A continual theme in my unsolicited advice is trying to figure out how best to get eyeballs on your content, and how Google and Facebook contribute traffic. It’s an ongoing back and forth between two giants.
There are a few new bits of data to add to the ongoing discussion. Recode has 2017 traffic data, and it looks like Facebook’s new policies of prioritizing families and friends in their feed led to a drop in referral traffic for news (and a corresponding increase by Google referrals).
An interesting, though not direct, confirmation of those changes in Facebook algorithm can be seen in this article from Neiman Labs; over 70% of articles in feeds are now from friends and families. News content: less than 10%.
There also has been an increase in traffic coming through the Google AMP service, or Accelerated Mobile Pages. AMP is a competitor for Facebook Instant Articles, and they both try to do the same thing: serve up content from all over the web as fast as possible. With the caveat, of course, that you remain within the Facebook or Google Ecosystem when you consume those articles.
There is also an interesting new feature in Google’s Chrome browser. When you open Chrome, it will suggest news items for you (if you are an android user). This obviously leads to increased traffic for suggested web pages, but it’s too early to say much about how those pages are chosen or how much traffic it generates.
The ultimate take-home message for content creators is still the same: don’t ignore Facebook or Google. You have to optimize for both.
Just as we all got used to writing short, pithy snippets for our content, Google changed its mind about just how many characters it will display in search results. In the past Google displayed a description of about 160 characters; now that’s been bumped up to 360 characters.
300 Characters for this Google Search description. Yes, I Googled myself for an example.
This might be good news; it gives writers more space to explain why you should read their information. Here’s a brief overview of why you should learn to love your metadata, even if you aren’t a code-wonk.
What is metadata?
Metadata are bits of code that tell Google, Facebook, and other sites how you want your webpage described. You won’t see metadata on the page in your browser; it’s invisible coded instructions for robots, not people. This structured data is how you tell Google who you are, and what your webpage is about. Metadata is your chance to explain why your information is relevant to a searcher and should be read.
Here’s an example of how Google displays search results for an entomology website with clear metadata:
And here’s the code; it matches the description perfectly (including the typo):
With metadata, you get to choose the words Google will describe you with, and what images you want to show on Facebook and other media channels. You choose how to be described and how to tell your story.
Why should you care about metadata?
If you are an entomologist or scientist, including metadata helps your webpages compete with all the other, sometimes not great, information on the Internet. You’d better believe commercial and quack websites know all about how to optimize search.
Additionally, if you don’t include metadata on your website, Google, and Facebook will grab whatever they think is relevant. Or, not show much about you at all. Here’s an example of search results from a site that doesn’t have a meta description:
This doesn’t tell me what Extension is, or what it does. The new longer meta description definitely did show up in these Google Search results, but it’s not adding much useful information.
Why does metadata not display consistently?
Of course, even with metadata, you are at the mercy of Google anyway. Sometimes Google knows best, or so they tell us. Here’s Google’s explanation:
“sometimes even pages with well-formulated, concise, descriptive titles will end up with different titles in our search results to better indicate their relevance to the query.
There’s a simple reason for this: the title tag as specified by a webmaster is limited to being static, fixed regardless of the query. Once we know the user’s query, we can often find alternative text from a page that better explains why that result is relevant. Using this alternative text as a title helps the user, and it also can help your site.”
If I’m searching for “undergraduate entomology programs”, Google may choose to show me results from the text of a page rather than the metadata:
In this case, their search results actually are an improvement on the metadata for that page, probably written to fit the old 160 character limit:
To sum up:
Metadata is your friend. It’s data about your data.
I’ve shown the gnarly code bits here, but most web content systems have an easy way for inputting metadata that doesn’t require you to fiddle with scripts. Find it and use it! Yoast SEO is one of the most popular plugins, and your web host or local tech guru can help too.
If you’ve put time and energy into creating good information, a little extra effort to also include good metadata on your website helps you stand out in web searches. You want to encourage readers to choose your content.
WSJ has a new long, wonky article about web traffic that is just the sort of thing I love. And, like a lot of news about our online ecosystem, it’s a bit depressing.
When you search in Google, it often puts “featured snippets” or “knowledge cards” at the top of the search results. You may also see a list of similar questions under “People also ask.” The problem is that the answers are sometimes bogus, and sourced poorly.
From WSJ
“A study this year by Stone Temple, a prominent analyst of the industry, showed Google’s search engine answered 74.3% of 5,000 questions, and on those answers it had a 97.4% accuracy rate. Both percentages are higher than services from AmazonInc., AppleInc. and Microsoft Corp.
Yet since Google handles trillions of queries a year, even a 2.6% error rate suggests Google serves billions of answers a year that are incomplete, irrelevant or wrong.” [emphasis mine]
I’ve certainly seen this in action in queries about insect identification or pest control.
How NOT to control Fire Ants, via Google
The suggestions from Google about controlling Fire ants are TERRIBLE
Here’s an example: Suggestions for controlling fire ants. Gasoline and grits! That will end well.
Note that there is a tiny “report inappropriate predictions” box in the lower right corner — so this is an opportunity to tell Google that Kill It With Fire Is A Terrible Idea.
Let’s say you search for fire ants and grits; a common home remedy. The featured snippet tells you that instant grits will kill fire ants. NOPE.
Very incorrect featured snippet from Google Search
Note that again, there’s a tiny little feedback link at the bottom right of the Knowledge Card. Give feedback on both good and bad results for entomological results! Help Google do better.
Google Knowledge card feedback form
Google gives priority to responses that have detailed comments about why the suggested information is wrong, and links to better, more authoritative resources.
So the next time you search for something and get terrible results, take action!
Gwen Pearson 