#Mobilegeddon Is 2015’s Y2K for SEOs

Missed in all of the hysteria around Mobilegeddon was the arrival of another algorithmic change, one with a very serious effect. On April 29, Google-watchers and site owners detected another “big” change creating huge drops in traffic for sites impacted. Because this change sneaked in without warning, it has been dubbed “Phantom 2.” The change seems to attack the same problems addressed by Panda — the ever-pervasive and deadly — thin content. There is also speculation that another Penguin is hatching in Mountain View, readying an attack on over-optimization and other violations of Google’s rules of the road.

As the calendar reached April 21, site owners, unable to ensure that their sites were “mobile-friendly,” were anticipating Mobilegeddon — huge ranking drops and dramatic traffic drops as Google implemented its new mobile-friendly algorithmic change. So what happened? On the April 22, there were no huge drops in traffic, penalties galore and havoc wrought. Instead, the results have been reminiscent of the Y2K phenomena where much was made of a potential disaster, but nothing of major consequence occurred. Was Mobilegeddon a fizzle or does it just have slow-burning fuse?

The fact that big changes did not occur in no way signals that sites, not yet designated mobile-friendly, are in the clear, so to speak. It is not atypical for a Google algorithmic change to take a period of time to roll out across the system. I like to think of it in sailing terms. They take the change out for a shakedown cruise and, depending on how it performs, set it off to sail around the globe. The data suggests that Google was already in shakedown mode prior to April 21.

Why did Mobilegeddon pass over us? Was it like an asteroid narrowly missing Earth? Not hardly! The answer is simple. Just as with Y2K, site owners, given advanced warning, were ready. It seems that many site owners, particularly those with top rankings to protect, heeded Google’s warnings and took the steps to ensure that they meet the criteria to be mobile-friendly prior to April 21. With fewer sites eligible (perhaps, a less than desirable state) for demotion for failing to meet the criteria, there is a smaller potential zone of impact. Many top-ranking sites hopped right to it and made sure that they were ready for the “big change;” hence, the big change was a big nothing. It still remains to be seen what the long-term impacts will be.

Missed in all of the hysteria around Mobilegeddon was the arrival of another algorithmic change, one with a very serious effect. On April 29, Google-watchers and site owners detected another “big” change creating huge drops in traffic for sites impacted. Because this change sneaked in without warning, it has been dubbed “Phantom 2.” The change seems to attack the same problems addressed by Panda — the ever-pervasive and deadly — thin content. There is also speculation that another Penguin is hatching in Mountain View, readying an attack on over-optimization and other violations of Google’s rules of the road.

There is a lesson to be learned from this recent set of shocks to the SEO system. Not all of Google’s major changes will be announced. Prompt response to announced changes is insurance against predictable/announced penalties. This is just one element of preparedness. Panda and Penguin updates are part of the landscape and will not always be announced. This makes it important to be ever-vigilant for thin content. I am an avid gardener and regularly prune my plants. It seems that for a site to stay healthy in today’s search ecosystem (that is, achieve and maintain solid rankings), the site managers need to evaluate, prune and enhance their pages to ensure continued growth. Because Panda-type algorithmic changes are going to be an ongoing part of the search ecosystem, site owners and their SEOs need to set a schedule to perform a regular Panda review — a critical look for content that is weak, does not engage the user or has been overwhelmed by boilerplate language to the extent that it offers little real value. I would also like to suggest a similar regular review of overall SEO practices to forestall any raging Penguins hatched in Mountain View. And, remember that the only predictable thing in search is that change is coming.

Should You Make Your Site Secure for Improved SEO Results?

Just this past month Google confirmed that in the future, its search algorithm would be giving a rankings boost to secure sites. This confirms rumors that have rippled through the search marketing industry for several months. This recent change is part of Google’s continuing efforts toward a more secure Web. Like so many pronouncements from Google, this has forced many site owners to reconsider whether to make their sites secure. Site owners need to carefully evaluate the pros and cons of going secure. It may not be either prudent or cost effective at this time.

Just this past month Google confirmed that in the future, its search algorithm would be giving a rankings boost to secure sites. This confirms rumors that have rippled through the search marketing industry for several months. This recent change is part of Google’s continuing efforts toward a more secure Web. Like so many pronouncements from Google, this has forced many site owners to reconsider whether to make their sites secure. Site owners need to carefully evaluate the pros and cons of going secure. It may not be either prudent or cost effective at this time.

When Google made all searches secure and stopped providing site owners the keywords used by searchers to sites, the search giant gave a clear indication of its path and direction toward a ensuring a more secure, safe, Web environment. Google reasoned that it is protecting the identity of the searcher by not providing the keyword referrer. Some find this claim a bit disingenuous, given that the keyword referrer is still available for users of paid search.

The Pros and Cons—A Short Primer
The single-largest benefit gained by making your site secure is a minor algorithmic boost in Google results. This benefit must be weighed against a number of potential negatives and some steep costs. Secure sites run slower than unsecure sites—all that encryption takes more effort than just delivering an unsecure site. Several years ago, Google announced that site speed was going to figure into the rankings formula. At this time, it is unclear whether the rankings boost from having a secure site will be larger than the penalty for slowness. Google does not reveal the valences of its ranking factors, except for declaring some minor. Unless you have made your unsecure site fast and have in place protocols for continuously monitoring and testing your site’s speed, don’t even consider going secure. It will be like adding another brake to it. Your users and your Google rankings will be negatively impacted. A perceived need to possibly go secure in the future should be the impetus to address existing site speed issues.

Then there is the potential for additional penalties for duplicate content, should redirection and canonicalization schemes prove incomplete. The task of shifting and redirecting a very large site into a secure environment is a large task and may require remapping thousands of URLs. No matter how good your team is, you should expect leaks and misses. It is practically built into such projects. If your site is well-mapped and setting redirections and canonicalization are automated, then you may be ready to go secure. If this is not the case, tap the brakes on going secure. You may be creating huge headaches with just minor payback potential.

Did I mention that there are added costs? SSL certificates must be bought and maintained. How often have you gotten a message that a site’s certificate is out of date? You can be sure that Google will take a dim view of sites with expired certificates. Another unnecessary hit! Then, there are the operating costs. Many small businesses rely on gateways and do not manage a secure environment even though they take payments. If your business already has a secure environment in place and you have fully prepared your entire operation for this change, then and only then should you implement having a completely secure site. If you are not ready, consider what steps you should take to get ready and begin the process, for we can expect others to follow Google’s lead in making the Web safer and more secure.

Which is Better for Mobile Shopping, Tablets or Smartphones?

Are you wondering whether it’s worth providing your online retail offering on tablets, particularly the iPad? Are you also facing the challenge of how to get your mobile strategy on track? Before you decide which course to follow, here’s some data to consider:

Are you wondering whether it’s worth providing your online retail offering on tablets, particularly the iPad? Are you also facing the challenge of how to get your mobile strategy on track? Before you decide which course to follow, here’s some data to consider:

Although only a small percentage of users, tablets are poised to more than double their U.S. installed base penetration in 2011 to 7.6 percent of the population, or 24 million devices, according to eMarketer. Two out of five consumers considering purchasing an iPad cited shopping on the device as a reason for their interest, according to research from Vision Critical in November of last year. This isn’t surprising since online shopping is a visual experience and tablets are content-consumption devices.

Early results show that targeting tablet owners rather than smartphone users may be the wise choice, according to the e-tailing group. One in 10 tablet owners used their device to browse or buy online every day versus 6 percent of smartphone owners. The research also shows that once owners start buying via a tablet, they return. Nearly 25 percent of tablet owners made at least six purchases during the past six months, compared to 15 percent of smartphone users who did the same.

Furthermore, tablet owners tend to be gadget-buying early adopters. iPad owners tend to be young, educated and affluent, an ideal target market, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project and Forrester Research.

Due to the tablet’s larger screen and better user functionality for browsing, consumers preferred the tablet shopping experience (88 percent thought it was satisfactory or very satisfactory) to that of a smartphone (73 percent thought it was satisfactory or very satisfactory).

While smartphones are great for shopping in-store or gathering information on the go, they’re not user friendly for extended research activities. In part, this is attributable to the fact that less than 5 percent of retailers have a mobile site, according to October 2010 research from Brand Anywhere and Luth Research.

Here are three tips to consider when planning your company’s mobile strategy:

  1. Take advantage of the tablet’s visual presentation (but avoid using Flash).
  2. Check how your content is formatted and renders on different tablets.
  3. Make sure that shoppers can easily purchase once they’ve seen enough.

Now is a good time to start testing tablets to enhance your customers’ shopping experience, especially if your products are highly visual in nature or need to be seen in the environment in which they’ll be used. Bear in mind that tablets and smartphones fulfill different shopping needs for consumers, therefore you shouldn’t choose one option over the other.