Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

MOZCON 2017 WINNING WITH CHOICE & INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR BOTH CRAWLERS & CONSUMERS

1,993 views

Published on

There is a potential conflict between consumer choice theory and search engine optimization. The problem is caused by the many exponentially multiplicative URLs (web pages) which are produced as a result of adding heuristics (consumer choice assisting functionalities) to help humans choose more easily. The more URLs the more are the problems for search engines when crawling the web. Here we look at some ways in which we can try to keep both humans and search engines happy on websites

Published in: Marketing

MOZCON 2017 WINNING WITH CHOICE & INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR BOTH CRAWLERS & CONSUMERS

  1. 1. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle WINNING WITH CHOICE & INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR BOTH CRAWLERS & CONSUMERS
  2. 2. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Managing Director Move It Marketing Associate Lecturer – Digital Marketing, Search & Analytics – Manchester Metropolitan University UK, US, EU, MENA Search Awards Judge International & Technical SEO Consultant – 10+ Yrs Googebot Hunter (Practice & Academia) Dawn Anderson
  3. 3. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation SubtitleAttribution:  @Rathergood
  4. 4. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle POTENTIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN CHOICE THEORY & SEO
  5. 5. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle THE  LURE  OF   CHOICE (‘The Lure of Choice; Bown et al, 2003) We  are  intrinsically   drawn  to  varietyCHOICE
  6. 6. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle THE  LURE  OF   CHOICE (‘The Lure of Choice; Bown et al, 2003) BROWSING  IS  NOT  BUYING CHOICE
  7. 7. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle X  10   more  jams  sold  from   displays  of  6  ITEMS   than  24  ITEMS ‘Too  Much  Choice’  Effects  (Iyengar &  Lepper,  2000) Too Much Choice…Iyengar & Lepper’s Much Cited Jam Study CHOICE
  8. 8. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Iyengar & Lepper’s Chocolate Study Those  actually  choosing   from  many  options   tended  to  experience   decision-­‐regret   afterwards (BUYER’S  REMORSE) DECISION   REGRET ‘Too  Much  Choice’  Effects  (Iyengar &  Lepper,  2000) CHOICE
  9. 9. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle “LESS MAY BE MORE WHEN CHOOSING IS DIFFICULT” ( MORE features  and   attributes  to  compare   (‘Size’,  ‘Colour’,   ‘Brand’),   the  GREATER ‘too  much   choice’  effectTASK  COMPLEXITY 2010 Less May Be More When Choosing is Difficult - Greifender et al, 2010) CHOICE
  10. 10. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle More  so  when  items   are  SIMILAR  and  no   clear  winner  is   identified  as  BEST THE  ‘SIMILARITY’  PHENOMENON CHOICE
  11. 11. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Or  when  people   don’t  actually   know  what  they   want  in  the  first   place ‘PREFERENCE  UNCERTAINTY’ CHOICE
  12. 12. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle WE MAY DEFER (POSTPONE) OR ABANDON CHOICE It’s  easier  to   take  the ‘No-­Choice   Option’ “I’ll  choose  later   …  or  NEVER” CHOICE
  13. 13. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle COGNITIVE  LOAD Costs  of  Thinking  (Shugan) & Costs  of  Searching § ‘Task  Complexity’  (Tversky,  1972) § ‘Option  Complexity  Under  Conditions’   (Chernev,  2015) § ‘Similarity  Phenomenon’  (Dhar,  1997) § ‘Information  Retention  Capacity’   (Miller,  1956) § ‘Choice  complexity  &  too  much  choice’   (Greifeneder et  al,  2010) WHY SO?? CHOICE
  14. 14. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle 9  seconds “I  can  concentrate   for  longer  than   you…  so  there” AVG ATTENTION SPAN DROPPED BY 3 SECONDS SINCE 2000 GOLDFISH  ==  9   SECONDS HUMAN  ==  8   SECONDS
  15. 15. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle SOMETIMES   ‘CHOICE   REDUCTION’  IS   OFTEN  A   POWERFUL   STRATEGY
  16. 16. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Tesco  were  baffling   consumers  with  up   to  90,000  products   to  consider  during   weekly  shop “The average UK household buys only 400 products a year, with just 41 items in their weekly shop” Source:  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/30/tesco-­‐cuts-­‐range-­‐products
  17. 17. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle 228 DIFFERENT AIR FRESHENERS Source  /  Attribution  :  gfycat.comSource:  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/30/tesco-­‐cuts-­‐range-­‐products “If you go into Tesco you will be faced with three of four bays of air fresheners…It’s painful for the shopper to navigate.” (Bryan Roberts, Analyst, Kantar Retail Market Research Group, 2015)
  18. 18. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Pulling  up  to  1/3of   products  to  make   navigating  the  weekly   shop  easier  for  consumers Source:  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/30/tesco-­‐cuts-­‐range-­‐products
  19. 19. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle DIGITAL CHOICE
  20. 20. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle THE  LURE   OF  CHOICE IN  SEARCH (‘The Lure of Choice; Bown et al, 2003)
  21. 21. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle
  22. 22. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle THE  LURE  OF   CHOICE (‘The Lure of Choice; Bown et al, 2003) BROWSING  IS  NOT  BUYING
  23. 23. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Ecommerce Conversion Rates by Referrer 2016 Source:  http://www.smartinsights.com/ecommerce/ecommerce-­‐analytics/ecommerce-­‐conversion-­‐rates/
  24. 24. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Mobile… has appalling conversion rates 2016 Source:  http://www.smartinsights.com/ecommerce/ecommerce-­‐analytics/ecommerce-­‐conversion-­‐rates/
  25. 25. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Browse on mobile, buy on desktop??? Desktop is worse 2016 Source:  http://www.smartinsights.com/ecommerce/ecommerce-­‐analytics/ecommerce-­‐conversion-­‐rates/
  26. 26. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle CHOOSING IS HARD WORK… WE SEEK SHORTCUTS We  are  ALL   choosing  strategists § ‘FIRST  or  BEST’  choosers § ‘Maximisers or  Satisficers’ § ‘Elimination  By  Aspects’  strategy EMPLOYING  HEURISTICS
  27. 27. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle How Are Choosing Strategies Catered For in Ecommerce? § Decline  of  desktop § Horrendous  PC   shipment  decline § Mobile  overtaking   search § More  searches  on  mobile   than  desktop  now § FACETED  NAVIGATION   &  WEBSITE  FILTERS  ==   Allows  for  ‘Elimination  by   Aspects’ § PAGINATION ==  Reduces   ‘Too  Much  Choice’  effects § SORTING ==  Caters  for   ‘FIRST  /  BEST’  choosing   strategies CHOICE-­‐ ASSISTING   FUNCTIONALITY HEURISTICS
  28. 28. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Enter URL Parameter-driven Popular Ecommerce Platforms
  29. 29. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle And with these choice-assisting functionalities come… “Exponentially   multiplicative   URLs” MANY  URL   REPRESENTATIONS   OF  THE  SAME   CONTENT MANY   INTERMEDIATE   PATHS  TO  TRAVERSE   BEFORE   WORTHWHILE   CONTENT POTENTIAL  DUST  &  NEAR-­‐DUPLICATE  CONTENT
  30. 30. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle URL PARAMETERS
  31. 31. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Exponentially Multiplicative URLs From Faceted Navigation… 100  DRESSES 5  COLOURS 10  SIZES 2  LENGTHS 4  SUPPLIERS 100  x  5  x  10  x   2  x  4  = 40,000 URLs
  32. 32. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle And that’s without HTTPS, WWW/non or internationalization 100  DRESSES 5  COLOURS 10  SIZES 2  LENGTHS 4  SUPPLIERS 100  x  5  x  10  x   2  x  4  = 40,000 URLs X  2  BECAUSE…   HTTPS  VERSION 80,000   URLs X  2…  BECAUSE…   WWW  /  NON   WWW  VERSION 160,000   URLs X  5…   BECAUSE…   EN  /  FR  /  ES  /   DE  /  IT  (e.g.) 800,000   URLs
  33. 33. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle THAT’S A LOT OF URLs FOR 100 DRESSES
  34. 34. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle A lot of busy Googlebots & potential for duplicates • The  web  doubled  in   size  2010  – 2012 • Another  1/3  by  2015 • Finite  search  engine   resources • Processes  automated   for  scale “I  just  never  have   any  ‘me’-­‐time’   any  more” EFFICIENCY
  35. 35. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle WEB CRAWLING EFFICIENCY CRAWLING  EFFICIENCY   IS  REQUIRED
  36. 36. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Handling Near-Duplicate Content Attracted Lots of Research §Dennis  Fetterly §Marc  Najork §Mark  Manasse §Ziv Bar-­‐Yossef §Monica  Henzinger §William  Pugh Some Notable ‘Spot the Difference’ Researchers DETECTING  DUPLICATES  &  NEAR-­‐DUPLICATES   EARLY  SAVES  ON  RESOURCES  /  EFFICIENCY
  37. 37. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Because… Near Duplicate Content is More Difficult to Detect than Exact Duplicates ’Detecting  Duplicate  and   Near  Duplicate  Files’ IT’S  AN  ONGOING  REAL   WORLD  CHALLENGE (Henzinger /  Pugh,  2003,  2009,  2011,   2012,  2011,  2016) These  Google  patents  in  the  series   keep  being  ‘tweaked’  (A  is  not  the   same  as  B)
  38. 38. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle DUSTBUSTER - Do Not Crawl in The Dust… Ziv Bar-Yossef Reduce  crawling  and  wasted   resources  to  low  importance  pages CAVEAT:  IT  IS  NOT   KNOWN  WHETHER   THIS  IS  BEING  USED   AT  ALL.    RESEARCH   AND  THEORY § Builds  crawling  ‘rules’ § Detects  duplicate  content   URL  patterns § From  small  ‘sampling’  visits § Swerves  ‘DUST’ § DUSTBUSTER § Saves  crawling  resources § Potentially  Popular  CMS   configurations  URL   parameters  detect  ‘DUST’ 2003
  39. 39. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Important findings… Near-Duplicates Evolve Slowly “Clusters  of  near-­‐ duplicate  documents   are  fairly  stable:  Two   documents  that  are   near-­‐duplicates  of  one   another  are  very  likely   to  still  be  near-­‐ duplicates  10  weeks   later” (Fetterly &  Najork,   2003) THE  SLOW  PAGE  EVOLUTION  OF  NEAR-­‐ DUPLICATES ABOUT  1/3  OF  THE  WEB  IS  NEAR-­‐ DUPLICATES THESE  PAGES  DON’T  NEED   VISITING  A  LOT  BECAUSE  THEY   RARELY  CHANGE DETECING  THESE  PAGES  EARLY   HAS  BIG  BENEFITS  FOR   RESOURCE  EFFICIENCY They’re  largely  a  big  waste  of  crawling   resources 2003
  40. 40. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle DENNIS FETTERLY & MARC NAJORK EFFICIENCY
  41. 41. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Mostly Stable For Years… But… The Web is Always Changing 2017
  42. 42. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle … The Raters Guidelines still ask raters to catch ‘dupes’ In  Fact…  There’s   a  whole  section   of  the  guidelines   dedicated  to   them 2017
  43. 43. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Near-Dupes are still doing strange things John Mu at International Search Summit § Nearly  the  same  but  not   the  same  still  causes   confusion § Particularly  problematic   on  internationalisation § But  applies  to  all  sites   with  pages  not  the  same   but  ’nearly-­‐the-­‐same’ 2017
  44. 44. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Reduce  crawling  and  wasted   resources  to  low  importance  WHOLE   site  branches  /  sections Transitive Nature? and Dynamic Web Nature Conflicts § Dynamic  web  nature  negates   transitive  nature? § A  whole  site  section  deemed  low   quality  may  be  crawled  less § The  ‘transitive’  nature  of  near-­‐ duplicates  (not  all  agree) § Search  engines  will  pick  one  page   &  drop  the  others § Brands  have  less  control § Reduced  crawling  means  it  may   take  a  while  to  fix Transitive  -­‐ A  ==  B  +  B  ==  C  then  A  ==  C 2016 2010
  45. 45. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle DUPLICATE CONTENT & CANONICALS
  46. 46. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Enter the Canonical Tag - Otherwise Known As… RFC 6596 ‘THE   CANONICAL   LINK   RELATION’ 2012
  47. 47. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle ‘The Canonical Link Relation’ – RFC6596 Is Still Adhered To 2017
  48. 48. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle But there are many signals at play CANONICALIZATION § Canonical  tag  (HINT) § 30X  redirects  (DIRECTIVE) § Href lang (HINT) § HTTPS  protocol  (Preferred   over  HTTP  protocol) § Global  canonicalization   rules  (Likely  automatic   e.g.  convert  to  lower  case) These  are  ALL   types  of   canonicalization   (DIRECTIVES  or   ‘HINTS’ 2012
  49. 49. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle You Must Align All Of These Signals To Get This Right
  50. 50. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle There Are Many Signals To Consider In Canonicalization 404 & 410 301 302, 303, 307 Valid canonical from ‘context’ URL to valid target Fall back to default pre ‘Canonical Link Relation’duplicate handling signals Valid href lang (if present and applicable) Manual Action SUPER  STRONG STRONG  -­‐ DIRECTIVE STRONG  -­‐ DIRECTIVE STRONG  -­‐ DIRECTIVE STRONG  -­‐ HINT STRONG  -­‐ HINT DEFAULT ALL  NEED  TO  BE  IN  UNISON HTTPS  (Google  Specific)
  51. 51. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle +  Interviews  with -­ 5  International  SEOs   working  on  ecommerce   sites  with  >100k  URLs  &   >  10  years  SEO   experience 2017 SEO  Survey 339  SEOs Objective  -­‐ “Understand  how  SEOs  handle  near-­‐duplicate  content   and  explore  experiences  with  it”
  52. 52. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Q: Canonicalization is an Easy Concept to Understand? 76%  of  SEOs  surveyed   considered;; “CANONICALIZATION   IS  AN  EASY   CONCEPT  TO   UNDERSTAND” 2017
  53. 53. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle LESS  THAN  50%  of   SEOs  surveyed   considered;; “CANONICALIZATION   IS  ADVANCED   TECHNICAL  SEO” Q: Is canonicalization advanced technical SEO? 2017
  54. 54. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle 50%  OF  SEO’S   “SEARCH  ENGINES  HAVE   IGNORED  CANONICAL  TAGS   THEY  HAD  IMPLEMENTED” Q: Have Search Engines Ever Ignored Canonical Tags? 2017
  55. 55. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle ON WHAT IS CANONICALIZATION … And what is not But… There Seemed To Be A Lot of Misunderstanding 2017
  56. 56. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Q: Is Rel = Next/Prev a form of canonicalization? 47%  of  SEOs  categorizing   themselves  as  ‘TECHNICAL   SEO’s  considered;; “REL=NEXT  /  REL  =   PREV”  IS  A  FORM  OF   CANONICALIZATION -­-­ IT’S  NOT  -­-­ 2017
  57. 57. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Q: Which 30X Are Forms of Canonicalization? Lots  weren’t  sure  whether;; “301s  AND  302s  ARE   BOTH  A  FORM  OF   CANONICALIZATION” -­-­ THEY  ARE  -­-­ 2017
  58. 58. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Q: Is HRef Lang A Form of Canonicalization? ONLY 64%  of  SEOs   categorizing  themselves  as   ‘TECHNICAL  SEO’s   considered;; “HREF  LANG  IS  A  FORM   OF  CANONICALIZATION” -­-­ IT  IS  -­-­ 2017
  59. 59. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle CANONICAL IS NOT ALWAYS SIMPLE
  60. 60. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Google’s Maile Ohye on ‘How To Hire An SEO’
  61. 61. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Without &filter=0 Appended to end of Query https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=red+dress es+size+10+long+sleeves&oq=red+dresses+siz e+10+long+sleeves&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.1257 0j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-­‐8 NOBODY  HAS  MORE   THAN  ONE  LISTING RED  DRESSES  SIZE  10   LONG  SLEEVE  QUERY
  62. 62. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle With &filter=0 Appended to end of Query https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=red+size+1 0+dresses+long+sleeves&oq=red+size+10+dress es+long+sleeves&aqs=chrome..69i57.13605j0j7& sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-­‐8&filter=0 ALL  SITES  HAVE  AT   LEAST  2  LISTINGS MISSED OPPORTUNITIES  ON  THE   ‘LONG  TAIL’
  63. 63. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle CHOICE - Q: Giving consumers lots of choices is good? § Output  more  items  in   ecommerce  product  listings? § Potentially  ‘overwhelming’  the   consumer? § Drop  pagination? § Giving  consumers  lots  of   choices? 2017 48%  THOUGHT  GIVING   CONSUMERS  LOTS  OF  CHOICES   WAS  GOOD
  64. 64. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle The  majority  of  SEOs   surveyed  considered;; “OUTPUTTING   MORE  ITEMS  IS   BETTER  FOR  SEO” 2017
  65. 65. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle SEOs  – What  is  the  best   number  of  products  to   display  together? 71%  of  SEOs   thought;   “>  24   products   displayed   together  was   best” Only  3%  thought;  “6   products  displayed   together  was  best” 2017
  66. 66. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle THAT’S A LOT TO CHOOSE FROM TOGETHER
  67. 67. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle SEO Familiarity With Consumer Choice Theory Concepts 2017 Only  19%  of  SEOs  surveyed   were  aware  of  ‘elimination  by   aspects’ Only  25%  were  aware  of  ‘lure  of   choice’ Only  37%  were  aware  of  ‘task-­‐ complexity  In  choosing’ Objective  -­‐ “Investigate   awareness  of  consumer  choice   theory  concepts  amongst  SEOs”
  68. 68. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle AN ENDLESS LOOP? SEO’s  – More  options   ==  (Crawl   yield  &   content   richness,  rank   higher) CONSUMER   CHOICE   THEORIST Limit  options ==   (Reduce  Choice   overload,  Use   Heuristics,  sell   more)
  69. 69. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle HOW TO RESOLVE?
  70. 70. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle 2017 HEURISTICS  TO  HELP  FIND  THINGS  ARE   NOW  HIGH  PRIORITY  
  71. 71. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle AND…A POMERAINBOW WILL APPEAR WE  NEED  TO    HELP   BOTH  HUMANS  &   SEARCH ENGINES Credit:  @jpsherman
  72. 72. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle SEARCH ENGINES LOVE CATEGORIZATION
  73. 73. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle The ‘Mere’ Categorization Effect (Phenomenon) FTW § Decline  of  desktop § Horrendous  PC   shipment  decline § Mobile  overtaking   search § More  searches  on  mobile   than  desktop  now CLEAR  LABELLING   FOR  THE  WIN ‘Signposting  &   Identified  Top-­‐Tasks’ Simply  by  labelling  products  /   items  as  being  part  of  a   category  regardless  of  label   appears  to  increase   perception  of  variety  &   positive  experience  (Mogliner et  al,  2003) THE  COMMON  HAPPY   GROUND  BETWEEN  HUMANS   AND  SEARCH  ENGINES
  74. 74. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle SORT OUT YOUR LIBRARY SYSTEM & IDENTIFY GAPS
  75. 75. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle KEEP THE SCENT GOING
  76. 76. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle FRONT AND CENTRE SUBCATEGORY DRILL DOWN Nobody buys a ‘dresses’
  77. 77. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle GOOGLE FLIGHTS
  78. 78. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle DATA GOLDMINE
  79. 79. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle HEURISTICS – TAKE A LOAD OFF
  80. 80. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle SEARCH ENGINES & HUMANS BOTH LOVE LOGICAL & CONCEPTUAL LABELLING SYSTEMS LABELS  REPRESENT   LARGER  ‘CHUNKS’  OF   INFORMATION  /  CONCEPTS Mental Modelling
  81. 81. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle LABELLING SYSTEM HEURISTICS
  82. 82. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Homonyms contribute to need for query refinement HOMONYMS  –WORDS  THAT  ARE  SPELT  OR  PRONOUNCED   THE  SAME  BUT  HAVE  DIFFERENT  MEANINGS   ROSE EVENING WATCH SINK BACK ARMS BOW CHECK Here’s  some   examples  
  83. 83. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle
  84. 84. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle QUERY   REFINEMENT     (WITH  LOGIC)  FOR   SUBCATEGORIES   IN  SERPS DISTINCTION  BY   COLOUR  REDUCES   ‘TOO  SIMILAR’
  85. 85. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle GLOBAL NAVIGATION STRENGTH WHOLE  AUDIENCE  WIDE  ‘TOP  TASKS’  – WHOLE  ‘THEME’  STRENGTH
  86. 86. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle LOCAL NAVIGATION RELEVANCE TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  STYLE  IN   PAGE  NAVIGATIONAL  HEURISTIC   FOR  SEARCH  ENGINE  AND   HUMAN PAGINATED  TAB  THROUGH  ON   SECTIONS  OF  REVIEW MICRO-­‐TASK   RELEVANCE
  87. 87. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle LOCALISED NAVIGATION
  88. 88. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle SECTIONAL HEURISTICS IN ACTION
  89. 89. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle The H’s – Bringing Order THEY’RE  NOT  JUST  THERE   FOR  SEARCH  ENGINES.     HUMANS  NEED  LOGICALLY   LABELLED    SECTIONS  TOO
  90. 90. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle
  91. 91. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle TASER THE MIXED- UP LABELLING SYSTEM SCREAMING CONFUSING INFO
  92. 92. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Make it easy… for people to find things 2017 PEOPLE  ARE  USING   HEURISTICS  -­‐ PARTICULARLY  SITE   SEARCH  &  CATEGORIES
  93. 93. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle SITE SEARCH
  94. 94. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle SITE SEARCH: FRONT AND CENTRE Econsultancy research reports conversion rate doubles to 4.63% from people who used on-site search and found what they were looking for https://moz.com/blog/on-­‐site-­‐search
  95. 95. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle STICKY…ALWAYS THERE… ASSISTIVE SEARCH BOX OR  IN  SPECIFIC  SITE   ‘ZONES’
  96. 96. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle
  97. 97. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle INTELLIGENT INTERNAL LINKING
  98. 98. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle TOP & BOTTOM BREADCRUMBS TOO FTW ANCHORS  IN  BREADCRUMBS  ARE   LABELS  TOO INTELLIGENT   INTERNAL  LINKING
  99. 99. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle SUPPLEMENTARY CONTENT A  LIST LABELS ANCHORS RELEVANCE RELEVANCE  MUST  BE  HIGH   TO  CONTENT  TO  GET  FULL   BENEFIT INTELLIGENT   INTERNAL  LINKING
  100. 100. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle BUILD STRONGLY CONNECTED COMPONENTS Source:  Broder, A., Kumar, R., Maghoul, F., Raghavan, P., Rajagopalan, S., Stata, R., Tomkins, A. and Wiener, J., 2000. Graph structure in the web. Computer networks, 33(1), pp.309-320. BOWTIE  OF  THE  WEB STRONGLY   CONNECTED   COMPONENT INTELLIGENT   INTERNAL   LINKING
  101. 101. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle GOOGLE FLIGHTS STATIC DYNAMIC  &  USER  RELEVANT INTELLIGENT   INTERNAL  LINKING
  102. 102. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle INTELLIGENT   INTERNAL  LINKING
  103. 103. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle MANY  WAYS  TO  FIND   ROUTES  TO  TARGET  URLS   WITH  INFO  DISPLAYS BY  POSTCODE,  BY  TOWN,   BY  COUNTY,  BY  FIRST   LETTER INTELLIGENT   INTERNAL  LINKING
  104. 104. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle THIS  HTML   SITEMAP   SECTION   CHANGES   ON  RELOAD INTELLIGENT   INTERNAL  LINKING
  105. 105. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle GB RU CN GB AU IT GB ZERO PRODUCT PAGES -­‐ NIL -­‐ NADA -­‐ NONE NEWS WOMENS   CATEGORIES   (PRODUCT  TYPES,   INDIVIDUAL   BRANDS  &  A-­‐Z   BRANDS) MENS  CATEGORIES (PRODUCT  TYPES,  INDIVIDUAL   BRANDS  &  A-­‐Z  BRANDS) Asos XML SITEMAP SERIES STRATEGY FOR  EACH INTELLIGENT   INTERNAL  LINKING
  106. 106. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle BE  IN  CONTROL   OF  WHAT’S  AT   THE  TOP DATA  &  KPI   DRIVEN   PRIORITIES
  107. 107. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle ARE REVIEWS WORTH IT?
  108. 108. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE & RECOMMENDER SYSTEMS
  109. 109. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle ONLY  4   OPTIONS  FOR   DRESSES
  110. 110. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle AI PRODUCT RECOMMENDER CHATBOTS CHINESE  ECOMMERCE  SITE  JD.COM   (JINGDONG)  DRASTICALLY  INCREASED   CONVERSIONS  USING  XIAOICE  MICROSOFT   CHATBOT  TO  ’SUGGEST’  LIMITED  PRODUCTS     TO  USERS
  111. 111. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle There Are Still Several Challenges With Contextual Semantic Search 2017Source:  Keynote  WSDM2017  -­‐ Ricardo  Baeza-­‐Yates
  112. 112. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle POMERANIAN OR PANCAKE? AI  CAN’T  EVEN   UNDERSTAND… YET…
  113. 113. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Take-Away Most  mobile  device  screens  are  4  – 4.5”   Increasingly  intelligent  ‘bullseye’  heuristics  in  a   limited  space  for  humans  &  search  engines  are   needed REMEMBER WE  MAY  EVEN  NEED  TO…  TALK  TO   OTHER  DEPARTMENTS
  114. 114. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Thank You
  115. 115. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle APPENDIX
  116. 116. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle With  canonicals  the  ‘context’  URL   (canonicalizing FROM)  needs  to  be  either   duplicative  or  a  subset  (small  part)  of  the   superset  content  (bigger  part  including  the   subset  content)  of  the  URL  it  is   canonicalizingTO EXAMPLE:  If  canonicalizing blue  shoes  size  4  to  blue  shoes  but  blue  shoes  size  4  is  not  mentioned  in  the   blue  shoes  page,  the  content  from  blue  shoes  size  4  canonicalized from  will  not  be  included  and  the  page   will  not  rank  for  blue  shoes  size  4 COMMON  CANONICAL  MISTAKES BE  CAREFUL   WHEN  AUTO-­‐ CANONICALIZING   ‘FILTERS’  TO   CATEGORIES
  117. 117. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Don’t  canonicalize from  the  pages  in  a   paginated  series  to  page1  in  the  series.     These  are  not  duplicates  and  the  content  in   the  series  will  not  be  counted.   ONLY  self-­‐reference  the  pages  with   canonicals  or  canonicalize to  page=“all” COMMON  CANONICAL  MISTAKES REL=NEXT/PREV  IS  A  DIFFERENT  TYPE  OF  RELATIONSHIP  TO   REL=CANONICAL
  118. 118. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Don’t  canonicalize from  an  ”index”  to  a   “noindex or  vice-­‐versa  because  this  means   the  pages  are  NOT  the  same. The  canonical  will  likely  be  ignored COMMON  CANONICAL  MISTAKES
  119. 119. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle If  “href lang”  references  an  alternative   which  does  not  match  a  canonical  link  the   canonical  will  likely  be  ignored COMMON  CANONICAL  MISTAKES CANONICALS  CAN  BE  CROSS-­‐DOMAIN   BUT  THIS  ONLY  APPLIES  TO  GOOGLE   SEARCH  ENGINE.    NOT  BING
  120. 120. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle If  a  canonical  is  not  deemed  to  be  valid   there  is  likelihood  the  pre-­‐RFC6596 Canonical  Link  Relation  treatment  of   duplicates  and  near-­‐duplicates  will  be   applied: Such  as  ‘internal  links’ COMMON  CANONICAL  MISTAKES
  121. 121. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle TAKE AWAY § Stagnation  of  desktop § Increasingly  limited  space § Increasingly  limited   attention § Increasingly  limited  time § Increasing  competition  for   prospect  attention Revisit  ‘Labelling’  on  global   navigation,  syntax,  local   navigation,  internal  link  labelling   and  count,  implement  internal  site   search,  be  ‘DISTINCT’  in  labels Understand  ‘heuristics’  are  needed   in  the  absence  of  a  well  pre-­‐ empted  ‘best  fit’  of  products  in  a   small  screen 2017 GOOD  PRINCIPLES  OF   INFORMATION   ARCHITECTURE
  122. 122. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle Revisit Parameter Handling & Understanding Canonicalization “IS  PARAMETER-­‐HANDLING  A   WAY  TO  HELP  GOOGLE  BUILD  A   SET  OF  ‘DUSTBUSTER   CRAWLING  RULES’  EARLY?” Tell  Google  about  your  duplicate  content
  123. 123. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle CONFUSING  DUPLICATE,  NEAR-­‐ DUPLICATE  (DUST)  AND  SIMILAR   CONTENT  COULD  COST  YOU   DEARLY Maybe a lot of people confuse by duplicates? § Be  careful  about  canonicalizing when  unnecessary § Duplicate  content  is  query  and   category  agnostic § Similar  is  not  duplicate § You  may  still  have  the  answers   to  different  queries  based  on  a   small  important  difference § AT  LEAST  4  TYPES  OF   DUPLICATE  CONTENT 2017
  124. 124. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle REFERENCES
  125. 125. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle References & Sources Bown,  N.J.,  Read,  D.  and  Summers,  B.,  2003.  The  lure  of  choice. Journal  of   Behavioral  Decision  Making, 16(4),  p.297. Mochon,  D.,  2013.  Single-­‐option  aversion. Journal  of  Consumer   Research, 40(3),  pp.555-­‐566. Fetterly,  D.,  Manasse,  M.  and  Najork,  M.,  2003.  On  the  evolution  of  clusters   of  near-­‐duplicate  web  pages. Journal  of  Web  Engineering, 2(4),  pp.228-­‐246.
  126. 126. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle References & Sources Schwartz,  B.,  2004,  January.  The  paradox  of  choice:  Why  more  is  less.  New   York:  Ecco. Tversky,  A.,  1972.  Elimination  by  aspects:  A  theory  of  choice. Psychological   review, 79(4),  p.281. Iyengar,  S.S.  and  Lepper,  M.R.,  2000.  When  choice  is  demotivating:  Can  one   desire  too  much  of  a  good  thing?. Journal  of  personality  and  social   psychology, 79(6),  p.995. Mogilner,  C.,  Rudnick,  T.  and  Iyengar,  S.S.,  2008.  The  mere  categorization   effect:  How  the  presence  of  categories  increases  choosers'  perceptions  of   assortment  variety  and  outcome  satisfaction. Journal  of  Consumer   Research, 35(2),  pp.202-­‐215.
  127. 127. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle References & Sources Greifeneder,  R.,  Scheibehenne,  B.  and  Kleber,  N.,  2010.  Less  may  be  more   when  choosing  is  difficult:  Choice  complexity  and  too  much  choice. Acta psychologica, 133(1),  pp.45-­‐50. Langner,  T.  and  Krengel,  M.,  2013.  The  mere  categorization  effect  for   complex  products:  The  moderating  role  of  expertise  and  affect. Journal  of   Business  Research, 66(7),  pp.924-­‐932. http://www.seobythesea.com/2008/02/new-­‐google-­‐process-­‐for-­‐detecting-­‐ near-­‐duplicate-­‐content/ Pugh,  W.  and  Henzinger,  M.H.,  Google  Inc.,  2016. Detecting  duplicate  and   near-­‐duplicate  files.  U.S.  Patent  9,275,143.
  128. 128. @dawnieando from @MoveItMarketing Click To Edit Presentation SubtitleClick To Edit Presentation Subtitle References & Sources Alonso,  O.,  Fetterly,  D.  and  Manasse,  M.,  2013,  December.  Duplicate  news   story  detection  revisited.  In Asia  Information  Retrieval  Symposium (pp.  203-­‐ 214).  Springer  Berlin  Heidelberg. Dhar,  R.,  1997.  Consumer  preference  for  a  no-­‐choice  option. Journal  of   Consumer  Research, 24(2),  pp.215-­‐231. RFC  5988  – The  Canonical  Relation  Link  -­‐ https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988 http://rathergood.com/2016/04/04/northern-­‐kittens-­‐play-­‐independent-­‐ woman-­‐as-­‐covered-­‐by-­‐elbow/

×