We are at a turning point in the field of search engine optimization (SEO)—a positive turning point. For those of us who have been around for a long time, it’s an interesting (and very good) time to be involved in search. But it must be daunting for those outside the industry, or just getting started with their careers.

I can’t remember a time when there was more “noise” and opinion out there, thanks to the power of the web and social media. There is a tremendous amount of information generated every minute, not all of it accurate or even useful. I have hundreds of subscriptions in my RSS feed reader, and at any given time (depending how diligent I’ve been keeping up) thousands of unread posts. It’s a requirement in SEO that we stay up to speed on the latest developments, which are frequent and myriad across several disciplines, and it’s becoming a very onerous task to stay current. I’ve developed a system to keep up with this firehose of information that I’ll expand on in a future column. In short, you have to learn to distill the noise of many blog posts and news items (and Google innovations!) down to a useful signal of items that may have an impact on your work. It’s a challenge in efficiency.

In this environment of almost overwhelming voices—many of them yelling simply for the attention rather than the significance of their contributions—there are some important changes happening that are changing the face of SEO.

Last week I attended the seminal conference SMX Advanced. It was my fourth year in attendance. I consider SMX Advanced to be the premier SEO conference of the year, partly due to the quality of the speakers and content, and partly due to the location and timing. Sunshine in Seattle is rare, but when it shines on that city it’s a special place to be, and June often delivers beautiful days.

In previous years I’ve noticed that Google (specifically Matt Cutts) will sometimes use SMX Advanced as a stage for announcing important changes to both algorithm and approach. In 2009 there was the infamous event when Matt came on stage (after Stephan Spencer pressed him) during a discussion of the newly released rel=canonical tag. Matt stated flatly that nofollow was no longer working for internal PageRank sculpting, in fact that it hadn’t worked for over a year. Which was fine with me, since I’d argued against using nofollow for PageRank sculpting in blog posts and at SMX Advanced in 2008.

So this year I was expecting more of the same, and potentially a strong statement from Matt on paid links during the traditional “You & A” with Danny Sullivan (which, if I had to vote, is probably the most important session all year for SEO at any conference). While Matt did make a sort of wicked chortle about how impressive Google’s tools are for sniffing out paid links, and emphasized that they’re still chasing these down, it wasn’t the dramatic stance I was expecting to see. That tells me Google is getting a pretty good handle on paid links, and doesn’t need to bang that drum quite so loudly anymore.

But there were more important issues that came up. I’ll go through each of them in turn.

Information architecture + SEO = BFF

Queue images of unicorns, rainbows and Carebears, because for me, the union of information architecture (IA) and SEO is the promised land. Add user experience (UX) into a prominent position in this relationship and a triad of power emerges.

With SEO, we send relevant traffic to websites. Traffic simply means “people.” We send people to websites. Websites are about people, ultimately, not search engines. But we lose sight of that, from time to time, because search engines are a huge source of high-quality, relevant traffic. They are a superb online marketing channel.

In my presentation at SMX Advanced on Site Architecture and Advanced SEO, I hectored the crowd (briefly, before exposing them to the sublime genius of bosom buddies and The Hoff) on the importance of IA in the field of SEO. I pushed the crowd to think of SEO in ways beyond “putting links on a page.”

During my presentation I explained the approach we’re taking with SEO at Zappos and other companies:

  • First, make the best user experience possible
  • Then leverage for maximum SEO

SEO should be an invisible layer beneath a smart site architecture and fabulous user experience. When SEO gets pushed out in front of these things, the site suffers and we end up with “optimized footers” and gobs of anchor text links that serve no real purpose.

As SEOs, we need to evolve our concepts of navigation and internal linking. For example, many sites will echo the global navigation along the left sidebar; using the same links in a different place. That’s not necessarily useful, depending on the site and user testing. Much more useful may be to use that left sidebar real estate for other important links not featured in the global navigation, or for refinements and calls to action.

Furthermore, we need to build contextual navigation based on the category or sub-category experience. Amazon does this fabulously well, so that if I’m in Books, I’m presented with relevant sub-categories based on that primary heading, not a slew of other semi- or not-at-all-relevant links based on misguided SEO.

We really, really, really need to get rid of that horrible “SEO footer” as I call them—the footer packed with links and optimized anchor text to everything under the sun within the site. That’s not a useful user experience and it’s definitely not a useful SEO experience.

And we need to build better, smarter, more relevant internal links. Categories should link to related categories and sub-categories, but product pages should link across to related products, and up to parent categories. If we begin to think like a user, and make our sites incredibly search engine friendly, then we’ll be walking the path to the promised land.

Faceted navigation

According to Peter Morville, one of the largest breakthroughs in web design and search over the past decade, faceted navigation (also called parametric search, if the user is required to execute the search after selecting options) is a boon to users. It allows visitors to perform complex boolean search logic by simply clicking on intuitive links (attributes) and narrow down a search in a nicely focused manner.

Side note: Faceted navigation is now “additive filters” because Google says so. Go read that.

But faceted navigation sucks for bots. Endless possible attributes appended to URLs cause mass confusion during the crawl experience, and more often than not, poor character choices are placed in the URL query string. Quotes (both single and double), ellipses, commas, spaces, brackets, pipes and tildes are just a few of the characters I’ve seen in URLs generated from faceted navigation schemes.

So what can be done? Well, first of all get a good SEO consultant, because this issue is not simple and there are many different ways to approach it. But briefly, pick the most important attributes (based on search volume, primarily) and ensure these URLs are search friendly (dash separated, or no more than 4 or 5 parameters and very clean). Then, additional overhead attributes that don’t represent significant search volume can be appended to the end of the URL and a rel=canonical hint can be added to the head of those pages back to the canonical “parent.” This requires some fancy programming, but can work nicely to roll up all of the overhead facets that don’t have an impact on your SEO strategy back to the important URLs that do have an impact.

Search result pages

Google doesn’t want search result pages in their search results. That’s Google’s current public stance, but it gets more complicated once you start to peel some layers back. Let’s examine this:

  • There are endless examples of website search results in Google’s search results
  • Some website search results provide a good user experience and convert well
  • Some websites are entirely built on search results, or have massive amounts of their sites built around search results, and these are also indexed by Google

As you begin to investigate this issue it becomes clear that there are many different factors at work here, and while Google needs to have an official public stance against “search results,” the term can have multiple definitions depending on the quality of the website search results in question. Amazon’s search results, for example.

I like what Epicurious is doing with their search result pages. Categories and articles link to popular search pages which are search friendly (and which appear in Google); these can then be drilled into further with faceted refinements, which are themselves carefully restricted from appearing in Google’s index with robots.txt. This is a great user experience and smart work.

Another interesting approach is to make the primary search page (usually mydomain.com/search or something shallow in the domain) a robust page with important links beneath the front-and-center search function. Then, all search result pages consolidate to the “search home page” with rel=canonical. This keeps all search results out of Google’s index, but passes authority from those pages which tend to build external and internal link equity. But, this requires that the search home page is a high-value page far beyond just a search box.

Pagination

It’s a real sticky wicket, pagination. On ecommerce sites it’s a constant problem we struggle with, and, depending on the often unique challenges and circumstances we face, best approached with an “it depends” mindset. There are several ways to deal with pagination for SEO. One of these, a good one first recommended by Maile Ohye at SMX West this year, is to roll up all paged versions with rel=canonical to the view all page, which becomes your default browse page.

If you have thousands of products or returns on a page, you won’t want to show all of them, obviously. You have to decide what number is a good one for those cases, but you can normally go well beyond 100 items per page if there isn’t a significant performance hit on the site. User testing has proven that, especially when shopping, people want to see a lot of products at once. It makes shopping more efficient and easier than paging through 10 products at a time, which can be a frustrating experience.

304 headers

Historically we’ve recommended sites return a 304 (if-modified-since) header if a page hasn’t changed. This allows the search engine to fetch only the header and not the entire page. While this will probably still be useful (assuming Bing and Yahoo! respect the protocol like Google has), it’s becoming less important. Why? Hard to say for sure, but it appears Googlebot will now fetch the entire page regardless, even if you’ve returned a 304 saying in effect that the page hasn’t changed. Matt Cutts, speaking to Rand Fishkin recently, said that it’s really not much more work for Googlebot to go ahead and grab the entire page if you’re already grabbing the header, anyway.

This is interesting because of what we’ve recently learned about Google’s new Caffeine architecture and the Mayday update. Caffeine includes, among other things, a new crawling and indexing technology that allows Google to index content as quickly as it gets crawled. This may be why Google prefers fetching the entire page rather than just the response headers, although it may still respect 304 if it’s implemented. Questions, questions.

A turning point

With the latest changes at Google, Bing’s imminent replacement of Yahoo search results, and the evolution and coordination of SEO, IA and UX (yes, I’m hopeful), we are at an interesting turning point in the field of search marketing. Google cares a lot about real time search, and its interface is becoming ever more crowded and, perhaps, fragmented. Social media is changing everything. Sites are getting faster, or they need to be. Mayday is hammering long tail spam (or at least attempting to). Caffeine can index content almost immediately during the crawl. The reasoning behind the Bosom Buddies plot is still a riddle unsolved in time. And The Hoff is still 100% awesome sauce.

But it’s all about one thing, or one person: your visitor. It’s all about the visitor to your website. Stay focused on her—she’s precious and has money.

Opinions expressed in the article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land.

Related Topics: Channel: SEO | Industrial Strength

Sponsored


About The Author: is the Chief Knowledge Officer at RKG, where he blogs regularly. You'll find him speaking at conferences around the world when he's not riding down mountains on something fast. Follow Adam on Twitter as @audette.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn



SearchCap:

Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  

Share

Other ways to share:

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • http://www.rimmkaufman.com George Michie

    Superb piece, Adam.

    I’ve long believed that at the end of the day the search engines are trying to figure out the most relevant landing pages for users, and that folks spend too much time trying to “game” the results, rather than build highly relevant pages providing great user experience.

    Certainly, it’s important to do both well, but too many folks seem to forget about UX.

  • http://www.search-usability.com/ Shari Thurow

    Hey Adam-

    SEO, IA, and the ever-loaded term “user experience” a turning point in SEO? Maybe to you it is a turning point. To me…it’s an, “about FRIGGIN’ time!”

    Information architecture has always been a part of search engine optimization. I’ve talked about it since 1995. I’ve written about this topic many times over.

    Many SEOs and web developers alike see themselves as architects, when I would characterize them as carpenters. Carpenters are not architects. Carpenters and architects often do not have the same skill set(s).

    But that’s a whole other article, isn’t it? So is the whole “user experience (UX)” thing. I don’t know how much bad optimization, poor design, substandard architectures have been created in the name of “user experience.” No one seems to ask users anymore, do they?

    My 2 cents.

  • http://www.pageonebusiness.com WarnerCarter

    Insightful observations. If the changes you mention are a “Turning Point” Then SEO is always at a turning point, and always will be.

  • Duane Forrester

    Jumpin gon the bandwagon – it’s high time this change happens. Many of us have been preaching this for years now, with very slow adoption at the publisher level being the most obvious, ongoing failure point.

    For some reason, companies tend to what to separate all facets of owning, building and maintaining websites. Understandably the disciplines are individual, but come one – it’s s till one common team effort in the end.

    This general focused as outlined above, when combined with conversion optimization, will become the defacto standard over the next few years for building successful websites.

    Right now, people see success by doing one project or another (SEO or social media). The day is here where people NEED to start looking at things from a combined approach. The first adopters of this approach will stake a claim in new territory – vacant territory – alongside giants like Amazon and Zappos.

  • http://www.audettemedia.com Adam Audette

    Exactly, George. Maybe that’s the crux of the situation. It seems so “easy” in a way – keep it relevant and high-quality, deliver a great user experience, stay away from tricks and games – but then again that’s why it’s so hard. Everyone wants to take short cuts.

    Shari – you are the queen of the triad between IA, SEO and UX. That’s why I linked to your article, “IAs are from Venus, SEOs are from Mars” in that context. You’ve been preaching this for a long time, but not enough people have been listening. You’re right about the UX issue… testing, testing, testing is where we need to go to really find out what user experience is optimal.

  • http://www.nithin.net/ nithin

    Funny to read about how impressive Google’s tools are for sniffing out paid links, and be served an ad for paid links by googleads http://twitpic.com/1ytagd

  • http://seocraftsmen.com taoseo

    I think your article is pretty good – informative and to the point especially in these times but I still would debate your statement:

    “We really, really, really need to get rid of that horrible “SEO footer” as I call them—the footer packed with links and optimized anchor text to everything under the sun within the site. That’s not a useful user experience and it’s definitely not a useful SEO experience.”

    The ‘SEO’ footer works and was always thought of as a product of internet marketing – a useful set of site-links that user could use if they were at the bottom of the page. Users really aren’t that deaf, dumb and blind and the general public safely assumes those are the same links that are found in the main navigation.

    We ALL now this. No confusion or not enough to worry about. Let’s worry about users that get to the bottom of the page or are looking for other links that don’t belong in the main navigation.

  • http://www.audettemedia.com Adam Audette

    Nithin – I’m a little suprised SEL elects to serve ads for TLA, to be honest, but that’s not my area :)

  • http://www.chotrul.com/ Chotrul

    I’d totally agree with the comment about things moving more towards a combined approach. And also the highlighting of conversion rate optimisation.

  • KennelMaster

    Interesting & I suppose it is wise words that you return to the focus on the reader / customer as the most important determinant of success. It is unfortunate that the global nature of the internet & SEO means the necessity for competition for PR e.t.c. takes up so much time and can be essentially a fairly mercenary marketing excercise.

    http://www.kennelmaster-software.com

  • Kim Krause Berg

    Well written article, Adam. But the title is discouraging for those of us who have doing SEO/UX/IA for almost 15 years :)

    UX/Usability/Captology/Human Computer Behavior are skills that most SEO’s don’t have. I’ve been told that many don’t want to learn them and resent being advised to. On the other hand, a few top SEO’s partner with Usability folks and provide services together that benefit their clients.

    Certain niches don’t care about either SEO or user behavior. Their passion is for total expression and using all technology to create with. User behavior, habits, and SERPS are non-issues for them.

    I work on web software applications too. SEO is not a business requirement by stakeholders, whereas UX may be. Whenever I speak with anyone wanting to make their web site better, I ask a lot of questions about what they want, and then inquire about the things they don’t know they need. When I explain why it helps their site, they understand.

  • http://www.blindfiveyearold.com ajkohn

    Great article Adam.

    The SEO landscape is changing and with the slew of content out there it does get more and more difficult for newcomers to find the ‘right’ stuff and for savvy SEOs to find content that has real value.

    The changing nature of SEO is what makes it interesting in my opinion. The turning point – for me – is the rate at which it is changing has accelerated once again. After a few years of relative calm, SEO has once again become … restless.

    The IA and infrastructure issues have always been there, but more startups are thinking about building an IA with SEO in mind. That’s the turning point for me.

    Good points about Faceted Navigation (which is still a bit of a toss up in terms of implementation) and Pagination.

    Before rel=canonical I used a ‘follow, noindex’ strategy which ensured crawl and discovery without duplication. The one bit about rel=canonical is the prospect that those pages won’t be visited as often. That means you need to ensure other ways for the bot to get to end-level (e.g. – product) pages.

    And I still think 304s could be useful in maximizing crawl efficiency since it’s not just about how much is crawled but what is crawled.

    But isn’t that why we love SEO? The questions! The challenge. The change.

  • http://searchmarketingwisdom.com alanbleiweiss

    Great article Adam. One of my biggest clients, an online retailer with roughly 9,000 pages and ecommerce sales in the multi-million $ a year range, is the most rewarding to me because I’ve been brought on to revamp the entire site’s SEO. Just in the first push we’re talking about manually auditing hundreds of pages for the best keyword grouping, recommending comprehensive site-wide, group, and category level sub-navigation…

    Along the way, I got them to change their product pagination out of an AJAX type functionality and into bot-readable. This alone drove the site to gain 40% more pages indexed (so many product detail pages hadn’t ever been seen by Google). Then there was the joy when I got them to completely eliminate the 90+ link footer from those product detail pages :-)

    While I’m proud of the results they’re seeing, there’s still an inordinate number of just as radical UX/IA changes yet to go. And it’s also the biggest challenge I face in training new people in our industry – the “how do I explain this decision” to someone when it’s such a complex process for me to have gone through in making each of them…

  • http://www.audettemedia.com Adam Audette

    Kim,

    I really appreciate your comment. After pondering this more, I think I needed to hammer home the “turning point” a little more in this article. You and Shari are (rightfully) locking onto the point that IA and SEO (and UX) *has* been integrated already, by yourselves and a few other leaders in the field. And that’s of course exactly correct. But the turning point in my eyes isn’t just that integration, but that this is now *essential* rather than just a smart thing to do. Big difference there that I could have done a better job spotlighting.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

  • http://www.audettemedia.com Adam Audette

    Very true, Alan, good points. When you are required to pin your SEO decisions down to a bullet list of the “why’s” and then build a correlation with bottom-line revenue impact, it almost takes the wind out of your sales. It doesn’t account for the artful side of SEO, the “feel” and intuitive sense that you just know something will work… or at least *might* work and is worth some effort. And on that note, it doesn’t account for the unknowns of SEO and the need to try, fail, adapt, and try again. Sometimes failure is our biggest asset out there. Speaking of which… I just found the topic of my next article!

    Thanks for your comments, Alan.

 

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest

 
 

Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States

Europe

Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech


Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!

 


 

Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide