Enter your email address for weekly access to top multifamily blogs!

Multifamily Blogs

This is some blog description about this site

Experimenting With Real-Time Search

Experimenting With Real-Time Search

If you’ve been following search engine optimization at all in the past year, you’ll have undoubtedly heard the term “real-time search.” One aspect of real-time search refers to search engines using the social media pipeline, including channels like Facebook and Twitter, to provide up-to-the-minute results. There is a growing contingent of bloggers out there who believe that real-time is the “next big thing” for SEO. I decided to run a few experiments to help illustrate how this all works.

So how DOES it work? If we take an extremely newsworthy topic that is “trending” right now, you might see Google employing real-time results right there on the first page. Below, I’ve performed a search for “Prop 8.” Google has taken a portion of its search engine results page (SERP) and inserted a constantly updating box displaying the latest blog posts and tweets.

Google search engine results page

I tried to bring up the same box with “alex rodriguez hits 600” but was unable to do so. This should tell us something about how newsworthy the topic must be or the amount of “trending” that must be occurring in order for Google to display this in their main results page.

Unfortunately for us, it is less likely our multifamily news or our latest special rental offer is going to make it to this level of newsworthiness in the eyes of Google. So does that mean that real-time search is out of our reach? I’m not quite ready to give up yet.

If we type in “apartments in Chicago” into Google, we get the standard links we’re all used to seeing. No real-time magic here. However, if you click on the “Show Search Tools” button on the left of the screen, we see that it opens up some options. Clicking on “Latest” gives us Google’s real-time results. I’ll be the first to admit that this is not the ideal user experience and I don’t have any data that tells me how many people actually click on that “latest” button. However, I can envision two scenarios that make this exercise worthwhile.

  1. Search engines could start incorporating real-time results on the main page for more general search queries.
  2. Users could eventually become more familiar with using the “latest” button.

I want to point out something very interesting about this real-time results page. There is no “next page” link or button. That means that any results displayed here are only visible as long as there are no other results to push them off the page. This should have an impact on when and how often items are posted/tweeted to the stream.

Let’s get on with the experiments. These are by no means comprehensive or completely scientific. I just wanted to try a few things out, share the results and see what conclusions, if any, we can come to.

Experiment #1 – News

Here, I took a news story and tweeted it while preceding the link with a keyword-rich teaser.

Twitter account: Apartmentscom – Lots of followers (1000+) and perceived authority
Twitter Post: Amenities are important to choosy renters of apartments in Chicago: http://bit.ly/dvNQOT
Search Query: “apartments in Chicago”

Result:

Twitter search results

A couple of things have happened here. First, notice the “apartments in chicago” phrase has been highlighted. Choosing keywords here is just as important as traditional search optimization. Also, notice how Google has expanded the bit.ly URL. This could not only be another place to include keywords, but also a way to catch a user’s eye and send them directly to a desired destination.

Experiment #2 – News Facebook Post:

I posted the same news story as above to our Apartments.com Facebook page:

Apartments.com Facebook page

Search Query: “apartments in Chicago”
Result: A few minutes after the Twitter post appeared…

Google real time search results from Facebook

The Facebook post almost immediately appeared in the SERP, above the previous tweet. Once again, the keywords are highlighted and the URL’s title is on full display.

Experiment #3 – Special offer

Twitter account: FindAnApt – no followers, first tweet
Twitter Post: FindAnApt New special offer on these apartments in Chicago:http://bit.ly/cpKaAZ
Search Query: “apartments in Chicago”

Google real time search results from Twitter

 

The important aspect highlighted here is that this account had ZERO followers. This tells me that Google isn’t using this as a ranking factor. 

Experiment #4 – News

Twitter account: FindAnApt – no followers, 2nd tweet
Twitter Post: Apartments in Chicago need amenities according to renters:http://bit.ly/dvNQOT

Google real time search results from Twitter

I was able to recreate the results for Dallas Apartments as well:

Google real time search results from Twitter

 

However, when I tried posting another tweet for an apartment in Seattle, I was unable to get a result to appear. What did appear was this:

Google real time search results showing foursquare post

It’s a foursquare post to someone’s Twitter account. See a reason for encouraging your tenants to use foursquare now? I do. But that is another story…

Perhaps, I used too many similar, potentially spam-sounding posts too frequently and Google decided not to post include the third one. It’s possible but I can’t confirm it either way.

Conclusions

Based on our informal tests, here’s what we can infer:

  • Google is only displaying real-time results on the first page if the topic is trending or highly newsworthy
  • The real-time-only results page’s listings are transitory, meaning that one must be mindful of when or how often to post items that target a particular keyword phase.
  • Choosing the right keywords to include in the post/tweet is an important ranking factor
  • Number of followers on Twitter doesn’t seem to be a major qualifier to getting listed in the real-time results
  • It’s possible that frequency and content could be an indicator of “spam” or “bot” tweets and could hinder inclusion in the results.

What might be the most important conclusion is that none of the URLs that made it into the real-time search stream received a click. Granted, only two out of three (Chicago and Dallas) actually made it into the stream. But given the transitory nature of these results I believe it’s illustrative of the type of mindfulness that must go in to creating a successful real-time search campaign.

I hope this little exercise has been helpful. I know I learned a few things along the way. I’m eager to hear about your experiences with real-time search. What’s working and what’s not working for you?

As always, don't forget you can follow me at @knit_hat

 

 
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

Ken, do you know how this is being affected by the new Google immediate results program they just rolled out? And speaking of that, you might consider testing out how that new system changes actual usage results. For example, a friend of mine is in an oil and gas business who comes up first under the search term "Accumulators". But he didn't even come up on the first page under the singular version, "accumulator" ... until the new instant results concept was rolled out. Now, he is #1 once it hits "accum", which means there are ramifications not only for your search term, but also all the derivations of partial words that comprise that search term. Sorry for getting off topic, but would love to hear your thoughts!

  Brent Williams
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

Let's start with your first question, shall we?

I searched Google for "VMA," meaning MTV's Video Music Awards. I figured this would be a good way to find some real-time results. When i typed it into the standard search page, Google Instant took over and, among the results, the Twitter feed appeared.

Now, when I clicked on the "Latest" filter in the left column, that page did not activate Google Instant. It still functioned exactly as described in the article. Seems Google Instant only works on the generic, non-filtered search results.

Now, let's talk about the example with your friend's website. While I didn't get any accumulator-based results when I type in "accum," I don't think it necessarily matters for what I think this all means.

First off, the website didn't rank for "accum." It ranked for "accum" plus whatever Google suggested as the completion of that word. You can try it yourself. Type in "accum" again and notice the grey text after what you've already typed. THAT'S the word the site is ranking for.

Basically, Google Instant is just a visualization of what Google Suggest has been doing all along (Google Suggest is that drop-down of key-phrases you see after you start typing). This functionality has been around for over a year, at least. But that doesn't mean it's not important to look at. Here's why...

The bigger issue here, bigger than the fancy display of results, is the change to Google Suggest. I did an experiment of Google Suggest before the Google Instant release and one after. The keyphrases being suggested were completely different. In my opinion, it got quite a bit smarter. And now to why this is important to your friend...

Two words... Keyword. Research. It's true that people are still going to type in complete phrases. However, if Google's only going to take it upon itself to "suggest" the singular version of the word, like "accumulator," it certainly makes that term more important. Also, take a look at other phrases around that term....

Let's start with your first question, shall we?

I searched Google for "VMA," meaning MTV's Video Music Awards. I figured this would be a good way to find some real-time results. When i typed it into the standard search page, Google Instant took over and, among the results, the Twitter feed appeared.

Now, when I clicked on the "Latest" filter in the left column, that page did not activate Google Instant. It still functioned exactly as described in the article. Seems Google Instant only works on the generic, non-filtered search results.

Now, let's talk about the example with your friend's website. While I didn't get any accumulator-based results when I type in "accum," I don't think it necessarily matters for what I think this all means.

First off, the website didn't rank for "accum." It ranked for "accum" plus whatever Google suggested as the completion of that word. You can try it yourself. Type in "accum" again and notice the grey text after what you've already typed. THAT'S the word the site is ranking for.

Basically, Google Instant is just a visualization of what Google Suggest has been doing all along (Google Suggest is that drop-down of key-phrases you see after you start typing). This functionality has been around for over a year, at least. But that doesn't mean it's not important to look at. Here's why...

The bigger issue here, bigger than the fancy display of results, is the change to Google Suggest. I did an experiment of Google Suggest before the Google Instant release and one after. The keyphrases being suggested were completely different. In my opinion, it got quite a bit smarter. And now to why this is important to your friend...

Two words... Keyword. Research. It's true that people are still going to type in complete phrases. However, if Google's only going to take it upon itself to "suggest" the singular version of the word, like "accumulator," it certainly makes that term more important. Also, take a look at other phrases around that term. For example, "accumulator tank." This is a powerful research tool. (and more powerful in other ways which I'll explain in a minute)

In regards to how this will affect user behavior...here's my big caveat. When I search for something, I rarely type something into the Google page itself...at least not for my primary search, and sometimes beyond that. I use the Omnibar in my Chrome browser or the search box built into IE and Firefox. Google Instant doesn't work in these places. I never go to Google.com to start a search. There's no need. I can tell you that I'm likely not alone here. Then, you have the people who are going to turn it off altogether.

Now, here's the part that's going to really melt your banana...

Look at what they're suggesting. They aren't very long tail search terms, are they? I'd categorize them as short to mid-tail terms. After all this time talking about long-tail search, why would Google be suggesting short and mid-tail searches? Because, they're more competitive and cost more money to purchase them for PPC? BINGO! By promoting the use of Suggest/Instant, controlling what is suggested and guiding the searcher to keyphrases that are more expensive, SEM/PPC people might have less incentive to purchase cheaper long-tail terms and might be more likely to buy more expensive, more competitive terms. Seems pretty beneficial to Google's bottom line. I could be WAY off base here but that's just my two cents...For example, you could argue that if you start off typing a long-tail phrase, you'll get long-tail "suggestions." Valid point. I'll concede that. However, if I type in "apartments" and Google knows I'm in a certain city (which it does) why not suggest "apartments in [cityName]" AND "apartments in [cityName] that allow pets" or something along those lines? Maybe someday when I learns I have two dogs, it will suggest that in the future. Like I said, it's just something to think about. I'm putting together a blog post to outline this further with examples of how it was before and how it is now.

Hope I was able to answer some of your questions!

Read More
  Ken Shafer
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

I really like your conspiracy theory-type analysis at the end! But yes, that makes a lot of sense! But I do have one follow up question. Going on the example we were talking about, if someone put some time into optimizing for "accum", once somebody typed that phrase in, do you think Google would just ignore it and move right onto "accumulator"? Would "accum" have to become more prevalent than "accumulator" before it would show up in instant results, or would there have to be some tipping point where it finally becomes part of the search process, showing results after that phrase? And if so, wouldn't that change how SEO worked fundamentally?

  Brent Williams
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

Remember, Google Instant/Suggest is merely attempting to complete the word you're typing. If the phrase "accum" actually became a word or something many, many people started searching for it by itself of a consistent period of time (meaning that people were lopping off the suggested characters that Google is using to try and make a complete word), then MAYBE "accum" might actually become a "suggested" keyphrase in and of itself, with no attempt on Google's part to complete the word.

Or, theoretically, if "accum" became some viral term or was part of some breaking news story, then I could see Google Suggest including that as a stand-alone in the drop-down.

I think that I would be insanely hard to "game" Google Suggest in the manner you're alluding to in your last sentence. Even if you could, let's look at this from a pragmatic perspective. Let's say you were somehow able to game the system so that "accum" is a stand-alone term in Google Suggest and your site ranked #1. Now, let's say someone is in the market for and accumulator. They start typing "accum." They see something that says "accum" and another suggestion that says "accumulator." I'd be willing to be that the casual searcher is going to look right past "accum" because it doesn't have any meaning to the searcher and go right to "accumulator" because that is the target of the search.

I see what you're trying to get at but I think it'd be a crazy amount of effort to achieve with potentially very little return. I gotta go Achem's Razor-style here and say that the simpler solution would be the better one.

  Ken Shafer

Comment Below

  1. Posting comment as a guest. Sign up or login to your account.
Attachments (0 / 3)
Share Your Location