SEO & AI Search (GEO) Expert

Improve your Google ranking with Peter Mahoney, 20+ years SEO & Wordpress experience

How to find your Google rank

by

How to find your Google rank Wordpress SEO & AI Search (GEO) Expert

Searching for yourself is a terrible idea

I still get asked a lot about discrepancies between what a client sees when they search for themselves, and either the official stats, or what their friend might see, etc.

So this is a refresher about why you shouldn’t search for yourself as a way to measure your ranking.

Google does all kinds of personalisation on your search results (based on your network’s IP address, if you’re logged into any Google accounts, even your location) and the more often you look for your own site, the more skewed those results will be.

To give an example, most people searching for “Peter Mahoney” see my site on the first page. But I see myself on the fourth. Essentially because I’ve searched for myself so often – and then not spent much time on my site or even bothered to click it – Google has “learnt” that I don’t like it and therefore ranks it down for me, uniquely.

The right place to get Google’s official rank for your site is their own monitoring systems, which is where I get my stats.

Their stats are actually an ‘average’ of your rank which is the statistically most useful approach. Because of personalisation, not everyone sees your site in the same position. Where someone is searching from geographically for example has an impact. So the average rank is the best indicator of where you rank.

There’s a commonly held belief that if you use a private browsing window somehow you’ll see the proper rankings in the search results. But all that does is prevent Google from knowing your account – they still know where you live, your IP address, in some cases the unique code for your network card – there’s *plenty* for them to skew your results with.

I love a good new year

by

Welcome to 2018!

I don’t usually do resolutions or anything like that, but as this site is now a few years old it makes sense to resolve to make myself a new one.

It might take a bit longer than usual because I’ll be doing it all with a “static site generator”, which is simply a useful way to generate sites that don’t have really advanced features, like e-commerce. But it allows for blindingly fast sites (in fact they load about 4x faster than a WordPress site!) so is a good direction to head in.

Of course if you want a new website for 2018, or just to make sure your existing one gets as many visitors as possible, let me know.

I’ll be here all year.

 

Google mobile search

by

One of things I’ve talked about a lot in the past couple of years has been Google’s move toward “mobile friendliness”. Last year they made a small change that meant sites that are mobile friendly would appear higher in search results when someone was looking from a mobile device.

Well they’ve really increased this as a search signal – sites that are NOT mobile friendly will now have a very hard time competing with those that are.

They’ve also updated their mobile friendliness test to make it more restrictive—it’s worth retesting your sites to make sure they still pass. Of course the best test is always the information displayed within Google Search Console which reports on the entire site, not just one page at a time.

The extra good news for those of you with mobile responsive sites is that any of your competitors who do not have mobile friendly sites will now suffer in their rankings.

One related point, there is a growing body of data that suggests this change also affects (in a smaller capacity) sites from normal desktops – that Google is prioritising sites that are mobile friendly on searches from ALL devices.

They haven’t confirmed that yet, so it’s not certain, but I am keeping an eye on it.

If you don’t have a responsive site for mobile devices yet and you don’t want to get caught out, please contact me and I can help make you a new, fully mobile complaint one.

Google descriptions

by

I’m often asked about how to change the description Google shows in their search results. (This post applies in part to many search engines, but Google in particular.)

The answer is slightly more complicated than any of us might like. The old response (going back a decade or more) was to just change your meta description tag. Those used to be picked up verbatim.

But these days Google isn’t beholden to anything we provide (with the exception perhaps of your own domain name). They can pick and choose what they think will be most useful to their users. They don’t have to use the description we provide–they can choose to ignore it and create their own.

If we want to give our descriptions the best possible chance of being picked up, they need to conform to the following:
  • be between 150-159 characters*
  • be in sentence structure
  • not include too many commas or ands – basically avoid things that make it look like it could be a list of keywords
  • ideally, it would be a whole sentence or two taken directly from the text of the page
  • in fact, really ideally it would be the first sentence or two from the page

and on top of all that of course it needs to fit our own needs of being informative and enticing people to visit the site.

Enjoy.

* = Normally 130-160 (or some other variant within that range, but usually ending with 160) is touted as acceptable. Recent data suggests in fact 160 may be too long, many pages with 160 characters exactly are finding their descriptions are being truncated before the last word with a ellipses (…) added, making it look unfinished. So 159 seems the current practical maximum.

Buying backlinks 2016

by

It’s been a while since I wrote a post about backlinks. But it’s always worth re-iterating this.

In short, my stance on these has only become stronger, because Google has become even more clever.

The shortest answer to the backlink question is that having backlinks is very beneficial.

But the longer answer is actually more important. Google has become incredibly adept at working out which backlinks are natural (i.e., someone liked your site and linked to it) as opposed to bought, meaning you paid for them.

Natural backlinks help your SEO, generally speaking. As for manipulated ones, once Google realises what you’ve done (which can take a few months) they will usually hurt your rank, often quite drastically.

There are a lot of people selling what they called “safe” links, or “Google friendly links”. In truth Google is very clear that any attempt to buy or create links is contrary to their ethos and something they will try to find and penalise you for.

And they are very good at it.

The reason people still sell them is a quirk of Google’s algorithm. When Google first see new links come in for a site they will almost always improve that sites ranking. It’s not until they’ve seen the patterns emerge and they realise they were faked links that they penalise you.

So when someone first buys links they usually do see an improvement, and feel happy with the service that made them. Months later when their site takes a hit—it’s too late.

So, are backlinks good? Absolutely. Should you try to have them created on your behalf? Absolutely not.

External links to and from your site

by

A leaking glass more than half-full

Links pointing in to your site are really important for SEO. Google has started suggesting they may be less and less important, and give it 5-7 years I think they’ll be one of the lesser important SEO criteria (in favour of RankBrain and Artificial Intelligence tools that can really determine how quality the site and it’s contents are.). But for now, external links from other sites are still important.

But, well, let’s think of links in and out like a glass of water being filled up and poured out.

  • For each link pointing to your site, lets fill up the glass a little. As it gets fuller it gets more SEO authority, which is great.
  • But for each link out, we can empty the glass a bit too.

So if for every link you have in you also have one out, the glass actually ends up empty*.

People used to make sites called “link traps” that didn’t link externally to anything, trying to full their glass right up. But as you’d expect Google got wise to this technique, and started to penalise sites if they did this—it’s contrary to the idea of a well-formed world wide web, and Google wants to help steer the web to be as useful as possible.

So it’s important to have some links out. I usually recommend a ratio of 4/1 – for every four links in, have one link out. That does vary based on a couple of factors, but it’s a good rule of thumb.

The glass fills faster than it empties, so Google is happy, and we are too.

* – important note, this is a very simplistic metaphor. Not all links are created equal, so if you have a link to your site from the BBC homepage, and a link out to your friend’s Etsy shop, you’d still end up with more water in the glass because in that case the link in has more SEO authority than the page you’re linking to. But because most sites aren’t in that position (most sites will have links in and out from sites swimming with them in a similar depth in the pool of link-juice; but I’ve used enough liquid-based similes for one day), it’s still a useful analogy.

Prices are quoted exclusive of VAT unless expressly stated.

RSS

Peter Mahoney, WordPress SEO expert blog