SES Chicago ReportPublished 18 years, 5 months past
Due to some weather-related travel upheavals, I didn’t get to spend as much time at SES Chicago as I would have liked—I ended up flying in Tuesday afternoon, speaking before lunch Wednesday, and leaving Wednesday evening. Still, the panel went very well, the speakers were quite gracious, and I didn’t even need a fire extinguisher.
Based on what was said in the panel and the fleeting conversations I was able to have (sometimes from the podium) with Matt Bailey and Shari Thurow, here’s what I took away from the conference:
- Semantic markup does not hurt your search engine rankings. It may even provide a small lift. However, the lift will be tiny, and it isn’t always a semantic consideration. Search engines seem to use markup the same way humans do: headings and elements that cause increased presentational weight, such as
<i>, will raise slightly the weight of the content within said elements. So even the presentational-effect elements can have an effect. They also stated that if you’re using elements solely to increase ranking, you’re playing a loser’s game.
- The earlier content sits in the document, the more weight it has… but again, this is a very minor effect.
longdesctext has no effect, positive or negative, on search engine ranking. The advice given was to have a link’s title text be the same as its content, and that anything you’d put into a
longdescshould just go into the page itself. (Remember: this advice is ruthlessly practical and specific to search-engine ranking, not based on any notions of purity.)
- Having a valid document neither helps nor hurts ranking; validation is completely ignored. The (paraphrased) statement from a Yahoo! representative was that validation doesn’t help find better information for the user, because good information can (and usually does) appear on non-valid pages.
- Search engine indexers don’t care about smaller pages, although the people who run them do care about reducing bandwidth consumption, so they like smaller pages for that reason. But not enough to make it affect rankings.
- A lot of things that we take for granted as being good, like image-replacement techniques and Flash replacement techniques, are technologically indistinguishable from search-engine spamming techniques. (Mostly because these things are often used for the purpose of spamming search engines.) Things like throwing the text offscreen in order to show a background image, hiding layers of text for dynamic display, and so forth are all grouped together under the SEO-industry term “cloaking”. As the Yahoo! guy put it, 95% of cloaking is done for the specific purpose of spamming or otherwise rigging search engine results. So the 5% of it that isn’t… is us. And we’re taking a tiny risk of search-engine banishment because our “make this look pretty” tools are so often used for evil.
Reading that last point, you might be wondering: how much of a risk are you taking? Very little, as it turns out. Search engine indexers do not try to detect cloaking and then slam you into a blacklist—at least, they don’t do that right now. To get booted from a search engine, someone needs to have reported your site as trying to scam search engines. If that happens, then extra detection and evaluation measures kick in. That’s when you’re at risk of being blacklisted. Note that it takes, in effect, a tattletale to make this even a possibility. It’s also the case that if you find you’ve been booted and you think the booting unfair, you can appeal for a human review of your site.
So using standards will not, of itself, increase your risk of banishment from Google. If someone claims to Google that you’re a dirty search spammer, there’s a small but nonzero chance that you’ll get booted, especially if you’re using things like hidden text. If you do get booted and tell Google you aren’t a spammer, and they check and agree with you, you’ll be back in the index immediately.
So there’s no real reason to panic. But it’s still a bit dismaying to realize that the very same tools we use to make the Web better are much more often used to pollute it. I don’t suppose it’s surprising, though.
Due to my radically compressed schedule, I was unfortunately not able to ask most of the questions people suggested, and for that I’m very sorry. There was some talk of having me present at future SES conferences, however, so hopefully I’ll have more chances in the future. I’ll also work the e-mail contacts I developed to see what I can divine.
great info, thanks for the update. it is a bit dismaying although comforting that the things we have gained in design thru structure tweaks won’t have to be tossed out.
I wonder what is the dynamics of the relationship between the search engines and the search engine optimizers.
Do they see themselves as adversaries or do they see each other as working together to make the worlds information more easily accessible. With obviously some bad apples thrown in,
still wondering !!
if some one reading this wants to discuss this send me a email
Great info, Eric. Thanks so much!
Thanks for the info, Eric. I look forward to anything else you can offer from this conference after you followup with you e-mail contact.
Interesting info Eric, particularly your statement that all bans are manual triggered after being reported by a a tattletale (competitor?) as a wicked evil spammer then having to prove the site’s innocence to be re-included.
Do you really mean that there are no spam filters in the various search properties algorithms so effectively leaving all sectors to monitor themselves?
“Hyperlink title attribute and longdesc text”
Shouldn’t that be the other way around? A longdesc is a hyperlink (to a page holding a longer description of an image) and a title is made up of text.
Good article though.
I am skeptical about the fact that someone said the title attribute has no effect, positive or negative. On google’s Information for Webmasters page it states, ‘Make sure that your TITLE and ALT tags are descriptive and accurate.’.
Shannon, the title tag is of significance. The title attribute of an element is not.
Just a quick note, Eric, to let you and your audience know I enjoyed your Chicago presentation at SES and sincerely hope the Web Standards session will continue to be offered at future shows. My only complaint was that one hour and fifteen minutes was much too short. Every speaker went over on their presentation, I think, leaving very little room for questions. And there were a LOT of questions to be asked. :)
Maybe next time!
CSS techniques are being widely used to hide keyword stuffed paras on many web sites. When the text is never displayed on visual browsers, it’s usually called hidden text under the more generic heading of “spam.” The term spam, as applied here, is quite nebulous and ill-defined. However, web sites that use practices such as hidden text have seen ‘penalties’ like a drop in Pagerank and/or drop in rankings in the search engine results. Sites that link to sites that use these techniques are also hit with penalties, as was disclosed by a Google rep here on the SEW forums
Hrm…makes me wonder how much good the search engines could do for the web if they factored in validation a little. It seems that someone who takes the time to build a valid page is probably running a more reliable/valuable page. At least for the time being.
Eric, Do you have any follow-up thought on SES? After this meeting, are there clear places where standards *do* help in search rankings? Are meta-tags completely useless? Should repetative page titles (Book Abstract) be h1 and the content title (_Alice in Wonderland_) be h2 or visa versa or does it matter? Is there a way to mark key words within a large paragraph?
I should say that I’m not interested in artificially raising rankings, rather, I work for a government agency that creates a lot of publications and we want them to be as findable as possible.
Thanks – always a pleasure to read your postings here.
Max Design - standards based web design, development and training » Blog Archive » Some links for light reading (1/3/05)
[…] , Part 1 Guide to Unicode, Part 2 Avoid 404 Adam Polselli’s 2005 color forcaster Eric Meyer – SES Chicago Report Accessibar project We’re taking back […]
Thanks – all that tells us is what DOESN’T make a difference though!
Useful all the same though – thanks – I won’t bother with the longdesc crap now!! Haha.