have little search engine visibility?

Case in Point: John McCain

At this point in the campaign cycle, John McCain seems to be in the worst trouble. Google his name and the first result is his U.S. Senate home page – a page that’s no good to him as a campaigning platform.

Just a few days ago, however, McCain was in much worse shape. About a week ago, bloggers commented that when his full name was searched, his official campaigning website didn’t show up on the first page of search results…or the second…or even the third. At position #68, his official site was buried under his Wikpedia page, his MySpace page, and a bevy of anti-McCain websites, articles, and blogs.

Luckily for McCain, however, in just the past few days his official site has climbed to #3 on Google when his name is searched. His team had probably been working for quite a while to pull up the site from the depths of Google, and the site broke through to page one just as bloggers noticed the site’s dismal rankings. Of course, rankings are fickle, and the site could drop back to page 2 – or worse – seemingly at random.

Pay Per Click Ads

Wisely, the McCain team is using Pay Per Click advertising to draw users to his official site. Such PPC ads have shown to create synergy when they appear alongside organic search results – drawing more users to the intended destination than organic results or a paid ad alone.

However, Rudy Guiliani appears to have a zealous Paid Search team on his side, too. Search the name of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or Mike Huckabee, and a “JoinRudy2008” paid ad appears on Google. Guiliani’s team clearly appreciates the value of aping his competitors. (Curiously, these paid ads don’t show up when the name of John Edwards or Barack Obama are searched.)

Similarly, a paid ad for John McCain appears when the name of his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, is searched.

Testing Candidates’ Search Engine Visibility

Searching a range of relevant search terms yielded some surprising results. In this analysis, the “winner” is defined as the candidate whose official site has the highest position.

Google search term: u.s. presidential candidates
The winner: Dennis Kucinich, at #9

Google search term: republican presidential candidates
The winner: Mitt Romney at #48

Google search term: republican presidential candidates 2008
The winner: Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, at #11
Winning Republican candidate result: Mitt Romney at #13

Google search term: democratic presidential candidates
The winner: John Kerry at #8
Runner-up: Dennis Kucinich at #16

Google search term: democratic presidential candidates 2008
The winner: Dennis Kucinich at #8

Google search term: 2008 presidential election
The winner: no one; no candidate’s official sites broke through to the first three pages of SERPs
The runner-up: Rudy Guiliani, who has paid search placement

Google search term: john edwards iraq
Results: The #1 result is an op/ed authored by John Edwards that appeared in the Washington Post; his official blog is at #5

Google search term: john mccain iraq
Results: His official site stands at #14

Google search term: Hillary clinton abortion
Results: Her official site does not appear anywhere on the first three SERPs

Google search term: rudy giuliani immigration
Results: His official site does not appear anywhere on the first three SERPs

The Verdict

After a quick, arbitrary test of general search terms and more issues-based search terms, it’s clear that candidates are having trouble breaking through to page one of Google — something they must do to effectively control their message. Despite being a long-shot candidate, Dennis Kucinich has excellent search engine visibility — probably because his domain has longevity on the Web as a result of his earlier political campaigns.

Other candidates are likely to learn the importance of their blogs, YouTube channels, linkbuilding efforts, PPC ad placements, and other SEO efforts between now and the election. Though it would be exaggeration to say that a candidate who drops off page one of Google also drops out of voters’ minds, search engine visibility is crucial to effective branding, reaching younger voters, and controlling your message in the face of competitors, antagonistic Internet pundits, unflattering blog posts, and the like.

A big news item last month was Google stating that they are actively pursuing websites that purchase links specifically for the purpose of passing page rank. They recommended various tactics to use for text link ads geared towards driving traffic so that you can still get the traffic without the search engine link juice being passed. You can read more details in Google Engineer Matt Cutt’s blog here and here. I would also recommend reading some of the industry backlash including this post.

I recently stumbled upon this article and scrolled down to the bottom of the page. In the section labeled “Paid Advertisements,” you can see links to a number of major brands, and low and behold, a link to Google.com. This link does not have a nofollow tag and appears to be a straight link without any redirects. I can draw two conclusions:

1. Google is saying don’t do this, but using the “do what we say, not what we do mentality.” Realistically, this is not likely; however, Google certainly does not rank #1 for the phrase “search engine” in their own results, and some more text links could potentially help them improve their rankings.

2. Some individual has placed links to all of these major brands in an attempt to demonstrate a point. If this is the case, I think it is an extremely relevant point. Anyone can add links to any site with the right motivation and money. The possibility exists that I could add links to my competitors from link farms, spammy sites and obvious paid link sections. Can Google algorithmically determine who requested the link placement and their motivation behind the link placement? I would have to answer with a big “NO.”

So I leave you with this to think about…how much say should Google have on how I advertise my business, and what is stopping an unethical SEO from tricking the algorithms (especially with paid links) and negatively affecting their competitors’ search engine visibility, similarly to what appears to be happening to Google in this situation?