Search Engine Optimisation rules are (mostly) not static
SEO is a moving target, always has been, though some things became core directives.
For instance, there was a time when the recommendation was “use keywords in your domain name for better ranking on Google”. I’ve watched Google since they started grubbing for web developers to embed their Adsense, so that struck me as rather a dumb idea. Not because the idea was stupid, but because ‘experts’ announcing to the world that they have found a way to trick Google is like waiving a red flag at a bull when you are standing in a muddy field with it, wearing wellies. You must know that bull is gonna stomp on you!
Well, one of Google’s known rules is called the Exact match domain system:
“A system that ensures Google doesn’t give too much credit to websites with domain names that exactly match a query.”
Another is Original content systems:
“A system to help ensure Google shows original content prominently in search results, including original reporting, ahead of those who merely cite it.”
Damn it; I should have been first, better cite Search Engine Journal and bask in the reflected glory. At least their post is only 4 seconds old. I need to type faster!
(Here’s where I’d insert a link to a snappy YouTube of Kermit typing at 120wpm, but it’s been purged, alas. Philistines!)
Anyway: SEJ: Google Publishes Guide To Current & Retired Ranking Systems
Page experience system and thumbs!
Another SEJ mention is Page experience system:
This is something I push here, so fast page loading, clean design, white space, responsiveness, accessibility and consideration for disabilities.
For instance, there are guidelines on how close buttons and links should be on a mobile and for the size of those buttons. This is actually based on the size of the average person’s finger. However, some people can (or choose to) only type with their thumbs, which are much wider, so you want to factor that in too.
I added this to my CSS, and it seems to work well.
/* Mobile tap */
.container a {
padding: .3em;
}
@media (any-pointer: coarse) {
.container a {
padding: 1em;
}
}
1em is around 16 pixels (depending on your body settings); padded on both sides allows 32 pixels. Not excessive, but combined gives a healthy, thumb-sized button (i.e. around 72 to 80 pixels).
I bounced around a bit at the time to get that, so this is the closest match I can get to cite, though Stackflow was probably involved too. Some of this also pops up when you fail site tests. And yes, UI/UX is applied to SEO, so it matters.
Mobile web design:
Tap targets (e.g., links and buttons) should be at least 8px apart from each other, and at least 48px wide and 48px tall so they are clickable for mobile users.
A touch target that’s 45 – 57 pixels wide allows the user’s finger to fit snugly inside the target.
But there are just as many users who use their thumb as well. The average width of an adult thumb is 1 inch (2.5 cm), which converts to 72 pixels.
(Probably included) Smashing Magazine (2012): Finger-Friendly Design: Ideal Mobile Touchscreen Target Sizes
I also test and design with colour and contrast in mind. It all matters.
SEJ list several others that are known. That’s on top of the hundreds of others that Google and other search engines use. The takeaway is to make it fresh, original, interesting, and authoritative, and if someone gets their first, at least cite them.
My style is to ramble on about things I know or want to understand better. Works for me. I could write reports and use a formal academic style, which is boring. I’ve been compared to Cory Doctorow in my writing style; I’ll take that as a compliment!
Then there’s the academic idea of authoritative
Academics might be smart, especially in their niche fields, but reading their papers is sometimes like counting grains of sand, on a windy beach, with hay fever. “Please, kill me now. Just make the boredom stop!” So dry, so stuffy. And the funny thing is most academics hate it too. Sure, it establishes baselines, but at what cost?
Yoast and others, for instance, advise short, interesting sentences and paragraphs.
Not waffling on in the most long-winded way possible to meet an artificial ‘must reach’ word count. It honestly baffles me sometimes. If you are under 10% of the target, you have obviously missed stuff out; if you go over, you are waffling; but if you are waffling to hit the target, all good. Mindless adherence to rules. As a complete aside: World’s shortest doctoral dissertations
If all the Internet were written in an academic format, we just wouldn’t use it! Unless you are a researcher, and even then… Seriously, when was the last time you saw ‘Einstein et al.’ as a top search result for anything? Or Encyclopedia Brittanica? Even bots can fall asleep, it seems!
The point is, when Google et al. say they want authoritative and expert posts, you need to append “that people will actually want to read”, because their bots know boring when they encounter it!
<snark>
As far as I can tell, university up to the doctoral level is, “Well, this is how we had to do it; that’s how it’s always been. Also, I’m your supervisor, you need to cite ME/us more!” That isn’t learning, it’s jumping through hoops to tick boxes. Viva la viva?
Works for that lot, but not so much for search engines unless you are trying out for Google’s Scholar section, which is aimed at peer-reviewed papers anyway, which are often locked behind paywalls.
(Hint: If you can’t access the research paper for free via university, politely email one of the paper’s authors and ask for a copy, they appreciate it. (Publishers gather these up into a bundle and charge people to read others’ research!)).
</snark>
To emphasize the point, I’ll share this quote:
“If I land on a piece of content that looks like a college research paper, I’m likely to avoid it in favor of a piece that offers more excitement and is easier to consume.”
SWEOR, point #16: 27 Eye-Opening Website Statistics: Is Your Website Costing You Clients?
When retired means NOT retired
What you will notice from SEJ’s post are all the retired systems.
HTTPS: retired.
Mobile speed: retired.
Panda system (original content): retired
and so forth.
In life, you will sometimes meet people that say something like, “I’ve never been so active since I retired!”
That’s about how Google is applying these systems’ retirement. Retired as systems and instead embedded into the core “thou shalt” rules. I think Google is hypocritical sometimes, but when they suggest “Thou Shalt”, it’s not a suggestion if you want a remotely healthy ranking.
Moz also wrote about A Different Way of Thinking About Core Updates today.
Feature image by Diggity Marketing, from Pixabay
