SES Chicago - December 7-11, 2009

June 30, 2009

Want Twitter publicity? Just enough so you won't go hungry?

If you are searching for a good current "real-time" example of how twitter can help publicize your cause celebre, look no further than the latest being tweeted out today by the likes of such "twitterers" as @wholefoods

@WholeFoods - tomorrow, July 1st, is the monthly Twitter for Food event - it would be great for you to join in again! http://tr.im/m1Pq

And what are your instructions once you click on the link?

Post this message to your twitter account on June 30th and July 1st:

#twitterforfood Skip a meal July 1st and fund local or global hunger relief. http://tr.im/m1Pq

Now imagine that. Skip one meal and donate to any one of the great organizations listed on the landing page featured.

Want a snapshot of how many people have so far been tweeting #twitterforfood? And this is only page 6 of a Twitter search on #twitterfood.

@WholeFoods grabbed hold of this contest and tweeted it to their nearly 800,000 followers! But the idea for skipping a meal and donating money to an organization which serves the hungry came from Tim Blair.

Tim had this to say to me about using Twitter to promote a cause:

"This is a personal passion of mine, so I am absolutely thrilled with the response. I started it last month and plan to run it once a month until it is no longer getting traction. My plan was that it would grow over the next few months as word got out. Humanitarians and philanthropists are a large demographic on Twitter from my experience.

I run twitter accounts for people and have 6 of my own for different causes. I find that it is easy to connect with locals and with specific demographics if you know what you're doing. I have accounts in green, religious, personal security, books, social marketing and have been able to connect well with people - especially people at high levels in organizations.

Results for some of the promos I have done have been good. Nothing earth shattering yet, but certainly worth the effort and growing. I am definitely sold on the value of using Twitter for promotions and will continue to refine how it is done."

It will be interesting to see how much $$$ is indeed donated to food organizations from this Twitter campaign. But no one can deny the immediate impact Twitter can have to promote a cause or campaign.

Posted by Byron Gordon at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 24, 2009

But Twitter is no Google

Twitter's real-time search capability has great appeal to anyone wanting to get the pulse of what people are actually tweeting about. Media entities are taking note; companies are using it to deliver fast customer service responses. But I'm still not using Twitter search for my news and information. When I search for news, I stick with Google (and starting to experiment with Bing).

Google generally finds what I'm looking for and I don't necessarily need "real-time" search results. I do want quality over quantity. Microsoft's Bing might give me more of what I want. But I'm still not motivated enough to start using Bing with any serious regularity. But what about Twitter? Twitter search seems destined to improve with new Twitter search tools coming out such as Twazzup, OneRiot and icerocket's twitter search engine. All of the apps seem to deliver similar search results when I used them but I like Twazzup's interface the best. You can easily see who tweeted, their profile stats, including number of followers.

Scoopler recently made its debut. It neatly splits your search results into two columns, the left showing real-time search results and the right column showing results from blogs and websites, including links to videos and images. You can "peek" at the story and share it via so many of the social media tools we've come to know and "love:" Facebook, Digg, Reddit, etc...Check it out!

I know I'm not the first Tweeter to remark that one of the most interesting uses of Twitter is the more unusual links tweeters post which you might not otherwise come across in a Google search. In that fashion, twitter search certainly adds social and news value. But as explained by Mark Jackson of Vizion Interactive in this informative video interview, Twitter's search functions can still be easily manipulated, making it very unreliable, not to mention the SPAM factor which Twitter is still not yet capable of combating effectively.

Twitter search does have a way to go if it wants to seriously compete with Google. But as we've seen with the coverage of the recent Iran election, Twitter has made a significant impact on the value of real-time search. And Google, along with a few other contenders, while playing catch-up, has time (and money) on its side.

Posted by Byron Gordon at 6:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

June 17, 2009

To tweet or not to tweet?

I came across a recent study by Harvard Business which sums up Twitter 's "current condition" as such: "Twitter resembles more of a one-way, one-to-many publishing service more than a two-way, peer-to-peer communication network." Hmm, surprise to some?

The study also discovered that "the top 10% of prolific Twitter users accounted for over 90% of tweets." Now this isn't surprising to me. Those tweeters with thousands upon thousands of followers are tweeting on a daily basis, heck on an hourly basis! It makes me feel that my paltry 150+ followers aren't getting as much twitter love from me as they should. But therein lays my Twitter dilemma. I don't tweet as much as I'd like to. And this is because I'm so busy at work, including tweeting for other clients. And at the end of the work day, the last thing I care about is tweeting. And yet I love Twitter! But I'm lucky if I get off more than one to two tweets a day from my own personal account. And I rarely (if ever) hear back from my followers.

Now if I actively engaged my twitter followers, tweeting throughout the day, would they respond to my tweets with more affection and gusto? Is twitter akin to life itself? "The more you put into it, the more you get out of it."

I understand Twitter's marketing power for companies like @WholeFoods, @Starbucks, @SouthWestAir. And companies such as Dell have definitely seen a bump in sales thanks to Twitter. And these companies tweet bunches. They get lots of feedback from their followers. Maybe this is why Twitter is indeed a number's game. More than eight in ten Twitter users, most of whom represent small businesses, expect their company's use of the popular microblogging tool to increase in the next six months, according to an informal survey by MarketingProfs.

Visit twitterholic to see the latest top 100 tweeters based on followers. Oh yeah, follow me at @ByronG. I promise I won't inundate you with tweets. But if you encourage me to tweet more, I just may. :-)

Posted by Byron Gordon at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

March 28, 2008

Wordtracker Enhance Their Free Trial Offer

For the first time Wordtracker are offering a 1-week trial of their entire service and have released an accompanying 7 day video tutorial on how to get the best out of your Wordtracker account.

Entitled 'Profit from Keywords', the videos are designed to help new webmasters get the most out of keyword research. The short 5 minute videos are accessible to complete novices to search engine optimisation but detailed enough to provide a useful resource for in-house experts & agencies to educate their brand owners & clients.

At the recent SES in London, Wordtracker CMO Ken McGaffin raved about the results of "keyword creativity" seminars he has been leading with household brands that were revealing unique market insights into both offline and online customer acquisition and retention strategies. By including other non-SEO staff and stakeholders in the keyword research process, he found that no two seminars produced the same results and these companies were broadening their online vision overnight.

"Wordtracker has always considered educating our clients a prime remit which is why we launched the Wordtracker Academy last year," said McGaffin. "Clients or potential clients need to know the various ways that keyword research can enhance their business online. At the start this can be especially daunting for SMEs, so the videos provide an easy step by step process so that businesses can get up to speed quickly."

Every SEM expert understands the value of educating the market, but it's no secret that as an industry we've never done it very well. Ken hopes that these videos will help small and medium sized businesses nip the cost of mistakes early in the SEM campaign implementation stages. After all, who wants to rank for terms that no one searches for?

Posted by Jonathan Allen at 7:33 AM | Permalink

August 2, 2007

Camoflage Your PPC Ads From Competitors

EngineReady has shared a great tip about camoflaging your ppc ads from your competitors in a recent article.

Finding out where your competitors are headquartered and using geotargeting to lower your ad positions in their area shows them a different hand than the one you are actually playing.

Thanks guys I liked that one!

Posted by Frank Watson at 2:03 PM | Permalink

June 8, 2007

Sputtr: Many Search Options, One Place

For those who like to search using multiple engines, but who are tired of opening multiple browsers or tabs, there's now a simple, elegant solution . . . Sputtr. At first glance, Sputtr looks like a keyboard with a text window. . . perhaps some new instant messaging application. However, every “key” is actually an icon for a search tool, be it Google (in many flavors) Yahoo!, Digg, Technorati or (as of this date) 31 other options.

Sputtr is easy to use. Although the “default” Google shows up to the immediate right of the text (query) box, selection of an alternative search tool simply requires a click on the appropriate “key” following query entry.

For an instant, and highly flexible search toolset, open a browser tab for Sputtr, and go there when a search is required. You may even find it so useful, that you set it as a default start page or tab. You won't have to remember the search options . . . they are all at your fingertips.

Posted by Amanda Watlington at 10:37 AM | Permalink

June 6, 2007

Yoono Plugin Has Much to Offer

Yoono has officially publicly launched a beta version of Yoono Buzz It!, a free social Web clipping and annotation plug-in for FireFox and IE. It combines the best features of online highlighters, bookmarks and clipping services on a single web page.

As a research tool, it allows you to capture information, pictures, videos and links on the web and make descriptive notes about what you have captured. Once your research is complete, you can send the results of your labors to friends or add what you capture directly to your blog, you web page or your social networking applications.

Yoono, a French-owned social networking community currently reports 600,000 users. With the addition of services like Yoono Buzz It!, they can expect to increase their following.

Posted by Amanda Watlington at 12:47 PM | Permalink

May 26, 2007

How To Market A Website for $100

Patrick Sexton aka feedthebot interviewed some major players in the search space and asked them all if they only had $100 how would they market their website.

The article gives some good insights, but collectively the crew (Aaron Wall, Andys Hagan and Beal, Todd Malicoat, Neil Patel, Lee Odden and CK Chung) impart the need to be dedicated.

Shoestring operations only succeed with perserverance. There is no guarantee, but a half-hearted effort is never going to get you there.

Posted by Frank Watson at 12:58 PM | Permalink

April 5, 2007

Introducing: Weekly Columns by Search Marketing Experts

This week, you will see a new navigation scheme here on Search Engine Watch. Not only is it an effort to help readers to find critical content more easily, but you will see a new section labeled "SEW Experts". All this week, we're launching a new series of weekly columns, written by several familiar names in the search industry, and a few fresh faces offering new perspectives.

Today's featured column is Link Love, with starting with Engaging Customers to Say I Love You Back, by Justilien Gaspard, who discusses ways to use current customers to gain valuable inbound links and market your Web site at the same time.

You can now sign up for the daily feed of all Experts articles! Click the link or the images below to subscribe to the Search Engine Watch Experts Feed

You may also opt-in to each column individually by updating your subscription options via our Newsletters & Feeds management page.

Wednesday's Article: When Clicks Don't Get Credit for the Sale Analytics & ROI expert Eric Enge explains the common problems associated with tracking pay per click campaigns through to the final conversion points. Get tips on how to investigate conversion tracking problems on your Web site and within your online marketing campaigns, and find methods to get more accurate data.

Every Tuesday will feature two new stories: au Natural - focusing on organic search issues. Two columns will publish on alternate Tuesdays: Little Biz and Big Biz , will cover SEM issues for both small businesses and large enterprises.

Tuesday's featured columnists:

Mark Jackson, of Vizion Interactive, with: A Plea to Stop Treating SEO as an Afterthought

Carrie Hill, of Blizzard Internet Marketing, with: Time and Money: Small Businesses Have Little of Each

Monday, we started out with our Paid Search columnist, Tony Wright of Dexterity Media. Tony is a long-time speaker at Search Engine Strategies conferences on paid search advertising, and has written several articles for Search Day. The Search Ads column will publish every Monday, and you will also be able to subscribe to our experts columns via email and RSS feeds shortly.

Read Tony's first article, Desperately Seeking Stats to Prove the Value of Branded Keywords, a rebuttal of sorts to recent commentary on the incremental value of bidding on brand names and branded search terms in paid campaigns.

Posted by Elisabeth Osmeloski at 10:27 AM | Permalink

March 28, 2007

Practical tips about reputation management

Lee Odden provides several practical tips in an article entitled, "Online Reputation Management Basics," in WebProNews. His three fundamental concepts to deal with search engine reputation management: "Monitor, Optimize and Engage."

Posted by Greg Jarboe at 8:36 AM | Permalink

February 5, 2007

Super Bowl Ads – Where's the URL?

There have been some good reviews of this year's always-anticipated Super Bowl ad crop, but this article will identify the “URL visibility factor” for the ads, based on the use of the Web address of their Web site within the commercial, spoken or displayed. For any that did not get to watch the commercials, a fairly good introduction and review can be found at Ad Age (Video Link). Also, CBS promised ads on a special Super Bowl Ads page at their Sportsline domain.

According to Reuters, a fair sample of this year's Super Bowl television advertisements actually caused fear or anxiety on the part of some test subjects at the University of California. This makes sense, as there was a lot of violence, and even field mice were being tortured at some point during the game.

Tomorrow's Search Day will provide an “SEO Review” for those ads that did provide URLs.

URL No-Shows There was a fairly surprising list of no-shows when it came to URLs. Coca-Cola was the most obvious, as they purchased quite a few spots which were entertaining, but never mentioned their domain. I guess they probably figured people are smart enough to find Cocacola.com…that subject will be further discussed in the Search Day SEO Review article. Overall, however, I think Coca-Cola did a good job counteracting what could have been Pepsi dominance, in a general marketing sense.

Other “no-domainers” included Bud Light, Schick and the “Drive” movie (?). It was surprising the movie ad didn't lead to a link, especially since a search this morning of Google Movies and a variety of news searches couldn't find a movie with the word “Drive” in it. It is possible that I missed the title, but now I can't even remember the movie name. A URL would have cured that problem, at least for me. Oh well, if they had a Super Bowl ad I'll probably see it again soon, unless they blew their whole budget.

The first PNC Bank commercial actually showed someone online doing their business banking, and failed to mention or show a URL at any point during the ad. Missed that one! However, in a subsequent ad either late in the game or just after, they showed the pnc.com/leadingtheway address. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette talks about the launch of the campaign and describes some of the commercials. Looks like they need some link building quickly, as that article ranks first for “PNC leading the way” currently at Google. Kudos to PNC, however, for hosting the page on their Web site instead of farming it off to a new domain which is an SEO-no-no if you want your main site to benefit from the buzz. Again, more SEO talk later.

The biggest URL omission, in my opinion, was Revlon's ad for the “Not fade Away” tour being performed by Cheryl Crowe, while her official colorist is supposed to be seething. I am seething because they have a decent idea that just begs for viral marketing of a Web site. It looks like notfadeaway.com is taken already and being used by a community that hopes to remember lost heroes and tragedies. I wouldn't go there and try to buy that away, however the community seems small and some money may help them decide to use another URL. I was actually surprised to not find a Grateful Dead fan site there.

So Revlon is launching this “Not Fade Away” tour and maybe people would remember to go to Revlon.com to look for information. Too bad for them, as the home page currently doesn't show any mention of it, let alone a link to a section of the Web site. So I assumed if I drilled down to the hair color page, I would be presented with more information? Wrong again. It is disappointing that Revlon would go this far to create am online buzz-worthy campaign with Cheryl Crowe and not release a Web site to go along with it. (added: looks like there is a page setup on a subdomain here. Might be nice to link to it from somewhere)

URL ... But No Call to Action For those that did display and/or mention URLs, not all actually encouraged the viewers to visit the site. A few ads were primarily designed for that purpose, such as Pepsi's contest, which sponsored the halftime show and was hosted at Superbowl.com/Pepsi, and the obvious GoDaddy.com, Geico.com, Careerbuilder.com. CBS did a decent job of promoting two primary domains, including Superbowl.com as well as CBS.sportsline.com. In fact, they utilized a nice method of placing the links directly above the score given to viewers just before going into commercial breaks. These were done on a rotating basis, and not all scoreboards included a URL above them.

Speaking of CBS, it seemed like they really “poured it on” for their shows. Either it was just me or there were a lot more commercials for CBS shows than I had seen in past Super Bowls. Perhaps they didn't get their entire inventory sold? It was very unfortunate not to see a wedding proposal in just one of those dozens of spots, which they could have shown and may have gained some new fans. For the full story on that see mysuperproposal.com.

URL ... But Unreadable Many of the ads that did show URLs displayed them in either a very small font or in an otherwise unmemorable manner. This may be because traditional advertisers have targeted those of us that look for domains as being likely to notice it. Or, if I was cynical, it could be that traditional agencies want to keep the focus on other marketing instead of driving interest to the Web site.

Either way, the following advertisers kept their domains small, and most of them did not have the announcer mention them: Honda, FedEx, Comcast (which should probably be driving as many links to as many pages as possible using the anchor text “Comcast customer service,” if the hope to ever get rid of the YouTube result for that search), Coca Cola (as mentioned), GM, and eTrade.

To me, eTrade made the cardinal sin of thinking everyone knew it was eTrade.com. They do pretty well at Google for the search eTrade, and the majority of their target market has probably heard of them or will assume, but if you are spending 2+ million dollars driving people to a Web site, you would think that you should at least mention the URL somewhere.

URL ... Done Right The big winner in my opinion from a URL visibility standpoint was King Pharmaceuticals which led people to beatyourrisk.com, literally with a thud as the heart figure is thrown into the wall. The longer version of the ad that aired first even had a double showing of the wall with the URL on it, although it was cut out in the shorter version. I would have kept it in both versions, since the goal is obviously to drive traffic to that site. I may also even throw a link to the commercial up on the Beat Your Risk domain.

The other URLs that did gain a mention will be analyzed in tomorrow's Search Day for SEO value. By the way, congratulations to Peyton Manning, Tony Dungy, and the Indianapolis Colts on winning Super Bowl 41, which was in fact quite entertaining for the most part. Of course had Vinatieri hit that field goal at the end of the first half I would have won that quarter's office pool. The good news is that Tony went for it and gave the ball back at the end of the game, preserving my 4th quarter pool victory.

Posted by Chris Boggs at 9:33 AM | Permalink

December 18, 2006

Google Officially Says "No" to Reciprocal Linking?

Barry again had the scoop on a hot story over the weekend which has spawned a discussion in the WebmasterWorld Forums. On Friday, there was a post from Stephanie from the Dublin Google Search Quality team at the Google Blog (en Francais aussi - si chouette!) regarding "Building link based popularity." As mentioned, the topic has started a heated discussion at WMW, but the post really isn't stating anything completely new, in the opinion of some.

The Google Blog post provides essentially the same rhetoric that has been being fed through Matt Cutts' blog and the Google blog, as well as at conferences, to SEOs and webmasters alike over the past year by Google: don't buy links or participate in link schemes. It seems as if Google is hinting that they are now officially incorporating within their algorithm something which seeks out reciprocal links as well as link networks. Again, this isn't really new news, and savvy SEO's are either incorporating this possibility into their strategy or ignoring it – assuming that this is possibly a Google smoke screen used to try and minimize the SPAM found in their results from people that are experts at clandestinely leveraging links for rankings.

The focus on this post seems to be on the subject of reciprocal links, however. In the WMW thread, many posters bring up the idea that reciprocal links have been around far longer than Google itself, and that it is impossible for Google to judge the intent of every reciprocal relationship. If Google wants webmasters to link to relevant sites, there are many cases, especially in the SEO industry for example, where reciprocal links may occur purely for the purpose of giving the user more relevant content. Site owners should probably not be penalized for willing to exchange links in this relevant and helpful manner.

Google will likely respond that is that is the case, people should use the “no follow” attribute to ensure that the search engine doesn't assume that the link was obtained for the purpose of trying to improve PageRank and potentially actual results pages rankings. This is however not a realistic expectation. SEO's, as with any other industry, would probably prefer that any link may have the dual purpose of both helping with traffic as well as with rankings. Would Google be willing to give as much credence in their algorithm for on topic links that are attributed by “nofollow?” If not, then asking webmasters to employ them unilaterally is probably unfair.

Again, this is just an opinion, but for Google to not be clear about exactly what types of link exchanges and schemes they consider to be against the rules isn't really helping SEOs and webmasters. They have had an excellent year in helping marketers, especially with the improvement of the Sitemaps system and release of the Webmaster Tools portal, but these constant smoke screens about linking seem to indicate more of a problem in dealing with identifying valuable links than they may care to admit.

Posted by Chris Boggs at 2:26 PM | Permalink

Keyword Research Best Practices

Barry pointed out a great response to thread at Search Engine Watch forums by Paid Search Guru Ian McAnerin. A member had asked Forum visitors which industries they "would not touch with a 10 foot SEO pole?"

Ian answers led to some additional excellent discussion at SEW and a couple of gems in the SER comments.

Keyword research is a topic that is considered to be very basic by many in the SEO and Paid Search fields. This is likely due to the fact that it has been one of the few constants since the early days of SEO, when tools began to appear that were geared towards finding the right keywords. Since, many writing about the subject have indicated the same core needs: relevancy and popularity, including Danny from way back when, Kevin Lee, Shari Thurow, and most recently Christine Churchill.

Ian's post at Search Engine Watch makes three main points: First that some industries may be too difficult to venture into without specialized experience; secondly, you may not want to venture into some industries due to business concerns (he cites Realtors as being especially “difficult” when it comes to payment or buying in to the value); and lastly that your personal belief set may be in conflict with the particular industry, such as Hate or Porn sites, for example.

Ian comment raised some good follow up questions, and he defends his opinion that one should “cut their teeth” by targeting more localized terms. The whole topic leads well to a discussion of the core competency of keyword research. When venturing into a new space, it is likely that many SEO's are at a slight disadvantage due to being unfamiliar with terms. When deciding on whether to accept a project, it actually takes a fair amount of diligence on the part of any SEO; otherwise they may be simply saying “sure we'll get you ranked.” This could be an alarm signal.

Using geo-modified keywords as the target can also prove to be difficult if not properly done. In some cases, there may be a majority of searchers using the city or town before the more general term (i.e.: Timbuktu hotel) while in others, people may use it more often after the term. The fact is that without excellent and trusted keyword research, only trial and error will lead to the required log files that report the actual activity. This trial and error period can be greatly eased by having an unlimited paid search budget to run all keywords on broad match across all engines for at least 2 or three months. Unfortunately not everyone has the budget to do that. However, running these types of campaigns on a local basis may be somewhat helpful.

One comment that was very insightful at the SER blog was that “generally the most competitive websites have the highest cost in PPC advertising. Find the biggest spenders and you have the stiffest competition.” Although this is a generalization, it holds fairly true. When making a decision as to whether to venture into an industry for SEO, a quick check of the results pages for Paid Search listings can save a good amount of time for small SEO/SEM shops.

Posted by Chris Boggs at 9:09 AM | Permalink

October 2, 2006

The Accent Is On Search

An interesting article in Pandia about an overlooked area of search - Searching Google for words with accents. The bottom line is that it's difficult and fiddly to do it, and it depends on a number of different factors that the searcher cannot control. Let's take the example (as given) by Pandia for Mexico and México. A search will probably return sites that contain either word, but to force the engine to return hits with the accented version a search for +México will pretty much work (though there may be a few oddities caused by inbound links.

However, results will differ depending on IP address, language of the Google home page being used, and preferred language. Now, this is useful as far as the searcher is concerned, since it should result in rather more accurate results, but it's going to be a concern for search engine marketers, since it makes the idea of being (say) #8 in Google a rather moveable feast, - is it #8 for Google.com users, or for Spanish language users? Still, no-one said that internet searching was supposed to be easy, did they?

Of course, it doesn't help either when we start to look into the results in a little more detail. Searching on Google.co.uk (searching the web, not just the UK) a search for Mexico returns 671,000,000 results, as does mexico (with a lower case). However, searching for México gives me 665,000,000 results, but a search for méxico 6,000,000 less, with 659,000,000. When we get into the insanity of searching for méxico -mexico with a result of 725,000,000 things certainly get a little more confused again. My one crumb of comfort is that searches on Ask.com tend to be rather more stable, but even then, not perfect. All goes to show - don't trust search engine results!

Posted by Phil Bradley at 8:53 AM | Permalink

June 12, 2006

The Downside Of Google?

I'm all for keeping a close and critical eye on search engines, but the Observer article "The readers editor on ... the downside of Google" does perhaps go too far. An Observer commissioning editor ran a search on Google for an MRSA expert and the 'expert' was approached to write an article. It turns out he wasn't really an expert at all. This doesn't seem to me to be a downside of Google (particularly since other results pointed out that the self proclaimed expert was anything but); but more a downside of journalists being too quick off the mark and not taking time to consult an information professional perhaps?

Posted by Phil Bradley at 10:38 AM | Permalink

May 30, 2006

Calacanis Dings AOL Search

Jason Calacanis has written a forthright piece on the importance of fixing AOL search. He's examined Google, Yahoo, MSN and AOL Search, and in particular looked at the position of the first organic result, down to the number of pixels from the top and the left, together with useful screen shots. Danny wrote on the same subject of the positioning of results a couple of years ago. There's absolutely no doubt that the positioning of organic results is very important, but as a searcher there are other things that I worry about rather more.

I ran the same search as Jason across all four search engines, and I think he's being slightly harsh on AOL Search, basing his criticism on one search. However, I fully agree with him that it's not good news for AOL Search that the first search result is below the fold (meaning you have to scroll down to see it); as a searcher I want information presented to me as quickly and effectively as possible - I don't want to hunt around on a page looking for my results.

However, as a searcher I do have other concerns, namely that I want good results that answer my question as quickly as possible and secondly, that I get information about the sites that are being returned to enable me to better decide which one I visit. Obviously I'm hopeful that the first organic result is on topic and trustworthy, especially if I've run a tight search. That isn't always going to be the case however, so I may need some guidance.

Looking at the AOL results I get a title, a line of description (two if I'm lucky) and a URL. Although Google gives me the same information, I also often get update details, a cached version and the chance to search for similar pages. At Yahoo I get the title, a short description of the content showing my search term in context, the opportunity to look at the category the result is in, a cached version and the ability to search for more from that site. I also get the chance to run other searches with their 'also try' option at the top of the page. Over at MSN Search I just get title, brief description and sometimes the chance to see a cached version.

Expanding out my search from those four to Ask for example I find the same problem that Jason found with AOL - my first search results are below adverts and sponsored results and just below the fold. While I still don't get much by way of description I can do a quick peek to see what the page looks like and I immediately get opportunities to narrow or broaden my search. Over at Exalead I also get a thumbnail shot of the page and various useful ways of refining my search.

As a searcher, that's really what interests me the most. Yes, of course, position of search results on the page is very important, but as important, or even moreso in my opinion, is greater information about the results, the ability to quickly refine a search, and of course accurate and on topic results. Jason finishes his piece by saying that AOL needs to love their users more; I heartily agree (and thank him for saying so) but I think the same can be said of most search engine companies. If you want to love me, give me good results, sound information on which to base the decision on which result to visit, and the ability to help me focus my search more effectively.

Postscript From Danny: See also Revisiting Search Engine Ad Breaks for a recent look at a related issue, the percentage of ads to editorial. AOL doesn't do well under that measure, either.

Posted by Phil Bradley at 8:59 AM | Permalink

April 19, 2006

A Poster Of Google Search Commands

Can't remember special commands that help in doing special searches at Google (and often work elsewhere, as well). The latest edition of Google's newsletter for librarians points to two posters you can print with the commands. Suitable for framing -- well, for tacking to a wall, you might find them handy. Need something more comprehensive? There's also the long-standing Google Cheat Sheet.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:25 AM | Permalink

March 28, 2006

Searching BG, Before Google, And The Need To Search Better

Just when you think stupid articles that assume we couldn't search BG -- Before Google -- have come to an end, the New York Times gives us another one. Here are examples of this mistaken assumption from 2003 and 2004. Now for 2006, Searching for Dummies, an opinion piece by Edward Tenner, explains how Google and its rivals today have made searching too easy and thus people aren't leaning about proper searching strategies. I agree with Tenner in the end, but he takes a convoluted and mistaken argument to get there.

Search today is too easy? Tenner writes:

But convenience may be part of the problem. In the Web's early days, the most serious search engine was AltaVista. To use it well, a searcher had to learn how to construct a search statement, like, say, "Engelbert Humperdinck and not Las Vegas" for the opera composer rather than the contemporary singer.

No, they didn't have to do this. Plenty of people would and did type in simple queries into AltaVista and get perfectly decent results without struggle. They didn't have to know Boolean commands to do so.

Yes, search engine math commands could help then, just as they still can today. That would especially be true if a search back then on AltaVista brought back only results about popular singer Engelbert Humperdinck rather than Engelbert Humperdinck, the Austrian composer of Hansel & Gretel. But then again, Tenner hasn't said that was the actual case. He just gives it as an example without proof. For all we know, AltaVista did back then just what the search engines today do, give you a mixture of results on both people.

Tenner credits the improvement in search simplicity as being due to link analysis.

It took practice to produce usable results. Now, thanks to brilliant programming, a simple query usually produces a first page that's at least adequate ? "satisficing," as the economist Herbert Simon called it.

The efficiency of today's search engines arises from their ability to analyze links among Web sites. Google led in ranking sites by how often they are linked to other highly ranked sites.

That's not exactly correct. Link analysis improved the quality of results but not necessarily the need to occasionally use search commands or restructure your search terms, to get results on what you're looking for.

Link analysis was the second generation jump that helped solve the real problem that AltaVista and contemporaries had, that they were getting overwhelmed by both spam and the sheer amount of content on the web. What was the best stuff? Link analysis helped make sense of an increasingly noisy environment.

So back to Tenner, supposedly because of link analysis, we can do the Engelbert Humperdinck search and get results on both people without falling back to doing something like this:

engelbert humperdinck +opera -"las vegas"

But if that's true, then argument on searching being too easy falls apart when he says this:

Search engines have the opposite problem: dispersion rather than concentration of interest. Despite constant tweaking, their formulas display irrelevant or mediocre sites on a par with truly expert ones. Despite constant tweaking, their formulas display irrelevant or mediocre sites on a par with truly expert ones.

Curious about the academic field of world history? A neophyte would find little help entering "world history" in Google. When I tried, the only article on the world history movement, from the open-source Wikipedia project, didn't appear until the fifth screen and was brief and eccentric, erroneously dating the field from the 1980's....Only on the seventh screen did I find the World History Network site, financed by the National Endowment for the Humanities, and it is not yet a good portal for beginners.

So let me get this straight. Earlier, you complained that search engines gave you concentrated results on just one thing -- Engelbert Humperdinck the popular singer. Now you complain that they are failing to give you concentrated results on just one thing -- the "academic field of world history."

Gee -- that's kind of broad. Anything in particular about the academic field -- issues on how it should be taught, biases, publications?

Apparently, a search for [world history] should bring up information about the "world history movement." I'd argue that focusing all the results just on this single subject would be a bad, bad idea. Plenty of people looking for information on world history don't want to know about that movement but instead maybe timelines, events and other information that the first page of Google results do well.

Instead, if you really want to know specifically about the world history movement, you need some query refinement tools (which Google lacks) or you need to structure your query better, ironically similar to the way Tenner said you no longer need to do things.

For example, if you're after information about the world history movement, then it's helpful to actually use all the words that describe what you want. IE:

world history movement

That gives radically different results that a search for just world history on Google. But still, none of them seem to bring up pages specifically about this movement Tenner is interested in (and neither do the first page of results at places like Yahoo, MSN or Ask).

So instead, let's look for that exact phrase. By default, most search engines will tend to give preference to pages that have the words in the order you specify, but that's not guaranteed or foolproof. Surrounding your search terms with a quote marks ensures that you get pages that have pages with words in that exact order. So we enter:

"world history movement"

That immediately brings back only 103 results -- an incredibly tiny amount and suggesting that the world history movement isn't as widespread and commonplace on the web as Tenner thinks. That brings me back to one of my other top search tips. It's not always on the web. Want to know about the world history movement? One good thing might be to talk with a world history teacher!

Annoyingly at Google, one possibly good article on the topic isn't accessible, because it come from Google Scholar, where this academic paper is allowed to be cloaked. That makes it searchable but not actually viewable except to those with paid subscriptions. Another potentially good page goes to a 404 not found error. Other pages have references to this movement but no real explanation of it.

How about the others? The same quoted search on Yahoo gives me 55 matches, but nothing really great in the first two pages of results. MSN had 43 results and Ask had 34. Ask got me to a page describing a book about the movement -- and going back, I see that was also listed at Google and Yahoo in their first pages of results.

Hmm -- a book? Then perhaps it's not that I need to change my query but rather tap into a more specialized database like Google Book Search. So I try "world history movement" there and get a short mention of it in this page and a bit also in this book.

I'm still not satisfied. How about academic search engines, such as recently featured in SearchDay? After all, Tenner said this was an academic term. Part of searching better is understanding when to leave behind the Swiss Army Knife of web search for a more specialized resource. Let's try Google Scholar for "world history movement".

Oh, disappointment. There's that cloaked page again that I can't read without a paid subscription. There's another dead page. There's another restricted page, and another and another. Frankly, your layperson interested in this material is better off going to a reference librarian. And a reference librarian is better off probably tapping into non-Google tools to search this material.

OK, one last stab. I tried OAIster for world history movement and came away with nothing.

In the end, perhaps there is that perfect page about the world history movement out on the web. Then again, maybe the blame isn't on link analysis or a lack of searching skills in this particular case. Instead, this might be a great example of how web search doesn't find everything because not everything is on the web.

That brings me to finally agreeing with Tenner, with his closing point that student (and people in general) need to understand how to better structure queries, how to make use of different tools and even how to stop using search engines and fall back on other resources (such as professional librarians). Search engines are great in many ways, but they aren't, nor ever have been, perfect tools either BG or AG.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:02 AM | Permalink

January 20, 2006

Second Issue of Google's Librarian Newsletter Released and More Interesting Reading on Web Search

The second issue of Google's Newsletter for Librarians is now available. It features an article by Karen Schneider, the director of the Librarians' Internet Index, the wonderful and important searchable directory of high quality web resources that I've mentioned on the blog and in SearchDay many times.

Schneider focuses on the some of the critical information judgments needed in determining the trustworthiness of a site and the info that it contains. Those of us who attended library school are aware of many of these concepts. I hope Karen's article reaches more than information professionals including students where these ideas should be taught and reinforced from the earliest grades forward.

Next, Matt "Jagger" Cutts is back with a look at how Google determines what sites are "most trusted." His article talks about the 100's of factors (including some traditional info retrieval metrics) that Google looks at in addition to PageRank.

For more of an in-depth discussion of this you might want to pick up a copy of Chris Sherman's (yes SearchDay's Chris Sherman) book, Google Power. You can preview the title via Amazon's Search Inside the Book. I was unable to find it using Google Book Search.

Remembering that Matt's article was written primarily for librarians and other information professionals, he explains that Google, like other engines analyzes the actual content.

He points out that, "this [analysis] goes beyond scanning page-based text, which webmasters can easily manipulate through meta-tags."

While it's true that Google and other engines look to some degree at the meta-description tag, he doesn't mention that although the meta-keyword tag is still used by some, it's value is not as great as it once was. Danny points this fact out in a 2002 article. You'll also meta tags listed in this post from Barry.

Cutts goes on to write: We also look at factors like fonts and the placement of words on a page. And we examine the content of neighboring pages, which can provide more clues as to whether the page we're looking at is trusted and will be relevant to users.

It would have been useful, particularly to the readers of this article, if Matt would have explained that the factors listed above and many others can also be manipulated or what others have termed "gamed."

As I've pointed out in many presentations to librarian, this is not a good or bad thing but simply the way large general-purpose web enginrs work. For the librarian, a knowledge and understanding of this is important and useful.

After reading both Karen's article and Matt's piece we see somewhat of a disconnect between trustworthiness in terms of inclusion and good placement on a results page versus the trustworthiness concepts that a human might use to judge not only the quality of a web page itself but the data it contains. Yes, I'll readily admit to being a bit prejudice here but I think Karen's article also illustrates the value of just one of the many skills well-trained librarian can offer.

Matt concludes with links to a few more excellent papers.

Btw, many of the same concepts (what Google calls and has patented as PageRank) are in place at just about every other major web engine. In other places, the concept is referred to as link analysis.

As a librarian I would have loved if Matt would have thrown a "shout out" to Dr. Eugene Garfield, the father of citation analysis. It has has been around since the 1950's and librarians have been using it since day one. The relationship between citation analysis (something librarians understand) and link analysis (PageRank) is strong and are even noted in Brin and Page's seminal paper. One of the biggest differences is that web link analysis is much more open than traditional citaton analysis and thereby harder to game (although to some degree) it's also possible.

Yes, the concepts used in citation analysis are really what drive link analysis.

If you want to learn more, this post has tons of links and interviews about citation analysis. It also includes a link to Garfield's paper, Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas."

Finally, although this Scientific American article was written in 1999, I still think it's one of the best, especially for non-geeks, about web link analysis. It was written by members of IBM's Clever team.

Clever was web search engine (never publicly released) by IBM. More about it here. Members of the Clever team read like a "who's who" of web search including Jon Kleinberg, Soumen Chakrabarti, and Prabhakar Raghavan who is now the head of Yahoo Research

As you review the article, take special note of the section where Clever and Google are compared. While Clever never made a public appearance, many of the concepts it offers are what power the Teoma/Ask Jeeves search technology.

Postscript: Yahoo's Prabhakar Raghavan offers archived materials from his Stanford classes on text and information retrieval classes online. Must have content for those interested in the subject.

Posted by Gary Price at 11:58 AM | Permalink

October 19, 2005

Tips On Tapping Into RSS For Info

Some very nice tips from Steve Rubel today about how to get more out of RSS feeds. He covers ways to make feeds for your favorite writers via Yahoo, keeping up on news about your car via Topix, discovering new audiobooks, discovering cool stuff via del.icio.us, using Gada for all-in-one search feeds, tracking changes to a Wikipedia page via RSS (awesome tip there) and more.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 2:34 AM | Permalink

October 13, 2005

Pimp My Mobile Bookmarks

As many of you know I come from a research (library) and content background. It was great to hear from several of you who appreciated our first "pimping" post with useful but hidden features of the Internet Movie Database. I think the only one unhappy was my mom when she heard I was now in the Internet pimping business. Oh well. Believe me, there is much more to come in this series about plenty online search and research tools for all.

Those of you who read the blog regularly know that two extra special interests of mine are mobile access to information and specialty/vertical databases. Since I regularly talk about both types of tools, I thought I would share a few info resources that I presently have in my bookmarks file of resources optimized for mobile web browsers. Btw, many of these will also work in your regular browser.

Here are fifteen of many favorites in no specific order:

* The National Library of Medicine makes a number of mobile info tools available.

Posted by Gary Price at 1:46 AM | Permalink

October 12, 2005

Resource Filled Webliographies (Free!) from the Association of College Research Libraries

The Association of College Research Libraries (ACRL) is one organization that's part of the American Library Association. Each month, on our ResourceShelf site, I do my best to post a regular feature from their monthly, College & Research Libraries News publication that offer full text, subject-focused, and annotated webliographies on a variety of subjects. They're all prepared by librarians and subject specialists.

Here are a few links to just a sampling of the recently published Internet Resources columns:

+ Autism spectrum disorders A resource for ASD information on the Web

+ Marine science resources Starting points for researchers and students

+ Medieval studies Gateways, subject guides, and more.

+ Human language Resources from linguistics and beyond

+ Comic books and graphic novels Digital resources for an evolving form of art and literature

The Internet Resources column has been in publication for almost 10 years. You can browse the entire collection by date and by topic.

Posted by Gary Price at 5:54 PM | Permalink

October 5, 2005

On Library Card Catalogs, OPACs, The Perfect Search & Teaching Searchers

My mind is going a million miles a minute over the whole "Perfect Search" discussion that kicked off this week. Instead of getting it all out now, I plan to do in small doses while at the same time, hopefully, sharing some cool resources at the same time. Let me add a few comments to Danny's most recent post and add a few additional views on other issues.

First, while the human-edited model might have scalability issues, it doesn't mean that these types of tools (for example, general web directories) from non-commercial organizations are now, no less valuable to many searchers.

Sure, they're not the biggest in overall size (vs DMOZ) but the quality of the sources in these tools and their often meticulous maintenance is often what matters to a web researcher. For example, take a look at the LII, Infomine, and the Resource Discovery Network (here's an overview of the service that I wrote for SearchDay).

Remember, a good library does not have everything in its collection. "Collection Development" is a major part of library education and these directories, are good examples of this concept brought to the web. They also show that having some human involvement from subject specialists, librarians, etc. can prove useful.

Danny wrote:

  • The human-compiled card catalog looks only at book titles and short human-written descriptions of the books, maybe 25-75 words in all.
  • The crawler-compiled card catalog will let you scan every word on every page of every book in the library.

Let's stop using the term "card catalogs." They haven't existed in years. In an overwhelming majority of cases, card catalogs are now electronic databases that are called Online Public Access Catalogs ("OPACS") for short. Too long of a term? No problem. Consider them an "electronic library catalog" or the "library database". One thing is for sure, very rarely will you find paper cards. Yes, those good old paper cards had/have value but today's OPAC also offer lots of features.

For example, some allow you to get new book announcements via RSS. By the way, many libraries make these databases searchable for free over the web. Services like RedLightGreen allow you the chance to search hundreds of library catalog databases simultaneously and then allow you to customize for your local library's holdings. Heck, RedLightGreen will even format your bibliography for you. More about this service here.

Also, OPAC records of today often contain much more than the 25-75 words that Danny writes about (though to be fair, he's talking about web directories versus web search, rather than library paper card catalogs versus electronic library catalogs). Frequently, you'll find tables-of-contents, book reviews, snippets, web links, and more. The Library of Congress has an entire department called the Bibliographic Enrichment Team doing work in this area. Yesterday, Syndetic Solutions released even more info that can included in library catalogs.

Oh, how could I forget? Library book catalogs are not the only database tools available via the web (for free). Here's an article about some of what's out there. Lots of specialty databases (full text articles, too).

Second, Danny writes that the crawler-compiled OPAC will let you scan every page of every book in the library. Yes, in theory that's true and well, could be a great thing. Here's the problem. More unstructured data (words) could mean more false drops especially when you add-in the fact that most people only enter a few words in a web engine and only look at the first few results.

This is true whether or not the material comes from scanned books or just plain old web pages. If I had searchable access to every word in every book and entered "Football" I'm going to get back with millions and millions of hits and also have issues with precisely what the term means? American football? What most of the rest of the world calls football (aka soccer)?

Sure, the power searcher will have the skills to create a great search strategy from the outset and then refine as needed using the right tools. However, to this point, the typical open web searcher doesn't do anything like this and likely doesn't even know that have some of the tools to do it. Who is going to show them?

What I'm trying to say is that a bigger database doesn't necessarily mean better and in fact often means less precise results, especially when you're dealing with primarily, but not entirely, uncontrolled content. Some electronic databases also attach subject headings, descriptors and the like to help the searcher focus. Folksonomies could help but, IMHO, the jury is still out on their use and application. One thing is for sure scalability is an issue, I'm not denying that in the least.

Another part of a library school education is something called the reference interview. It involves a human working with a researcher and help them determine specifically what they're looking for and then provide the tools and search strategies to find the info. Good interviewing is a difficult skill to master. Perhaps what we need automated Q&A technology to help the searcher determine what they're looking for and then help them find it. Regardless of how good it is, it's still will not be a human.

Of course, dynamic clustering (we can talk about that at another time) might also play a role especially in the area of subject access and scalability. As Vivisimo says, its technology can quickly offer "selective ignorance" and help the searcher eliminate from a large results set what they don't want to see or need. In other words, increase precision with little work by the searcher while at the same time letting the page speak for itself.

Next, Danny writes, "It will find not just all the matching pages but often rank them so you are getting the very best ones." True in theory but as databases grow larger and larger, this will become more and more (increased recall lowers precision) of a challenge given the fact that very few people take advantage of the tools that are already available that can produce better search results. Udi Manber from A9 said a few months ago that search engines (at least for now) are not mind in the mind reading business and will have to invest in better thinking. He's right.

I also want to comment about what my friend, Jim Lanzone, from Ask Jeeves said:

That is not how people search, and neither you or I or any number of Web Search Universities is going to change that for the vast majority of searchers.

Look, I've been a "faculty" member of Web Search University (Chris, too!) since the first WSU met in 2001 and fully realize that we're only reaching a small, very small, number of people who are primarily professional searchers. However, and I think Lanzone would agree with me, web search training or as Eszter Hargittai calls it "practice," especially for students and educators, can only be a good thing.

As I've said many times, a little goes a long way. Search engines (with the money to offer training) should think of it as both a way to attract new users (in an age where many think there is just one search tool) and also as a public service.

Hargittai wrote in 2003:

Results from a study I conducted on average users' ability to find information on the Web suggest that there is great variance in whether people can locate different types of content online and their efficiency in doing so. These findings imply that simply offering an Internet connection to those without access will not alleviate differences or the so-called "digital divide." Rather, providing training is a necessary component of making the medium a useful tool for everyone.

So, do we have a new digital divide forming? Those who can access info quickly and efficiently and those who can't. I wonder if Rheingold has commented on this?

Finally, one more issue (for another time) is not only the ability to find and access information efficiently and in a timely manner but also having the skills to analyze the content for accuracy, currency, bias, etc. These skills are equally important to just being able to find what you want in the first place, especially in the web age.

Posted by Gary Price at 8:06 AM | Permalink

Pimp My Searching: Internet Movie Database

Danny mentioned yesterday we've been planning a "Pimp My Search Engine" series to help readers get more out of their favorite search engines. Well, we're off! However, today I won't be telling you how to pimp one of the big, major search engines. Instead, I want to help pimp you as a searcher by getting you to a great specialty/vertical search engine. That's none other than the very popular Internet Movie Database from Amazon.com.

IMDB has become a standard and respected reference database for film and TV information. For film, TV, and pop-culture freaks, it's also a great deal of fun.

The IMDB is more than just a "enter a movie title or actor's name and get results" type of place. Sure, that type of search works fine, but it only scratches the surface of what IMDB offers.

Buried, deep (and I mean deep) within the IMBD web site is this amazing Power Search page search interface that can help you find an incredible amount of movie/TV info within seconds. I learned about this interface when a news librarian asked on a listserv I monitor to come up with a solid list of movies filmed in Denver. IMDB got me a list in about 10 seconds.

Specifically, I went to the Power Search page, and in section two, entered Denver in the "location" field and got nearly 200 matches. A perfect list? Probably not, but no reference tool is 100 percent accurate.

Sure, I could have gone to Yahoo, MSN, or Google and started searching and searching but they aren't the best tool for this type of specific reference request. This IMDB interface understood the context of my search was about TV and movies and only that.

I probably could have called Denver or the Colorado Film Commission to get a list. Well, that's true, but I'm not sure everyone would think to do that and heck, this was easier and faster. Plus, this interface offers many more options. How about comedy movies that filmed in Denver between 1970-1980 and were rated R? No problem! (There were four, by the way, including that Clint Eastwood classic, Every Which Way But Loose.

By the way, this is not the only other specialty search interface the IMDB offers. Another favorite is the Name Search/People Working Together database. Just enter names and see if they've appeared or worked together.

For example: How many movies (if any) have Gene Hackman and James Gandolfini been in together? Put both of those names in the "Names" box, click "Start Name Search," and a new page loads with both actors listed. Check the boxes next to their names, then click the "Look up joint ventures" button. Back comes the answer:

  • Crimson Tide (1995)
  • Get Shorty (1995)
  • Mexican, The (2001)

    • Have fun!

    Posted by Gary Price at 7:51 AM | Permalink

    September 21, 2005

    A Versatile Web Research Tool

    Once you've found something interesting or useful on the web, what then? Bookmark it, clip it, share it—tools abound to help with these tasks, and we've reviewed many of them in SearchDay. Guest writer Mary Ellen Bates has been using a new tool from Net Snippets that has multiple features bundled into a single package that make it a seriously cool (and fun) addition to her web research arsenal, she reports in today's SearchDay article, A New Approach to Sharing Web Research.

    Posted by Chris Sherman at 1:32 AM | Permalink

    August 17, 2005

    Using Brackets To Illustrate Queries

    How to write queries from Google software engineer Matt Cutts is a nice look at how Googlers internally represent queries, so that everyone knows what was actually entered in the search box. It's a good approach and one I'll be adopting in general, for the most part.

    Being clear about queries is crucial. Sometimes people do a phrase search, which brings back radically different results that a regular search. But the same people may not indicate this has happened, when writing about the search.

    Matt says that Googlers surround queries as entered into the search box with the bracket symbols. So if you searched for red balls and wanted to say that, you'd write:

    [red balls]

    If you did a phrase search, one where quotes surround the phrase, you write:

    ["red balls"]

    How about a more complicated search:

    ["red balls" -blue site:balls.com]

    Personally, I think it also helps to think of the brackets as a visual representation of the search box. Picture them as both sides of the search box, with whatever you searched for being placed within that box. Easy!

    As said, I'll be doing this going forward when it makes sense. In general, my preference for showing what I searched for is to turn the search into an exact link. So if I looked for red balls, I hyperlink the query so you can see exactly what I saw.

    That's also helpful because the search box model alone doesn't tell you whether you saw a certain number of results, used a particular edition of a search engine and so on. But you can't always hyperlink, so it's nice to have the bracket idea.

    Posted by Danny Sullivan at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    July 27, 2005

    When Not to Use Search Engines

    Turning to our favorite search engine has become reflexive for most people seeking information. But search engines aren't always the best tools—there are other online resources that will save you time or get you higher quality information, if you only take time to use them. And that's the catch: When do you know? Where do you start?

    The first thing you need to do is start using your "peripheral vision," writes Mary Ellen Bates in today's SearchDay article, Thinking Outside the Search Box.

    Posted by Chris Sherman at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    June 6, 2005

    Easy Multi-searching with Firefox

    Firefox provides a lot of built-in search tools, but using them requires a two-step process of typing search terms and then selecting a specific engine to use. There is a built-in contextual search that lets you highlight words on a page and right click to search, but you're limited to Google results using this feature.

    Enter ConQuery, a nifty Firefox plugin that gives you access to all of your installed search plugins via the right-click context menu. This makes it easy to launch a search from any page on the web with any of your favorite engines with just a few quick gestures. See today's SearchDay article, Contextual Search with Firefox for a closer look at this powerful search tool.

    Posted by Chris Sherman at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    March 22, 2005

    Get Your Facts Straight

    When you need to quickly look up factual information, search engines typically aren't the best tools for the job. Sure, the majors are all continuing to introduce shortcuts that provide ready reference information, either directly or through links to partner web sites. But you're never really sure what you'll get until you try a search.

    You're almost always better off going directly to an online ready reference source. In today's SearchDay article, Just the Facts, Please, guest writer Mary Ellen Bates writes about two free, comprehensive and usually reliable sources that can help you find quick answers to factual questions in a hurry.

    Posted by Chris Sherman at 10:37 AM | Permalink

    March 9, 2005

    Tools for Exploring the Blogosphere

    There's a lot of great content being published in blogs these days, but it isn't always easy to find. While many bloggers link to other blogs, you're never really sure what the motivation is for providing the link. And even though blog search engines work well for finding specific posts related to a topic, they don't do a very good job of identifying specific bloggers that write regularly on topics that might interest you.

    Today's SearchDay article, A Cool Blog Discovery Tool features services from Blogstreet that go beyond simple approaches, surfacing relationships and interlinkages between blogs that might not otherwise be readily apparent. These tools can help pinpoint bloggers that you might not otherwise stumble upon in the increasingly crowded reaches of the blogosphere.

    Posted by Chris Sherman at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    February 21, 2005

    Pandia Gives Google, Others Top Search Honors

    Previously, Gary mentioned Search Engine Watch was honored with two awards in the Pandia Search Engine Awards 2004. Here's a rundown on all the winners in each category:

    • Best All Around Search Engine: Google
    • Best Metasearch: ixquick
    • Best Site On Searching: Search Engine Watch
    • Best Site On Search Engine Marketing: Search Engine Watch
    • Best Search Engine Discussion Forum: Webmaster World
    • Best Publication On Searching: Web Search Garage, by Tara Calishain
    • Best Publication On Search Engine Marketing: Unfair Advantage Book On Winning The Search Engine Wars, by Planet Ocean
    • Best Weblog On Searching: ResourceShelf
    • Best Weblog On Search Engine Marketing: Search Engine Journal
    • Best Desktop Search Tool: Copernic

    The Pandia article on its awards also recaps a number of runners-up and alternative resources, so it's worth a read-through to discover many other resources and tools not mentioned above.

    What about our own Search Engine Watch Awards, that I mentioned would be happening earlier this year. Normally we do them in January, but it's been busy, and we're behind. The plan now is to open up the process in March, so that our readers can discuss what they liked best in 2004. More details to come on this later.

    Posted by Danny Sullivan at 12:02 PM | Permalink

    January 28, 2005

    Questioning Google's Counts

    Search engine counts are never something you should depend on, a topic we've discussed many times before. Still, if you're going to get a count, it's nice if it doesn't seem to change much or simply seem absurd depending on the query you do.

    Google's counting has been shaky for ages. But the Web: Google's counts faked? article does a lot of math to find the counts have even more weirdness to them.

    Over at our forums, the Impossible Counts discusses the article and also skips the math and looks at why searches you know should bring back fewer results nevertheless don't. Also see these related articles:

    Posted by Danny Sullivan at 1:49 PM | Permalink

    January 5, 2005

    Gigablast Now Offering XML Search Feeds

    The list of new services and tools at Gigablast continues to expand.

    In the past few weeks I've posted about: + Using Gigablast to create a custom topic and "site search" tools.

    Today, I noticed that it's possible to create customized XML-based "search feeds".

    Matt Wells has posted instructions along with a complete list of parameters that any one can use in building a query (cool!) here.

    Posted by Gary Price at 1:42 PM | Permalink

    My Search Resolutions for 2005

    Along with losing weight and getting more exercise, I've made a number of resolutions related to how I'm going to change my searching behavior over the coming year. Just as with my lifestyle resolutions, I've got some searching habits I want to break, some new things I want to try and some deadwood to get rid of.

    Resolution number one: Make a major change in the way I use Google. I've got a plan that should greatly improve my searching skills, if I can pull it off. Want to know more? Read on in today's SearchDay article, Search Resolutions for the New Year.

    Posted by Chris Sherman at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    December 23, 2004

    Asking Search Engines Who's The Top Search Engine

    It's been done before, but Gord Hotckiss takes a fresh look at what comes up tops for a search for "search engine" at, well, various search engines in his Of Serendipity and Search Engines article at MediaPost.

    Is Google tops for that query at Google? Nope, it's some small web site no one's every heard of called Search Engine Watch or something like that. Now obviously I'm not going to disagree with that result, but Gord thinks maybe Google itself might want to rise higher than fifth place, certainly above the former search stars Lycos and AltaVista that currently outrank it.

    Over at Yahoo, the big Y! puts itself first. Ah, but that's almost certainly because Yahoo appears to hand manipulate some popular queries as I've written about before and we've discussed (here and here) in our forums recently. That's not always a problem, by the way. Many times I wish Google would do some hand review of its results. As I posted recently, MSN used to do this, and it was a strength they've given up.

    At MSN Search, Gord doesn't find MSN Search coming up tops, but over at Ask Jeeves, he's please to find them ranking themselves tops.

    In the end, using his patented GordRank algorithm, Gord creates a list of the top search engines based on search engines themselves. Google comes in tops, followed by AltaVista.

    To compare Gord's experience to the past, check out Chris Sherman's What's the Best Search Engine? article from 2003. I also used to do a somewhat similar spin on this seeing how the search engines ranked themselves for their own names in my Company Name Test. Ah, those were the days!

    And for some past history on the idea of search engines making themselves tops for their own name or those of competitors, check out this News.com article from 1999: Lycos's loop has users reconsider rivals.

    Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:47 AM | Permalink

    December 22, 2004

    Searching for Joy in All the Wrong Places

    Here's a trick question: When you're looking up a phone number, would you use a dictionary or an encyclopedia?

    Neither? Good answer. But how often do you ask yourself whether you're using the appropriate search tool when you automatically fire up Google, Yahoo or Ask Jeeves looking for a fact or other type of "ready reference" information?

    Today's SearchDay article, Searching for Quick Answers To Odd Questions, covers covers a number of specialized resources that offer quick, reliable answers to questions that might take you hours to find using a general purpose search engine.

    Posted by Chris Sherman at 10:33 AM | Permalink

    December 21, 2004

    In Praise of the Skeptical Searcher

    We all know that we can't believe everything we read on the web—but what happens when a reliable search engine (like Google) serves up a number one result from a reliable publisher (like the U.S. Government) that's out of date and inaccurate? Or when a bogus press release turns up in search results above more trustworthy information?

    Today's SearchDay article, A Skeptic's Guide to Internet Research, reviews a new book by online research guru Bob Berkman that offers strategies and tactics for dealing with the challenges faced by anyone trying to ferret out reliable information online. The book is packed with tips and techniques distilled from Berkman's years of experience, both as a searcher and as editor of The Information Advisor newsletter.

    Posted by Chris Sherman at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    December 13, 2004

    More Search Term Refinement Tools

    In Danny's blog post about the new Google Suggest beta he mentions a similar type of query refinement tool available from AOL's new Pinpoint Shopping.

    It's also worth mentioning that Surfwax has offered a dynamic query refinement tool called "LookAhead" for almost a year. It's available with their news search database and offers search-terms based on a controlled vocabulary.

    Posted by Gary Price at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    December 10, 2004

    Google Suggest Offers Query Refinement

    Google is long, long overdue to provide query refinement tools that other search engines have had for ages. You know, like if you search for cars on Yahoo, it will come back and say at the top of the page:

    Also try: used cars, rental cars, cars for sale, new cars   More...

    Or over at Ask Jeeves, a search for cars brings up a list of "Related Searches" on the right-hand side of the screen.

    This type of feature is great for searchers who begin too broadly with their query. Google's beta tested refinement links like this in the past against a small random sample of searchers. But now the new Google Suggest feature finally lets anyone use it.

    There's a twist Google Suggest from what Google's experimented with before. Rather than show you suggestions AFTER you search, Google starts popping up suggestions within the search box while you type, before you search.

    It's different, and I don't really know if I like it yet. I wish I could get the traditional "do the search, we'll show you the most popular related searches as links" style of refinement in addition or instead of this.

    Tara Calishain, where I picked up the news of the new feature from, also finds it a bit distracting and wants more as well: Google Has A New One for the Labs -- Google Suggest.

    Gary points out that AOL's Pinpoint Shopping has a similar feature that when you type "drops down" suggestions as you type but before you search. I checked it out, and it's a nice implementation.

    Want to learn more? Be sure to check out the Google Suggest FAQ.

    Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:45 AM | Permalink

    December 7, 2004

    Wishing For Better Anchor Text Searching

    I've written before that on my wishlist would be for Google and its competitors to offer the ability to search for links across the web that point at a particular page with certain terms in the links.

    In other words, many are familiar with the famous miserable failure results that bring up the official George W. Bush biography on several of the major search engines. But none of them make it possible to see exactly what pages are linking to the biography with those words in them.

    Sure, I can do a backlink lookup on Google for pages linking to the bio like this. But that shows me all pages that Google wishes to reveal that link to the page -- not the pages that link and use the words "miserable failure" in the links.

    At MSN's beta, this search lets me find pages that link to the bio and use the words "miserable failure" on the page, something you can't do at Google or Yahoo. But that's still not what I want. Some of those pages might link to the bio but NOT with those words in the link itself. This search still doesn't help if I or other enquiring searchers want to know who exactly is influencing a link bomb.

    OK, so enquiring search marketers may also want to know -- and fear of giving them too much information may be why we don't have this ability. AltaVista once gave it, but that support ended earlier this year. I think the fear is overblown, and I stand ready to give big kudos to the first search engine that resurrects this past feature.

    Google does offer some ability to find matches showing words in anchor text, as well as in title tags and in URLs. Do the results that come up in response to these special search commands relate to how Google ranks web pages? That's being discussed by marketers in our forums: What Do Google's Allinanchor, Allintitle & Allinurl Results Tell Us?

    Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    November 30, 2004

    Microsoft Blogger Scoble Sticks With Google -- Though MSN Deserves A Break

    He might work for Microsoft, but blogvangelist Robert Scoble says he's sticking with Google over his company's own search engine for now. Two reasons -- too many ads above the fold and disappointment with the results of a search on "microsoft blog." See his Just a little search comparison entry for more.

    MSN deserves a little more credit on the ad side, however. I tried a search for dvd players on Google, MSN's beta search site and Yahoo and measured from the top of page down to the first editorial web listing. (For the record, I'm running 1024x768 on a 20" LCD monitors).

    On Google, it was 12.5 centimeters to the first result. Above that were two different ads stretched horizontally across the screen, followed by Google Desktop OneBox results, then Google News OneBox results. Eliminate the Google Desktop results, and it's a 10 centimeter drop.

    On the MSN Search beta site, it was also a 10 centimeter drop. Even though MSN Search has three ads, rather than two, they are a bit more compact. The two ads on Google take up 3 centimeters of space, while MSN takes 4.5 centimeters -- but MSN doesn't integrate any news search results in the query, so it saves a bit of room overall.

    Over at Yahoo, it's a 17 centimeter stretch. Four ads are shown horizontally, taking up a giant 8 centimeters of space.

    All this will vary depending on the search, of course. In some cases, Google won't have horizontal ads. And if it lacks OneBox results, even more space is saved. However, things like OneBox results or Yahoo's Shortcuts are sometimes more relevant that the usual primacy given to web results, so I won't fault them for that at all. It's good invisible tab implementation.

    Instead, I think it goes more to first impressions. As noted, the Google horizontal ad box is simply smaller in size than MSN's and often doesn't show at all. MSN isn't that bad for getting you to web results, if that's what you want, but they can still feel a bit further down.

    As for the search test, it's always dangerous to rate search engines on the basis of just one query, yet that's often what will resonate most with searchers, especially in the case of ego searches. It doesn't matter that you should do a battery of tests. If someone searches for what they expect and don't get it, that search engine is deemed to have lost.

    Again, a little slack for both MSN Search and Yahoo. Google brought the blogs.msdn.com site up first as Robert felt a good search engine should do. But Yahoo and MSN Search weren't bad in putting it there second. And arguably, the blogs.msdn.com site might not be the top answer for that query.

    While it is where Microsoft employees blog, it doesn't appear to be the official Microsoft blog. In fact, from what I can tell, there doesn't seem to be an official Microsoft blog at all. So who is to say what should be first for a query on "microsoft blog?" Ultimately, the searcher -- making Robert right subjectively but not objectively for everyone.

    FYI to the blogs.msdn.com site, if you do want to be first for "microsoft blog," put those words in your HTML title tag! That's simple, long-standing SEO tip would probably be enough to move you to first on MSN and Yahoo.

    Posted by Danny Sullivan at 1:57 PM | Permalink

    November 3, 2004

    Learning from a Master in the Web Search Garage

    There are searchers, and then there are Super Searchers. Super Searchers have the ability to find seemingly any type of information, either by teasing it out of a search engine or by using a specialized sleuthing technique developed from lots of experience experimenting and fiddling around with other online search tools.

    Tara Calishain rates in my book as one of the world's foremost Super Searchers. Tara's ResearchBuzz is on my short list of must-visit web sites each day. She's also the co-author of Google Hacks, and now she's distilled her knowledge and skills into a new book called Web Search Garage. Needless to say, I recommend it highly.

    For a full review of this excellent book, read on in today's SearchDay article, Tuning up your Skills in the Web Search Garage.

    Posted by Chris Sherman at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

    October 6, 2004

    Couldn't Find On Google? Tell "Can't Find On Google"

    Can't Find On Google is a cool site to let you post what you couldn't find when searching on Google (or rightly, another search engine). Others can contribute to help. I just think it's an interesting new place to understand how people are search. Nice catch via InsideGoogle.

    Posted by Danny Sullivan at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

    October 3, 2004

    WebSearch University

    A post on the Yahoo Search Blog late Friday by Jon Glick, Sr. Manager of Yahoo Search reports on his visit to WebSearch University where I was a member of the faculty. Chris was also there.

    Jon writes, "Web search has now become the de-facto starting point for most researchers, and premium databases and verticals are increasingly used as fall-through."

    I have to disagree with Jon. Of course, web search services from Yahoo and others are IMPORTANT and ESSENTIAL tools for the type of researcher that attends WSU. However, saying that web search is the de-facto starting point for "most researchers" is a bit of a stretch. Knowing where to start is often a challenge but in many cases the place to begin is with a premium database and "vertical" on the open web.

    I think these types of tools are growing in importance as the searcher realizes that one search tool can't answer evey query. We've been seeing a growing interest in the vertical or "specialized" search tool business.

    Actually, even if a general web engine can provide an answer, how long is it taking the searcher to find it with a general web database? Many presentations at WSU talked about using the right tool at the right time. It's been my experience that a reason people don't begin the search process with a vertical and/or premium resources (and waste time looking elsewhere) is because the searcher is unaware of their existence or believe these types of tools are difficult to use.

    Posted by Gary Price at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

    See More Posts From:

    This Week | This Month

      var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-564586-7"); pageTracker._setDomainName(".searchenginewatch.com"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); window.collarity_appid = "incmedia"; //> //>
    Top Jobs
    more Jobs

    Senior Digital Planner
    U.S. International Media Los Angeles, United States

    Senior Search Analyst
    U.S. International Media Los Angeles, United States New York, United States

    Webmaster - Marketing
    West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine Lewisburg, United States

    Web Marketing Manager
    Harvard Business Publishing Watertown, United States

    White Papers
    more Research

    0