Google Semantics Sort of Explained by an SEO Expert
February 1, 2017
I know that figuring out how Google’s relevance ranking works is tough. But why not simplify the entire 15 year ball of wax for those without a grasp of Messrs. Brin and Page, their systems and methods, and the wrapper software glued on the core engine. Keep in mind that it is expensive and time consuming to straighten a bent frame when one’s automobile experiences a solid T bone impact. Google’s technology foundation is that frame, and over the years, it has had some blows, but the old girl keeps on delivering advertising revenue.
I read “Semantic Search for Rookies. How Does Google Search Work” does not provide the obvious answer; to wit:
Well enough for the company to continue to show revenue growth and profits.
The write up takes a different tact toward the winds of relevance. I highlighted this passage:
Google’s semantic algorithm hasn’t developed overnight. It’s a product of continuous work:
- Knowledge Graph (2012)
- Hummingbird (2013)
- RankBrain (2015)
- Related Questions and Rich Answers (ongoing)
The work began many years before 2012, but that is of no consequence to the SEO whiz explaining how Google search works.
The write up then brings up the idea of semantic and relevance obstacles. I won’t drag issues such as disambiguation, a user’s search history, and Google’s method of dealing with repetitive queries. I won’t comment on Ramanathan Guha’s inventions nor bring up the word in semantics which began when Jeff Dean revealed how many versions of Britney Spears name were in one of Google’s suggested search subsystems.
The way to take advantage of where Google is today boils down to writing an article, a blog post similar to this one you are reading, or any textual information to employing user oriented phrasing and algorithm oriented phrasing. The explanation of these two types of phrasing was too sophisticated for me. I urge you, gentle reader, to consult the source document and learn yourself by sipping from the font of knowledge. (I would have used the phrase “Pierian spring” but that would have forced me to decide whether I was using a bound phrase, semantic oriented phrase, or algorithm oriented phrase. That’s too much work for me.
The write up concludes with these injunctions:
If you wish to create well-optimized content, you shouldn’t focus on text in the traditional sense. Instead, you should focus on words and word formation which Google expects to see. In this day and age, users’ feedback plays a crucial role in determining the importance of content. You will have to cater to both sides. Create content with lots of synonyms and semantically related words incorporated in it. Try to be provocative and readable at the same time.
I don’t want to rain on the SEO poobah’s parade, but there are some issues that this semantic write up does not address; namely, the challenge of rich media. How does one get one’s video indexed in a correct way in YouTube.com, GoogleVideo.com, Vimeo.com, or one of the other video search systems. What about podcasts, still images, Twitter outputs, public Facebook goodies, and social media image sharing sites?
My point is that defining semantics in terms of a particular content type suggests that Google has a limited repertoire of indexing, metatagging, and cross linking methods. Perhaps a quick look at Dr. Guha’s semantic server would shed some light on the topic? Well, maybe not. This is, after all, SEO oriented with semantic and algorithmic phrasing I suppose.
Stephen E Arnold, February 1, 2017
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
