SEO News

Posted by EricaMcGillivray

[Estimated read time: 6 minutes]

That’s right! Please join us in congratulating the four community speakers for MozCon 2016 — September 12–14 in Seattle.

This year, we received 140 submissions. And while the overall number of submissions were down, the quality of submissions has gone up. Typically, we’ve been able to eliminate ~100 submissions for not meeting the minimum bar, but this year, it was more like ~20. Which only means competition for these four slots was harder than ever before.

For those wondering more about what makes a great MozCon pitch, I’ve included the pitches, plus a comment from a committee member. (With a bit of the information redacted, because surprises on stage are good.)

Please congratulate…

Alex Stein

SEO Manager at Wayfair
@sonofadiplomat

Alex Stein is currently SEO Manager at Wayfair.com, an online home goods store. Follow him on Twitter @sonofadiplomat for all things SEO, and he is, in fact, the son of a diplomat.

Alex’s pitch:

Boost Rankings by Removing Internal Links

A majority of SEO advice covers gaining high volumes of external links, but many site owners fail to pursue the low-hanging fruit by reducing the number of internal links to drive organic rankings. Listeners will learn easy ways to massively optimize internal authority flow to boost rankings, with case studies to demonstrate these wins in action.

Business cases that will be covered:

1. Slimming down your header navigation: Using [X] data and [X] to remove links from header navigation, while increasing conversion.
2. Slimming down your footer navigation: I’ll cover how we used A/B testing to prove footer links weren’t driving qualified visits, just “tourist visits.”
3. For smaller sites, I’ll cover common mistakes with [X] that increase the total number of links on every single page.
4. Reducing links on your most valuable pages: I’ll cover two concrete examples of how Wayfair reduced the number of links on product browse pages and drove additional visits.
5. I’ll share a “Link Value Calculator”
6. Lastly, I’ll also cover our formula for evaluating the dollar value of an internal link.

Felicia’s notes: Sounds very actionable. I like the straightforward, traditional simplicity of the topic, and am intrigued by the “link value calculator”/”evaluating the dollar value of an internal link” ideas. If not a finalist, this would make a great blog post.

Emma Still

Marketing Lead at Seer Interactive
@mmstll

Emma Still leads all marketing efforts for Seer Interactive. Prior to that, she led a team of SEO professionals at Seer, where she leveraged her digital marketing skills to recruit team members to build stronger, more successful digital teams.

Emma’s pitch:

What if digital marketers thought about recruiting in the exact same way they thought about [smart] link building?

The highest commodity in our industry is human capital: the people on the teams, doing the work, getting. shit. done. Yet so many companies are desperate to find and recruit the talent they need.

The ironic thing is that the answer to their recruiting woes has been under their noses the whole time.

Using tools like [X] to find people who share content that aligns with your company’s mission or philosophy? Boom — list of candidate prospects.

All of those advanced search queries you’ve refined for identifying link prospects? You can easily use those for prospecting potential candidates. For example, [X query string]

Know someone who would be an ideal candidate but isn’t ready to make the leap to a new role? Use [X’s] feature to find people they’re closely connected to and you’ve got a whole new set of prospects.

Digital marketers have all the tools and resources they need to find and recruit other talented digital marketers; all it requires is a change in perspective.

Christy’s notes: Really interesting topic that tackles a pervasive problem in the marketing industry. Pitch is solid.

Robyn Winner

SEO Manager at Hornblower Cruises and Events
@robyn_winner

Robyn Winner is a passionate SEOer with a deep love for data analytics, user experience optimization, content strategy development, and her two adorable cats who fill her life with joy and fur…on everything.

Robyn’s pitch:

I’d love to present on Navigation Optimization. It’s a pretty meaty topic, and I could honestly talk for two hours on it, but in the 15 minutes I’d like to cover the key components that go into improving a site’s navigation structure. These components include: Understanding the buying funnel for both B2B and B2C, utilizing [X] to provide a guideline to the navigation structure, stepping away from narcissistic menuing (i.e. [X]), incorporating calls to action, the basic elements all b2b and b2c navigations should have, and ensuring each page is its own unique URL! No more of this one-page website with anchor text.

I’ve worked with a lot of clients just on this, and each time we’ve seen massive success because what we inevitably do is improve UX by bringing relevant pages higher in the funnel. We then see improved ranks for those pages because they’re naturally accessed more via the nav. Most importantly, we’re able to identify gaps in content once we whiteboard the new navigation structure based on [X, X, and X] (which inevitably leads to more ranks!).

Ronell’s notes: Highly relevant to EVERYONE.

Samuel Scott

Director of Marketing and Communications at Logz.io
@samueljscott

Samuel Scott is a global marketing speaker and Director of Marketing and Communications for log analysis platform Logz.io, as well as a contributor to TechCrunch and Moz.

Samuel’s pitch:

The 8 Things You Need to Check in Server Log Files in Technical SEO Audits

Server log files contain the only data that is 100% accurate in terms of how search engines crawl your website. Here’s what to check and how to fix any related problems.

Crawl budget and volume. If the number of times that a search engine is visiting your site suddenly drops, check your [X], [X], and [X].

Response code errors. Every single server log entry contains a response code. Group URLs by response code to look into those problems easily and in bulk.

Temporary redirects. Every log entry with a 302 response code is a temporary redirect. Those should be changed to 301 (permanent) redirects.

Crawl priority. Which parts of your website get the most attention from search engines? Does that match [X]?

Last crawl date. If an update page is not appearing in the SERPs, check when Google last visited the page. Try submitting that URL directly in Google Search Console.

Crawl budget waste. [X]

Matt’s notes: I like it. It’s a source of data that I think intimidates a lot of folks, and I’d love to see it made accessible. If he can make it short and simple, I think it’d be good.

Thanks to everyone who tossed in their hat this year! It’s a brave thing to even try.

Finally, I’d like to thank this year’s community speaker selection committee – Chiaryn Miranda, Christy Correll, Felicia Crawford, James Daugherty, Matt Roney, Ronell Smith, and Sam Weber.

Cheer on community speakers and buy your MozCon ticket today!

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!

Posted by Dr-Pete

[Estimated read time: 6 minutes]

It’s been almost two years (August 2014) since Google announced that HTTPS was a ranking signal. Speculation ran rampant, as usual, with some suggesting there was little or no benefit to switching (and possibly significant risk) while others rushed to sell customers on making the HTTPS switch. Two years later, I believe the data speaks for itself — Google is fighting, and winning, a long war.

What’s happened since?

If you only consider the impact of Google’s original HTTPS update, I understand your skepticism. Prior to the update, our 10,000-keyword tracking system (think of it as a laboratory for studying Google searches) showed that roughly 7% of page-1 Google results used the “https:” protocol. A week after the update announcement, that number had increased only slightly, to just over 8%:

The blue/purple show the before/after based on the announcement date. As you can see, the update probably rolled out over the course of a few days. Even over a 2-week period, though, the impact appears to be fairly small. This led many of us to downplay Google’s statements and ignore HTTPS for a while. The next graph is our wake-up call:

As of late June, our tracking data shows that 32.5% (almost one-third) of page-1 Google results now use the “https:” protocol. The tiny bump on the far left (above “A-14” = August 2014) is the original HTTPS algorithm update. The much larger bump in the middle is when Wikipedia switched to HTTPS. This goes to show the impact that one powerhouse can have on SERPs, but that’s a story for another time.

What does it mean?

Has Google rolled out multiple updates, rewarding HTTPS (or punishing the lack of it)? Probably not. If this two-year trend was purely a result of algorithm updates, we would expect to see a series of jumps and new plateaus. Other than the Wikipedia change and two smaller bumps, the graph clearly shows a gradual progression.

It’s possible that people are simply switching to HTTPS for their own reasons, but I strongly believe that this data suggests Google’s PR campaign is working. They’ve successfully led search marketers and site owners to believe that HTTPS will be rewarded, and this has drastically sped up the shift. An algorithm update is risky and can cause collateral damage. Convincing us that change is for our own good is risk-free for Google. Again, Google is fighting the long war.

Is our data accurate?

Of course, our tracking set is just one sample of search data. The trendline is interesting, but it’s possible that our keywords are overstating the prevalence of HTTPS results. I presented a number of roughly 30% at SMX Advanced in mid-June. Later that same day, Google’s Gary Illyes called me out and confirmed that number:

Gary did not give an exact figure, but essentially gave a nod to the number, suggesting that we’re in the general ballpark. A follow-up tweet confirms this interpretation:

This is as close to confirmation as we can reasonably expect, so let’s assume we showed up to the right ballgame and our tickets aren’t counterfeit.

Why does 30% matter?

Ok, so about one-third of results use HTTPS. Simple arithmetic says that two-thirds don’t. Projecting the trend forward, we’ve got about a year and a half (16–17 months) before HTTPS hits 50%. So, is it time to panic? No, probably not, but here’s the piece of the puzzle you may be missing.

Google has to strike a balance. If they reward sites with HTTPS (or dock sites without it) when very few sites are using it, then they risk a lot of collateral damage to good sites that just haven’t made the switch. If, on the other hand, they wait until most sites have switched, a reward is moot. If 100% of sites are on HTTPS and they reward those sites (or dock the 0% without it), nothing happens. They also have to be careful not to set the reward too high, or sites might switch simply to game the system, but not too low, or no one will care. However I feel about Google on any given day, I acknowledge that their job isn’t easy.

If rewarding HTTPS too heavily when adoption is low is risky and rewarding it when adoption is too high is pointless, then, naturally, the perfect time to strike is somewhere in the middle. At 30% adoption, we’re starting to edge into that middle territory. When adoption hits something like 50–60%, I suspect it will make sense for Google to turn up the algorithmic volume on HTTPS.

At the same time, Google has to make sure that most of the major, trusted sites have switched. As of this writing, 4 of the top 5 sites in our tracking data are running on HTTPS (Wikipedia, Amazon, Facebook, and YouTube) with the only straggler being #5, Yelp. The top 5 sites in our tracking account for just over 12% of page-1 results, which is a big bit of real estate for only 5 sites.

Of the top 20 sites in our tracking data, only 7 have gone full HTTPS. That’s 35%, which is pretty close to our overall numbers across all sites. If Google can convince most of those sites to switch, they’ll have covered quite a bit of ground. Focusing on big players and convincing them to switch puts pressure on smaller sites.

In many ways, Google has already been successful. Even without a major, algorithmic HTTPS boost, sites continue to make the switch. As the number climbs, though, the odds of a larger boost increase. I suspect the war is going to be over sooner than the trendline suggests.

What are the risks?

Am I telling you to make the switch? No. While I think there are good reasons to move to HTTPS for some sites and I think most of Google’s motives are sincere on this subject, I also believe Google has been irresponsible about downplaying the risks.

Any major change to sitewide URLs is risky, especially for large sites. If you weigh the time, money, and risk of the switch against what is still a small algorithmic boost, I think it’s a tough sell in many cases. These risks are not theoretical — back in May, Wired.com wrote up the many problems they’ve encountered during their HTTPS switch, a switch that they’ve since paused to reconsider.

Like any major, sitewide change, you have to consider the broader business case, costs, and benefits. I suspect that pressure from Google will increase, especially as adoption increases, and that we’re within a year of a tipping point where half of page-1 results will be running on HTTPS. Be aware of how the adoption rate is moving in your own industry and be alert, because I suspect we could see another HTTPS algorithm update in the next 6–12 months.

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!