sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

77
1

Upload: marianne-sweeny

Post on 19-Jul-2015

1.528 views

Category:

Marketing


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

1

Page 2: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

2

Page 3: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

3

Page 4: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

4

Page 5: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

5

Page 6: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

6

Page 7: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

7

Page 8: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

8

Page 9: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

9

Page 10: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

What they did not predict: Florida Vince Panda Penguin Pidgeon Hummingbird

10

Page 11: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

11

Page 12: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Throughout time, we have codified our existence and stored information using text. Humans are text-based

info-vores and recent studies from Google show a strong user preference for text over imagery.

12

Page 13: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Our first “search engines” were librarians, people just like us who were trained in how to organize, store and

retrieve needed information. They did not rely on cookies to extract personal information from which they

would “predict” what we wanted. They did not need to because they could ask questions and conclude what

we wanted based on our answers.

Nice librarians gave us cookies of the other kind but we had to eat them outside.

13

Page 14: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

14

A spider returns information about each word on each page it crawls.

This information is stored in the index where it is compressed based on grammatical requirements such as

stemming [taking the word down to its most basic root] and stop words [common articles and others stipulated by

the company]. A complete copy of the Web page may be stored in the search engine’s cache. This index is then

inverted so that lookup is done on the basis of record contents and not the document ID.

With brute force calculation, the system pulls each record from the inverted index [mapping of words to where they

appear in document text]. This is recall or all documents in the corpus with text instances that match your the

term(s).

An example the complexity involved in refinement of results is Term Frequency - Inverse Document Frequency [TF-

IDF] weighting. Here the raw term frequency (TF) of a term in a document by the term's inverse document

frequency (IDF) weight [frequency of occurrence in a particular document multiplied the number of documents

containing the term divided by the number of documents in the entire corpus. [caveat emptor: high-level, low-level,

level-playing-field math are not my strong suits].

Page 15: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Implicit Collection

Tools: Software agents, Enhanced proxy servers, Cookies, Session IDs

Gathered without user awareness from behavior to: Query context inferred, Profile inferred, Less accurate,

Requires a lot of data

Maximum precision: 58%

Advantages: more data, better data (easier for system to consume and rationalize)

Disadvantage: user has no control over what is collected

Explicit Collection

Tools: HTML forms, Explicit user feedback interaction (early Google personalization with More Like This), Provided

by user with knowledge, More accurate as user shares more about query intent and interests

Maximum precision: 63%

Advantage: User has more control over personal and private information

Disadvantage: compliance, users have a hard time expressing interests, burdensome on user to fill out forms, false

info from user

Resource: Jaime Teevan MS Research (http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i141/f07/lectures/teevan_personalization.pdf)

15

Page 16: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

In 2002, Google acquired personalization technology Kaltix and founder Sep Kamver who has been head of Google

personalization since. Defines personalization: “product that can use information given by the user to provide tailored, more

individualized experience”

Query Refinement

System adds terms based on past information searches

Computes similarity between query and user model

Synonym replacement

Dynamic query suggestions - displayed as searcher enters query

Results Re-ranking

Sorted by user model

Sorted by Seen/Not Seen

Personalization of results set

Calculation of information from 3 sources

User: previous search patterns

Domain: countries, cultures, personalities

GeoPersonalization: location-based results

Metrics used for probability modeling on future searches

Active: user actions in time

Passive: user toolbar information (bookmarks), desktop information (files), IP location, cookies

16

Page 17: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

17

Page 18: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

In January 2002, 52% of all Americans used search engines. In February 2012 that figure grew to 73% of all

Americans.

On any given day in early 2012, more than half of adults using the internet use a search engine (59%). That is double

the 30% of internet users who were using search engines on a typical day in 2004.

Moreover, users report generally good outcomes and relatively high confidence in the capabilities of search engines:

• 91% of search engine users say they always or most of the time find the information they are seeking

when they use search engines

• 73% of search engine users say that most or all the information they find as they use search engines is

accurate and trustworthy

• 66% of search engine users say search engines are a fair and unbiased source of information

• 55% of search engine users say that, in their experience, the quality of search results is getting better

over time, while just 4% say it has gotten worse

• 52% of search engine users say search engine results have gotten more relevant and useful over time,

while just 7% report that results have gotten less relevant.

Resource: Pew Internet Trust Study of Search engine behavior

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Search-Engine-Use-2012/Summary-of-findings.aspx

18

Page 19: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Resource: Pew Internet Trust Study of Search engine behavior

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Search-Engine-Use-2012/Summary-of-findings.aspx

19

Page 20: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

How to search:

56% constructed poor queries

55% selected irrelevant results 1 or more times

Get Lost in data:

33% had difficulty navigating/orienting search results

28% had difficulty maintaining orientation on a website

Discernment

36% did not go beyond the first 3 search results

91% did not go beyond the first page of search results

Resource: Using the Internet: Skill Related Problems in User Online Behavior; van Deursen & van Dijk; 2009

20

Page 21: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

21

Page 22: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

22

Page 23: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Based on academic citation model

1998 named one of the top 100 Websites by PC Magazine “uncanny knack for returning extremely relevant results”

Ranking based on number of links to the page

Random Surfer (spider follows “randomly selected links) examines all of the links and follows one to destination,

does that at destination

Random Surfer authority score: % of time random surfer would spend visiting the page (added to the hyperlink

score)

Restart probability = 15%, surfer does not select a link and instead “jumps” to another page

First introduction of “loose authority” determined by adding up the “authority” scores of the pages linking in

Pages linking to each other (black hat link ring) are discounted

Complications:

Assumes link vote of authority, does not consider commercial value of links

Ability to link limited to subset of users

Orphan pages

Users no longer “surf” randomly

Does not scale

23

Page 24: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Quality of links more important than quantity of links

Segmentation of corpus into broad topics

Selection of authority sources within these topic areas

Hilltop was one of the first to introduce the concept of machine-mediated “authority” to combat the human

manipulation of results for commercial gain (using link blast services, viral distribution of misleading links. It is used

by all of the search engines in some way, shape or form.

Hilltop is:

Performed on a small subset of the corpus that best represents nature of the whole

Authorities: have lots of unaffiliated expert document on the same subject pointing to them

Pages are ranked according to the number of non-affiliated “experts” point to it – i.e. not in the same site or

directory

Affiliation is transitive [if A=B and B=C then A=C]

The beauty of Hilltop is that unlike PageRank, it is query-specific and reinforces the relationship between the

authority and the user’s query. You don’t have to be big or have a thousand links from auto parts sites to be an

“authority.” Google’s 2003 Florida update, rumored to contain Hilltop reasoning, resulted in a lot of sites with

extraneous links fall from their previously lofty placements as a result.

Photo: Hilltop Hohenzollern Castle in Stuttgart

Page 25: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Consolidation of Hypertext Induced Topic Selection [HITS] and PageRank

Pre-query calculation of factors based on subset of corpus

Context of term use in document

Context of term use in history of queries

Context of term use by user submitting query

Computes PR based on a set of representational topics [augments PR with content analysis]

Topic derived from the Open Source directory

Uses a set of ranking vectors: Pre-query selection of topics + at-query comparison of the similarity of query to topics

Creator now a Senior Engineer at Google

25

Page 26: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Indexing infrastructure

Made it easier for engineers to “add signals” that impact ranking

Pre announced and open to public testing

26

Page 27: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

27

Page 28: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

28

Page 29: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Google has zero tolerance for any search engine results manipulation…except their own

SEO community focuses on reverse engineering the algorithms after rollout

SE Update – tactic, tactic, tactic

SE Update – tactic, tactic, tactic

SE Update – tactic, tactic, tactic

Google finally found a way of ending the circular battle with SEO when they found the UX community drawing on

white boards while humming Kumbaya to themselves.

29

Page 30: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Vince update 2009

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2288128/Vince-The-Google-Update-We-Should-Be-Talking-About

Big brands can afford better sites

Big brands spend more $$ in adwords

“The internet is fast becoming a "cesspool" where false information thrives, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said

yesterday. Speaking with an audience of magazine executives visiting the Google campus here as part of

their annual industry conference, he said their brands were increasingly important signals that content can be

trusted. …Brands are the solution, not the problem," Mr. Schmidt said. "Brands are how you sort out the

cesspool….Brand affinity is clearly hard wired," he said. "It is so fundamental to human existence that it's not

going away. It must have a genetic component.” Eric Schmidt, Google, October 2008

http://www.seobook.com/google-branding

30

Page 31: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

31

Page 32: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

About content: quality and freshness

About agile: frequent iterations and small fixes

About UX: or so it seems (Vanessa Fox/Eric Enge: Cllick-through, Bounce Rate, Conversion)

Panda 1.0: Google’s first salvo against “spam” (shallow, thin content sites) in the form of content

duplication and low value original content (i.e. “quick, give me 200 words on Brittany Spear’s vacation in

the Maldives”) – biggest target was content farms – Biggest Impact: keyword optimization and link building.

Panda 2.1: Having unique content not enough – quality factors introduced (some below)

Trustworthiness: with my credit card information

Uniqueness: is this saying what I’ve found somewhere else

Origination: does the person writing the content have “street cred,” do I believe that

this is an authoritative resource on this topic

Display: does the site look professional, polished

Professional: is the content well constructed, well edited and without grammatical or

spelling errors

32

Page 33: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

33

Page 34: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Entity=anything that can be tagged as being associated with certain documents, e.g. Store, news source, product

models, authors, artists, people, places thing

The entity processing unit looks at “candidate strings and compares to query log to extract: most clicked entity,

most time spent by user)

Referring queries data taken away

User Behavior information: user profile, access to documents seen as related to original document, amount of time

on domain associated with one or more entities, whole or partial conversions that took place

34

Page 35: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Google has stopped telling us how much of our site they are discarding from the index

35

Page 36: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

36

Page 37: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

37

Page 38: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

38

Page 39: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

39

Page 40: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

40

Page 41: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

41

Page 42: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Selection: Do they pick you from the results

Engagement: Do they do anything once they get to your page that would indicate it is relevant to their query

(information need)?

Content: Is the content of high quality?

Links: Baked in legacy relevance: Are they contextually relevant? From Authority Resources? Earned, not purchased?

42

Page 43: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

This is an iconic diagram of use experience throughout software project. Each stage has an element of search in it.

43

Page 44: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Key word in context (KWIC) influences user selection

Placement of term phrase influences selection

Google recently reduced displayed character count (from 72 down to 65) to make the font bigger

Matt Cutts on the importance of well crafted <title> and description http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THYguer_JrM

“Think about maximizing your click through – compelling, something that invites clicks, then think about conversion

rates…Title and description can absolutely maximize click through rate…What matters is how much you get clicked

on and how often you take those clicked on visits and convert those to whatever you really want.”

44

Page 45: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Little influence on relevance ranking

Demonstrated influence on selection

Information scent to take them to the page

45

Page 46: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Legacy newspaper structure of “the fold.”

Proto-typicality: user mental models

Visual complexity: ratio of images to text favors text

2/18/2015

46

Page 47: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Flat structure that allows for proximity relevance and cross-walk to other directories Topicality hubs: Sections of the site that focus on high-level entity (topic, subject) with increasing granularity Click Distance: the further from an authority page, the less important it must be URL Depth: the further from the homepage, the less important it must be

47

Page 48: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

VISUAL COMPLEXITY & PROTOTYPICALITY

The results show that both visual complexity and proto-typicality play crucial roles in the process of forming an

aesthetic judgment. It happens within incredibly short timeframes between 17 and 50 milliseconds. By comparison,

the average blink of an eye takes 100 to 400 milliseconds.

In other words, users strongly prefer website designs that look both simple (low complexity)

and familiar (high prototypicality). That means if you’re designing a website, you’ll want to consider both factors.

Designs that contradict what users typically expect of a website may hurt users’ first impression and damage

their expectations.

August 2012

Resource: http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2012/08/users-love-simple-and-familiar-designs.html

48

Page 49: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

49

Page 50: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Put the sidewalks where the footprints are

Resource: Stuart Brand: How Buildings Learn

50

Page 51: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

This is an actual notification from a real Google Webmaster Account. The algorithms have determined that the

content quality on this site is low. You do not want to get one of these because by the time you get it, you’ve already

dropped a few PAGES in search results.

51

Page 52: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

52

Page 53: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

This client invests a lot of time and effort in their News & Events directory

Customers are viewing the utility pages (Contact, etc) and the product justification/ROI section.

53

Page 54: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

“As we’ve mentioned previously, we’ve heard complaints from users that if they click on a result and it’s

difficult to find the actual content, they aren’t happy with the experience. Rather than scrolling down the

page past a slew of ads, users want to see content right away. So sites that don’t have much content

“above-the-fold” can be affected by this change.”

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvement.html

If you’ll recall, this is the Google update that specifically looks at how much content a page has “above

the fold”. The idea is that you don’t want your site’s content to be pushed down or dwarfed by ads and

other non-content material….“Rather than scrolling down the page past a slew of ads, users want to see

content right away. So sites that don’t have much content “above-the-fold” can be affected by this

change. If you click on a website and the part of the website you see first either doesn’t have a lot of

visible content above-the-fold or dedicates a large fraction of the site’s initial screen real estate to ads,

that’s not a very good user experience. Such sites may not rank as highly going forward.”

http://www.webpronews.com/google-updated-the-page-layout-algorithm-last-week-2014-02

Resources

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2328573/Google-Refreshes-Page-Layout-Algorithm

http://www.seobythesea.com/2011/12/10-most-important-seo-patents-part-3-classifying-web-blocks-with-

linguistic-features/

http://www.seobythesea.com/2008/03/the-importance-of-page-layout-in-seo/

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2140407/Googles-New-Page-Layout-Update-Targets-Sites-With-

Too-Many-Ads

54

Page 55: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

55

Page 56: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Each page has a main focus that is unique to the page.

56

Page 57: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

57

Page 58: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

58

Page 59: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Use the Newspaper style Each page has an H1 heading (that is not an image unless with text overlay) Each page has a lead off (introduction) paragraph that call out the story focus Rest of content follows. Longer content uses headings to break up text (for scanning) and sub-topic focus areas

59

Page 60: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Fix broken links on your site Link building: Competitor top pages: see who is linking to them Blog Comments QA: quora, yahoo, industry-specific Mentions: Mention.com "competitor brand" AND "competitor brand" - "your brand" Associations you belong to Employee and company social profiles

60

Page 61: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

http://www.add3.com/insights/seo/what-the-google-twitter-deal-means-to-seos Google’s mission statement “is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Google wants to know what people are talking about and linking to, and Lord knows we don’t use Google+ to do this. People tend to get breaking news from Twitter. Especially people who consume a lot of information and redistribute it.

61

Page 62: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

70% of the top ranking factors are social signals

62

Page 63: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

63

Page 64: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

64

Page 65: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

65

Page 66: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Sometimes use social network for information seeking by posing questions there = Social Search

Directed: person to person, e.g. Direct message or pointed to specific entity

Public: “can anyone…?”

Searching repositories: niche specific, wide net: e.g. quora question and answer

For Asia = more questions of professional nature, fewer rhetorical inquiries

66

Page 67: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Intrinsic vs Image-Related Utility in Social media: Why do People Contribute Content to Twitter: Toubia and

Stephan 2013

Intrinsic: the poster derives a direct benefit specific to the content

Image-Related: individual receives an increase in stature to others – e.g. more followers (followers need to be

earned, so this is an informative social signal and posting is a means to this end)

67

Page 68: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Most common placement is upper right corner of site chrome, right next to the most popular girl in school Search.

That takes them off the page. If they don’t need search, they rarely look/click in upper right corner.

Global and footer locations do not get user attention because on the basis of what would they want to follow you?

Make the invitation less generic

68

Page 69: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

69

Page 70: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

http://mashable.com/2014/11/12/user-experience-tips/

UX is not just about Interfaces

UX touches the product itself, not just the promotion

Experience happens anyway – you only get to decide whether you’ll design for it

UX uses multiple research approaches

UX will subsume much of what currently counts as digital marketing

70

Page 71: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

71

Page 72: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

72

Page 73: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Organic search channel up 31% (Google 31%, Bing 10%, Yahoo 74%)

New Users up 31%

Bounce Rate down 11%

73

Page 74: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

74

Page 75: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

Mom and creampuffs

The search engines think that we’re superfluous because we don’t “get search” That’s what I’m here to end. I

want you to “get search.” We are information professionals, not mice! We’re going to use every neuron,

synapsis and gray cell to fight back.

We will shift from trying to optimize search engine behavior to optimizing what the search engines consume,

move from search engine optimization to information optimization

We will Focus

We will be Collaborative

We will get Connected

We will stay Current

Because we are user experience professionals, not Matt Cutts, Sergey Brin or Larry Page.

75

Page 76: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

76

Page 77: Sweeny ux-seo fos2015-final

77