If anyone wants the commentary to go with it, you should be able to hear it in the videos below, courtesy of Site Visibility.

As I said at the start of the presentation, I’m more than happy to field Panda related enquiries, bounce ideas, or just knowledge share on this topic, so feel free to get in touch either by email or Twitter.

Call it what you will.  The Vince Update?  The Big Brand Update?  Something big happened to Google’s algorithm this year.  It hit the US in February and the UK in June, and it’s flummoxed the greatest minds in SEO ever since.  Everyone’s tweeted about it, blogged about it, passed opinion on it at various conferences, but every week I see someone blog about Vince who seems to have got the wrong end of the stick.  How exactly Google are giving preference to “brands”?  In this post I’m going to give a potted history of the best commentary published post Vince, and how each bit of analysis fits together to produce a wider picture of what’s happening with the brand update.

In The Beginning
One man, and one man only broke the news – Aaron Wall of SEOBook.  His epic post helped to explain the significance of this update, and how it sits as one of the major updates alongside Florida, Austin, the introduction of the nofollow etc… Aaron provides excellent examples of where he first saw Vince take effect, and later we’ll visit another of his blog posts that pulls the final pieces of the jigsaw together. Subsequently there was also a huge amount of discussion over at Sphinn after Danny Sullivan started a comment thread discussing the update.

Read Aaron’s full post:
New Search Engine Rankings Place Heavy Emphasis on Branding

Confirmation
Shortly after Aaron’s post, SearchEngineLand blogged confirmation from Google that something had changed.  In a video, Matt Cutts says that this is not an “update”, more a “change in how we do some rankings”.

Read the post at SearchEngineLand:
Google Calls It A Trust Change

Vince Hits The UK
From a UK SEO’s perspective, I guess it all went fairly quiet after that.  I don’t recollect seeing much analysis coming out of the US in terms of what may be causing this, and I guess over this side of the pond we weren’t really that interested in it as it didn’t affect any of the websites we worked on.  That all changed on June 25^th when Vince was rolled out to www.google.co.uk.  All of a sudden we had to get involved.

The Analysis
Richard Baxter of SEO Gadget was the first person that I remember providing any detailed analysis.  Using SEOMoz’s Linkscape, he demonstrated that there was still a strong correlation between links and visibility within Google.  I think all SEOs collectively let out a huge sigh of relief when they read that – at least we could still have some influence over the websites we worked on

Read Richard Baxter’s full post
Google’s Vince Update – Brand or no Brand?

Citations
Lots of people suddenly started to talk a lot more about citations.  I mean, it made complete sense.  How could you tell a brand?  You’d not just look at the most linked to websites, but the most talked about.  I think this distracted the industry for quite a while, and lead most of us on a bit of a wild goose chase.  In retrospect, I think citations would be incredibly noisy, and probably easier to game than links, unless quality factors such as age and authority of citation were taken into account.  At the time, I thought it was a very plausible theory.  I think Patrick Altoft’s writeup, which summarises a lot of Tedster’s posts from Webmasterworld, is a good place to read up about citations, or “mentions”, as they’re called in his post.

Read Patrick Altoft’s full post
How User Data, Links, and Document Scoring May Be Used in the Brand Algorithm?

UK SERPs
After Vince launched, many UK SEOs started to notice that geolocation in UK SERPs was a litte bit messed up.  “tennis courts to hire” is a prime example of where this was happening:

Tennis Courts To Hire

In the UK, we really shouldn’t be seeing those Australian websites ranking!  Rishil, Sharkseo and others led the charge with this on Twitter, with Matt Cutts eventually releasing a video response to the question that he had previously tried to dodge:

Now you may be wondering what geolocation has got to do with Vince, but whenever there’s an algorithm update of any kind, it’s always the anomalies within the SERPs that you uncover patterns, and therefore help SEOs to work out what’s going on in the algorithm.

Cracking the Algorithm
It was iCrossing UK who first posted the most conclusive evidence as to what may be happening with Vince.  The idea that query refinements, and CTRs on secondary SERPs, could be helping to define results was as good (actually it was a lot better) as any previous guess as to what was happening with Vince.   In fact, the more I looked into it, the more it seemed to fit with every strange SERP that I’d previously been unable to explain.

A personal bug bear of mine had been the fact that the website for MFI (a UK furniture store) was ranking on the first page for “furniture”, even though the company had gone into administration 9 months previously, and the website had been replaced by a holding page announcing the company’s financial situation.  The connection between query refinements and Google’s related search was the part that really made the whole theory work, and this simple connection seemed to be the bit that almost all SEOs seemed to miss, despite the fact that it was sitting right under our noses the whole time.

Read iCrossing’s full post:
Unlocking Google’s Vince Update

All the Pieces of the Jigsaw
Following the iCrossing piece, there were quite a few additional bits of research that helped to fill in all the missing pieces of the jigsaw.  Sharkseo suggested that global query refinements were a heavy factor within Vince, which accounted for the screwed up geolocation within UK SERPs.  Dave Naylor produced some interesting analysis too, suggesting the same thing. Despite this information being out on the table, plenty of SEOs seemed to miss it – in particular, Patrick Altoft, who following A4U, summarised some of Matthew Trewhella’s (a Google UK engineer) comments and suggested that “the brand update is about Google minimising the number of times people have to search to find the products or information they are looking for”.   What Matthew was suggesting was pretty much identical to the theories put forward in the iCrossing post, which in many ways was quite handy as it was independent verification that what many people were thinking about at the time was correct.  This is where it’s also worth pulling in the aforementioned second blog post by Aaron Wall that pulls lots of these ideas together, but also points people in the direction of the handy Adlabs Search Funnel tool, for analysing query refinements.

Read SharkSEOs full post:
Is this Google UK’s Glitch

Read Dave Naylor’s full post:
This Doesn’t Make Sense UK SERPs

Read Patrick Altoft’s full post:
The Brand Update is about Maximising Satisfaction Rates

Read Aaron Wall’s full post:
Brand’s vs Query Refinements – Google Using Second Search

The Aftermath
I guess the reason why I wanted to write this blog post was because of the recent eConsultancy three-parter on Vince. I waited eagerly to hear their views on what was causing it, only to see that someone had come to the conclusion that it was a hand-edit of results (based somewhat on the fact that Matt Cutts had asserted that this wasn’t an update).  While their analysis was very good, their conclusion, in my opinion, was wrong, and this made me realise that there are probably a whole bunch of SEOs who have missed the voluminous amounts of research and analysis that has gone before them on the subject.  Hopefully I’ve captured most of the standout stuff here – I’m sure there’s stuff I’ve missed too, so if there’s anything you think should be included, feel free to drop me a comment below and I’ll be more than happy to add it.

Read eConsultancy’s Three Parter:
Vince Unravelled – Part 1
Vince Unravelled – Part 2
Vince Unravelled – Part 3

Image via @Caveman_9223

Doesn’t look like much wrong there, does it?  However, if you look a little closer at the Paypal result (sorry Paypal), and do a bit of digging, you’ll notice that this is another example of Google serving the wrong results to Google UK users.  You see, Paypal Student Accounts is a new service from Paypal (launched in August of this year by the looks of it), and is “a fast and secure way for U.S. teens to shop online using PayPal”.  Notice the bit that I’ve highlighted?  I even tried signing up for the product (as a parent), but I got the following message from Paypal:

So it would appear, that this product isn’t yet available in the UK, yet Google deems it relevant for us to see it.  A little further digging around in Google Trends shows the following data:

This is US specific data for the query “student accounts”.  You’ll noticed an extended peak (probably around August time) for the term, to coincide with when Paypal introduces student accounts.  Is this what’s causing Paypal to perform so well here?  Incidentally, if you look at backlinks to their page that ranks, there are very few.  Are Google looking at global search trends to influence localised results?

The example highlighted above isn’t trivial – I doubt many people will have spotted it, but Google could easily rectify it by giving preference to UK hosted websites.

a fast and secure way for U.S. teens to shop online using
PayPal

Clutter

Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big advocate of both Google and Twitter, I just think that Google are going down a path that they shouldn’t be right now. In the old days, people preferred Google over other search engines because of its nice clean interface – the homepage looked pretty, with the search box and the two simple buttons. And the results were displayed in a nice clean way – just 10 results.

But recently, I’ve started to think that Google have lost their way a little. In the great battle to keep ahead of Bing, it seems like they’re rushing through products, with no clear focus on what they’re trying to achieve. The SERPs are changing more frequently than I think they have at any point in the past. I’d like to consider myself a Google power user – like most SEOs, I’ve got a good grip of how the SERPs work, and what different features do, but recently, even I’ve started finding it all a little bit confusing. Let’s look at a few examples of what I’m talking about:

Additional Indented Results / More Results From…

I really don’t like the additional indented result here.  And it’s kinda confusing having two different “More results from…” options.  Why does one have a plus box, and one not?

Obtrusive Blended Search

This isn’t the best example out there, but Google really seem to have turned up the dial on blended search results.  I’ve seen queries where the SERP contains 2 rows of images, followed by 2 rows of 2 videos, and I’m not even looking for videos or images.

Different Types of Indented Results

This set of results is kind of like the first set of results,  apart from these results have dates next to them.  Why is that?

Star Wars

This used to be one of my favourite blended search examples.  A good solid SERP, with a few pictures, maybe a few videos .  Now it’s bloody crazy!

So What’s This Got To Do With Twitter?

I think my point is, is that Google have come a long way since the simple SERP layout days, and have in the main done a good job of integrating vertical search products.  The problem is, is that it feels like they’ve taken it a step too far recently.  The SERPs are all looking a bit full-on, and I’m concerned about  what will happen  when they integrate Twitter conversations  into the main SERPs (if that’s the way they’re heading).  Twitter contains a lot of random noise, and when combined with an already noisy SERP, this could damage the one thing that Google has always been good at – delivering, clean relevant SERPs.

Image via @SparkyLeigh

After 5 years of working at iCrossing (previously Spannerworks), I’ve finally decided to take the extremely difficult decision to move on.  Today is my final day as Head of Natural Search and as an employee of iCrossing.  The last 5 years have probably been some of the best of my life, and all I have are good things to say about iCrossing and Spannerworks.

I started iCrossing after a bad start to my career.  After graduating from Sussex Uni with a degree in Maths and Artificial Intelligence I decided to move home to parents, where I got a job working as a software developer.  I very quickly realised that neither the job, nor the culture of the company I was working for was a good fit – something that I’ve subsequently come to realise is one of the most important things when choosing a company to work for.

I decided that I wanted to move back down to Brighton, and a friend of a friend (and another Sussex AI grad) was then working for a company called Spannerworks, doing something called Search Engine Optimisation.  At the time, my knowledge of the internet was limited, but the then Head of Search, Nilhan Jayasinghe saw something in me and decided to take a punt on me.  As it turned out, I actually found SEO very interesting, and a real match to the analytical skillset that I developed during my academic career.

Since I’ve been here the company have given me some fantastic opportunities and challenges.  In 2007 I got the opportunity to visit SES San Jose, where the obvious highlight was attending the Google Dance at the Googleplex.  In the same year I summited  Mount Kilimanjaro with a group of colleagues to raise money for Amani Children’s home in Tanzania.

That’s me looking the wrong way on the back row, second from left.  The chance to travel, and work with colleagues in the US has been great, and I’ve learned a lot from the SEO team over there.  More recently, my role as Head of Natural Search has allowed me to push myself even further, speaking at both SMX London and SES London in 2009.  This achievement in itself speaks volumes in terms of how I’ve been encouraged to grow at iCrossing – 5 years ago I don’t think anyone would ever expect me to be doing that!

However, 5 years is a long time to do anything, and unfortunately I’ve reached a point where I’ve got a desire to spread my wings, and experience life on the other side of the fence.  That’s right – it’s time to move inhouse!  In October, I’ll join Review Centre as Head of Search and Social Media.  For me this job title is significant – search is no longer what it used to be.  You need to take a joined up approach that encompasses both disciplines, and I’m looking forward to getting more involved in the social side of things.

Before I join Review Centre in October I’ve a few things that I need to do – one of which is racing Tuk-Tuk’s around Sri Lanka to raise money for a children’s home.  I’ll be accompanied by a good friend of mine, David Coats.  If you’re feeling generous and want to sponsor us, you can do so over here.  Hopefully we’ll be tweeting our adventures from here.  Before I hit Sri Lanka I’ve got a short trip to India – a country I’ve always been fascinated with, so I’m really looking forward to that.  I look forward to seeing you all on the other side

I’d say that the fact that these websites are ranking so well, so quickly, for such a competitive term, had to be QDF related, so I decided to keep an eye on this SERP to see what happened as the  freshness lapsed.  Today, the same SERP looks as follows:

Notice any differences?  That’s right, Matt Cutts’ blog no longer ranks.  Initially I thought that perhaps this was QDF related – i.e. his blog had had the initial boost, and no longer deserved to be there.  But then why did the Google Webmaster Central Blog remain in the SERP?

If you extend your SERP to show 100 results, you’ll see that the page that now ranks from Matt’s domain is feeds.mattcutts.com/~r/mattcutts/uJBW/~3/LBCVLkK2JWA/, appearing at 31st.  Click on that link, and you’ll be 302 redirected to the actual post on www.mattcutts.com/blog/caffeine-update/.

So what’s going on here?  It looks like 302 hijacks are making a bit of a comeback.  Basically, some webmasters have linked to the feed URL rather than Matt’s actual blog post (about 85 according to Yahoo), and because of the method of redirect used (302 rather than 301), Google have indexed Matt’s blog content under the feed URL.  Google is clearly having difficulty choosing which version of the content to rank, and in my opinion, has chosen incorrectly.  Matt’s actual blog post has so far attracted 798 links according to Yahoo, so it would make more sense to rank this content.

The problem appears to be much worse than this lone incident though.  A site search of feeds.mattcutts.com shows that 147 pages from Matt Cutt’s blog are ranking under the feeds subdomain.  If you take the first example from that SERP (at least the one I’m seeing), and do a quoted search for a unique snippet (“I’ve never been to Seattle before. Here are some of the things I’ve found myself thinking”), then again, feeds.mattcutts.com ranks rather than the blog post on mattcutts.com:

So what, you might ask? Well, if Matt’s visibility in the caffeine SERP is anything to go by, then the content indexed under the feeds subdomain isn’t performing as well as his own website, and therefore his traffic will be taking a hit.  Having this feeds URL appearing within the SERPs might also be bad for branding, and could encourage people to continue to link to this URL rather than his actual blog post. It’s also interesting because if this can happen to Matt Cutts, it could certainly happen to everyone else out there, and, if 302 hijacks are making a resurgence, then this is something that as SEOs, we’ll need to keep our eyes open for.

Furniture

Pet Insurance

Cars

This last URL doesn’t even return a valid page.

Travel

And now for 2 in the same SERP (admittedly on the second page, 11-20)

Anyone else seeing more of this?  Got any examples?

Anyway, here’s how I’d do it.  I’d do a search using Google for .com domains, that have UK specific sections on their websites.  You can get to the query I’d use here, but the results should look something like this:

So as you can see, you should see global sites with UK specific sections.  Then what you can do is for each of those domains, check to see whether they rank in Google UK, with a UK Tick.  Not sure what I mean?  I’m talking about searching for sites when you’ve got the radio button below highlighted:

So let’s do this with a worked example.  Mcafee ranks for my original query, on the URL www.mcafee.com/uk/.  Now if I select the “pages from the UK” radio button, and do a search for Mcafee, my results look as follows:

That Mcafee URL no longer appears – in fact, it doesn’t appear within the first 100 results.  Why is that?  It’s because they’re not geotargeting their regional content correctly.  It gets even more interesting when you start to consider the amount of traffic Mcafee might be losing out on.  Using Google Trends, we can see that worldwide, Mcafee.com is getting about 300k visitors a day at the moment:

You can dig a little deeper, and filter just by UK based traffic:

So Mcafee.com is getting just under 20k visitors a day from the UK.  I’m going to make a fairly large assumption here.   I’m going to assume that Google Trends data only accounts for referrals sent via Google’s organic listings.  As Mcafee doesn’t rank in Google UK with a UK tick, we know that it must be missing out on a significant amount of traffic.  I wonder how much that would account for?  According to this Hitwise post from 2008, 13.6% of Google UK searches are with a UK tick.  That means that those 20k UK visitors account for 86.3% of Mcafee’s potential UK traffic – the rest is just being lost.  The amount being lost works out as being 3148 visitors a day, or 95k visits a month,  or  1.1 million visits a year.  ALL LOST! Obviously I’ve not accounted for seasonality here.

I’d hate to think how much total traffic is being lost by major brands because they’ve not sorted localised geotargeting on their domains, and even worse than that, the total monetized value of all that traffic.  Considering how easy it is to rectify this problem (although I’m not going to tell you here how to do it) it’s a crying shame that this is happening.  Now if only I could get my hands on that traffic…

Notice the two results I’ve highlighted – Norwich Union, and Aviva.  In case you’ve been asleep under a very large rock for while, you will know that Norwich Union rebranded as Aviva recently.

The Aviva website has been around for a while, but I believe they officially redirected www.norwichunion.com to www.aviva.co.uk last week, so finding it very strange that Google are choosing to return both domains for this very competitive keyword.  Still, good news for Norwich Union / Aviva eh?

Anyone know what’s going on here?

So who should come along to this session?  Quite simply, anyone prepared to volunteer their website, especially one that’s got SEO-related issues that need sorting out.  Here’s a few typical questions we might be able to help you answer:

1. Why has my website dropped out of the search engines?
2. Why isn’t my website being crawled by search engines?
3. What technical improvements could be made to my website?
4. Have I got the right links for my niche?
5. Am I using the right keywords in the right place?
6. Is that hidden content hurting my search engine visibility?

Quite simply, we’re open to anything related to improving accessibility or rankings for your website – providing you’re willing to give up your website for review.

Apart from my session, there’s plenty of other great stuff to see.  On day 1 my top sessions are:

• Searchscape: Latest Stats About The Search Engines
• Understanding Searcher Needs & Intent
• Landing Pages & Multivariate Testing
• Brand & Reputation Management Strategies

But I think day 2 is where it really hots up (not just because that’s when I’m on).  My day 2 top sessions are:

• Blow Your Mind Link Building Techniques
• Diagnosing Web Site Architecture Issues
• Analytics Every SEO Needs To Know
• SEO Checkup
• Give It Up!

The panel for Blow Your Mind Link Building Techniques is probably worth the admission price on its own – even seasoned pro’s are going to learn something there.  But the session I’m really looking forward to is Give It Up – where all attendees have to take a 30-day vow of silence to not blog about the secrets given out, and search engineers aren’t allowed to fix the problems with their algos.  Just read the notes from some of the previous Give It Up sessions to see the kind of stuff you might learn.

If I’ve convinced that you should be going (and you really should be), here’s where you can pickup some last minute SMX London tickets.  See you there