Friday, March 23, 2012

Two questions about the link: operator

0:00
>> CUTTS: Sven Heß from Wiesbaden, Germany asks, "How accurate is Google's backlink check
0:05
(link:...)? Are all nofollow backlinks filtered out or why does Yahoo/MSN show quite more
0:11
backlink or more results? The short answer is that, historically, we only had room for
0:16
a very small percentage of backlinks because web search was the main part and we didn't
0:20
have a ton of servers for link colon queries. And, so, we have doubled or increased the
0:27
amount of backlinks that we show over time for link colon, but it is still a sub-sample,
0:31
it's a relatively small percentage. And I think that that's a pretty good balance because
0:36
if you just automatically show a ton of backlinks for any website, then spammers or competitors
0:42
can, you know, use that to try to reverse-engineer someone's ranking. And you don't necessarily
0:46
want some else spying on your rankings and trying to figure out how they can compete
0:50
with you by getting every single link that you got. What we do instead is a nice compromise.
0:55
If you registered your site in google.com/webmasters, our webmaster console, then you can see all,
1:01
or practically all of the banklinks that we know about you. So, a vast, vast, vast, you
1:06
know, majority of the banklinks that we know about are there in Google's Webmaster console.
1:12
So, you can look at a sub-sample for any website or any page on the web, but if you want to
1:17
see pretty much the full dump of what we know about, you can see it for your own site but
1:21
not necessarily for your competitors. We think that that's a pretty good compromise, and
1:26
so that's probably the policy that we'll have going forward. San Diego, Tim from San Diego
1:31
says, "If you have inbound links from reputable sites but those sites do not show up in a
1:35
link:webname.com search, does that mean you are not getting any credit in Google's eyes
1:40
for having those inbound links? No, it doesn't. Link colon only shows a sample, you know,
1:46
a sub-sample of the backlinks that we know about. And it's a random sample, so it's not
1:50
like we only show the high page rank backlinks--that's what we used to do--and then anyone who had
1:54
a page rank four or below wasn't able to see their backlinks because their weren't in the
1:59
high page rank, they weren't getting high page rank links. So we made it more fair by
2:02
randomizing which backlinks we would show and we also sort of doubled the number of
2:07
backlinks that we would show at that time. Now, what's interesting is if you only show
2:11
links that flow rank or that we trust or that are, you know, don't have a nofollow, then
2:16
people could kind of reverse-engineer that and say, "Oh, I'll try to get the links that
2:20
are really valuable." So, we show the links that do, you know, carry a lot of credit in
2:25
our system and we also show the links that we don't really trust or don't really carry
2:29
a lot of credit in our system. So, it is truly just a random sample of, you know, stuff that's
2:33
nofollow, stuff that's followed, stuff that we do believe a lot, stuff that we don't trust
2:37
as much. So, just because you don't see one particular link and link colon, it doesn't
2:42
mean that it doesn't or does flow--reputation, page rank, whatever you want to refer to it
2:47
as. If it's your own site, you can use Google's Webmaster console, sign up, and get a very
2:52
complete, basically, the vast majority of links that we know about as a dump that you
2:56
can even download it as a CSV file. So, if you do want to get a really good idea of your
3:00
backlinks, that's the place to go and get a pretty exhaustive list of your links according
3:03
to Google.

Pensando cómo obtener referrers

0:00
Una pregunta desde el otro lado del Atlántico, Owen de Londres pregunta:
0:03
¿Puedes confirmar si las SERP de Google
0:06
se están orientando a AJAX?
0:10
Y de ser así, como crees que afectará a los datos que se
0:12
recopilan basándose en información de palabras clave en la URL?
0:14
Google realizó cambios hace poco, para
0:18
un porcentaje muy pequeño de usuarios,
0:20
para menos del 1% ahora mismo,
0:25
que hacen algo que se podría llamar resultados de búsqueda mejorados con JavaScript.
0:29
Así que apareces en Google y mientras escribes puedes hacer cosas chulas con JavaScript.
0:34
Puedes intentar que todo vaya más rápido,
0:35
que todo vaya mejor para los usuarios.
0:37
Hay muchas cosas que se pueden hacer. El equipo
0:40
no pensó en los referrers ni en cómo esto afectaría los packs de analytics y cosas así.
0:46
Es un porcentaje muy pequeño de gente la que ha probado esto,
0:52
y están pensando cómo obtener referrers.
0:57
Cualquier cosa que puedas hacer será muy útil si puedes tener referrers.
1:02
Si en 10 años los referrers llegan al mismo nivel que tienen hoy en día los navegadores convencionales,
1:06
entonces los navegadores podrán poner cualquier cosa después de #.
1:09
Por ejemplo, incluso aunque detrás de # no sea oficialmente una parte de la URL
1:16
o URI,
1:16
si los navegadores pasan eso, entonces
1:18
se ayudaría a todo tipo de referrers y packs de analytics.
1:21
Así que, ahora creo que tenemos que probar experimentos
1:24
para mejorar los resultados de búsqueda y hacerlos más rápidos y limpios.
1:28
Y no es la idea, dejar los referrers,
1:31
pero hay que seguir probando cosas nuevas.
1:32
Y por supuesto queremos que los packs de analytics sigan funcionando.

Nach AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript) übertragen werden

0:00
Hier ist eine Frage aus Übersee. Owen aus London fragt:
0:03
Kannst du bestätigen, dass die Google SERPs (search engine result pages)
0:06
nach AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript) übertragen werden
0:10
und wenn dem so ist, wie wirkt sich das deiner Meinung nach
0:12
auf Analytics aus, was sich auf die Keywordinformationen in der URL stützt?
0:14
Google hat vor einigen Wochen eine Änderung eingeführt,
0:18
die - allerdings nur für einen sehr kleinen Anteil an Usern,
0:20
im Moment liegt er bei unter 1% -
0:25
beinahe so etwas wie mit JavaScript angereicherte Suchresultate bewirkt.
0:29
Ihr geht also auf Googles Seite und während ihr tippt könnt ihr nette Dinge mit JavaScript machen.
0:34
Ihr könnt versuchen, Dinge schneller zu machen,
0:35
ihr könnt versuchen, Dinge geschmeidiger für User zu machen.
0:37
Es gibt eine Menge wirklich cleverer Sachen, die ihr tun könnt.
0:40
Das Team hat nicht wirklich an Referrer gedacht und wie dies Analyse-Tools und dergleichen zu Fall bringen könnte.
0:46
Es ist zunächst ein sehr kleiner Anteil von Leuten, die dies gerade testen,
0:52
und Leute denken darüber nach, welche Möglichkeiten es gibt, Referrer zu haben.
0:57
Für alles, was ihr tun könnt, ist es sehr hilfreich Referrer zu haben.
1:02
Falls in 10 Jahren Referrer da angelangt sind, wo konventionelle Browser stehen,
1:06
dann können Browser vielleicht alles nach einem Pfund-Zeichen zurückgeben.
1:09
Beispielsweise würde dies - auch wenn alles nach dem Hash- oder dem Pfund-Zeichen nicht offiziell Teil der URL oder Teil
1:16
der URI ist -
1:16
wenn Browser in der Lage wären, dies zu übergeben,
1:18
dann würde dies allen Arten von Referrern und Analyse-Tools zugute kommen.
1:21
Wie ich also im Moment darüber denke,
1:24
müssen wir weiterhin experimentieren, um die Suchergebnisse besser, schneller und sauberer zu machen.
1:28
Es liegt nicht in der Absicht, Referrer außer Kraft zu setzen,
1:31
aber wir müssen weiterhin versuchen, neue Dinge auszuprobieren.
1:32
Und wir wollen gerne gewährleisten, dass Analyse-Tools weiterhin funktionieren.

Are Google SERPs moving to Ajax?

0:00
Here's a question from over the Atlantic, Owen in London asks:
0:03
Can you confirm if the Google SERPs (search engine result pages)
0:06
are moving to AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript),
0:10
if so, how do you think it will affect analytics
0:12
which rely on the keyword information being in the URL?
0:14
So, Google did roll out a change a few weeks ago
0:18
which - for a very small percentage of users
0:20
very small, like under 1% right now -
0:25
doing almost what you might call JavaScript enhanced search results.
0:29
So, you show up on Google's page and as you're typing you can do neat things with JavaScript.
0:34
So, you can try make things faster,
0:35
you can try to make things smoother for users.
0:37
There's a lot of really smart stuff that you can do.
0:40
The team didn't really think about referrers and how that might break analytics packages and stuff downstream.
0:46
So, you know, it's a very small percentage of people that this has been sort of trialed on,
0:52
and people are thinking about, are there ways to have referrers?
0:57
Anything that you can do is very useful if you can have referrers,
1:02
so, if ten years from now referrers are now where the conventional browser stands,
1:06
then browsers can maybe return everything after the pound sign.
1:09
For example, that would, even though after the hash mark or after the pound sign isn't officially part of the URL
1:16
or URI,
1:16
if browsers were to pass that along,
1:18
then that would help all sorts of referrers and analytic packages.
1:21
So, the way that I think about it right now is,
1:24
we have to try experiments with how to make the search results better and faster and cleaner.
1:28
And it's not the intent to break referrers,
1:31
but we have to keep trying out new things.
1:32
And we do want to have the ability where analytics packages can still continue to work.

More than one H1 on a page: good or bad?

0:00
>> CUTTS: A very short to the point question from Aaron, south of Boston. Aaron asks, "More
0:04
than one H1 on a page: good or bad?" Well, if there's a logical reason to have multiple
0:10
sections, it's not so bad to have, you know, multiple H1s. I would pay attention to overdoing
0:15
it. If your entire page is H1, that looks pretty Creti, right? So don't do all H1 and
0:22
then you CSS to make it look like regular text because we see people, who are competitors
0:27
complain about that if users ever turn off CSS or the CSS doesn't load, it looks really
0:33
bad. So, you know, it's okay to have a little bit of H1 here and then maybe there's two
0:38
sections on a page, and so maybe have a little bit of H1 here. But you really should you
0:41
use it for headers or headings, which is what the intent is. Not to just throw H1 everywhere
0:46
you can on a page. Because I can tell you, if you just throw H1 everywhere on a page,
0:51
people have tried to abuse that and so our algorithms try to take that into account so
0:54
it doesn't really do you that much good. So I would use it where it make sense and more
0:58
sparingly, but you can have it multiple times.

Will Google add guest accounts to Webmaster Tools?

0:00
>> CUTTS: Here's a question from Ian M. in the United Kingdom, "Is Google planning to
0:04
create read-only 'guest accounts' for Webmaster Tools? Many clients (particularly in heavily
0:09
regulated industries such as banks) are very reluctant to provide access to a third party."
0:14
Great feature suggestion. I have no idea. Because, you know, the Webmaster Tools Team,
0:19
they have to plan out their resources and what they work on just like any other team,
0:24
and I can see a valid use for this, right? At the same time, there are other things that
0:30
the Webmaster Tools folks are working on that are really, really useful. Some people want,
0:34
you know, infrastructure updates so that back link reports are always rock solid or a new
0:38
data is really, really fresh, and it's hard to play that off. So, it's a valid suggestion.
0:43
I appreciate the suggestion. I don't know what level of priority they'd give that because
0:47
there's probably relatively limited impact compared to making reports rock solid or,
0:54
you know, Open Poll overhauling our UI, things like that that are going to be useful for every
0:58
single person, not just for a smaller fraction. But it's something that I could imagine us
1:02
doing in the future. So we will definitely take that into account and we appreciate the
1:06
suggestion.

Mucho la posición de las palabras clave en la URL

0:00
Adeelin, de Manchester (UK) pregunta: "¿Influye
0:05
mucho la posición de las palabras clave en la URL?, ¿sería example.com/keyword/London
0:11
mejor que example.com/London/keyword?" Yo no me obsesionaría con tanto
0:17
detalle. Ayuda un poco tener algunas palabras clave en la URL. No ayuda tanto
0:23
poner miles de palabras clave en tus URL. Ya sabes, si es
0:28
bueno para los usuarios tener 4 o 5 palabras clave puede valer
0:32
la pena, pero no me obsesionaría mirando la profundidad
0:36
de la URL o su combinación de palabras. Por ejemplo, en mi blog,
0:42
tomo las 4 o 5 primeras palabras de mi entrada, o un par o tres de palabras
0:46
relacionadas y las uso en la URL. Pero no necesitas 7, 8, 9
0:51
10, 20 palabras porque eso sólo va a parecer spam a los usuarios y la gente
0:54
no hará clic ahí. Así que será algo muy secundario
1:01
el orden de las palabras clave en las URL. No me preocuparía por esto tanto como
1:04
por tener buen contenido que la gente desee encontrar y enlazar.

Nie ma jednak potrzeby umieszczać

0:00
Interesujące pytanie od Adeela z Manchesteru: “Czy pozycja słów kluczowych
0:05
w adresie URL ma znaczący wpływ? Na przykład, czy adres example.com/keyword/London jest lepszy
0:11
niż example.com/London/keyword?" Szczerze mówiąc, nie zagłębiałbym się w takie szczegóły.
0:17
Posiadanie słów kluczowych w adresie URL jest pomocne, jednak nie do tego
0:23
stopnia, aby upychać na siłę dużą liczbę słów kluczowych do adresu URL. Jeżeli istnieje
0:28
dogodny dla użytkowników sposób, aby adres zawierał 4 czy 5 słów kluczowych,
0:32
może to mieć sens, nie przywiązywałbym jednak dużej wagi do tego, jak
0:36
głęboka jest ścieżka URL lub w jaki sposób je połączyć. Na przykład, na moim blogu, kiedy
0:42
umieszczam post, biorę pierwsze cztery lub pięć słów lub dwa albo trzy słowa związane z
0:46
postem i używam ich w adresie URL. Nie ma jednak potrzeby umieszczać siedmiu, ośmiu,
0:51
dziesięciu czy dwudziestu słów kluczowych, ponieważ z perspektywy użytkownika wygląda to jak
0:54
spam i prawdopodobnie nie kliknie on w taki adres. Tak więc pozycja słów kluczowych w
1:01
adresie URL ma bardzo, bardzo drugorzędne znaczenie. Nie martwiłbym się tym, a raczej skupił
1:04
się na świetnej zawartości strony, tak aby inni użytkownicy chcieli do niej linkować.

Ehrlich gesagt würde ich mir wegen solcher Details

0:00
Eine interessante Frage von Adeel aus Manchester, UK: "Hat die Position von Keywords
0:05
in der URL eine erkennbare Auswirkung? Ist zum Beispiel example.com/keyword/London
0:11
besser als example.com/London/keyword?" Ehrlich gesagt würde ich mir wegen solcher Details
0:17
keinen Kopf machen. Es hilft ein wenig, Keywords in der URL zu haben. Es hat keine so große
0:23
Auswirkung; ihr braucht also eure URLs nicht mit unzähligen Keywords vollzustopfen. Wenn es eine bequeme
0:28
Möglichkeit gibt, vier oder fünf Keywords unterzubringen, die für den User relevant sind, kann
0:32
sich das auszahlen, aber ich würde mir nicht zu viele Gedanken über Details wie
0:36
die Anzahl der Verzeichnisse in der URL oder ihre Kombination machen. Auf meinem Blog zum Beispiel,
0:42
wenn ich einen Post veröffentliche, nehme ich die ersten vier oder fünf Worte oder zwei bis drei Worte
0:46
mit Bezug zum Post und benutze die als URL. Aber: ihr müßt nicht sieben, acht,
0:51
zehn oder zwanzig Worte verwenden, denn das sieht für User nur nach Spam aus und sie werden
0:54
wahrscheinlich gerade deshalb nicht so oft darauf klicken. Deshalb ist die Position eine sehr unbedeutende
1:01
Sache, wenn es um Keywords in den URLs geht. Ich würde mir da keine Sorgen machen, sondern
1:04
eher auf guten Content setzen, zu dem die Leute verlinken wollen und der sie interessiert.

Est-ce que la position des mots-clés

0:00
Adeel de Manchester, UK pose une question intéressante "Est-ce que la position des mots-clés dans l'URL
0:05
joue un rôle important?" Par exemple, est-ce que "example.com/mot-clé/Londres" est mieux que
0:11
"example.com/Londres/mot-clé" ?" En fait, je ne m'attacherais pas à un tel niveau de détails.
0:17
Cela peut aider d'avoir des mots-clés dans l'URL. Mais cela n'est pas si utile
0:23
qu'il faille mettre une tonne de mots-clés dans vos URLs. Tu sais, si tu ajoutes 4 ou 5
0:28
mots-clés et que cela aide tes utilisateurs, cela vaut peut-être la peine de les mettre.
0:32
Mais je ne m'attacherais pas par exemple à des détails tels que la profondeur de l'URL
0:36
ou alors comment je structure mes URLs.
0:42
Par exemple, sur mon blog, quand je publie un post, je prends les 2 ou 3 premiers mots-clés en rapport
0:46
avec ce post et je les utilise pour nommer mon URL. Mais ça ne sert à rien d'ajouter 7, 8, 10, ou 20 mots,
0:51
parce que pour les utilisateurs cela ressemble à du spam et qu'ils ne vont pas avoir envie d'aller
0:54
sur cette page. La position des mots-clés dans les URLs ne sera donc pas vraiment une priorité.
1:01
Je me préoccuperais d'avantage d'avoir du contenu vraiment intéressant, qui donne
1:04
envie aux gens de faire des liens vers mon site et d'en savoir plus.

Does the position of keywords in the URL affect ranking?

0:00
>> CUTTS: An interesting question from Adeel in Manchester, UK, "Does the position of keywords
0:05
in the URL have a significant impact? For example, example.com/keyword/London is that
0:11
better than example.com/London/keyword?" Truthfully, I wouldn't really obsess about it of that
0:17
level of detail. It does help a little bit to have keywords in the URL. It doesn't help
0:23
so much that you should go stuffing a ton of keywords into your URL. You know, if there's
0:28
a convenient way that's good for users where you have four or five keywords that might
0:32
be worthwhile, but I wouldn't obsess about it to the level of, you know, how deep is
0:36
the URL in the path or, you know, how am I combining it. For example, on my blog, when
0:42
I do a post I'll take the first four or five words or two or three words related to that
0:46
post and I'll use that as the URL. But, you know, you don't need to make seven, eight,
0:51
ten, twenty words because that just looks spammy to users and people will probably not
0:54
click through as much in the first place. So position is going to be a very, very second
1:01
order kind of thing of keywords in the URLs. I would not worry about that so much as having
1:04
great content that people want to link to and people want to find out about.

Is redirecting a large number of domains suspicious?

0:00
>> CUTTS: Cweave, from Dallas, asks as really interesting question, "When permanently redirecting
0:06
301, a large number of domains, for example, more than 10 domains to one, does Google flag
0:12
this as suspicious? What consideration does Google look at? For the purposes of this question,
0:16
let's assume this is a consolidation move." I think there are plenty of valid reasons
0:20
why somebody might do this. So, for example, if you have Google, there are a ton of people
0:24
who registered Google typos and we try to get those, because you don't want people to
0:28
get confused or get nowhere. So, we end up with a portfolio, lots of Google related domains,
0:33
even things, like Google sex, and Google porn, you know. And so I think it's perfectly logical
0:38
to have misspellings in Google and all that stuff, just do a 301 to Google's homepage.
0:42
So that's what I think Cweave was talking about, when they said, consolidation move.
0:47
At the same time, if we see a ton of 301s all going to one domain, then we might, you
0:52
know, take a look at that. You could certainly imagine someone trying to abuse that or do
0:56
a spam, so we could, you know, we might take a second look or scrutinize that. But if all
1:00
you're doing is trying to consolidate misspellings or a bunch of brands, and by brands, I mean,
1:06
you know, a bunch of domains that you've registered that are a variance of your domain and you
1:09
really only have the one domain. I don't foresee that being a problem, because people would
1:14
pick it out or if someone reported it as Spam thing, if we took a look, we just see, "Oh,
1:18
yeah, they're consolidating their brand." So, Google might take a look, but I don't
1:22
consider that would be a large problem.

Überall dort, wo User die Möglichkeit haben, Content zu kreieren

0:00
Eric Enge aus Boston fragt: "Glaubst du, dass Verweise (Erwähnungen von Websites, ohne dass darauf verlinkt wird)
0:05
eines Tages als Ranking-Signal für die Websuche Verwendung finden werden?"
0:10
Darauf habe ich zwei Antworten. Die erste ist, dass ich kein Ranking-Signal ganz ausschliessen will.
0:14
Wie ich spaßeshalber schon mal erwähnte: Wenn die Mondoberfläche uns beim Ranking helfen kann,
0:19
dann bin ich gern bereit, sie miteinzubeziehen. Gleichzeitig ist aber zu bedenken,
0:25
wie die Verwendung solcher Verweise missbraucht werden könnte. Derzeit ist es so, dass viele Webmaster darauf bauen,
0:29
viele Links zu bekommen. Wenn alles, was sie brauchen, "example.com" als Text ist,
0:35
dann können sie das im ganzen Web verteilen, in Foren und Blogs usw.
0:39
Überall dort, wo User die Möglichkeit haben, Content zu kreieren,
0:43
würden solche Verweise gesetzt werden. Wir sind also ein wenig skeptisch,
0:48
ob wir diese Art von Ranking-Signal verwenden sollten, da das leicht missbraucht werden könnte.
0:54
Man könnte einfach überall Verweise auf URLs hinterlassen, auch wenn man sie nicht verlinken kann.
0:59
Aber, wie ich schon sagte, wir schließen diese Idee nicht von vornherein aus, wir würden sie eingehender analysieren.
1:03
Wir würden sagen: "Können wir irgendwie ein Signal aus diesem Datenwust herausziehen,
1:07
das eine Verbesserung darstellen würde?" Das wäre aber auf jeden Fall so eine Sache, wo
1:12
einige Leute versuchen würden, das zu ihrem Vorteil auszunutzen.

Will Google use non-link references as a signal?

0:00
>> CUTTS: This question comes from Boston. Eric Enge asks, "Do you think web search will
0:05
ever make use of references (web site mentions that are not links) as a ranking signal?"
0:10
So, there are two answers. The first one is I never want to take a ranking signal off
0:14
the table like, you know, I've joked that if the face of the moon can help us rank search
0:19
that's better, I'm willing to use the face of the moon. At the same time, think about
0:25
how people would attack the use of references. Right now, a lot of people rely on getting
0:29
links. If all they have to do is have, you know, example.com in text, then you can leave
0:35
that as comments all over the web and all over the blogs and all over the forums, and
0:39
it would almost be anywhere you could stamp, any user-generated content, people would be
0:43
leaving those references. So, you know, that's the sort of reason why you might be skeptical
0:48
about why we'd use this sort of signal because people could abuse that sort of thing. They
0:54
could just leave mentions of the URLs even if they can't generate links. But I'll, you
0:59
know, I'll say, you know, we're willing to look at it, you know, we would run the analysis.
1:03
We would say, "Is there a way to pull out a signal from that noisy data where we could
1:07
find a way to improve it?" But that's--it would definitely be the sort of thing where
1:12
people would try to abuse it.

Should large corporations use rel=canonical?

0:00
>> CUTTS: All right, Terry Cox, from Orlando Florida asks, "In regards to the new canonicalization
0:05
tag, does it make sense for large corporations to consider placing that tag on every page
0:11
due to marketing tracking codes and large levels of duplicate URLs like faceted pages
0:15
and load balancing servers?" So, this is a great question, should you put the canonical
0:19
tag on every single page? Well, there's a short term answer and a long term answer.
0:24
The short term answer is I would probably say, not right now. Take a little bit of time,
0:29
study your site architecture; think about URL and normalization, beautification, whatever
0:33
you want to call it. Think about the structure of URLs that you want to have and take, you
0:38
know, a few weeks, or even a few months, a couple of months to sort of assess where you
0:42
want to go. I don't think you should just throw the canonical tag on every single page
0:47
on your site immediately and just start wringing, you know, moving around, because it is a powerful
0:51
tool and people do have the ability to sort of shoot themselves in the foot. So, on the
0:56
plus side, we've seen a quarter of a million pages show up within just a few days. Where
1:01
people are using this canonicalization tag, which is fantastic. It's good to see the traction
1:05
and the adoption move very quickly. On the downside, we have seen one company, a very
1:10
large company, a computer company, I won't call them out by name, where they had a Homepage
1:15
and their Homepage was doing a redirect and they also have the canonical tag and the canonical
1:18
tag pointed to a page that we hadn't crawled at all. And so, you know, those sorts of cases
1:23
can be very difficult to try to do the right thing and we do the right thing. But, you
1:29
know, it can take us a couple of days to sort of sort it out, or go and find that URL and
1:32
crawl it. So, I wouldn't just jump in the deep end of the pool without doing some planning.
1:36
The longer term answer is, it doesn't hurt to have this on every single page of your
1:40
site. Ideally, you'd find other ways to solve the canonicalization but, it doesn't hurt
1:45
to sort of say on every single page, this page maps to this canonicalized, very pretty,
1:49
very preferred version of this URL. But what you want to do is, you want to make sure that
1:54
it's absolute URLs; ideally it goes in one hop. It's a logical system that you designed;
1:59
you haven't just jumped in and started to play around with. I don't see any harm in
2:03
having that sort of thing, because we'll just follow those, what we almost think of is mini
2:07
301 redirects within that site and we'll try to canonicalize according to those suggestions.
2:12
We don't guarantee that we'll do it, but it should work just fine with no problems. So,
2:18
feel free to do that, but, you know, take some time, and plan it out a little bit.

Y luego mirar estas palabras clave e intentar mejorar su ROI

0:00
Mark Lykle de Oslo (Noruega) pregunta:"¿Cuando tendrá Google un software similar al de WebPosition, para que
0:03
los SEO, los que luchan contra el spam y los webmasters consulten el posicionamiento respetando las directrices?
0:13
¿Porqué no hacer un producto que sea mejor, en lugar de ir en su contra?
0:16
No lo llamaría ir en contra. Las directrices han dicho lo mismo que ellos durante 5,6,7 años,
0:22
que básicamente es "no uséis consultas automatizadas".
0:25
Algunos lo hacen y las consultas automatizadas afectan a la capacidad del servidor.
0:32
Así que cuando alguien está copiando a Google, si lo identificamos, puede que le contactemos para informarle educadamente:
0:37
"deja de copiarnos, va contra de las directrices, afecta a la capacidad del servidor, apreciaremos que dejes de hacerlo".
0:45
Tenemos sistemas automatizados para protegernos de estas cosas. Hay virus, troyanos y malware que intentan
0:51
expandirse haciendo búsquedas en Google para software vulnerable, así que intentamos localizarlos y bloquearlos.
1:00
Así que si algo toma muchos recursos del servidor, tenemos sistemas automáticos que intentan detenerlo.
1:07
Dicho esto, también tenemos herramientas, por ejemplo, el panel de las Herramientas para webmasters.
1:12
En google.com/webmasters puedes registrarte y ver las palabras por las que estás posicionado y por las que la gente hace clic.
1:21
Nuestra filosofía es no le hagas mucho caso a los informes de posicionamiento,
1:29
es mejor mirar los registros del servidor y ver las consultas por las que estás apareciendo.
1:34
E intentar buscar palabras por las que apareces 4º o 5º e intentar mejorarlo a la posición 3, 2 o 1.
1:41
O consultas con las que apareces en la 2ª página intentar aparecer en la primera página.
1:45
Y luego mirar estas palabras clave e intentar mejorar su ROI,
1:48
de modo que, si el 1% de la gente que va a tu sitio se subscribe a la newsletter o compra tus productos,
1:55
hacer que compren o se subscriban más, es más relevante que intentar posicionarte el primero.
2:04
No queremos que la gente se obsesione con el posicionamiento cuando deberían estar mirando lo que ya tienen en los registros del servidor.
2:13
Y pensar cómo aumentar las conversiones y todo eso, antes que obsesionarse con el posicionamiento.
2:18
Dicho esto, apoyaría si pudiéramos ofrecer más información sobre posicionamiento en el panel de las Herramientas.
2:28
Es una cuestión de recursos. ¿Es mejor tratar algo como el enlace canónico? ¿O informes de posicionamiento?
2:34
Al menos hasta ahora, hemos dicho vamos a tener esta nueva función. Vamos a mostrar los backlinks, el tiempo de carga,
2:42
y no centrarse o obsesionarse con los informes de posicionamiento.
2:45
Esto es un poco la idea que nosotros tenemos.

Quando Google creera’ un software simile a quello

0:00
Mark Lykle da Oslo, Norvegia chiede,
0:03
“Quando Google creera’ un software simile a quello di WebPosition tale che SEO, spam fighters e webmaster possano controllare i posizionamenti etc senza violare le linee guida?”
0:13
“Perche’ non creare un prodotto migliore invece di fare la guerra a questi programmi?”
0:16
Non la chiamerei guerra, infatti le nostre linee guida dicono la stessa cosa da 5,6,7 anni,
0:22
e essenzialmente diciamo, per favore non bersagliateci con ricerche automatizzate.
0:25
La ragione per cui diciamo questo e’ che diversi ci colpiscono con ricerche automatizzate che assorbono la capacita’ dei server.
0:32
Quindi quando qualcuno copia Google e ci accorgiamo, gli scriviamo gentilmente dicendogli:
0:37
“Per favore smetti di fare scraping, infatti e’ una violazione delle nostre linee guida e assorbe la capacita’ dei server. Apprezzeremmo molto se smettessi”
0:45
Abbiamo sistemi automatizzati per proteggerci da attacchi denial service, scrapers etc
0:51
Ci sono alcuni virus, trojan e malware che provano a propagarsi facendo ricerche su Google su software vulnerabili e noi cerchiamo di trovarli e bloccarli.
1:00
Quindi quando qualcosa utilizza una notevole quantita’ di risorse dei server abbiamo sistemi che tentano di bloccala.
1:07
Detto questo, possiamo dire che abbiamo degli strumenti nella console degli Strumenti per i Webmaster;
1:12
Quindi presso google.com/webmasters, ti puoi registrare e vedere tutti i termini per cui ti posizioni e quelli tramite cui i tuoi visitatori ti trovano
1:21
Inoltre penso che abbiamo una filosofia per la quale non e’ molto produttivo se presti troppa attenzione ai report sul posizionamento
1:29
e’ molto meglio osservare i log del tuo server per vedere quali siano le ricerche per cui la gente appare sul tuo sito.
1:34
E magari cerca di trovare le richerche dove ti posizioni al quinto o al quarto posto e potresti passare al secondo o terzo o primo
1:41
o ricerche dove sei in seconda pagina e potresti muoverti in prima.
1:45
Potresti a questo punto analizzare queste ricerche per migliorare il ROI (return on investment)
1:48
cosi se l’1% delle persone che arrivano sul tuo sito si iscrivono alla newsletter o comprano i tuoi prodotti;
1:55
se puoi fare migliorie in modo tale che piu’ persone convertano, questo e’ il sistema piu’ veloce per migliorare il tuo sito, migliore che cercare di posizionarsi per qualsiasi cosa, anche irrilevante.
2:04
Penso sia parte della nostra filosofia incoraggiare la gente a non prestare molta attenzione al loro posizionamento quando infatti dovrebbero prestare piu’ attenzione con i dati log che hanno nel loro server.
2:13
e pensare a convertire meglio piuttosto che diventare ossessionati col proprio posizionamento
2:18
Detto questo, sarei in favore, nel caso avessimo la possibilita’, di mostrare alla gente ogni cosa per cui si posizionano e come, negli Strumenti per i Webmaster. E’ una questione di risorse. 0:02:28.001,0:02:34.000 E’ meglio supportare qualcosa come il canonical link tag per cui serve un ingegnere? o report sul posizionamento?
2:34
Storicamente abbiamo detto ma si ok introduciamo nuove funzionalita’. Mostriamo i link in entrata, mostriamo quale sia la latency quando Googlebot scansiona le tue pagine.
2:42
e non concentriamoci troppo sui report di posizionamento.
2:45
Insomma questa e’ una piccola panoramica su come la vediamo.

Will Google provide a rank-checking service?

0:00
Mark Lykle from Oslo, Norway asks,
0:03
"When will Google create a software similar to WebPosition so that SEOs, spam fighters and regular webmasters can check rankings etc without violating the guidelines?
0:13
Why not make a better product instead of going to war against these programs?"
0:16
Well I wouldn't call it going to war, I mean our guidelines have said the same thing that they've said for 5,6,7 years,
0:22
Which is essentially please don't hit us with automated queries
0:25
And, the reason that we've said that is that because people do hit us with automated queries and that takes up some server capacity
0:32
So when someone is scraping Google, if we know that person, we might write to them and politely say
0:37
"hey, please stop scraping, it does violate our guidelines, it does take server capacity, we'd appreciate it if you wouldn't scrape us."
0:45
We do have automated systems to protect ourselves from denial of service attacks, scrapers...
0:51
there are some viruses, and trojans, and malware that try to spread themselves by doing searches on Google for vulnerable software and so we try to find those things and block it.
1:00
So if something is taking up a sizable amount of server resources we do have automated systems that attempt to stop that.
1:07
That said we do have tools for example in the Webmaster Tools console;
1:12
So at google.com/webmasters where you can sign up and you can see the sorts of words that you are ranking for and sorts of words that people sort of click through onto your site for
1:21
And I think we have a philosophy that it doesn't do you as much good to pay really a ton of attention to ranking reports;
1:29
its much better to look at your server logs to see what are the queries people are really showing up for.
1:34
And maybe try to find queries that you rank at number five or number four that you could rank at number 2 or 3 or 1
1:41
or queries that you rank on the second page and you could maybe move to the first page.
1:45
And then you could also look at those queries and try to improve your ROI
1:48
so if 1% of the people who land on your site convert into people who subscribe to your newsletter or buy your products;
1:55
If you can improve that so that more people convert that's a much faster way to improve your bottom line than just trying to rank for everything when it isn't necessarily relevant.
2:04
So I think its a little bit of philosophy that we don't want to encourage people to get obsessed with their rankings when in fact they should be paying attention to what they already have in their server logs.
2:13
And thinking about how to convert better and thinking about those sorts of terms rather then getting obsessed with ranking
2:18
That said I would support, if we had more ability for people to see the sorts of things that they rank for in Google's webmaster console, it's just a question of resources.
2:28
Is it better to support something like the canonical link tag which takes an engineer working on it? Or ranking reports?
2:34
And, at least historically we've said ok let's have these cool newer features. Let's show you all of your backlinks, let's show you what your latency looks like when Googlebot fetches your page
2:42
and not concentrate or obsess so much about ranking reports.
2:45
So that's a rough little background about how we feel about it.

Two questions about nofollo

0:00
>> CUTTS: Let's talk a little bit about nofollow. Here's a few questions we got. Vince Samios
0:06
from the UK asks, "Do you feel that all the widespread and blanket use of nofollow tags
0:10
is devaluing Google's search algorithms?" So, let me just interject before I finish
0:15
the question. Even though SCOs may feel like nofollow is everywhere on the Web, if you
0:19
look at the percentage of links that have nofollow, it's actually a pretty miniscule
0:23
percentage. So, nofollows aren't that common on the Web compared to how the perception
0:29
of them might be. So let me finish the question now. "Examples such as Wikipedia, where ALL
0:33
external links are nofollow. Does Wikipedia mean nothing to Google's algorithms?" And
0:38
then jonaths from Brighton, UK asks, "Do Google take into account quality factors from nofollowed
0:44
links when the links come from well established authority websites, such as Wikipedia?" So,
0:49
we're trusting, we're not taking into account the links from Wikipedia because they are
0:54
nofollowed. So if you--don't bother to go spamming Wikipedia, it's not going to make
0:58
any difference in search engine rankings if you get a link because that will be nofollowed.
1:03
If you have a great resource and people find it via Wikipedia and it's just fantastic and
1:09
people link to that because of that or you're getting traffic from a link in terms of direct
1:14
surfers or visitors, then that might benefit your site but it's not going to get any search
1:19
engine ranking boost just because Wikipedia links to you with those nofollow links. Now
1:24
let me take a one slight detour and mention that if a particular site does have trust
1:30
in the person who's making the link then there's plenty of good reasons to make that link flow
1:35
page rank and take nofollow off. So for example, Wikipedia has experimented with all kinds
1:40
of different ways to improve their process, you know, maybe anonymous edits have to be
1:45
approved before they go live. So you could certainly imagine a scenario in which a Wikipedia
1:50
editor who's very trusted, who had made a ton of edits without them ever being reverted,
1:54
you know, that other editors vouched for, however, they wanted to define trust, those
1:59
links might, for example take the nofollow off. So a very simple thing when you're being
2:03
under attack from spammers is to add that nofollow tag and then it doesn't benefit the
2:07
spammers anymore. But if you're on a blog or a forum or Wikipedia or whatever and you
2:12
can come up with a good metric to say, "Okay, these are links that we do trust, that we
2:15
do think are editorially given and are valuable for users," then there's plenty of good reasons
2:20
to go ahead and say, "Okay, make those links flow page rank." But in general, nofollow
2:25
links are a relatively small percentage of the Web and it does prevent a lot of sites
2:30
from getting spammed. We don't use those links from Wikipedia currently but if Wikipedia
2:34
wanted to put a more nuance policy in place, I would definitely support that.

No necesariamente. Nos reservamos el derecho

0:00
Mharris de NY pregunta: ¿El texto ancla pasa a través de redirecciones 301? ¿Se
0:07
penalizará a los sitios que hagan esto como única estrategia de enlaces? Normalmente, el texto
0:13
ancla pasa con una redirección 301, pero no prometemos que eso suceda siempre.
0:17
Así que la pregunta es, ¿pasa todo? No necesariamente. Nos reservamos el derecho
0:21
de no tener en cuenta sólo los enlaces, y mirar la importancia y la confianza en los enlaces y
0:27
también la confianza que tenemos en las redirecciones. Te puedo decir que si tu única estrategia de
0:31
enlaces es intentar obtener redirecciones 301, eso va a ser muy sospechoso, ya que
0:36
registramos todas las redirecciones, igual que registramos todos los enlaces que
0:40
vemos, así que si todos tus textos ancla entrantes provienen de redirecciones 301, eso parecerá
0:46
muy raro, sobre todo porque cuando miremos con nuestras herramientas
0:52
eso se va a ver como algo poco normal. Así que mi consejo es crear un buen sitio que atraiga
0:58
enlaces de forma natural porque resulta ser un recurso fantástico, y no te preocupes por "Oh, puedo intentar tener
1:02
un poco de PR o texto ancla de manera que los motores de búsqueda no lo puedan pillar, ya
1:08
sabes, que otra gente no pueda seguir" porque si obtienes esto de forma orgánica,
1:14
enlaces a largo plazo, los enlaces se crearán libremente ya que ofreces un gran recurso, y
1:19
esos son los enlaces que suelen durar más y tienen un mayor impacto.

Dann wird das ziemlich seltsam aussehen

0:00
Mharris aus New York fragt: "Wird Anchor-Text durch alle 301-Weiterleitungen übernommen? Gibt es eine Penalty
0:07
für Websites, die beim Linkaufbau nur darauf setzen?" Normalerweise wird der
0:13
Anchor-Text übernommen, wenn eine 301-Weiterleitung stattfindet, aber wir versprechen nicht, dass dies jedesmal geschieht.
0:17
Die Frage ist ja: wird er immer übernommen? Nicht unbedingt. Wir behalten uns das Recht vor,
0:21
nicht nur Links zu werten und wie wir die Bedeutung und den Trust von Links bestimmen, sondern
0:27
ebenso den Trust, den wir Redirects zuordnen. Ich kann verraten, dass, falls ihr beim Linkaufbau nur
0:31
auf 301-Redirects setzt, das ziemlich auffällig ist, weil
0:36
wir alle Redirects, die uns unterkommen, loggen, genauso wie wir alle Links loggen.
0:40
Wenn also alle eure eingehenden Anchor-Texte durch 301-Weiterleitungen erfolgen,
0:46
dann wird das ziemlich seltsam aussehen, besonders, weil jedes Mal wenn wir auf unsere Tools schauen,
0:52
dies eine ziemlich ungewöhnliche Sache ist. Deshalb ist mein Rat, eine gute Website zu erstellen, 0:00:58.260,0:01:02.980t die natürliche Links auf Grund des fantastischen Contents anzieht, und sich nicht darüber den Kopf zu zerbrechen:
1:02
"Oh, kann ich auf diese Methode etwas PR oder Anchor-Text kriegen, ohne dass die Suchmaschinen das mitbekommen,
1:08
und von der andere Leute nichts wissen?" Denn wenn ihr organische, langbestehende
1:14
Links erhaltet, Links, die freiwillig gegeben werden, weil ihr etwas Außergewöhnliches bietet,
1:19
dann sind das die Links, die normalerweise am längsten Bestand und am meisten Gewicht haben.

Does anchor text carry through 301 redirects?

0:00
Mharris from NY asks: Does anchor text carry through all 301 redirects? Will there be
0:07
a penalty for sites that do this as their sole way of link building? Typically anchor
0:13
text does flow through a 301 redirect, but we don't promise that that will always happen.
0:17
So the question is, does it carry through all? Not necessarily. We reserve the right
0:21
to score not only in links and how we determine the weights and the trusts for links and
0:27
also the trust that we have for redirects. I can tell you that if your sole method of
0:31
link building is trying to get 301 redirects, that's gonna be pretty conspicuous, because
0:36
we have the, we log all the redirects that we see, just like we log all the links that
0:40
we see, and so if all of your incoming anchor texts is through 301 redirects that's gonna
0:46
appear pretty strange, especially because whenever we go looking through our tools
0:52
that would be a pretty abnormal thing to do. So my advice is make a great site that attracts
0:58
links naturally because it's a fantastic resource and don't worry about "Oh, can i try to get
1:02
some PR or anchor text in some way that search engines may not be able to catch or, you
1:08
know, that other people may not be able to follow", because if you get that organic,long
1:14
term sort of links, the links that are given freely because you have a great resource,those
1:19
are the links that typically last the best and have the most impact.

servimos lo que creemos que son los mejores resultados

0:01
Publicamos a las 8 si alguien quería hacer alguna pregunta online
0:05
y son las 11 y tenemos 114 preguntas. Así que vamos a mirar algunas.
0:12
La primera es "¿Puedes confirmar si Google da prioridad a las
0:17
"marcas" en la clasificación para búsquedas? Si es así, ¿qué entiende Google
0:23
como marca?" Esto está inspirado en la entrada de blog de Aaron Wall y
0:28
la pregunta es de Monica, de Madison (Wisconsin). Intentaré dar una respuesta completa a esto.
0:34
Quería hablar de esto en PubCon en Austin dentro de unas semanas.
0:39
En Google, al menos dentro del equipo de clasificación de búsqueda, no pensamos
0:44
en marcas. Pensamos en cosas como confianza, autoridad, reputación,
0:53
Page Rank, calidad. Así que la filosofía de los resultados de búsqueda de Google
0:58
ha sido siempre la misma. Si alguien llega a Google y escribe X, queremos
1:02
ofrecer información de calidad sobre X. Y a veces eso es una marca, a veces es
1:07
una búsqueda informativa, a veces es una búsqueda navegacional, a veces transaccional,
1:11
así que hay diferentes tipos de información que la gente necesita encontrar. Así que, lo primero,
1:16
sí, Google ha cambiado el posicionamiento. Es uno de los 300 o 400 cambios que se hacen
1:22
cada año. Así que no lo llamaría una actualización, lo llamaría
1:27
simplemente un cambio. Una de las personas que ha trabajado mucho en esto
1:31
ha sido Vince. Este cambio en concreto
1:36
es uno de los que hizo Vince en el Googleplex.
1:41
Más que una actualización, diría que es un cambio en la manera de
1:45
hacer algunas clasificaciones. No afecta a la mayoría de búsquedas y mucha gente
1:51
no lo habrá notado. Aaron habló sobre esto e
1:56
incluso antes, la gente hablaba del tema, pero afecta a poca gente y a pocas
2:00
búsquedas. No es que afecte al long tail o algo así.
2:04
No lo veo como dar más peso a las marcas. No tenemos en cuenta las
2:09
marcas tanto. Por ejemplo, si escribes Eclipse,si Google se centrara tanto en
2:14
marcas, entonces serviríamos "Mitsubishi Eclipse"como primer resultado
2:18
o algo así. Pero si lo compruebas, verás que tenemos
2:24
eclipse.org, porque es un entorno de desarrollo. Tenemos el sitio web Eclipse de la NASA.
2:30
Y luego resultados comerciales. Por ejemplo, Eclipse es el nombre de ese libro
2:34
de la saga Crepúsculo, así que tenemos una página de Amazon. Pero no es que siempre intentemos servir marcas,
2:39
servimos lo que creemos que son los mejores resultados para los usuarios. Así que la actualización,
2:47
el resultado de este cambio es muy simple. Intentamos ofrecer
2:52
resultados de alta calidad. Tenemos mucho en cuenta la confianza, la reputación, la autoridad, el PR.
2:56
Así que no debería afectarte. Intenta hacer un sitio genial,
3:01
de manera que llegues a ser como una autoridad en el campo en el que te dedicas.
3:05
Y no tiene porqué ser un gran campo. No tiene porqué ser muy conocido,
3:11
puede ser algo pequeño. Y si eres el experto en ese ámbito,
3:15
la gente te querrá enlazar y hablarán, esas son las cosas que
3:19
le gustan a la gente. Y estos son los sitios
3:23
que nosotros queremos ofrecer.