• http://engrenagensweb.com I.M.

    Amazing. All team are reproved. People still think in SEO in terms of titles and friendly urls????? Thanks for share.

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

    Hello and thank you for your comments. Titles and URLs should make sense to both searchers and search engines.

    In fact, sensemaking (also spelled sense-making) is also a part of the search process. Another quiz question for another time….

    To this day, I am still dumbfounded that many SEO professionals do not realize that search results are also ranked by searcher goals and behaviors…not only title-tag content.

    Thanks again!

  • http://twitter.com/FirdausHaque Firdaus Haque

    During the Keywords Research phase what is the most critical element one should try to derive while doing the Competitors Analysis ?
    A. The first page competition for that particular keyword
    B. Keywords used by competition in their tags/content
    C. A strategy to choose the least competitive keywords to start with
    D. All of the above

  • http://twitter.com/onlinemaximizer Maximizer e-Services

    Good questions and insightful answers. Kudos.

  • trying_to_learn

    I disagree with answer #4. “strong’ indication was the verbiage used in the question.
    Additonally – ‘positive’ experience’ was also used. low bounce + multiple views doesnt indicate a ‘negative’ experience which wouldn’t make the answer False. right?

  • http://twitter.com/sharithurow sharithurow

    Hi there-

    I think the most important keyword research one can do for SEO is to talk to your target audience and observe them during search tasks. Then talk to the people who answer the phones and respond to emails or online forms. So I would prefer to see that be the answer to the question you posed. 

    Kim Krause-Berg wrote a great article about not imitating your competitors…especially if they are spamming the search engines. I wouldn’t want to imitate that.

  • http://twitter.com/sharithurow sharithurow

    Nope, I stand by what I wrote. The first sentence in the answer states that, “…there are no cut-and-dry conclusions that can be derived from bounce rates and page views per visitor. The answer depends on searcher context.”

    A positive quick-fact search has a high bounce rate and high searcher satisfaction. A searcher who pogo-sticks on a website (multiple page views) is having a negative searcher experience.

  • Fiona Dudley

    Dear Ms. Thurow,
    Excellent quiz!
    I got #2 wrong because I was unfamiliar with the term transactional search.
    I got #7 wrong because the intent of the question was a little unclear… when I search, I use my own past knowledge and experience involving recognition and recall to conduct my search. Again, unfamiliarity with the terminology in the field of usability.
    I got #8 wrong because I “assumed” that eye tracking technology did include tracking peripheral vision, but would not be able to get into my head and determine how I personally internally organize the results.
    I am SO glad about #4 and support your answer completely! Interpreting exactly why somebody left a page, or conversely views a page too many times ( I had an excellent example of that with a client, it stood out like a sore thumb) is open to interpretation. That’s what SEO pros are for :-)
    Very interesting – I learned a few things along the way.
    Thanks!

  • http://twitter.com/sharithurow sharithurow

    Hi Fiona-

    I know this was a tough quiz, but it has to be tough as query classification is not as cut-and-dry as people (including SEOs) want it to be.

    People mix up transactional intent all of the time because, all too often, a searcher wants information before he/she will take an action. So a bunch of informational queries will occur before the transactional one. 

    I understand why #7 was confusing. Maybe that one should be reworded. We all use recognition and recall without even thinking about it. Re-finding is definitely more directed, though. 

    Eye-tracking currently tracks foveal vision, not peripheral vision.