حصرياً ياسر الخميس يطرح جنني بحبك اضغط الان على الرابط الذي امامك او على عنوان المقال وسيتم تحويلك الى الصفحة الاصلية الخاصة بالمقال حتى يتسنى لك الاطلاع عليه بأكمله.
In honor of the Monday of all Mondays, Cyber Monday, we’re going all out with Marketing Dashboard mania!
Dashboard Super Specials
Take advantage of our Cyber Monday sale on the all new Marketing Dashboard that revolutionizes white label reporting!
The new Marketing Dashboard is a tool for presenting data in an enhanced branded manner with style. Create your own custom design by modifying the HTML and CSS, or simply add logos and choose from a variety of custom templates.
Tell Your Success Story with the Marketing Dashboard
Whether for internal or external communication, this white label marketing dashboard can be used to display:
- SERP Rank tracking from traditional organic, local, and mobile search engines – plus specialty search engines including Google Maps, Local Pack and YouTube, and App Tracking in Apple iTunes and Google Play Stores
- Messages to your client using Text Boxes that can be scheduled to display during specific time periods
- Videos (e.g., communicate with your client or show off work you’ve completed) by embedding YouTube or Vimeo code
- Google Spreadsheets, Presentations, Drawings, and Forms by embedding Google code
- Reports in a variety of languages
- Multiple campaigns for the same client using a single sign-on dashboard feature
- Plus reports and graphs using integrated data from:
Facebook Ads Manager
YouTube Channel Analytics
The Marketing Dashboard – Truly White Label
Take dashboard reporting customization and communication to a new level with:
Cyber Monday Deal on Stand-alone Marketing Dashboards
Stand-alone dashboards are for marketers who don’t do SEO and therefore don’t need rank tracking. These marketing dashboards include all of the integration data and features described above with the exception of app store and search engine rank tracking (although a small number of keywords and backlinks are included in these packages so you can experience the possibilities).
Crazy Cyber Monday pricing is set at only:
- 25 Dashboards for $89 per month – that’s less than $4 per dashboard!
- 50 Dashboards for $129 per month – that’s less than $3 per dashboard!
New customers can get started by registering for a free trial and then upgrading between today and Monday, November 28th, to one of the Cyber Monday specials.Get Started!
Customer Loyalty Appreciation Special
In the spirit of Thanksgiving we want to show our appreciation to our loyal customers by offering a special on the Marketing Dashboard that is pure Cyber Monday madness!
Customers can log in and click the person icon in the upper right toolbar and select Add New Package, then scroll through the package list to discover your special customer loyalty marketing dashboard pricing. Please follow the upgrade package instructions or contact our service team for information on the best way to upgrade your custom package with Marketing Dashboards.
You’re only a few simple clicks away from gaining a tool that has the potential to increase your business by expanding your service offering above that of the competition – and that makes you look great while saving time and money.Upgrade Now!
Xanax is an antianxiety medication in the benzodiazepine family. This is the same family that includes diazepam (Valium), clonazepam (Klonopin), lorazepam (Ativan), flurazepam (Dalmane), and others.
Xanax works by decreasing abnormal excitement in the brain. The Food and **** Administration (FDA) approved it in October 1981.
Benzodiazepines act on the brain and central nervous system (CNS) to produce a calming effect.
Xanax slows down the movement of brain chemicals that may have become unbalanced, resulting in a reduction in nervous tension and anxiety. Xanax works by boosting the effects of a natural chemical called gamma-aminobutyric acid, which is made in the brain.
To ensure the safe and effective use of benzodiazepines, doctors will provide the following guidance to anyone with a Xanax prescription:
People should inform their doctor about any ******* consumption and any medications they are currently taking, including over-the-counter (OTC) medications. People generally should not consume ******* while taking benzodiazepines.
Doctors do not recommend Xanax for use in pregnancy. A person should inform their doctor if they are pregnant, are planning to have a child, or become pregnant while they are taking this medication.
People should inform their doctor if they are breastfeeding.
Until a person experiences how Xanax affects them, they should not drive a car or operate heavy or dangerous machinery.
People should not increase the dosage of Xanax without speaking with a doctor, even if they think that the medication “does not work anymore.” Benzodiazepines, even if a person uses them as recommended, may produce emotional and physical dependence.
People should not stop taking Xanax abruptly or decrease the dosage without consulting their doctor, as withdrawal symptoms can occur.
Bharat Book Bureau Provides the Trending Market Research Report on “Polyamide 6 Market – Global Outlook and Forecast 2021-2027 “under Chemical & Materials category. The Polyamide 6 Market is projected to exhibit highest growth rate over report offers a collection of superior market research, market analysis, and competitive intelligence and industry reports.
Voice search is the latest and greatest craze to hit the SEO world. If you’ve been keeping up on your SEO reading it’s very likely that you may have come across some sort of article testing out some sort of voice search device, be it Google Home or Amazon Echo, etc. But with this latest phenomenon to enter the search universe has come concern of how to optimize for the new search medium. Almost uniformly the SEO community has taken an approach for how to best optimize for voice search SEO, but what if we’re all wrong? Just in case you were wondering, I think we’re way off base here as an industry and in this two-part series, I’ll tell you why.
In Part I of my voice search analysis, I’ll highlight the meta problems that present themselves when trying to equalize oral and written language. In the upcoming installment, I’ll get into the nitty-gritty and show how the two forms of language are structurally incompatible, emphasizing how dialect, culture, and the overall linguistic structure of the two forms of communication would make dual optimization essentially impossible.
The Basic and Faulty Premise in Optimizing for Voice Search
I never thought of myself as a language geek before, that is, until I started to see what the SEO community was saying about voice search. How are we supposed to optimize for voice search now that the medium is becoming more and more common? C’mon, you can say it… long tail keywords and less formal content that is not as hyper-focused on concentrated keyword phrases. I must have read a dozen articles on the topic that said the same thing and didn’t even think twice about it. That is until I had a “Yoda moment” and remembered my training… my training as an English teacher within the urban environment.
One of the first things you learn about teaching students in the urban setting is that their speech patterns are very much culturally influenced and differ vastly from what would be considered “standard English” (should such a thing actually exist). In other words, and it’s something I saw each and every day in the classroom, the way people speak is not the way they communicate in writing, they are two almost distinct entities.
The Problem with Long Tail Keywords and Less Formal Content
Considering my struggle as a teacher in the inner-city, and seeing the disconnect between written and oral language on a daily basis, a light bulb went off almost instantly. There is a problem with saying that voice search can be optimized for by targeting long tail keywords. The problem with that is that oral language is not only quantitatively different from written language, but qualitatively different as well. Oral language is so essentially different from its pen and paper counterpart that just saying it’s a bit less formal is a monstrous understatement.
We in the SEO community have oversimplified a linguistic difference that can fill up a library and constitutes a study that began in the 1960’s. We, to no fault of our own, have boiled down a topic worthy of doctoral thesis into more long tail keywords and more informal content. However, the differences between a query like universe origins and how did the universe get here go far beyond their inequality in length and formality.
The most notable difference in the above searches is that there is a different featured snippet for each search, which is extremely telling.
Google shows a different featured snippet when oral type language is employed than when a more traditional search is executed
Also, you’ll notice in the image below that the first search, the more traditional search, produced a series of Related Questions. However, what is most striking is that when oral language was employed (i.e. the search for how did the Universe get here) Google included results related to God’s existence/role in creation whereas the traditional search did not. Google was evidently a bit unclear of my intent in the second search and as such included some results that go in a sort of different direction so as to compensate.
Within the context of a voice-like search Google removed the Related Questions feature and inserted results that indicated it was unsure of user intent
So then, what is this great divide that separates verbal and written communication?
The Real Differences Between Traditional Search and Voice Search
There are, in all honesty, a lot of significant differences between how we communicate verbally relative to how we communicate on paper, too many to discuss here and now. Let me then begin with some of the “meta” differences, the foundational sort of distinctions between the two methods of communication.
Writing Is Unnatural
Writing is like taking steroids…it’s not really natural. It sounds like an odd sort of thing to say, but being able to read and write is not the natural state of humankind.
Once you start thinking about it, this is very much an obvious point, even illiterate people can communicate verbally. All a baby needs to do is hang around some people speaking long enough and language acquisition happens on its own. However, such is not the case with writing, just ask any 2nd grader. This in it of itself is indicative of the major differences between communicating verbally and communicating via the written word.
Writing and Speaking Use Different Parts of the Brain
To qualify this notion that speaking and writing have their own orbits, a 2015 study out of Johns Hopkins University found that each exercise uses a different part of the brain. The study found that it is conceivable to sustain brain damage that would limit speaking but that would simultaneously leave the part of the brain that regulates writing unaffected (and vice versa).
Speaking and Writing Exist Within Different Contexts
Simply stated, there are different situations where one form of communication may be more appropriate and effective than the other. Speech in particular exists within a conversant context. Speech is designed to be interactive, and as such it has various structural divergences when compared to writing (which I’ll discuss later on and show why this has a major potential SEO impact). Due to the context of when speech is designed to be employed, a study out of the University of Illinois ****** back to 1977 (like I said, this is not a new issue and is one that occupies decades of research) is quoted as saying “the two modes [speech and writing] are by no means interchangeable: Some situations and purposes call for spoken communication and others for written” (download the University of Illinois study). This sort of incongruity is not in line with the notion that with a few small adjustments to the length of the keywords we’re tracking, we can bridge the gap between traditional and voice search.
Why Understanding Language Matters for Your SEO
You can’t just adjust and make some alterations to your SEO strategy in order to successfully optimize for voice search. Because it is verbal communication, voice search is an entirely different beast than the search you and I have known all of these years. You can’t tailor and cater to voice search by making some slight adjustments to your SEO course, you need to consider an entirely new way of going about search and optimize for that – which practically speaking is problematic.
We’re operating under a false notion that there is some sort of linguistic “string theory” that can unite verbal and written communication into one seamless fabric. A 2014 study from the University of Leeds perhaps said it best when it concluded that, “Spoken English varies more than written English, and more than people realize…. There is no straightforward relationship between spoken and written English.” (Download the University of Leeds study.)
The idea that we’re going to easily optimize for both forms of search is not true. Unless Google determines a way to comprehend and translate between the two forms of communication, simultaneous optimization is going to be quite difficult indeed (if at all possible…more on that shortly). The question for us is, does the SEO community really appreciate this difference?
Appreciating Just How Different Voice Search Is
You might ask, “can’t we solve this “voice search discrepancy” by training ourselves over time to talk the way we write?” In other words, why can’t we bridge the divide between the two methods of search simply by taking a more formal oral tone when doing a voice search? Well, this may help in certain cases, for certain queries, but it’s not a systemic solution simply because it is impossible to speak the way we write. Speaking, as I mentioned earlier, is hardwired into our brains in a way that writing is not, and vice versa. Simply put, you can’t just solve this very complex issue by trying to talk the way you would write (just as you can’t solve it with long tail keywords).
Online Search Is a Language of Its Own
To take this notion one step further, and to really complicate the idea of bridging the optimization gap between oral and written search, some prominent linguists consider online search to be a form of language unto itself. In a lecture given to English language learners in Serbia, famed linguist David Crystal points out that each venue of electronic communication is in a sense a dialect of its own. Specifically, Crystal notes, “every internet domain [medium] that you’re dealing with influences the way in which you use the language.” The way we communicate linguistically when we interact with a search engine, is different than any other form of communication. Where else, other than within search, would you ever say things like pizza New York downtown or Pop Rocks Mikey myth?
Voice search on the other hand is intended to be completely natural, that’s the whole point… search the way you talk. It’s not as if the task of optimizing for both voice and traditional search is merely the process of integrating informal English into a standard English environment, which is extremely problematic in its own right (as I’ll show in the second installment of this series). Rather, the ideal of optimizing for voice search while simultaneously optimizing for traditional search is the attempt to merge oral language with a very specific, very nuanced, and very unique language… search language. Thus the gap between the two optimization efforts is not just wide, but dauntingly expansive. Attempting to create harmony between non-standardized language and standardized language is one thing, trying to create an equal playing field where two diverse linguistic entities can co-exist is not really possible.
Highlighting the Differences between Voice and Traditional Search
Before I wrap this all up there is one other construct that in a way is unique to oral language, and that is its social structure. As I touched upon earlier, oral language includes a social dynamic that is unique to the medium. Simply, oral language includes the immediacy of two parties who interact with each other. This creates a social and psychological dynamic that is unique to the medium and has enormous impact on how oral language is structured inherently.
It’s for this reason that developmental and educational studies highlight the social nature of oral communication (as shown in this downloadable analysis of oral language development of students with special needs). This will be discussed extensively in the next installment of this study, but for now let’s deal with it in a general sense.
For the sake of exploring this notion, let’s just say I was conversing with someone about job loss in Canada. In doing so I might ask, How many Canadians are let go each year? If I were writing the same question down to an abstract audience, my brain may substitute the term let go in favor of the more direct and less wordy lose, as in How many Canadians lose their jobs each year? In fact, in formal writing I would be encouraged to do so.
Now, I’m not saying you will do this, I’m saying you might do this, because when we speak, we often employ the use of euphemisms (not to say we don’t when writing, but as previously mentioned doing so is often discouraged). Our brains do this automatically, and it does so for good reason… when we speak it’s usually to another party. In this case, the term let go is a bit softer and more sensitive. This is the reason why we may ask someone when did your relative pass away and not when did they die.
My point here is simple, our brains take different things into consideration when speaking than when writing due to the social associations we have towards speech. This meta-difference has deep practical effects. In our case here, we actually get different search results.
For the search How many Canadians lose their jobs each year we get:
A search that employs a standard use of language produces only relevant results
Everything looks fine in the first search that employed a standard form of English. However, once a euphemism common to oral language was employed, Google had no idea what we were talking about, as shown below.
Deviating from the direct language of standard English, employing euphemisms common to oral language had a deep impact on Google’s search results
The featured snippet when searching for how many Canadians are let go each year relates to immigration and even asks if we meant to search for something else entirely, the top results have to do with immigration again, as well as buying and selling used goods (the results towards the bottom of the SERP were more of the same).
Lastly, let’s try a more formal search term, the way we would normally conduct written search, and run a query for yearly employment loss in Canada:
The search results for the query “yearly employment loss in Canada” produces relevant results with three of them matching the query “How many Canadians lose their jobs each year”
Here we get results similar to when we searched for How many Canadians lose their jobs each year. In fact, three of the results match the search How many Canadians lose their jobs each year (the last match, How Ontario lost 300,000… was on the SERP when I searched How many Canadians lose their… just at a position not shown in the earlier image). Google does a much better job when not having to factor in characteristics unique to how the brain functions within the context of oral language. Though, I’ll still point out that many of the actual results were not parallel even though they were on topic.
To sum it all up, there is a deep meta-linguistic difference that is undeniably present when you compare traditional search to voice search. (Just how far-reaching are these differences practically will again be discussed in Part II of this series).
Summing It All Up – The Real Problem Voice Search Optimization Presents
Succinctly speaking, the difference between oral and written language relates to the very substance of the two forms of communication. In other words, we’re not dealing with two variations of the same linguistic material, but two distinct and separate substances. Speaking is different than writing from a historical /societal level, on contextual level, and perhaps importantly on a neurological level. Relegating voice search optimization to long tail keywords and a less formal tone in order to create search harmony is certainly an oversimplification and most likely a fantasy. The truth is, unless Google can bring synchronicity to the system by being able to “translate” voice search queries to match their written counterparts, the SEO community could be facing an uphill battle should voice search become as popular as many think it will.
Fundamentally speaking, the linguistic constructs that go into voice search are on a meta-level simply incompatible with traditional search…. Wait until you see how it all plays out when we look at the actual structure of oral vs. written language, including how regional dialects and cultural influences throw a serious wrench into creating a harmony between the two forms of search… stay tuned!
حصرياً احمد جمال يطرح بطل حدوتك اضغط الان على الرابط الذي امامك او على عنوان المقال وسيتم تحويلك الى الصفحة الاصلية الخاصة بالمقال حتى يتسنى لك الاطلاع عليه بأكمله.
Bharat Book Bureau Provides the Trending Market Research Report on “Butene Market – Global Outlook and Forecast 2021-2027 “under Chemical & Materials category. The Butene Market is projected to exhibit highest growth rate over report offers a collection of superior market research, market analysis, and competitive intelligence and industry reports.
As Google’s Penguin 4.0 update recently completed its rollout (according to Google), I thought I would take this opportunity to provide the complete history of this Google algorithm and its updates. Up until recently, with the release of Penguin 4.0, an update to the Penguin algorithm was a very big deal (not that it still isn’t). That is, until the most recent version, the only time a site could recover from a Penguin penalty was when the algorithm underwent an update. Now Penguin operates in real time (more on that later), but the question is, how did we get to this point?
Penguin 1.0 – Where It All Began – April 24, 2012
It all began during a spring-like morning back on April 24th, 2012. It was a dark time for SEO, “black-hatters” were artificially achieving higher rankings with manipulative tactics like link schemes aimed at fooling the search engine into thinking that a site was more significant than it really it was. It was on this spring day in April that Google decided to take internet search back from these digital pirates by introducing its Penguin algorithm.
Melodrama aside, the release of Penguin 1.0 was a monumental step in many ways, and the algorithm has become a sort of “staple” within the Googleverse. With spammy link schemes becoming more and more common, Google attempted to put a stop to the practice by issuing a ranking penalty to sites employing such tactics. A penalty, that would only be removed upon the release of the algorithm’s next update. To an extent, Penguin’s release changed the way the “SEO game” was played by ushering in an era of content focused more on quality per se, not link tactics and the like.
Penguin 1.1 – A Data Refresh – March 26, 2012
Just over a month after Penguin initially rolled-out, Google pushed the button on the algorithm’s first update. On May 26,
Minor weather report: We pushed 1st Penguin algo data refresh an hour ago. Affects <0.1% of English searches. Context: http://t.co/ztJiMGMi
— Matt Cutts (@mattcutts) May 26, 2012
The interesting thing about Penguin 1.1 is that it represented no actual change to the algorithm. Rather, the updated version was a “data refresh.” A data refresh does not mean that an intrinsic change to the algorithm per se has taken place. Rather, it refers to the
Penguin 1.2 – An International Update – October 5, 2012
Like the previous update, when Penguin 1.2 rolled-out on October 5, 2012, it also was just a data refresh. So again, as a data refresh, only a very limited number of queries were impacted. What made this algorithm update unique though was that the update impacted a small number of queries in languages other than English, as indicated by the below Tweet from Matt Cutts:
Weather report: Penguin data refresh coming today. 0.3% of English queries noticeably affected. Details: http://t.co/Esbi2ilX
— Matt Cutts (@mattcutts) October 5, 2012
All in all the update appeared to impact just 0.3% of English language queries, with similar numbers for queries in other languages (i.e. 0.4% of Spanish queries).
Penguin 2.0 – The Next Generation of Penguin Updates – May 22, 2013
Fast forward to May 22,
Simply put, Penguin 2.0 represented a technological upgrade that made it better equipped to fight the good fight against spam. Specifically, the new version of Penguin inspected not just a site’s home page, but particular landing pages as well. Thus, if a specific page partook of black hat link building, this new version of Penguin would pick up on it, at least to a greater extent
Penguin 2.1 – A Deeper Spam Analysis – October 4, 2013
Released on the 4th of October 2013, Penguin 2.1 ushered in a variety of speculative theories as to what the latest version of the algorithm provided that its predecessors did not. Firstly, it would seem that the update was a bit more than just a data refresh, as Penguin 2.1 was said to have impacted 1% of queries (as compared to Penguin 1.2 which only impacted 0.3% of English queries). But what then was the upshot of the update? While Google never released an official narrative, in all likelihood it would seem that Penguin 2.1 took the technology of version 2.0 to the next level by crawling “deeper web pages” and analyzing if any spammy links were contained on them.
Penguin 3.0 – Another Data Refresh – October 17, 2014
It would be just over an entire year before we saw another version of Penguin. Unlike previous updates where Matt Cutts provided a formal announcement along with a bit of commentary, the rollout of the third generation of Penguin took on a more mysterious tone. On October 17,
With a name like Penguin 3.0, as opposed to Penguin 2.2, you would expect this new version of Penguin to pack a serious and unique punch aimed at spammy link practices. However, not only was this Penguin incarnation not transparent, it was merely a data refresh according to Googler Pierre Far. So essentially, the year long Penguin update lapse did not result in a major change to the structure of
Penguin 4.0 – A Real Time and Core Algorithm – September 23, 2016
After a nearly two year wait, which must have been excruciating for legitimate sites hit by Penguin 3.0, Google finally released Penguin 4.0 on September 23, 2016. Unlike its 3.0 predecessor, this update
The second piece of news was equally momentous, if not more so. With the rollout of Penguin 4.0, Google announced that henceforth Penguin would be live,
The Evolution of Google’s Penguin Algorithm
With the release of Penguin 4.0, the algorithm has in a sense completed the evolutionary cycle. It has certainly come a long way from its original construct, skimming for link spam on the homepage. In fact, even the sort of tense relationship between the algorithm and the SEO community has in many ways been healed as Penguin completed its evolution.
No longer are those legitimate sites who have been hit with a Penguin penalty waiting (which in the case of the latest update was years) to recover. As a result, you can make the case that the most interesting and dynamic aspect of Penguin’s progression has not been technological, but sociological – as in its most modern form the algorithm has balanced both technological need with communal unanimity. Taken from this perspective, does Penguin serve as a microcosm of the balance that can exist between technical need and communal preference and consideration that the SEO community seeks?
ITIL certification serves as a better scope for increasing the number of recruiters across the globe in favour of filtering the candidates with ITIL certification and implies that job trends are in favour of the ITIL certified professionals.
Google’s mobile-first indexing deadline is no longer a deadline and it decided to leave the “timeline open for the last steps of mobile-first indexing,” John Mueller of Google said on the company blog. Previously, Google postponed the deadline from September 2020 to March 2021, and that deadline came and past.
No timeline. Now, Google said there is no specific timeline, instead Google said the search company “decided to leave the timeline open for the last steps of mobile-first indexing.” Google added currently Google does not “have a specific final **** for the move to mobile-first indexing.”
Why no deadline. Google said the deadline has been removed because after “analyzing the sites that are not yet indexed mobile-first” the company “determined that some of these sites are still not ready to be shifted over due to various, unexpected challenges that they’re facing.”
Google added that these “sites were facing unexpectedly difficult challenges and we wanted to accommodate their timelines.” Thus it was to be “thoughtful” of these sites and not move them over until they are ready.
Previously. Google in early March, before all the lock-downs began across most of the world, announced the deadline for all sites to switch over to mobile-first indexing would be September 2020. At that time, Google said, “To simplify, we’ll be switching to mobile-first indexing for all websites starting September 2020.” Then in July 2020, Google moved that deadline once again to March 2021.
Sites will move. Google said as these sites make changes that enable them to switch over to mobile-first indexing, it will “gradually to move those remaining sites over.” Google said that if a website is not verified in Google Search Console, then Google won’t be able to inform it of a pending switch to mobile-first indexing. You can learn more about this in their blog post.
Why we care. Chances are, most, if not all, of your sites and the sites you manage have been moved to mobile-first indexing. If not, this means you have more time to worry about it.
If your site is not ready for the switch, I’d be concerned there are other issues with the overall platform that you may need to upgrade before it becomes a larger issue outside of just mobile-first indexing.
Source link : Searchengineland.com