9 ms·

One factor assisting 'mobile' right now is that SEO is less pervasive - mobile apps are focussed on UX which desktop webapps long ago ditched to get rankings (r

by mtkd 14y ago

One factor assisting 'mobile' right now is that SEO is less pervasive - mobile apps are focussed on UX which desktop webapps long ago ditched to get rankings (ramming as much content on page as possible, overusing keywords, reviews, ratings, UGC etc.). I'm finding many mobile apps simple/clean to use - although the 'responsive design' movement is diluting that.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Responsive design doesn't mean mobile apps should be any less simple or clean. Only if it's done badly.
franze 14y ago
app stores are market-places. search engine are market-places. app stores are search engines. the optimizations for (native) apps just moved from the app-level to the market-place level.
- AznHisoka 14y ago
  Very very true. However, if the optimization for apps is based on usage, reviews, downloads, etc, then having a good experience is consistent with having good rankings. Not so much with SEO where things like engagement and usage data don't factor much into rankings since it's not reliable
  - franze 14y ago
    >where things like engagement and usage data that's a story the link-counting-tool providers (i.e. seomoz) and linknetworks / linkbuilidng companies have been telling for years. and it is bullshit to keep the (crapy) status quo in SEO (because their business is deeply rooted into the status quo). ux metrics (serp clickthrough, long clicks) are an a factor for ages, see i.e. the discussion about "long-clicks" in the exgoogler book "i'm feeling lucky". plus: on big sites it is very easy (and i and other have done it multiple time) to test this UX factor. just make the UX of google referred visits significant poorer (i.e. via cloaking or performance delays) and see what happens to your overall SERP impressions and click throughs. the same goes for reviews, there is even an publicly available googler paper about it.
    - AznHisoka 14y ago
      Matt Cutts and the Google team themselves have publicly said that they tried looking at user data for rankings and determined it just wasn't a reliable measure. Think about stuff like finding addresses.. it's GOOD if a visitor spends 5 seconds there vs. 5 minutes because it means they found what they wanted. Sometimes usage data is misleading.
      - franze 14y ago
        just test it (it's very easy to test on sites that get some decent traffic). well, "it's very easy to test" if you are willing to loose some traffic for some time (and as a SEO you MUST be willing to so such tests) also i know the webmaster videos as well, they are more in the tone of "you have to be careful when you look at user behavior". also your argument has huge holes: "it's GOOD if a visitor spends 5 seconds there vs. 5 minutes because it means they found what they wanted." well, there is an statistical technic called "standard deviation", if the SD is too big, don't factor it in. (i don't say that google does this, i'm sure they are more sophisticated, but it's a good counter argument for your example) "Sometimes usage data is misleading." well, then G would just have to determine when it is misleading and with which probability. i repeat: just test it. (and: don't read to much seomoz.)
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > app stores are market-places. search engine are market-places. app stores are search engines. I suspect that sucky discovery is somehow beneficial to Apple. This also makes me think that good discovery in app stores might be the key to Google competing with Apple.
  - sedev 14y ago
    Citation needed. How on earth is bad discovery beneficial to Apple? With the size and profitability of their app store, they have the most to gain from good discoverability. That's why they acquired Chomp. Smart money says that the acquisition is going to lead to much-improved discoverability on the iOS App Store.
    - stcredzero 14y ago
      > Citation needed. How on earth is bad discovery beneficial to Apple? Relax. The question was put out there genuinely, not as FUD. If Apple has so much to benefit from app discovery, why has it taken so long? I suspect that a lot of people at Apple benefit personally by having the power to decide which apps are featured, and which are not. I know devs for which this makes a difference as big as a good middle class salary or more. I am agreed that it's to Apple's benefit to have better discovery, but as well governed as it is, Apple is not a monolithic entity. Smart money says that the acquisition is going to lead to much-improved discoverability on the iOS App Store. I would love for this to happen. I'm not so sure this is in an area of core competency for Apple, though. Acquiring Chomp was the right move, but acquisitions don't always pan out.
      - greedo 14y ago
        "If Apple has so much to benefit from app discovery, why has it taken so long?" Because it's a hard problem to solve? Because app vendors are excellent at gaming any system for competitive advantage? Curating apps is tough, whether it's delivered via an app store, or whether it's a publicly available app. There's a reason it was easier to find apps in the PC era; there weren't that many quality apps. There were 1-2 word processors worth a damn, a few spreadsheets, and a few databases. Development costs were high because the apps were difficult to create, and distribution costs prevented developers from monetizing them easily. Compare that with today's apps; small, easier coding, far easier distribution. You end up with millions of apps for Android and iOS. And there's no hallowed authority like BYTE or PC Magazine to bless your app; Somewhere out there, someone is thinking along the lines of Page and Brin, thinking out of the box about how to make app discovery work; and when they do, we'll all slap our heads and think "why didn't we think of that?" And then the SEO guys will slowly adapt and app discovery will end up like web discovery.

by mtkd 14y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

Responsive design doesn't mean mobile apps should be any less simple or clean. Only if it's done badly.

franze 14y ago

app stores are market-places. search engine are market-places. app stores are search engines. the optimizations for (native) apps just moved from the app-level to the market-place level.

AznHisoka 14y ago
Very very true. However, if the optimization for apps is based on usage, reviews, downloads, etc, then having a good experience is consistent with having good rankings. Not so much with SEO where things like engagement and usage data don't factor much into rankings since it's not reliable
- franze 14y ago
  >where things like engagement and usage data that's a story the link-counting-tool providers (i.e. seomoz) and linknetworks / linkbuilidng companies have been telling for years. and it is bullshit to keep the (crapy) status quo in SEO (because their business is deeply rooted into the status quo). ux metrics (serp clickthrough, long clicks) are an a factor for ages, see i.e. the discussion about "long-clicks" in the exgoogler book "i'm feeling lucky". plus: on big sites it is very easy (and i and other have done it multiple time) to test this UX factor. just make the UX of google referred visits significant poorer (i.e. via cloaking or performance delays) and see what happens to your overall SERP impressions and click throughs. the same goes for reviews, there is even an publicly available googler paper about it.
  - AznHisoka 14y ago
    Matt Cutts and the Google team themselves have publicly said that they tried looking at user data for rankings and determined it just wasn't a reliable measure. Think about stuff like finding addresses.. it's GOOD if a visitor spends 5 seconds there vs. 5 minutes because it means they found what they wanted. Sometimes usage data is misleading.
    - franze 14y ago
      just test it (it's very easy to test on sites that get some decent traffic). well, "it's very easy to test" if you are willing to loose some traffic for some time (and as a SEO you MUST be willing to so such tests) also i know the webmaster videos as well, they are more in the tone of "you have to be careful when you look at user behavior". also your argument has huge holes: "it's GOOD if a visitor spends 5 seconds there vs. 5 minutes because it means they found what they wanted." well, there is an statistical technic called "standard deviation", if the SD is too big, don't factor it in. (i don't say that google does this, i'm sure they are more sophisticated, but it's a good counter argument for your example) "Sometimes usage data is misleading." well, then G would just have to determine when it is misleading and with which probability. i repeat: just test it. (and: don't read to much seomoz.)
stcredzero 14y ago
> app stores are market-places. search engine are market-places. app stores are search engines. I suspect that sucky discovery is somehow beneficial to Apple. This also makes me think that good discovery in app stores might be the key to Google competing with Apple.
- sedev 14y ago
  Citation needed. How on earth is bad discovery beneficial to Apple? With the size and profitability of their app store, they have the most to gain from good discoverability. That's why they acquired Chomp. Smart money says that the acquisition is going to lead to much-improved discoverability on the iOS App Store.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > Citation needed. How on earth is bad discovery beneficial to Apple? Relax. The question was put out there genuinely, not as FUD. If Apple has so much to benefit from app discovery, why has it taken so long? I suspect that a lot of people at Apple benefit personally by having the power to decide which apps are featured, and which are not. I know devs for which this makes a difference as big as a good middle class salary or more. I am agreed that it's to Apple's benefit to have better discovery, but as well governed as it is, Apple is not a monolithic entity. Smart money says that the acquisition is going to lead to much-improved discoverability on the iOS App Store. I would love for this to happen. I'm not so sure this is in an area of core competency for Apple, though. Acquiring Chomp was the right move, but acquisitions don't always pan out.
    - greedo 14y ago
      "If Apple has so much to benefit from app discovery, why has it taken so long?" Because it's a hard problem to solve? Because app vendors are excellent at gaming any system for competitive advantage? Curating apps is tough, whether it's delivered via an app store, or whether it's a publicly available app. There's a reason it was easier to find apps in the PC era; there weren't that many quality apps. There were 1-2 word processors worth a damn, a few spreadsheets, and a few databases. Development costs were high because the apps were difficult to create, and distribution costs prevented developers from monetizing them easily. Compare that with today's apps; small, easier coding, far easier distribution. You end up with millions of apps for Android and iOS. And there's no hallowed authority like BYTE or PC Magazine to bless your app; Somewhere out there, someone is thinking along the lines of Page and Brin, thinking out of the box about how to make app discovery work; and when they do, we'll all slap our heads and think "why didn't we think of that?" And then the SEO guys will slowly adapt and app discovery will end up like web discovery.