Back at the end of July 2008, a patent from Google named “Blending Mobile Search Results” has been published. It’s only until recently that I decided to read it.

You know that the new version of Google Mobile Search now by default presents a mix of generic pages and mobile pages. In this patent, Google explains how it would blend mobile search results, that is, increasing the quality score of a mobile page so that it is displayed higher in the search results.

BLENDING MOBILE SEARCH RESULTS
United States Patent Application: 0080183699
Inventors: Hu; Ning; (Pittsburgh, PA) ; Ha; Vida U.; (New York, NY)
Assigned to Google
Filed: January 24, 2008
Published: July 31, 2008

Abstract

Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer program products, for blending mobile search results. A method includes receiving a search query and multiple search results. The search results each satisfy the search query and have a respective search result quality score. The search results include generic and mobile search results. The generic and mobile search results each identify a generic and mobile resource, respectively. The search result quality scores include mobile and generic search result quality scores for the mobile and generic search results, respectively. The mobile search result quality scores and the generic search result quality scores were generated according to different scoring formulas. Based on one or more terms in the search query, the search query is classified as a mobile query. As a consequence, one or more search result quality scores are modified to improve the sorting of search results that include both mobile and generic search results.

Here is how Google would proceed, I have outlined some of the most important points:

9. The method of claim 8, wherein modifying the mobile search result quality score comprises:increasing the mobile search result quality score if the mobile search result links to a mobile resource that links to downloadable content for a mobile device.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein modifying the mobile search result quality score comprises:identifying a first language of the search query;identifying that the mobile resource identified by the mobile search
result is written in a second language; anddecreasing the mobile search result quality score if the first
language is different from the second language.

11. The method of claim 8, further comprising:ranking the mobile search results and the generic search results in an order, the ranking being based on the search result quality scores; and removing one or more duplicates from the order.

29. The system of claim 28, wherein modifying the mobile search result quality score comprises:increasing the mobile search result quality score if the mobile search result links to a mobile resource that links to downloadable content for a mobile device.

So, if you have a mobile site that provides downloadable content for mobile devices, such as mobile games, ringtones, or all kinds of mobile applications, Google would improve your quality score. I wonder how Google would proceed exactly though, because on paid sites, you need to go to the billing page before being able to download a .jar file or any other type of mobile content. Or maybe if it will see if it finds words such as “download” throughout your pages…

Google also explains how it will rank a mobile page higher if it had a generic (desktop computer) version that linked to that mobile page, by actually removing the generic page:

32. The system of claim 31, wherein removing the one or more duplicates comprises:identifying a first
mobile search result that identifies a first uniform resource locator;identifying a first generic search
result that identifies a second uniform resource locator, the second uniform resource locator being the
same as the first uniform resource locator;removing the first generic search result from the order; and if the first generic search result had a higher rank than the first mobile search result, moving the first mobile search result to the position in the order that the first generic search result occupied.

I invite you to have a look at the images that come with the patent.

In the image annotations, there are also some interesting tidbits. For example, Google explains that it uses different algorithms for mobile search results.

[0034]The mobile search engine calculates a search result quality score for each of its search results (step 240). To calculate the scores, the mobile search engine uses a different scoring algorithm, or formula, than the one used by the generic search engine. Using the search result quality scores, the mobile search engine ranks the mobile search results (step 245). In other implementations, the results mixer ranks the mobile search results.

Sometimes, if the number of mobile search results for a query is too small, Google won’t display mobile pages at all, since having too few mobile sites pages will decrease the relevancy of the returned results.

[0036]As illustrated in FIG. 3, in some implementations, the results mixer first determines whether to present any mobile search results. It may do this, for example, by determining whether the number of mobile search results produced by the search query is greater than a threshold number (step 302). If the number of mobile search results is too small, then the results mixer concludes that none of the results are sufficiently relevant to the user’s search query. When this approach is used, the results mixer will only present the mobile search results when the number of mobile search results is large enough (step 304).

[0037]The threshold number may be either an absolute number or a percentage. For example, the percentage could represent the percent of mobile search results received by the results mixer out of the combined number of mobile and generic search results received.

And now comes the most interesting part of the patent. Google claims that it can increase the quality score of the mobile search results if it’s clearly a “mobile” query, that is, users willing to find content or information that corresponds to a need while on the go.

If a query contains words that Google believes are “mobile”, for example: ringtones, games, wallpapers, or even chat, news, etc, it will make sure mobile pages are ranked first:

[0038]The results mixer determines whether to modify the mobile search result quality scores (step 250).Depending on its determination, the results mixer will or will not modify the mobile search result quality scores (step 255). Modifying the scores may be necessary to make the mobile search result quality scores commensurable to the generic search result quality scores, or otherwise to improve the usefulness of the presentation of blended search results.

[0039]The determination can be made using one or more signals, including whether the query is a “mobile” query, whether the search results exceed threshold scores, the number of mobile search results, the properties of the mobile resources found in the search, or the properties of the generic resources found in the search. In some implementations, when the results mixer uses more than one signal, it will use the signals and modify the mobile search result quality scores in a non-linear manner.

[0040]In some implementations, based on one or more terms in the search query, the results mixer classifies the search query as “mobile,” i.e., whether it is likely to be intended as a search for mobile resources,e.g., pages (step 306). If so, the results mixer will increase the search result quality scores of the mobile search results (step 308). For example, if a search query includes the term “ringtones”, the results mixer can determine that such a query is likely to be intended as a search for mobile resources, because the word “ringtones” is closely associated with mobile devices. In such a case, the results mixer will increase the mobile search result quality scores. It may do this, for example, by multiplying all the mobile search result quality scores by a number greater than one. In addition or as an alternative, in some implementations, if the search query is determined likely not intended as a search for mobile resources, the results mixer will decrease the mobile search result quality scores.

Google also affirm that it may blend search results with results from other mobile search engines. For example, including search results from a mobile content search engine.

[0071]Also, generic search results may be blended with search results from other search engines instead of or in addition to being blended with mobile search results. Examples include search results from a local listings search engine for searching local listings, an image search engine for searching images, a carrier private content search engine for searching mobile web pages categorized as accessible only to subscribers of certain mobile service plans, a mobile news search engine for searching mobile web pages categorized as news, or a mobile marketplace search engine for searching mobile content to purchase.

I was looking at the ranking positions on Google Mobile for a bunch of websites I’m working on and noticed what looks like a major update in the “Mobile Web” index (I’m linking to a search results page here)

If you do Mobile SEO, you’ve probably noticed the poor quality of the search results in Google’s Mobile Web index: it was not very relevant, you’d often find pages from forums with the keyword only mentioned twice, or pages from .edu sites, or even pages from YouTube (lots of them).

That couldn’t create a good mobile search user experience. That’s why I believe Google has been working hard on improving the relevancy of its Mobile Web Search Results. And it is now rewarding mobile site owners who have great content and quality links. I hope it stays that way.

You’ll notice that Google includes regular PC sites in its Mobile Web index, but these sites actually have mobile versions, so when users click on it from Google Mobile, they’ll be redirected to a mobile friendly page. So if you do SEO for your PC site, and automatically redirect users to the mobile version of your site when they visit it from a mobile phone, you have some good chances of being included in Google’s Mobile Web Index.

I manage several websites and mobile websites and they’ve all obtained better rankings today on Google Mobile, so I guess you’ll notice something for your sites too.

Mobile Search and thus Mobile SEO are hot topic today. Apparently, much focus has been put on mobile search at CTIA recently.  If you follow news in the mobile search industry, you probably heard of a new mobile SEO company that was officially launched a few days ago, visibility mobile, based in Ireland and whose co-founder is Bena Roberts, a mobile search blogger.

visibility mobile introduced something that they claim will revolutionize mobile search and mobile SEO…It’s called MetaTXT, and it is basically a .txt file that you put on the root folder of your site (like robots.txt) and its goal is to tell search engines, browsers, or other applications, where are all versions of your sites: mobile, desktop, RSS, Podcast, etc.

For more information, you can read the whitepaper.

visibility mobile hopes that search engines will support this file, in order to improve the way mobile search works. I’ve read the paper several times, and scratched my head dozens of times while reading it, I still don’t see how metaTxt can improve anything in the mobile search industry. Plus it would surprise me if Google or any of the leading search engines accepts to respect a standard suggested by a SEO company.

It does helps finding the mobile version of a site when a bot crawls the desktop version: but how is that different from having a mobile sitemaps for example, or simply linking to it? It’s true that linking is not as present on the mobile web than on the desktop web, but that’s because mobile site owners still don’t really realize that SEO can help them having more traffic.

Most mobile search engines will display web results first in their search results, and use proxies to transform web pages so that they display properly on a mobile phone.  So if you do own a mobile site, you can use a link tag in your desktop site, as recommended by the W3C in their Content Transformation Guidelines, and currently supported by Google (not Yahoo! OnSearch or Live Mobile Search though), so that users are forwarded to that site instead.

If the response is an HTML response and it contains a <link rel="alternate"

media="handheld" /> element, the CT-proxy should request and process the referenced

resource

Some things in MetaTXT are great though, such as the geolocation of your site, because I don’t think that people pay attention to their Top Level Domains or Hosting location for Mobile SEO, so that kind of things can help search engines return the most relevant results to users.

But for the rest, it seems to me like MetaTXT tries to solve a problem that does not exist…Or I’m just dumb.

Today, Bena Roberts released a “Mobile SEO whitepaper”, which you can find here (pdf). I was quite surprised that it was called “whitepaper”, as it doesn’t really explain how to improve one’s mobile SEO strategy, it does lack depth and the approximative vocabulary and jargon reduce the firm’s credibility.

The paper is divided in 3 points: 1. Online techniques vs mobile; 2. MetaTXT; 3. Social Media Strategy.

I will try to give my opinion on that.

– In the first part of the document: “Online techniques vs mobile ” (note that I don’t know why they choose to call the desktop Web “online”, the mobile web is also “online”…) , it says:

The mobile web is going through a learning curve and more often than not OneWeb standards are implemented to direct users to the right mobile site or page. This means that HTML codes are inserted into sites that tell mobile search engines to redirect the page.

<link> rel=”mobile”

This is insufficient. Moreover, it is a lengthy process where search engines are often redirected to the online site only to be forwarded to the mobile site.

Insufficient for what? “HTML codes” here refers to the alternate link that you put inside the <head> tags of an HTML page, and the correct syntax is: <link rel="alternate" media="handheld" href="http://m.example.com/"/>

Currently, it does what it is supposed to do, redirecting users to a mobile page. OK: there is a redirection, but it’s merely noticeable by the end-user, and whether you like it or not, the most popular mobile search engines (Google has a 63% market share, and Yahoo! 34.6%, according to this new study from comScore) will display Web pages first in search results, so this alternate link is “sufficient” if you want to ensure a good mobile user experience.

Another problematic point (according to them) is raised: the lack of linking between mobile sites. That’s true, there are many mobile sites out there that are highly popular but they do not have as many links as they would if they were desktop sites.  But links do count in mobile SEO, and if you get links you can outrank your competitors. So more links should be created, and this will help discovery.

– Instead, visibility mobile suggests the use of its metaTXT file to help search engines find mobile sites, because of that: the lack of links. OK, so let’s say I add this tag on my PC site domain.com, which indicates that my mobile site is domain.com/m.  How is that different from linking to it? Would search engines not find my mobile site if I only link to it? Nope, it will.

And OK, even if you tell search engines where your mobile site is, would that be sufficient? Nope, you’ll still need links.

The following claim is then made regarding keywords:

Indeed, nowadays the use of meta tags has decreased with companies such as Google saying that Meta Tags are often over populated with the wrong keywords to trick or misguide users. But this does not mean that Google does not use Meta Tags in its search analysis. If used correctly and not-overpopulated with illicit or incorrect words – it remains an effective way of gathering relevant site information.

In mobile where sites are usually scaled down versions of online sites due to the limitations of the small screen and for effective usability – manipulating the text with keywords can be tricky. So once again Meta Data is an ideal way in which to ensure that the main focus of the site is highlighted.

We won’t hold that debate again, do a test: use a unique keyword located inside a keyword meta tag and try to see if the page comes up when you search for it on Google Mobile (Mobile Web).

It’s true that space is limited on mobile pages, but you can still use title tags and page content to include your keywords. No need for meta keyword tags which, unlike other non-meta tags, have no hierarchy.

– The whitepaper then gots even funnier. It’s a case study of a mobile SEO campaign. What strikes me is that they say they used Mobile SEO techniques to optimise some test sites, and part of that was PPC advertising… I agree that there’s no standards in SEO, but come on, SEO and PPC are 2 different things.

The campaigns are explained as below:

Using building vs buying techniques we optimised two mobile sites with different specifications. I created these sites myself with mobile site creation tools. Then they were submitted to mobile search engines – after a 4 week wait we started this analysis. The analysis below is a synopsis of the results only. Our techniques remain proprietary to our visibility mobile brand.

The first was bkimedia.zinadoo.mobi and the second was gomonews.mobi.

Our mission was:

Bkimedia.zinadoo.mobi
Our aim was to make BKI Media a success in traditional search engines (Yahoo! Google) and also to get into the five of all mobi related search engines and directories.

Gomonews.mobi
Our aims was to be found at the top of multimedia search engines such as Taptu; onsearch.mobi and on viral online searches as well.

The results: they ranked well for their brand names (“bki media” and “gomo news mobi”) on Google Web, Find.mobi , Taptu, Mobiseer, and Yahoo OneSearch.

Ahem… I don’t think you need more than 1 hour of experience with SEO to rank well for your brand name. Sorry, but I’m not convinced. Plus if you want to get traffic from mobile SEO, target the main mobile search engines (Google and Yahoo), not barely known directories or “.mobi” search engines.

The author concludes by saying that they achieved these rankings by using “proprietary techniques”. Really? Wow. I’d love to meet the engineers behind your techniques.

It’s true that Mobile SEO can seem hard to do, but the same techniques apply than with traditional SEO, there’s no secret: observe, test, measure, adjust. If you don’t have time to do it yourself, my advice would be to go with a traditional SEO company, which has more knowledge of search engine algorithms and ranking techniques.

Google Webmaster Tools has a Diagnostic section dedicated to Mobile Crawl Errors. Someone over at WebmasterWorld recently noticed a new warning that reported that two pages of his Non-mobile Web site were “too big for common mobile devices, with the error message “Document size too large”. ”

This feature seems very new, since it’s not documented unlike other features found in Google Webmaster Tools.

The author of the forum thread believes that the size threshold is somewhere between 21kB and 30.3kB.

Note that currently, the W3C recommends in its Mobile Web Best Practices that site owners keep their pages under 20kB so that anyone using a mobile browser can view them.

I hope Google will soon confirm us what is the size limit for a page to be accepted in its mobile web index, and if size has an influence on rankings…

Via SearchEngineRoundtable.