Search

You are currently browsing the archive for the Search category.

Have you noticed how recently your site has been doing so much better on Google? Those SEO efforts are really paying off, right?

Wrong! Google is showing you what you want to see.

Actually it’s been going on a long while. In April 2009 Goog introduced Personalized Search for everyone. Basically this means that your Google results are by default customised for you, based on your last 180 days’ search activity (your “Web History”), whether you are signed in to a Google account or not. So if you frequently check out your web pages’ SERPs for particular keyword searches, you’ll see those pages rise in the SERPs until, wonder of wonders, you’re top!

For the cold, hard truth you should turn off personalised search.

From the Law Librarian Blog on a one and a half hour interview with Google engineer Anurag Acharya on the Law Librarian Blog Talk Radio looking into Google Scholar Legal Opinions and Journals:

Google designed this for people who know how to use Google at the very least, and to be successful with mining cases with that level of experience. No one will see something like a citator beyond the “How cited” tab. The panel clearly hungered for a more definitive free tool that matches Shepards or KeyCite. Don’t expect anything like that soon, if at all. Acharya pointed out some technical difficulties in doing some of the things Lexis and Westlaw does for a case opinion database. Google is not going there. He also alluded at one point to agreements he has in place that prevent him from doing certain things, such as creating an API to embed case information in third party sites. This suggests that whoever is vending the text [Westlaw?] see the raw case law as a commodity. The real value to a vendor is the analytical tools they provide. The contract essentially seems to be that someone provides the text at a reasonable price provided Google does not compete on features.

Further comment on 3 Geeks and a Law Blog.

Update: comment on HeinOnline Blog.

I recently posted on the FreeLegalWeb blog about Legal Opinions on Google Scholar. This was principally to question the assertion that the new service will empower the average citizen. But there are bigger questions to answer about Google’s ability meaningfully to address the needs of legal researchers.

For Google, scale is everything: index everything, analyse it with fancy algorithms and the results will speak for themselves. While this certainly seems to work for broad, mainstream data sets, can it work for the scholarly and professional where accuracy, reliability and domain-specific semantics are much more important, even essential? Can it work for the law?

Peter Jacso, professor in the Department of Information and Computer Sciences at the University of Hawaii at Manoa believes that with Scholar Google has produced a “metadata train-wreck” and he’s not optimistic that things will improve. Writing for Library Journal in Google Scholar’s Ghost Authors, Lost Authors, and Other Problems he concludes:

It must have taken some time to create such an imbecile parser. In the early days the GS [Google Scholar] developers decided not to use the metadata readily available from most of the scholarly publishers. …

The press and the public were so enamored of anything with the word Google in it that GS developers apparently believed they could create a parser to identify the metadata better than the human indexers at the publishers, repositories, and indexing/abstracting services who assigned metadata by listing author, title, journal name, publication year, and other metadata elements.

GS designers have sent very under-trained, ignorant crawlers/parsers to recognize and fetch the metadata elements on their own. Not all of the indexing/abstracting services are perfect and consistent, but their errors are dwarfed by the types and volume of those in GS. This is the perfect example of the lethal mix of ignorance and arrogance GS developers applied to metadata and relevance ranking issues.

It may be difficult for some to see why Goog would eschew explicit, accurate, publisher-provided metadata, instead relying on automatic recognition which amongs many other failings attributes articles to such authors as P Login (from Please Login) and N Subscriber (from New Subscriber), I Background and X Conclusions (from headings) and so on; numerous other examples of spurious Google-generated metadata are cited by Jacso.

But that’s the way Goog works; it does not index data in the same way and it is confident (arrogant?) about its approach. Legal Opinions on Google Scholar undoubtedly opens up legal research to more people and provides a useful, complementary way to search (primarily US Federal) opinions and link them together via citations; but it will be limited in its appeal; it will not empower the average citizen and it will not at present satisfy the seasoned legal researcher.

As with all things Goog, even if we see many flaws in its initial Beta offerings, we know it has to be taken seriously as it has the financial, infrastructure and intellectual resources to make things happen over time. To satisfy the more demanding it would have to beef up its editorial input and effectively become a legal publisher and that would mean treading on the toes of those it depends on. But as web data becomes more discoverable via linked data (aka the semantic web), so Google’s approach will bear fruit and start to challenge the “traditional” methods.

Google Sidewiki has got many excited, not because it is neat or cool, but because it is a bad idea – something that feels instinctively wrong and that, after not much further thought, clearly is wrong.

Sidewiki installs on the Google Toolbar and allows anyone to comment on any web page, displaying ranked comments in a sidebar to the page which is revealed by clicking on the Sidewiki button. The site owner has no say in this. Thus is Google hijacking comments; and it will use them for its own purposes.

By encroaching on content creation and publishing (news, video, books, now comments) Google is departing rapidly from its mission to “organise the world’s information” to controlling the world’s information.

Per John @ amusing ourselves:

Google has a history of riding roughshod over the rights of content owners, Booksearch, YouTube and Google News are notable examples of the company building a network on the back of others’ intellectual property, using its power and wealth to grind down opponents in the courts. And when they were going after the big guys … Google’s libertarian stance seemed justifiable. Even democratic. But now Google has come after everyone who runs a site on the web, with what is, in effect, a global commenting, and potentially adserving, system.

Even prominent Google fan Jeff Jarvis is worried:

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it accessible – not take it over and centralize it. That’s what so many fear about Google book search: that is it not just linking to books but serving and thus controlling them (I still believe the settlement can cope with that). That is what I fear about Sidewiki: that it is not adding value to the conversation by organizing it but instead trying to hijack it. I’m surprised how tonedead [a happy typo I'm holding onto] Google is in this case. David Sleight called Sidewiki “a failure of empathy.” Or as a father says to a little kid: “What were you thinking?” One more metaphor: Google thinks its Snuffleupagus – big but cuddly and good – and just doesn’t realize that some people see it as a potential bully and so it has to act accordingly. With size comes responsibility.

Power corrupts. “Don’t be evil” is not enough.

Google has finally officially confirmed what the SEO community has known for years: it “disregards keyword metatags completely. They simply don’t have any effect in our search ranking”. So, don’t waste any more time on them and don’t be impressed by anyone who suggests they matter (including would-be plaintiffs).

Meta descriptions, on the other hand, do matter. They don’t affect ranking, but they are in certain circumstances used as the default text for search results snippets and they will thus affect the chance of a click-through. So, it will pay to craft concise, fact-laden meta descriptions specific to each page.

More about meta tags from Google webmaster tools.

First Published in the Internet Newsletter for Lawyers, September 2009.

Most users don’t look past the first two or three pages of results returned by a search engine, so understanding and implementing search engine optimisation (SEO) is critical. SEO is the process of improving the volume or quality of traffic to a website from search engines via natural (or “organic”) – as opposed to paid for (or “sponsored”) – search results.

In most contexts below, given its market dominance, I use “Google” as short-hand for all search engines.

How Google ranks web pages

Using sophisticated algorithms and deploying phenomenal computing resources, Google ranks all your web pages according to their perceived relevance and authority with respect to all possible search terms keyed by the user (keywords), thus determining the position of your pages for those keywords in the search engine results pages (SERPs).

Google’s algorithm for calculating the relative importance of pages for given keywords is called PageRank (named after founder Larry Page).

SEO broadly involves influencing two sets of factors affecting page ranks:

On-site and on-page factors relate to the inherent value of your pages: the design and structure of your website generally and the layout and content of individual pages. These factors are wholly in your control.

Off-page factors relate to how others value you. Principally this concerns the number and value of links from other sites to your pages. You have to work consistently at gaining and retaining these “votes”.

Within these broad sets there are numerous individual factors affecting PageRank.

On-site and on-page factors
website IP address
server location
domain name of website
URL of page
title of page
meta description of page
freshness of page content
links on page to external websites
page “theme”
website “theme”
Off-page factors
number of links to website
PageRank of links to website
number of links to page
PageRank of links to page
text in links to page (anchor text)
page click-through rate (CTR)
“stickiness” of page
total number of pages on website

Google’s Toolbar PageRank

Google calculates an aggregate PageRank for each web page and this value is displayed in the Google Toolbar if you have that installed in your browser. But this “Toolbar PageRank” is a measure of the overall value of the page (on a logarithmic scale from 0 to 10, commonly expressed as “PR6” etc), without reference to keywords. Because it is such a visible and easily digestible measure, it is often accorded undue importance; but what’s much more important is the rank of the individual pages for particular keywords.

It’s not [rocket] science

Since Google’s PageRank algorithm is a closely-guarded secret and is constantly changing, SEO involves a lot of intelligent guesswork about the relative importance of the above factors, based on analysis and experience of what works. SEO is thus not an exact science, more of an art; and it is an art whose basic principles are well-established, easily understood and readily implemented by the non-technical.

So don’t fixate on the technical detail and don’t be unduly persuaded by precise rules quoted as being optimal by many so-called SEO specialists. Instead, have in mind that, at the end of the day, Google is seeking dispassionately to judge the value of your pages and match them to the value users are seeking. Build a great website, well-structured, readily navigable, with lots of informative and compelling content and good, useful linking and Google will eagerly digest and value your pages, users will come to you, others will link to you and Google will reward you further.

Also have in mind that SEO is not an end in itself. You are after not just click-throughs from Google, but users who will find value on your site, who will trust you and bring value to you. Favour not the short-term, rank-boosting approach peddled by many get-rich-quick SEO specialists, but a balanced, longer-term value- and trust- building approach which will earn you enduring authority and PageRank.

Let’s do it!

SEO for dummies

If you’re not a self-professed SEO expert, you probably regard yourself as an SEO dummy. Fear not: here are six steps to effective SEO for you. You may not be competent actually to implement the necessary changes, but you are competent to conduct this review and to instruct your “webmaster” or “SEO expert” accordingly. SEO should not be left to the techies.

1. Review your Google results

Your first step should be review how your web pages are seen by Google. To do this, enter a search in the Google search box in the following form: site:yourdomain.co.uk. This will clearly show you: (a) all the pages on your site that are in Google’s index; (b) the titles of all these pages (as to the importance of titles, see step 4); and (c) the relative ranking of these pages (so, for example, if you have two pages on a similar topic, you can see which is ranked higher).

2. Decide which keywords to target

It’s all very well to want to be on page 1 of Google, but all search engine results pages are with reference to particular keyword searches by users. Put yourself in your prospective client’s shoes, brainstorm with your colleagues and come up with a list of the primary keywords you wish to target. Two or three word searches are by far the most common. Start with a couple of dozen and extend the list later as necessary. Against each primary keyword note a few synonyms and closely-related terms – your secondary keywords.

3. Write informative and compelling content

Take your list of primary keywords and review your existing web pages against the list. Ensure you have a web page providing informative, compelling content for each topic reflected in your keywords. As to the content, broad generalisations, expansive language and marketing-speak will not do! Treat each page as an article on the topic, with a concise introduction and good, informative textual substance. Use short sentences and short paragraphs; break up the text with clear subheadings and bulleted lists; and include links to relevant internal pages and to supporting external sites.

4. Optimise your content

You’ve done most of the work now, but to really make your pages work for you in Google you’ll need to review and tweak a few elements to “optimise” each page for your targeted keywords.

The page title is by far the most important element: Google gives far more weight to words in the title than to words anywhere else on the page. The page title is the wording contained in the html <title> tag. In a browser window it appears in the blue title bar at the top. Because this is not very prominent to the viewer, it is often paid little regard by the inexperienced, but it is key. The page title is also shown as the heading in Google results, linked to the page, so it should be intelligible and high impact to maximise your chances of a click-through. Review your page titles as described in Step 1. Each page should have a unique title directly “promoting” the page content. A good rule of thumb is a title in the following form: Primary keyword – secondary keywords – Your Name.

The page meta description is an optional hidden element within the <head> element of a web page that can be used to describe the content of the page. The meta description is important to Google and in some instances is displayed in the results. Not all pages will necessarily benefit from a meta description, but certainly your home page and the main section pages of your site should include one. The description should be intelligible and high impact and include your primary keywords near the start and all your secondary keywords. Limit it to say 20 to 25 words.

Now review the content of your page and ensure that your keywords are well represented on the page, in particular in the first few lines of text and in headings. But you need to strike a balance: excessive repetition and “keyword stuffing” will annoy your readers and may also be penalised by Google.

5. Keep it fresh

No matter how good the content, your pages will gradually drop down the rankings if they remain unchanged. Keep them fresh by regularly reviewing and updating them. News and blog pages of course will score well on this count.

6. Build in-bound links

The ranking of your pages is strongly influenced by how many other pages link to them and how important the referring pages are. A link from any page, even an unimportant one, will count, but the more important the referring page, the greater the increase in the rank of your page.

An essential part of your search engine optimisation strategy should therefore be to increase the number of inbound links by conducting a structured link-building campaign, including link-swaps and directory submissions. Start with your associates, clients and suppliers who are most likely to favour you with a link.

Link-building campaigns are meat and drink to the SEO industry who will do the work for you for an often substantial fee. Most will employ legitimate tactics but bear in mind that Google constantly strives to devalue attempts to build artificial links designed purely to boost rankings and the benefit of such practices may be short lived. In particular note that selling links contravenes Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and the selling site may well be penalised; consequently links purchased from those sites may turn out to be worthless.

Doing it all in one with blogs

Blogging provides an inexpensive, efficient and effective way to publish web content and to expose that content to the search engines. With blog software you can easily create and update new pages on your website without any technical knowledge. You think and write; the blog software does all the rest out of the box.

There’s much more to blogging than just pushing out content, but for present purposes let’s concentrate on a huge benefit of blogging – its built-in SEO effects. SEO should never be your primary purpose in blogging, but it is a compelling reason for you to start a blog, to use a blog service rather than a custom CMS for topical content, to blog better and to blog more frequently.

How does blogging provide SEO? First and foremost, blogging generates great new content. As each new item (blog “post”) is published, your site content is enhanced: new pages are created with page titles, headings and content that include many keywords relevant to your audience, so your presence in Google increases for all those terms.

Google loves blogs. It likes the fact that your website is being frequently updated and places a higher value on your pages than it does on otherwise equivalent pages on more static sites. Google knows a lot about blog structures and crawls and indexes new content surprisingly quickly: you get onto Google ahead of the more pedestrian competition.

Blogs also automatically generate RSS feeds which effectively distribute your latest information to those who choose to subscribe to the feeds. As more and more people adopt RSS reading, this distribution channel is becoming increasingly effective and will drive more traffic to your blog. In addition to the indirect SEO benefits of increased traffic, other bloggers and sites may also “pipe” information from your RSS feeds into their pages, creating links to your blog.

A good blog will also establish connections and conversations with your peers and readers by providing comment and analysis, linking to other bloggers and encouraging user comments. These connections and conversations further enhance your visibility and reputation, leading to networking and consequent linkage with others of influence.

These factors – good content with keyword relevance, frequency of updating and quality linkage to (and from) your site – are the key metrics used by Google and other search engines in determining your page rank.

Without question good blogging will dramatically improve your visibility in the search engines by improving your score on all counts.

Nick Holmes is joint editor of this Newsletter.

Email nickholmes@infolaw.co.uk.

Lawyer comment spam

Denver Personal Injury Lawyer | sharonsmith333@yahoo.com | osullivan-law-firm.com | IP: 72.70.201.98 wrote:

I really enjoyed your post. I will have to come back again to read some more of them.

Dear Sharon

I’m so pleased you not only visited my blog but took the time and trouble to comment so incisively. I’m sure all my readers are keen to know about irrelevant Denver Personal Injury Law so I’ve prepared this special post to point them to you and also to ensure that all those Googling clueless Denver Personal Injury Lawyer will benefit similarly.

Best wishes for you future success. And if you ever need SEO advice, be sure to call.

Regards

Nick

PS. Your site is terrific. When I have an accident in Denver I’ll definitely visit again.

Tried out the (US) Lexis Web beta search engine yet? It indexes “important, legal-oriented Web content selected and validated by the LexisNexis editorial staff”, including

  • Governmental agency information (federal, state, local)
  • Informal commentary on legal issues (e.g., blogs specifically for lawyers and legal professionals)
  • General Web information about legal topics

At first it seems quite natty, with good, relevant result sets. Of course its US bias means it’s not that much use to us here, though it does index many UK blawgs.

You can filter the result set using the widgets on the left by Legal Topic, Subject, Geography, Industry, Citations, Companies, People and Keywords. Sound good? Well, it doesn’t seem to work that well in practice: eg under people, Obama, Bush and Blair seem to pop up a lot for my searches, and under Keywords, Cialis and Viagra! So more work is definitely needed there.

A complete no-no for me is that the linked pages are framed within the site.

You’ll have to check out the User Guide (PDF) to understand what’s going on.

And will it be free to use? Ominously “During the beta offer, we encourage you to use Lexis Web when you’re conducting a search for information, and all search activities will be available to you free of charge.”

Catching up

Been away on protracted hols. Quite possible to have kept posting of course, but did not have the inclination. Had I done so, here’s a few things I might have posted about:

Martindale-Hubbell Connected

In July Robert Ambroggi took an exclusive first look. It’s now out in public beta. Will this fly or crash?

The rise of Twitter for lawyers

Adrian Lurssen on JD Supra posted a list of 145 Lawyers (and Legal Professionals) to Follow on Twitter; the list has now grown to 250. Kevin O’Keefe has also been posting a lot about lawyers’ use of Twitter. So we’re now in the talking it up phase; as to how usesful a tool it will turn out to be, the jury will be out for some time longer.

Information Overlord goes RSS crazy

Scott Vine posted an impressive list of links for UK Central government departments, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies with rss feeds and he’s followed it up with similar for several other European countries. Must be some kind of masochist.

The FindLaw gaming Google game

There’s been plenty more on this. An indifferent article on law.com sums up, but Kevin O’Keefe continues to be the man on the case.

A recent post on LexBlog highlights the importance of knowing what you’re doing or what others are doing for you when you seek to boost your Google juice by purchasing links or engaging in “excessive” link exchanges. In his post FindLaw gaming Google? Kevin O’Keefe reviews what FindLaw are doing for lawyer customers for $1,000 per month and quotes Google’s webmaster guidelines which suggest that’s money not just down the drain, but backing the drain up:

Buying or selling links that pass Google PageRank is in violation of Google’s webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results. Not all paid links violate our guidelines. Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results. Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such.

Read the full post and much related discussion.

Later: Steve Matthews’ post on the topic looks at the story from a different angle. Were FindLaw just guilty of being arrogant?

« Older entries