SEO for Bing - a discussion with Bing's Duane Forrester

[BenFox]

I don't suppose anyone could point me in the direction of any posts written specifically about SEO for Bing?

[bingdude]

You can start with this guide [onlinehelp.microsoft.com] Ben. From there, more info exists here [onlinehelp.microsoft.com] to help fill in blanks further, on a number of related topics.

[walkman]

BenFox,
As far as I can tell, if you have the info on the page, have decent links and good site architecture they will find you and rank accordingly.

There are no tricks or stupid guessing as we've seen lately with Google. But Bing will not index what they see as 'bad' pages, or at least it did not.

[bingdude]

As far as I can tell, if you have the info on the page, have decent links and good site architecture they will find you and rank accordingly.

There are no tricks or stupid guessing as we've seen lately with Google. But Bing will not index what they see as 'bad' pages, or at least it did not.

Pretty much bang on target walkman. :)

Bing likes quality, original content. Skip syndicated content and articles as a way forward.

Bing does not respond well to "thin" content - in fact, we're constantly looking through our index to determine if items we keep have performed well in past searches compared to other items. We're looking for, in the end, the best result for a searcher. Ask yourself this for every page you have: Is this the single best result for a searcher? Have I developed an authority page for a given query; a page that will thoroughly answer a searcher's needs?

If the answer is "Yes", then fantastic, you're well on your way!

If the answer is "well, I applied standard seo best practices, used the target keyword in the <title>, <meta description>, <keywords>, the <alt> tag, in an <h1> and a few times throughout the page content"...the answer is, that's simply not enough to rank well on the popular phrases these days. It's a start, but in reality, user sentiment plays a bigger role these days in ranking. (Biggerin terms of it plays more of a role than it used to, NOT "sentiment has more impact that the typical seo work items".)

These days, you have to think in terms of the total package. SEO is not a stand-alone function. In fact, I'd suggest SEO is a 2nd tier marketing function, where the first tier is making sure the site is quick, wows visitors enough that they talk about you positively online, and elements such as "rich snippets" will be the way forward in the future.

I'm not taking anything away from SEO here, but the fact is, times, they are a changin'. What was cutting edge a decade ago is an expected baseline today. Is SEO dead? Hardly.

SEO is simply, IMO, due to be integrated more closely with other work areas. SEO and UX spring to mind as BFFs. Now, couple that with social and you're starting to cover the important bases for the future. And to define that "future" a bit, let's look at it this way:

The future is now.

If a user searches on Bing, we return the best SERP we can for the query. The user clicks on the first result (as we'd expect, normally). They hit YOUR website, and...

1 - are so engaged they forget about the rest of the Internet for a few minutes and bask in your glory, getting the information they wanted, and more.

2 - are so dismayed they immediately hit their back button, suddenly popping back onto our radar, alerting us to the fact they were displeased with the result we just showed them - why else would they suddenly come back, without consuming your content? Displeased.

Pretty obvious which option you'd like to see happen. It's the same result we're hoping for - we want to wow the searcher with the right result every time. Things like rich snippets enable you to mark up your content in new ways helping Bing understand what all of your content elements are: videos, text, flash elements, images, etc. Rich snippets help you help us understand your content and display it in new, more engaging ways. :)

If you haven't starting thinking about integrating rich snippets into your page code, NOW is the time to start planning for it. They are a signal - a light signal - but as adoption increases, leading to richer searcher experiences and higher satisfaction with SERP results, that signal strength may well increase.

By now I'm sure Ben is a bit frightened and maybe a smidge confused by this "new" path for SEO I'm suggesting...

Not to worry Ben - cover the basic SEO best practices - they still hold value. But also invest in figuring out how to leverage these newer areas to lead your website to greater success.

[tigger]

I just wish Bing would pull some UK traffic - last time I looked at the depressing figures it was something like 96% G!

[Panthro]

2 - are so dismayed they immediately hit their back button, suddenly popping back onto our radar, alerting us to the fact they were displeased with the result we just showed them - why else would they suddenly come back, without consuming your content? Displeased.

That is a bold assumption to make. Do you really think there is NO other explanation? As discussed all over these boards, this is a dangerous metric to use when determining a searcher's satisfaction with a particular page for a particular query. I often search for information, find a list of pages for my query, click on one, see the phone number or other information I'm looking for and get right out of there. Other websites have contact forms on the destination page that only take 20 seconds to complete and then the user is done, they have found what they want or accomplished the task they set out to accomplish. Hiding web pages that efficiently provide exactly what the searcher is looking for is a terrible way to provide excellent search results. The opposite can also occur - that webmasters will be encouraged to build pages that are always at least 1 step away to keep users clicking.

[bingdude]

That is a bold assumption to make. Do you really think there is NO other explanation? As discussed all over these boards, this is a dangerous metric to use when determining a searcher's satisfaction with a particular page for a particular query. I often search for information, find a list of pages for my query, click on one, see the phone number or other information I'm looking for and get right out of there.

Fair assessment, and I should provide some more insight here.

If this were the only signal used, I would agree with you about the assumptions and potential danger - but keep in mind we examine about 1,000 signals when determining how to rank a page.

...and you state "I often search for information, find a list of pages for my query, click on one, see the phone number or other information I'm looking for and get right out of there."

You leaving a website is not something we see - in fact, if you left the website, we'd assume you were more satified than less satisfied simply because you didn't come back to us. Remember, we're looking specifically at the "back" action here. Are you saying you'd find the phone number, then hit back to come back to the SERP, then go about your business making the call? Not a pattern I'd say "most" people would follow (IMO).

Other websites have contact forms on the destination page that only take 20 seconds to complete and then the user is done, they have found what they want or accomplished the task they set out to accomplish. Hiding web pages that efficiently provide exactly what the searcher is looking for is a terrible way to provide excellent search results. The opposite can also occur - that webmasters will be encouraged to build pages that are always at least 1 step away to keep users clicking.

To clarify for you, we're talking fractions of a second, not 20 seconds. How many times have you clicked a result and known immediately the page wasn't what you were after? (Could also happen through the unfairness of a user scanning a page too quickly and missing the data you have and that they want - ths is a UX/design issue, but nets you the same problem.)

If you were looking for a phone number or contact info, and queried for that, we'd know your intent. Seeing a phone number only takes a few seconds, so coming back after asking for a phone number and seeing one wouldn't be an issue as the need was met. Even hitting a home page, then clicking on "contact us" to see the number, and THEN hitting "back" a couple of times will result in a longer session.

What's also worth remembering is we see these patterns millions of times an hour, and can test and fine tune results based on that volume of data.

It's that quick, immediate "back" action that we're interested in. Yes, you could argue in isolated instances this is not a realistic metric for a specific exmaple, but across the volumes of queries we see, it's valid.

[nickreynolds]

I guess some of us are finding that having been hit by one of the versions of Panda, a greater proportion of traffic is now coming from Bing or Yahoo. That may be either because our sites are junk and Google is better at filtering out junk, or our sites have been unfairly "punished".
Since we've been almost totally focused on what Google wants, we're starting to ask - ok does Bing look for just the same things, or are there some unique things that we should now start considering.
...and is that Bingdude guy a real Bing dude? If so that's a lot more helpful than trying to disect every pronouncement of Matt Cutts!

[bingdude]

...and is that Bingdude guy a real Bing dude?

Yup... :)

@duaneforrester

My profile [linkedin.com]

[juliagordan]

I would like to give thanks to walkman about the starting guide that he provided above. I think everybody should follow these tips.

[zeus]

Its time we focus much more on Bing, first I trust them more, never believed I would say that 10 years ago, but also Google dont make any sense any more and they are loosing visits slowly.

So I think its time to look at Bing in a SEO way, what I know, they do like title and links, some also say if you allow them to crawl your site more would also help.

If we talk Bing image they do a good job, just not if you redirect they dont show your page which I think is a BIG minus point, be cause many of us have to do that "once again" be cause of google image that dont give you any site impressions, so in a way google steel your images. If Bing just would show sites with a redirecting implanted that would be great, then I would let them have access to all my 30000 images.

[zeus]

2 - are so dismayed they immediately hit their back button, suddenly popping back onto our radar, alerting us to the fact they were displeased with the result we just showed them - why else would they suddenly come back, without consuming your content? Displeased.

Hmm that is just not true, there are many things that could let them leave again, they where looking for a image, that takes 5 sec. to save as a example.

Your bounce can also be high when people get what they want as soon as they land on the page.

Your bounce rate can also be high when google sends the wrong traffic for the right keyword to the right page.

Your bounce rate can also be high when google sends the right traffic for the right keyword to the wrong page.

Your bounce rate can also be high when google sends the wrong traffic for the wrong keyword to the wrong page.

you can just go on and on. [webmasterworld.com...]

[Lapizuli]

You leaving a website is not something we see - in fact, if you left the website, we'd assume you were more satified than less satisfied simply because you didn't come back to us.

Scarily false assumption that might mask users' dissatisfaction with the search engine, itself. Users who are unsatisfied with search results from a particular search engine and have exhausted their attempts with one may simply go from the last website to the next SE by typing it in the URL.

It's that quick, immediate "back" action that we're interested in. Yes, you could argue in isolated instances this is not a realistic metric for a specific exmaple, but across the volumes of queries we see, it's valid.

I see what you're saying, but unless you're using a richer approach to interpreting the meanings of those patterns in those millions of queries, their actual number means little. A whole bunch of people may do the same thing after doing a particular search, but without a really microcosmic focus on that search, you'll never know if you're interpreting it correctly, or if you're simply being consistently wrong in such a way that users have learned to effectively mask their dissatisfaction by adapting their search skills or behaviors - which happens either when a less-than-optimal-but-marginally-acceptable result is available or when no better search engine is available (and no offense, but these days they are all pretty equal.)

Anecdotally, I'd say none of the search engines are very good at reading the minds of users in long tail queries (which is certainly the case in our household - a typical web hunt requires five or more successive searches these days, quite often going from more specific to less specific, a reversal of the way it was a few years ago, when users' search skills were rougher than the search engines' brains. )

They're fine at reading queries with shopping intentions or quick reference intentions, and improving for navigational searches, but for informational intentions, the results are really, really rough...even for queries that aren't those desperately long, unique ones, but obviously oft-searched because they're echoed in the suggested searches under the search bar.

What I'm saying is, if volume was the only issue, if you could do it for 10,000 or 1,000 searches, you should be able to do it to a lesser extent, but still on the right track, for 100 searches and even 10 - if your analytical voodoo were really putting you in touch with the minds of your users.

[thirteen]

bingdude,

Do you guys have a Bing custom Search widget for webmasters. I removed "Google custom search" from my sites after their Panda rollout and replaced it with "Yahoo search".

I would like to add a Bing custom Search widget too onto my sites to allows users to easily search for something on the site and if my site don't have what they are looking for then it will search the web.

[bingdude]

bingdude,

Do you guys have a Bing custom Search widget for webmasters. I removed "Google custom search" from my sites after their Panda rollout and replaced it with "Yahoo search".

I would like to add a Bing custom Search widget too onto my sites to allows users to easily search for something on the site and if my site don't have what they are looking for then it will search the web.

You must use the Bing API [bing.com] to set up custom site search, or to enable a web search box from your site, powered by Bing.

There is no copy-code-and-paste solution currently available.

[thirteen]

bingdude,

What is Bing's treatment for the Keywords Meta Tags?

I remember seeing a Youtube on Matt Cutts of Google saying that Google doesn't use the Keyword Meta Tag anymore for its Search Engine signals.

For Bing search engine, is there any value adding the Keyword Meta Tags to the <head></head> section?

[nickreynolds]

bingdude,

What is Bing's treatment for the Keywords Meta Tags?

I remember seeing a Youtube on Matt Cutts of Google saying that Google doesn't use the Keyword Meta Tag anymore for its Search Engine signals.

For Bing search engine, is there any value adding the Keyword Meta Tags to the <head></head> section?

In the absence of a reply from bingdude, anyone else got anything on this? I stopped using keyword tags quite some time ago but maybe I need to review!

[bingdude]

In the absence of a reply from bingdude, anyone else got anything on this? I stopped using keyword tags quite some time ago but maybe I need to review!

Well, I did post up a couple weeks back explaining I'd be away at a conference and then on vacation... ;)

To get this answered, I'll make this statement: meta keywords is a signal. One of roughly a thousand we analyze.

Getting it right is a nice perk for us, but won't rock your world. Abusing meta keywords can hurt you.

[thirteen]

bingdude,

Thanks for reply. One more additional question.

How do we signal to Bing about Geographical Targeting? In Google Webmaster Tools, we have a setting to select Geographic target of our audience. We can select which country our website audience will be preferred for our site.

[bingdude]

How do we signal to Bing about Geographical Targeting?

Here ya go - posted about this a couple months back on the blog...

Telling Bing your website's location and language [bing.com]

[thirteen]

Thanks, the “content-language” meta tag suggestion is helpful.

[nomis5]

Wow, I can actually understand what Bindude is saying! No forked tounge, or so it appears. I hope you stick around unlike some other search engine guys who come and go every few months.

The Rich Snippets comments you made, make complete sense for the future. It's a lot of hassle to implement though unless the content is fed from a database. Even so, agreed, it's one of the areas to concentrate on.

There are several formats for Rich Snippets - does Bing support them all? Any preferred format?

[Globetrotter]

@bingdude What can non-english sites do to optimize for Bing? I have all the basics setup (webmaster tools, sitemap normal optimisation, likes, tweets, links etc). With thousands of visitors a day from a other search engine I guess we must be doing something right. We only get a maximum of 50 visitors (a day) from Bing.

Also my best scoring keywords are the ones I can’t find on my website and I do not want to rank for? Bing used to have a problem indexing my website, but when I contacted Brett from the Bing supporters forum this changed massively. According to the site command over 20.000 urls are indexed but hardly any of the links rank.

[bingdude]

Same basic approach applies everywhere.

Don't forget to account for market share. If you're in an area where Bing has a lower market share, we may only be capable of delivery so much traffic.

If that's not the issue, then look to your content - is it thin? Is it largely duplicate?

...and the site: command does not return accurate data - hasn't for years. The features for seeing how your site is sitting in our index inside the Bing Webmaster Tools, however, are reliable in their counts. Check there for indexing volume issues first.

[indyank]

2 - are so dismayed they immediately hit their back button, suddenly popping back onto our radar, alerting us to the fact they were displeased with the result we just showed them - why else would they suddenly come back, without consuming your content? Displeased.

bingdude, One of my client's server was down due to some power outage in the hosting data center and it took a whole 2 days for things to stabilize. His is a site with substantial traffic for a number of keywords. However, during the two days, people would not have reached the site from search engines.They are more likely to click the back button on seeing the error page.

When this happened, you would be suddenly seeing back button clicks for almost everything from a number of users.How would you consider this situation? This is just one real example where I saw it happen.

[indyank]

Bingdude, do you have any info on how Bing handles these?

[tangor]

I know there's a lot of desperation out there, and hearing a fresh voice (and one that actually answers questions) is great... but that desperation and piling on of questions can be intimidating! That said, Bing does have a some articles, tools, and all that other stuff and a really good place to start is [bing.com...]

[dstiles]

Trying to find out why one of my clients' sites doesn't rate very highly on bing, I decided to look into using their webmaster tools.

For which, of course, I need to sign up.

And enter some CAPTCHA code letters into a form - fair enough.

Except that in order to SEE the code letters I need to enable GOOGLE in NoScript!

Eh?!

[Planet13]

@ bingdude:

If that's not the issue, then look to your content - is it thin?

What, exactly, is THIN content?

The words "thin" and "shallow" get mentioned often by the people at the search engines, but no sort of definition is ever given of what they mean.

Can we look at some sites and see if we can get a better definition of what thin (or shallow) content is? For example:

Does ehow have thin content? After all, it is mostly taken from other sources?

How about wikipedia? Again, it is also mostly sourced from other places the way that ehow's content is, isn't it?

Any clarification on what the people at bing consider to be "thin" or "shallow" would be GREATLY appreciated.

[piatkow]

2 - are so dismayed they immediately hit their back button,

In my case its when my employer's rather eccentric filtering system flashes up a message telling me that I have been reported for accessing "inappropriate" material when I try and visit a work related site.