Local Search Marketers Guesstimate 2013 Google Ranking Factors

Despite the annual changes in the local search ecosystem, the ranking factors that Google uses to determine its local search results haven’t changed much over the past year. So say the 35 local search marketers that contributed to the 2013 Local Search Ranking Factors — organized again…

Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.

The Great Fade Out? How The Search Engines Stack Up On Ad Backgrounds In SERPs

A few weeks ago, Barry Schwartz reported that Yahoo was testing ad background colors – a pale green instead of pale blue. The search engines frequently test ad background colors in the SERPs. Google has tested blue, green, purple, and yellow variations.  What struck me in looking at the Yahoo…

Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.

4 New Reports To Optimize AdWords For Better Results

There have been quite a few new tools and features launched in Google AdWords (my former employer) over the past couple of months that may not have gotten the attention they deserve amidst the much more hotly debated launch of Enhanced Campaigns. Now that we’ve all transitioned and Enhanced…

Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.

Google Continues Test of Local Call-Out Box

Phil Rozek of Local Visibility shared these two screen shots of a Google test that highlights the sitelinks display on a branded local search with card like outlines. The treatment, first spotted by Moz on a local search in late July, has evolved from a single box around the complete result to a number of […]

Can Users Really Tell AdWords Ads from Organic Results?

123-reg Adwords takeoverGoogle results are full of ads. But a recent survey showed that over 50% of users don’t recognise paid results.

Post from on State of Search
Can Users Really Tell AdWords Ads from Organic Results?

Slow page speed: what to measure, how to measure, and how it’s affecting your ecommerce channel

These include issues such as: 

  • What should be specifically measured to determine a true sense of page load time? 
  • What tools can be used to measure your pages? 
  • What are slow page load times doing to your ecommerce channel?

What should be specifically measured to determine a true sense of page load time?

To understand what both new and existing consumers are facing when they are loading your pages, a few different scenarios should be undertaken when measuring page load speed times:  

  • First view – how long do pages load the first time someone comes to your site. 
  • Repeat view –  how long do pages load when someone comes back to your site.

Both are important, and both first and repeat view traffic types have high expectations.

For both first and repeat views, there are three specific metrics to measure: time to first byte, render start, and load time.

Time to first byte. The time to first byte measures the amount of time it takes for the servers (where your site is hosted) to react to the request of sending data (your content) to a browser (the browser of the individual who wishes to view your website).  

This determines if your server environment/infrastructure is truly responsive to the needs of your website.

Render start. The render start is a measure of time required for the first page element to appear on the browser. In other words, how long does it take for the individual to see something on their screen?  

Load time.  Load time is measured as the total time taken to load all elements of the page requested.

Once you have the above data for both first and repeat views there is one more scenario that needs testing – the above metrics under normal conditions, and conditions of stress (i.e. how does the website load content during campaign activity).

What tools can be used to measure your page load speeds? 

There are a quite a few options, but Webpagetest.org appears to be the most consistent in its data, and produces all the above metrics.   

What to do with this data?

Once you regain consciousness from the poor results, the reporting will indicate precisely what is slowing the pages down.  There is another very good article taking a technical view on what to do to increase the speed of loading pages.  

The most common reasons for slow loading pages is a mix of heavy images, heavy interactive page features (i.e. carousels on the home page) site build shortcuts from the dev team, and/or hosting environment not equipped to handle the traffic.  

For the purpose of context, have a look at Amazon’s results:

First View:

  • First Byte: 0.285 sec
  • Render Start: 0.944 sec
  • Load Time: 2.071 sec

Repeat View:  

  • First Byte: 0.285 sec
  • Render Start: 0.833 sec
  • Load Time: 1.346 sec

What are slow page load times doing to your ecommerce channel?

Mobile users are impatient.  The issue of load time is no longer confined to your website displaying on a PC or laptop.  If it takes seven seconds to display your content on a PC what happens with your mobile site on a 3G network?  

A study was done by Keynote who surveyed over 5,000 people in the first half of 2012 to find 66% of respondents expected mobile sites to load in under four seconds. It can be assumed this expectation has risen since then.  

Google’s support of page load times. While the purpose of this discussion is to recognise methods to solve slow page load times to improve the experience for consumers, it is worth noting a recent study showing a correlation between Google rankings and time to first byte.  

Over 2,000 websites had taken the above measures only to find those with a more robust back-end infrastructure achieved higher search rankings.  

The creators of the study had this to say about why they felt Google would use this metric: 

TTFB (time to first byte) is likely the quickest and easiest metric for Google to capture. Accurately measuring the various load times is also browser dependent and relies on its ability to load images and content. 

Using TTFB to determine the “performance” or “speed” could perhaps be explainable by the increased time and effort required to capture such data from the Google crawler. Not only is TTFB easy to calculate, but it is also a reasonable metric to gauge the performance of an entire site. 

Ever wonder why you are experiencing high bounce rates for highly targeted campaigns?  Many times marketers attribute high bounce rates to a high influx of traffic. That may be true, however, consideration of page load times under high stress is recommended.  

How does Google Analytics (GA) record a “bounce”?  If you have a situation where a page is taking seven seconds to load, but after the third second, the individual gives up and leaves, a “bounce” is ackowledged in GA.  If the tracking code is installed correctly (in your header), GA recognises the visit as a pageview and therefore a bounce.

You can have the most effective campaign running, however, slow page load times will stifle your ability acquire new business and stimulate repeat sales.

Get measuring… good luck.

Announcing the 2013 Local Search Ranking Factors Results

Posted by David Mihm

I’m pleased to announce the full results of this year’s Local Search Ranking Factors survey were published earlier this morning. (The pie chart below is just a teaser.)

Those of you who attended MozCon a couple weeks ago got a sneak preview of these results, but I’m guessing that few of you had a chance to fully digest them in the 14.2 seconds I spent on the slides in which I presented them. Let’s dive in!

If this is the first time you’ve heard of the Local Search Ranking Factors, most of the background can be found on the results page itself. I’ll highlight a couple of changes for this year:

  • As I was putting the survey together this year, I thought to myself, “You know, there’s really no single ‘local algorithm’ at Google anymore” — if, indeed, there ever was one. This year is our group’s first effort to help readers distinguish between the thematic signals that have more or less prevalence depending on the result type Google is showing (localized organic, pack/carousel, or maps).
  • Given that a large chunk of the audience for this survey over the years has been agency owners and agency representatives — at least judging by the emails I’ve received — I decided to try to cater to this audience a bit more this year. Guessing that most of you have already read previous surveys and understand the basics, I also asked the 35 experts to score the same factors according to what they felt made the most difference in competitive markets. So for those of you who already have the basics covered, pay attention to that second column of results.
  • I added personalization as a thematic signal to ask about this year. Frankly, I was surprised it wasn’t considered a larger factor on mobile results. Of all the factors on the list, I think this one will be the most interesting to revisit in 2014, as searchers and experts alike become more and more familiar with the new Google Maps.

By and large, the primary factors seem to have stayed largely the same for the past couple of years:

  • Proper category associations
  • A physical address in the city being searched
  • Consistent, high-quality citations from sources that are:
    • Authoritative
    • Trustworthy
    • Industry-relevant
  • Your NAP information featured clearly on your website
  • Your location as a keyword in title tags and headlines
  • A smattering of reviews on both Google and third-party sites
  • A handful of high-quality inbound links

Though I wanted to give the other 34 experts “the floor” on the survey page itself, I do want to comment about a couple of responses I found particularly interesting:

  • Despite Google’s massively-hyped integration of its Google Plus and Google Places platforms just over a year ago (a process that is far from complete, by the way), social signals still seem to play a relatively small role in rankings — just 6.3% overall. But the consensus seems to be that the place to begin would be rel=author tag implementation. This was suggested as the #22 priority in competitive markets, versus #34 as a foundational priority, and several experts mentioned it in their comments.
  • Perhaps the most surprising factor was that reviews from authority reviewers were rated the #3 competitive difference-maker. If you’re in a competitive market, I’d encourage you to pay special attention to Google’s City Experts program, and think about checking out this Twitter/Followerwonk strategy I detailed in January.
  • As we move into a world where maps are becoming the local search paradigm, it’s remarkable to me just how little effect (less than 25%) the primary factors in traditional SEO — on-page optimization and inbound links — are judged to have on rankings.
  • Meanwhile, Google continues to emphasize these factors in its localized organic results (judged by the experts to be right around 50%), which should give businesses without a physical location some measure of consolation.
  • As far as negative factors go, call-tracking numbers and business name keyword-stuffing continue to be some of the most egregious offenses you can make in local search.

A couple of quick closing remarks:

Huge thanks to Derric Wise from UX/Design and Devin Ellis on our Inbound Engineering team for putting this beautiful-looking page together.

And, if you want to know more about this year’s survey, I would encourage you to sign up for Local University Advanced at SMX East coming up in just a few weeks. I’ll be speaking much more about tactics you can use to win on these factors in New York!

OK, that’s enough out of me for this year’s survey, anyway. As I do every year, I’m eagerly anticipating the discussion of the results in the comments!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!