Central Perk

joi, 3 iulie 2014

Panda Pummels Press Release Websites: The Road to Recovery

Posted: 02 Jul 2014 04:00 PM PDT

This post was originally in YouMoz, and was promoted to the main blog because it provides great value and interest to our community. The author's views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of Moz, Inc.

Many of us in the search industry were caught off guard by the release of Panda 4.0. It had become common knowledge that Panda was essentially "baked into" the algorithm now several times a month, so a pronounced refresh was a surprise. While the impact seemed reduced given that it coincided with other releases including a payday loans update and a potential manual penalty on Ebay, there were notable victims of the Panda 4.0 update which included major press release sites. Both Search Engine Land and Seer Interactive independently verified a profound traffic loss on major press release sites following the Panda 4.0 update. While we can't be certain that Google did not, perhaps, roll out a handful of simultaneous manual actions or perhaps these sites were impacted by the payday loans algo update, Panda remains the inference to the best explanation for their traffic losses.

So, what happened? Can we tease out why Press Release sites were seemingly singled out? Are they really that bad? And why are they particularly susceptible to the Panda algorithm? To answer this question, we must first address the main question: what is the Panda algorithm?

Briefly: What is the Panda Algorithm?

The Panda algorithm was a ground-breaking shift in Google's methodology for addressing certain search quality issues. Using patented machine learning techniques, Google used real, human reviewers to determine the quality of a sample set of websites. We call this sample the "training set". Examples of the questions they were asked are below:

Would you trust the information presented in this article?
Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
How much quality control is done on content?
Does the article describe both sides of a story?
Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don't get as much attention or care?
Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
Is this the sort of page you'd want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
Would users complain when they see pages from this site?

Once Google had these answers from real users, they built a list of variables that might potentially predict these answers, and applied their machine learning techniques to build a model of predicting low performance on these questions. For example, having an HTTPS version of your site might predict a high performance on the "trust with a credit card" question. This model could then be applied across their index as a whole, filtering out sites that would likely perform poorly on the questionnaire. This filter became known as the Panda algorithm.

How do press release sites perform on these questions?

First, Moz has a great tutorial on running your own Panda questionnaire on your own website, which is useful not just for Panda but really any kind of user survey. The graphs and data in my analysis come from PandaRisk.com, though. Full disclosure, Virante, Inc., the company for which I work, owns PandaRisk. The graphs were built by averaging the results from several pages on each press release site, so they represent a sample of pages from each PR distributor.

So, let's dig in. In the interest of brevity, I have chosen to highlight just four of the major concerns that came from the surveys, question-by-question.

Q1. Does this site contain insightful analysis?

Google wants to send users to web pages that are uniquely useful, not just unique and not just useful. Unfortunately, press release sites uniformly fail on this front. On average, only 50% of reviewers found that BusinessWire.com content contained insightful analysis. Compare this to Wikipedia, EDU and Government websites which, on average, score 84%, 79% and 94% respectively, and you can see why Google might choose not to favor their content.

But does this have to be the case? Of course not. Press release websites like BusinessWire.com have first mover status on important industry information. They should be the first to release insightful analysis. Now, press release sites do have to be careful about editorializing the content of their users, but there are clearly improvements that could be made. For example, we know that use of structured data and visual aids improves performance on this question (ie: graphs and charts). BusinessWire could extract stock exchange symbols from press releases and include graphs and data related to the business right in the post. This would separate their content from other press release sites that simply reproduce the content verbatim. There are dozens of other potential improvements that can be added either programmatically or by an editor. So, what exactly would these kinds of changes look like?

In this case, we simply inserted a graph from stock exchange data and included on the right-hand side some data from Freebase on the Securities and Exchange Commission, which could easily be extracted as an entity from the documentation using, for example, Alchemy API. These modest improvements to the page increased the "insightful analysis" review score by 15%.

Q2. Would you trust this site with your credit card?

This is one of the most difficult ideals to measure up to. E-Commerce sites, in general, perform better automatically, but there are clear distinctions between sites people trust and don't trust. Press release websites do have an e-commerce component, so one would expect them to fare comparatively well to non-commercial sites. Unfortunately, this is just not the case. PR.com failed this question in what can only be described as epic fashion. 91% of users said they would not trust the site with their credit card details. This isn't just a Panda issue for PR.com, this is a survival-of-the-business issue.

Luckily, there are some really clear, straight-forward solutions to this address this problem.

Extend HTTPS/SSL Sitewide
Not every site needs to have HTTPS enabled, but if you have a 600,000+ page site with e-commerce functionality, let's just go ahead and assume you do. Users will immediately trust your site more if they see that pretty little lock icon in their browser.
Site Security Solutions
Take advantage of solutions like Comodo Hacker Proof or McAfee SiteAdvisor to verify that your site is safe and secure. Include the badges and link to them so that both users and the bots know that you have a safe site.
Business Reputation Badges
Use at least one trade group or business reputation group (like the better business bureau) or, at minimum, employ some form of schema review markup that makes it clear to your users that at least some person or group of persons out there trusts your site. If you use a trade group membership or the BBB, make sure you link to them so that, once again, it is clear to the bots as well as your users.
Up-to-date Design
This is a clear issue time and time again. In the technology world, old means insecure. The site PR.com looks old-fashioned by all measures of the word, especially in comparison to the other press release websites. It is no wonder that it performs so horribly.

It is worth pointing out here that Google doesn't need to find markup on your site to come to the conclusion that your site is untrustworthy. Because the Panda algorithm likely takes into account engagement metrics and behaviors (like pogo sticking), Google can use the behavior of users to predict the performance on these questions. So, even if there isn't a clear path between a change you make on your site and Googlebot's ability to identify that change doesn't mean the change cannot and will not have an impact on site performance in the search results. The days of thinking about your users and the bots as separate audiences are gone. The bots now measure both your site and your audience. Your impact on users can and will have an impact on search performance.

Q3. Do you consider this site an authority?

This question is particularly difficult for sites that both don't control the content they create and have a wide variety of content. This places press release websites squarely in the bullseye of the Panda algorithm. How does a website that accepts thousands of press releases on nearly any topic dare claim to be an authority? Well, it generally doesn't, and the numbers bear that out. 75% of respondents wouldn't consider PRNewswire an authority.

Notice, though, that Wikipedia performs poorly on this metric as well (at least compared to EDUs and GOVs). So what exactly is going on here? How can a press release site hope to escape from this authority vacuum?

Topically Segment Content
This was one of the very first reactions to Panda. Many of the sites that were hit with Panda 1.0 sub-domained their content into particular topic areas. This seemed to provide some relief but was never a complete or permanent solution. Whether you segment your content into sub-directories or sub-domains, what you are really doing here is helping make clear to your users that the specific content your users are reading is part of a bigger piece of the pie. It isn't some random page on your site, it fits in nicely with your website's stated aims.
Create an Authority
Just because you don't write the content for your site doesn't mean you can't be authoritative. In fact, most major press release websites have some degree of editorial oversight sitting between the author and the website. That editorial layer needs to be bolstered and exposed to the end user, making it obvious that the website does more than simply regurgitate the writing of anyone with a few bucks.

So, what exactly would this look like? Let's return to the Businesswire press release we were looking at earlier. We started with a bland page comprised of almost nothing but the press release. We then added a graph and some structured data automagically. Now, we want to add in some editor creds and topic segmentation.

Notice in the new design that we have created the "Securities & Investment Division", added an editor with a fancy title "Business Desk Editor" and a credentialed by-line. You could even use authorship publisher markup. The page no longer looks like a sparse press release but an editorially managed piece of news content in a news division dedicated to this subject matter. Authority done.

Q4. Would you consider bookmarking/sharing this site?

When I look at this question, I am baffled. Seriously, how do you make a site in which you don't control the content worth bookmarking or sharing? Furthermore, how do you do this with overtly commercial, boring content like press releases? As you could imagine, press release sites fair quite poorly on this. Over 85% of respondents said they weren't interested at all in bookmarking or sharing content from PRWeb.com. And why should they?

So, how exactly does a press release website encourage users to share? The most common recommendations are already in place on PRWeb. They are quite overt with the usage of social sharing and bookmarking buttons (placed right at the top of the content). Their content is constantly fresh because new press releases come out every day. If these techniques aren't working, then what will?

The problem with bookmarking and sharing on press release websites is two-fold. First, the content is overtly commercial so users don't want to share it unless the press release is about something truly interesting. Secondly, the content is ephemeral so users don't want to return to it. We have to solve both of these problems.

Unfortunately, I think the answer to this question is some tough medicine for press release websites. The solution is multi-faceted. It starts with putting a meta expires tag on press releases. Sorry, but there is no reason for PRWeb to maintain a 2009 press release about a business competition in the search results. In its place, though, should be company and/or categorical pages which thoughtfully index and organize archived content. While LumaDerm may lose their press release from 2009, they would instead have a page on the site dedicated to their press releases so that the content is still accessible, albeit one click away, and the search engines know to ignore it. With this solution, the pages that end up ranking in the long run for valuable words and phrases are the aggregate pages that truly do offer authoritative information on what is up-and-coming with the business. The page is sticky because it is updated as often as the business releases new information, you still get some of the shares out of new releases but you don't risk the problems of PR sprawl and crawl prioritization. Aside from the initial bump of fresh content, there is no good SEO reason to keep old press releases in the index.

So, I don't own a press release site...

Most of us don't run sites with thousands of pages of low quality content. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be cognizant of Panda. Of all of Google's search updates, Panda is the one I respect the most. I respect it because it is an honest attempt to measure quality. It doesn't ask how you got to your current position in the search results (a classic genetic fallacy problem), it simply asks whether the page and site itself deserve that ranking based on human quality measures (as imperfect as it may be at doing so). Most importantly, even if Google didn't exist at all, you should aspire to have a website that scores well on all of these metrics. Having a site that performs well on the Panda questions means more than insulation from a particular algorithm update, it means having a site that performs well for your users. That is a site you want to have.

Take a look again at the questionnaire. Does your site honestly meet these standards? Ask someone unbiased. If your site does, then congratulations - you have an amazing site. But if not, it is time to get to work building the site that you were meant to build.

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

Seth's Blog : The difference between impossible and nearly impossible

The difference between impossible and nearly impossible

Is as big as any difference we encounter. All we need is 'nearly' and we have completely transformed the problem--changing it from one to avoid to one to commit to.

Here's the hard part: having the ability to see (and to announce) the 'nearly' part.

Almost every breakthrough comes from someone who saw nearly when no one else did.

• Email to a friend •

miercuri, 2 iulie 2014

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Workers Handed Victory Over Unions: Supreme Court Rules Government Cannot Force-Unionize Workers Into State Entitlement Programs
Much Ado About Nothing
New Orders for Manufactured Goods Down More than Expected, Inventories Up 18 of 19 Months, Highest Since 1992

Workers Handed Victory Over Unions: Supreme Court Rules Government Cannot Force-Unionize Workers Into State Entitlement Programs

Posted: 02 Jul 2014 11:15 PM PDT

In contrast to the highly ballyhooed but Much Ado About Nothing Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, the court issued a far more meaningful ruling on forced unionization on the same day.

Paul Kersey at the Illinois Policy Institute explains by email:

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a groundbreaking ruling today on the case of Harris v. Quinn. The court's ruling states that state governments cannot force-unionize participants in state entitlement programs or force them to pay union dues as a condition of receiving help from the state.

The court's 5-4 decision was in favor of the plaintiff Pam Harris, a mother from suburban Chicago who takes care of her disabled son and participates in a state Medicaid program. The justices ruled that Medicaid beneficiaries and people participating in state entitlement programs are not state employees, and cannot be forced into a union or forced to pay union dues.

For more than a decade, government unions have been forcing people who are not state workers – moms and dads caring for children with developmental disabilities, home day-care providers for low-income children and others – to pay dues to a union as a condition of receiving help from their state governments. Both Gov. Pat Quinn and now-disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued executive orders allowing the unionization of people who were not state workers. This resulted in Illinois government unions making $20 million a year from these workers, many of whom never wanted to join or pay dues to a union in the first place.

Fortunately, today the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that plaintiff Pam Harris won't have to jeopardize and limit her son's care by being forced to join a union she does not want, agree with or support.

Paul Kersey
Director of Labor Policy

Victory!

Kersey wrote a more detailed op-ed that appeared in USA Today: Workers Handed Victory Over Unions.

This victory is a big step in the right direction. Unfortunately the court did not make the final step of mandating national right-to-work practices and eliminating forced union dues altogether.

It should have. As Kersey explained in his op-ed...

The court could have gone further. Government union bosses want to organize as many people as possible — even those who aren't government employees — because they can usually force the people they represent to pay union dues. Harris' attorneys were hoping the court would rule that no government employee can be forced to pay dues as a condition of employment.

The court instead opted for a stern warning that unions have no business extracting dues from people who aren't even employees. Union officials should take heed: the U.S. Supreme Court is putting more limits on mandatory union dues. Soon, the high court may rightly decide that forced dues are unconstitutional and do away with them entirely.

Congratulations to Pam Harris for her well-deserved victory over union thugs extorting payments from non-employees

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Much Ado About Nothing

Posted: 02 Jul 2014 12:43 PM PDT

Republicans and Democrats alike trumped up the meaning of Monday's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling "closely held companies cannot be compelled to offer their employees birth control as part of the law if they object to the provisions on religious grounds".

Republicans acted as if this was a major repudiation of Obamacare. It wasn't. Rather, the Supreme Court made a reasonable ruling on religious beliefs.

Yet, step back a moment and note the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby, one of the companies that took Obamacare to court over the mandate.

My friend Dave puts it this way:

"Hobby Lobby is obviously hypocritical as they do business in China, a country with contraception, abortion, and even forced late term abortion accomplished sometimes by brutal means -- and where infanticide, although illegal, is also widely practiced. If they are true to their beliefs, they should pull out of China. Moreover, the whole Republican attack on contraceptives -- not abortion, but contraceptives -- is completely bewildering to me."

Exactly. Religion and hypocrisy frequently go hand-in-hand, as do politics and hypocrisy.

Obama's Over the Top Response

While Republicans gleefully overplayed the significance of the ruling in one direction, Obama and the Democrats chose to outdo them with political hyperbole in the opposite direction.

"If the Supreme Court will not protect women's access to health care, then Democrats will," said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid.

The White House stated the "Ruling Jeopardizes the Health of Women".

CNBC quoted the White House as follows: "The executive branch will also consider whether the president can act on his own to mitigate the effect of the Supreme Court ruling."

And that statement played straight into Republican hands, rightfully fearful of more Obama-Mandates in lieu of real legislation.

How Obama Should Have Responded

Obama should have mentioned disappointment over the ruling.

Next, he should have made a statement that he would work with Congress to "improve" the bill instead of making threats to "act on his own".

Finally, the president could have and should have pointed out that birth control pills are available at Planned Parenthood for perhaps as little as $15 a month and that an emergency morning after pill is available for $35.

Questions of the Day

Is there much of anything to "mitigate"?
Is anyone's health really in "jeopardy" over the ruling?
Was Obama unwise to require companies pay for birth control if they did not want to?
Is this the end of Obamacare?

In order, the answers are no (very few people are likely to be affected), no (contraception is widely available for low cost to the few who are affected), yes (Obama knew this challenge was coming), and no.

The reaction from both sides is much ado about nothing, and everything to do with politics accompanied by extreme hype, as usual.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

New Orders for Manufactured Goods Down More than Expected, Inventories Up 18 of 19 Months, Highest Since 1992

Posted: 02 Jul 2014 09:59 AM PDT

The Department of Commerce report on Manufacturer's Shipments, Inventories, and Orders released today shows new orders for manufactured goods were down following three consecutive increases, while inventories were up for the 18th time in 19 months.

Report Highlights

New orders for manufactured goods in May, down following three consecutive monthly increases, decreased $2.6 billion or 0.5 percent to $497.7 billion.
Excluding transportation, new orders decreased 0.1 percent.
Shipments, up four consecutive months, increased $0.3 billion or 0.1 percent to $498.3 billion. This was at the highest level since the series was first published on a NAICS basis in 1992 and followed a 0.4 percent April increase.
Unfilled orders, up thirteen of the last fourteen months, increased $6.7 billion or 0.6 percent to $1,087.4 billion. This was also at the highest level since the series was first published on a NAICS basis and followed a 0.9 percent April increase.
Inventories, up eighteen of the last nineteen months, increased $5.0 billion or 0.8 percent to $651.5 billion. This was also at the highest level since the series was first published on a NAICS basis and followed a 0.5 percent April increase.
The inventories-to-shipments ratio was 1.31, up from 1.30 in April.
Inventories of manufactured durable goods in May, up thirteen of the last fourteen months, increased $3.6 billion or 0.9 percent to $397.5 billion, revised from the previously published 1.0 percent increase. This was at the highest level since the series was first published on a NAICS basis and followed a 0.2 percent April increase.

Stage Set for Huge Slowdown

Inventories, shipments, and unfilled orders are highest levels ever on a NAICS basis that dates back to 1992.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS, pronounced Nakes) was developed as the standard for use by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the collection, analysis, and publication of statistical data related to the business economy of the U.S. NAICS was developed under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and adopted in 1997 to replace the old Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. It was also developed in cooperation with the statistical agencies of Canada and Mexico to establish a 3-country standard that allows for a high level of comparability in business statistics among the three countries.

The stage is set for one heck of a slowdown when customer demand sinks.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com