homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.147.90
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 ( [1] 2 > >     
Future Google Results and Video
lfgoal




msg:3789120
 9:01 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

Someone at Pubcon made the statement that, in the near future, sites that don't have video may find themselves losing ranking pretty fast to sites that do. I've heard the newfound importance of video echoed in some recent posts and I was curious as to who believes this statement.

 

tedster




msg:3789147
 9:35 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

Funny you should bring up this topic. Just an hour ago I noticed one SERP where video now appears and it didn't before. In this case it pushed a competitor off page 1, but it could just as well have been my client's site.

So many people find reading difficult - especially online but even otherwise - that I'm pretty sure we'll see a push to more video results in the near future. As long as the end users click and watch, it will keep increasing.

rocco




msg:3789156
 9:46 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

I think Google takes another approach. They will statistically determine whether videos are clicked often or not for a specific SERP; video could be replaced with even map, pic, pdf, classifieds, news ...

signor_john




msg:3789916
 8:37 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Someone at Pubcon made the statement that, in the near future, sites that don't have video may find themselves losing ranking pretty fast to sites that do.

I'm pretty skeptical about that, because I can't see Google turning Web Search into Video Search.

Of course, if a video is displayed prominently on a Universal Search results page, that's going to benefit the site that has the video (e.g., YouTube). But I wouldn't expect the first page of search results to become a series of video clips, with Wikipedia, Coca-Cola.com, or a top-ranked page at Mysite.com being relegated to page 2 or beyond.

tedster




msg:3789928
 8:46 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Agreed - but I already see SERPs where 3 of the top 10 spots are no longer available for a "regular" listing.

This question goes a bit further, as I read it. In other words, will the presence of video somewhere on the site become a ranking "plus". I don't think that will happen directly, but in many markets it will happen indirectly, since many users tend to prefer this more passive kind of content in contrast to the active effort needed to read. That preference starts to translate into more backlinks, more navigational searches and so on.

nomis5




msg:3789930
 8:47 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google said a few months back that video would become an important part of the SERPS. But they also said they wanted a mix. So, as I understood it, page one would be a couple of videos, a couple of wiki type sites, a couple of audio sites, a couple of newwcomers etc.

I believed it when they said that, but it's going to take time. When it is trialled though, the fallout (and the meteoric rise) is going to be phenomenal. A complete readjustment for all. But at the moment, there aren't enough videos out there. Videojug is one which will earn a fortune when it happens.

gouri




msg:3789970
 9:38 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Say you made a video and posted it on Youtube and in that video it mentions your website. Do you think that will help your actual site for keywords your site is targeting?

Will Google like the fact that your site is mentioned on a video? This video is not on your site but on a video sharing site such as Youtube?

supafresh




msg:3789994
 10:18 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

If you find that video adds value to your customer/user experience then google will find value in your video and use that in universal serp.

Video Sharing sites are just the begining and a good outlet for grassroots guys that cant afford to pay for the bandwith. How google will weigh youtube videos vs. the increasing amount internal video is hard to say because the majority of the videos in universal search are youtube videos.

ddogg




msg:3790135
 2:24 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Video results are pretty dumb IMO, at least as I have seen them displayed so far. All spam in my niche, people post videos on YouTube with various keywords and they end up ranking. It's an obvious bias on Google's part since they own YouTube.

Text results are just text while video results get a nice big image next to them so the user has no choice but to look. I want a picture of my website next to my result if I have to compete with video results. Only seems fair.

celerityfm




msg:3790136
 2:24 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

So is it a safe bet that for sites that have their own videos that submitting a google video sitemap is the way people will get their video content into SERPs as we're discussing? Or is there additional things you'd need to do for that to happen? Inquiring minds want to know :)

shri




msg:3790177
 3:59 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Videos increase dwell time. Which I'd imagine will become a key quality factor.

BearTrader




msg:3790194
 4:38 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Ermm nope I don't think any evidence stacks up to prove that shri,

This just sounds like another bull**** algo from google.
People want to watch video's of Britney Spears shaving her hear off rather than reading about it but any commercial aspect of search I see absolutely no evidence of people prefering videos to content. Frankly google are lying if they say otherwise.

tedster




msg:3790227
 5:17 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

At Pubcon last week we heard a keynote address from George Wright of BlendTec. His company has a 700% sales increase in the till, directly attributable to an excellent use of video. This doesn't mean that every video is worthwhile, or that every niche can benefit from video. But it sure can help in many areas.

Google search is still looking for the right balance of video in the SERPs - and that balance MUST increasingly be query specific. One SERP I watch regularly just switched from a books listing in the universal search spot to a video listing - and in this case, I'm pretty sure the video is better for the end user and will draw many more clicks.

shri




msg:3790229
 5:26 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

>> Ermm nope I don't think any evidence stacks up to prove that shri,

Going back on discussions from a couple of years ago, members had speculated that toolbar data can be used to figure out how much time people are spending on a page or a site. Video is content that increases that time significantly.

Blendtec is a brilliant example of how a good viral video strategy can work wonders for the brand and SEO. It even increases the number of links to your site, so if you take into account two sites selling blenders, guess which site will rank better, eventually...

At the end of the day, dwell time is a metric which is used in a lot of non SEO areas like advertising sales and every second spent on your site is a second the surfer will not spend on your competitors site.

So even if its not used in the search algos, it is a good thing to try and increase it.

tedster




msg:3790283
 7:22 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

The opening post of this thread is not talking about video results (universal search results). Instead it is focused on whether having video on your site will be important for holding on to organic rankings in the future:

"...sites that don't have video may find themselves losing ranking pretty fast to sites that do."

That's quite a hypothesis, and worthy of discussion. We've already beaten up the whole universal search thing here many times over.

It is possible that if your site is in a niche where video is useful, then those who have video will do better and better. However, I cannot see why Google would ever make it a direct metric in the ranking algo. Instead each type of content will prove itself, or not, over time and the current algo handles that metric rather well. Adding in a "has video" metric for ranking would make no sense to me.

However, I can envision a future where there is a "has video" icon by any url that does.

petra




msg:3790324
 9:19 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

The question to ask is why not utilise a video strategy as part of your overall optimisation strategy?

With "universal/blended search" becoming more and more the norm, it would only seem logical to optimise for video and any other non text-based content for that matter.

Another note to add here, ensuring your client is present in all mediums allows you to conquer more serp space for branded searches (a smart move from a reputation management pov).

[edited by: petra at 9:56 am (utc) on Nov. 20, 2008]

opraus




msg:3790328
 9:29 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Been seeing video [in top 3 of SERPs] in my niche' of late too ...

Shaddows




msg:3790339
 9:57 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Right, say a site started embedding videos that are actually hosted on You-Tube. Effectively hot-linking. Would that site then get the hypothetical boost, or cede it to you-tube?

shri




msg:3790340
 9:57 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

>> The opening post of this thread is not talking about video results (universal search results).
>> Instead it is focused on whether having video on your site will be important for holding on to organic rankings in the future:

Oops. I misread it completely. No clue why I thought it was about using video on pages and sites would help them rank better.

Shimrit




msg:3790394
 12:31 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

>> The question to ask is why not utilise a video strategy as part of your overall optimisation strategy?

I'd say because it's not always a trivial/cheap thing to do. Definitely not a trivial/cheap thing to do well in a way that would actually get good results. If you have limited time and/or resources, then you have to ask yourself whether it's really necessary. In most cases, putting the time and money towards traditional SEO,PPC,Display advertising. etc is likely to yield better results for your cash.

physics




msg:3790635
 5:25 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

One of the terms I watch has not one but TWO YouTube videos in the top 10. Note that the results are the videos with direct links to YouTube but not the sites owned by the people that posted those videos. As a webmaster it's frustrating that two of the top 10 spots are taken up by one of Google's own properties - in addition to all of the ads. But, that's how it goes. Now, if you can get your link in the text next to the YouTube video and / or a domain drop in the video then good for you - but it might just push you out of the top 10 :o

p.s.
It seems it would be more 'fair' if Google ALSO included a link to the video poster's site in the SERPs if they're going to include the video.

markd




msg:3790649
 5:45 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

So, are we talking about flv's, mpegs, etc. etc., how about swf's which reference a video? What would be 'best' -streams, progressive, instructional, training, promotional videos?

Seems like a potentially simplistic response ("sites that use 'video" as a generic term), to what can be a very creative and variable type of media.

ispy




msg:3790805
 9:02 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Since Google has a stake in YouTube I think that is an accurate statement.

icedowl




msg:3790833
 9:27 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

I wish they'd put all the video carp in its own area, just like images have their own area. It's a rare day when I want to see any videos online.

dstiles




msg:3790900
 11:26 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

I saw a bit of a TV interview last week with a google top man explaining how they were perfecting in-video advertising for videos originating on their sites. Not sure if third-party videos were included.

Scary thought - could anyone afford to sue for alteration of content?

aristotle




msg:3791272
 11:28 am on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

I am seeing more and more worthless Youtube videos in the top 10 SERPs everyday. Usually it's a pair of them together. So many pairs can't be occurring together naturally, so it's an artificial manipulation of the SERPs.

Google doesn't even know what's on these worthless videos, but is putting them in the top 10 anyway, pushing legitimate sites off the first page.

physics




msg:3791416
 3:29 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

Wow. For the first time in a long time there is only one, not two, videos in the top 10. Matt, are you reading this ;)

supafresh




msg:3791423
 3:43 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

I am seeing more and more worthless Youtube videos in the top 10 SERPs everyday. Usually it's a pair of them together. So many pairs can't be occurring together naturally, so it's an artificial manipulation of the SERPs.
Google doesn't even know what's on these worthless videos, but is putting them in the top 10 anyway, pushing legitimate sites off the first page.

if you see worthless videos in your sector of search then make one thats not worthless and profit.

potentialgeek




msg:3791616
 8:46 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

physics,

I've had the same problems with video displacement.

To the general points of video I'm the biggest sceptic. Video ads were going to revolutionize the web. Never happened, just annoyed people more. YouTube sold for a billion bucks but Google still hasn't monetized it.

Google will have to sell YouTube sooner or later (however long their shareholders will tolerate the bleeding). Then we'll go back to clean, uncluttered Search Results Pages.

Google's plans to monetize YouTube are no better than the Detroit 3's ideas to turn their business around.

Embedded video results in main pages are an insult to the users' intelligence. "They can see the Video link at the top of the page next to Images and News but they aren't smart enough to click on it."

p/g

bluntforce




msg:3791898
 4:31 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Shaddows,

I embedded three videos yesterday, two as part of blog posts, one that illustrated the exact topic of a page I'd written sometime in the 90's.

If/when I see anything worthy of an opinion, I'll be sure to add my views.

This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved