And they're rolling out until end of August,


English Google SEO office-hours from July 23, 2021

something like that.


So that would be something where, at most, you


would see kind of like a subtle, slow drop over time


until end of August.


It wouldn't be the case that you would see a drop from one


to the day to the next.


If you see something like a drop from one or two days


to the next, then probably that's


more related to the core update.


Yeah, OK.


Then it's solely the core update,


meaning that we need to look at the quality of the content.


All right.


OK, thank you.


Sure.


Cool.


Let's see, Neet.


Hey, hi, John.


Hi.


So I had two questions, actually.


First would be, so the client that I'm currently working on


has multiple foreign counterparts


of the same website.


And sadly, we don't have correct, not up to mark,


hreflang implemented on our content, correct?


So what is happening currently is, let's say, for example,


some of our foreign counterparts are ranking


on most of our Google search queries,


along with our regional search queries as well.


Whereas the content serving these regional queries


on our website is also regional.


So is there any way around wherein


why we are posting regional content


to cater to these regional search queries?


But is there any way around wherein,


except implementing hreflang tags,


we can rank on these regional queries specifically?


And this has started happening post the algorithm


update that was released.


OK.


So essentially, you're seeing regional pages not ranking


the way that you would like them in those regions.


Yeah.


So in a case like that, the hreflang


would not change anything.


So the hreflang annotations help us to pick the correct URLs


to show, but we would keep the ranking the same,


and we would swap out the URLs for whatever local version.


So if you have a shop that sells, I don't know,


basketballs, and you have one shop in India,


one shop in Singapore, if a user in Singapore is searching,


we will try to show the Singapore version there.


And we would essentially try to keep the ranking the same.


So that's something where regional content,


it wouldn't rank differently.


We would just try to pick the right ones to show.


With regards to ranking content like that,


I suspect it's just a matter of normal ranking.


It's not something that you can easily influence


with technical means.


So doing things like having clean internal linking


is really useful.


Kind of all of the traditional SEO things as well.


Definitely.


But the problem, John, here would be that we have the key.


Basically, the content themes are very similar.


The counterpart also has the same regional content theme


specifically, and the genre is the same, correct?


But what is happening is for these regional counterparts,


regional queries, we have similar content catering


to that, correct?


But our foreign counterpart is ranking on regional search


queries, which is what is happening currently.


So is there any other way, like you mentioned,


other than normal SEO techniques,


which we are doing up to mark?


Any other solution to this issue that we have?


OK, so it's basically all your website and the content


from a different country from your website


is ranking instead of the content that you would want?


That we have uploaded, yeah.


OK.


And by regional, you mean countries or?


Countries.


So let's say, for example, our website is from India,


and the website that is ranking is based out of Singapore.


So the Singapore website is ranking on Indian soap.


So that's what we are looking at currently right now.


Then you would really need to use hreflang.


Yeah.


That's a secret.


Even if the content is regional?


I mean, if you have an alternate version for one country,


then that's a perfect place to use hreflang.


If it's different content, then essentially you


could theoretically still use hreflang


if you think it's similar enough.


But if it's completely different content,


then it's essentially just different content.


And within a website, you can't easily control


which of your pages are ranking.


The only thing you could do is make sure


that the internal linking really clarifies which of these pages


is more important.


But you can't say, well, for this query, I want this page.


For a different query, I want another page.


Definitely.


Got it.


Great.


So my second part of the question was,


so basically the client that I'm working on currently


also has links which redirect to e-commerce website, correct?


Wherein the buying journey isn't from the website,


but goes on to another e-commerce website.


Is there any way wherein we can optimize the whole conversion


rate of these pages specifically so that we get more


transactions to that, or can it be specifically?


I don't know, really, kind of like SEO trick


to improve the conversion rate.


It seems more like usability and kind of like an on-page


marketing.


Yeah.


Makes sense.


I guess that was all from my end.


Thank you.


Thank you so much.


Sure.


Let me go through some of the submitted questions,


and then we'll get back to more of the live questions as well.


Let's see.


Starting off, is having multiple location landing pages


OK to have one of your business that


serves these locations without physically locating them?


I heard these are doorway pages.


Can you please clarify?


So doorway pages are essentially a situation


where you create multiple pages that are very similar, that


are just trying to rank for different queries,


which essentially lead to the same funnel in the end.


So kind of the situation that you're describing here.


The thing I would kind of keep in mind


when it comes to doorway pages is usually


it's a matter of having a lot of them.


So if you say my business is global,


but I kind of deliver to every city in the world,


and you create city-level landing pages for all


of your products, then that's definitely a doorway page.


And on the one hand, the web spam team might pick that up.


Our web spam algorithms might pick that up.


But almost certainly our quality algorithms


will pick that up as well and say, well,


there's actually not much useful content on these pages.


On the other hand, if you have maybe a clearly defined very


small set of locations that you want to target,


then that seems less of an issue.


So for example, if you're a local business


and you have kind of like two big cities nearby,


and you're located right in the middle,


then that seems OK to say, well, I'm targeting this city,


and I'm also targeting that city.


And the type of services that you provide are very similar.


So on the level of like you have two cities,


and you're just making something similar for both


of these cities, that seems OK.


And so that's kind of the thing here.


And finding the level in between I think is super tricky.


My recommendation is to try to have fewer pages


and then expand from there.


So instead of saying, I will create 20 pages


and see if that's good or not, create one page


and see how that works out.


Look at the search queries that go to those pages.


And then over time, you think, oh, it


makes sense to have a page separately


on a slightly different topic area for that area.


Then maybe expand to that.


So that kind of makes it easier for you to grow organically


and to make sure that you're not running into this situation


where you're just automatically generating millions of pages.


Is it OK to translate a whole website with Google Translate


and to show them as a subfolder or subdomain?


This way I can increase the cost of translation.


Is that useful for SEO?


So theoretically, you can use Google Translate


to translate a website.


However, on the one hand, we would


see that as automatically generated content.


And the Web Spam team would be unhappy about that.


The other thing is most likely this


would be low quality content.


Because while the automatic translations


are getting better and better, they're still not the same


level as a normal translation.


So the approach I would take in a situation like this


is start off with an automatically translated piece


of content and work to actually make sure


that that's a manually translated page in the end.


And when you're ready with a manually translated page,


then make that live.


And work through your website like this.


And quite often, when you work with localization agencies,


they do something similar.


They start off with an automatic translation.


They refine it.


And when it's well refined, they will send it back to you


and say, here's our translation.


I would not just blindly translate a whole website.


Because it makes the website low quality.


It goes against our webmaster guidelines.


It's kind of like a bad approach, I think.


What reasons might cause Google to remove all FAQ


snippets from a site without providing a warning in Search


Console?


So we don't guarantee any rich results in the search results.


So it's not that we would provide a warning, per se,


for any kind of rich result type in search.


But rather, when you use the correct markup,


you're eligible to be shown.


And it can happen that we show a lot of these rich results


for your website.


And maybe we'll scale them back over time.


Maybe we'll scale that up again over time.


It can also happen that we turn them off completely.


When it comes to rich results, we have different levels


that we look at.


On the one hand, it has to be technically implemented


properly, which probably is OK if you used to have it there.


On the other hand, it has to be compliant with our policies.


I don't know.


It's hard to judge here.


But I'm guessing maybe that's OK.


In general, we have algorithms that


try to understand our policies and try to kind of engage


on that.


So that's something where, again, you


wouldn't see a message around that.


And the third thing that we think


about when it comes to rich results


is we need to make sure that the website's quality overall


is OK.


And understanding a website's quality,


that changes over time.


And in particular, when it comes to things like core updates,


that can change.


So if you saw this change kind of around when


we launched the core update, then it


might be that our algorithms have kind of refined


what we think of your website, how we kind of see that fit in,


how relevant we think that is for certain queries.


And based on that, maybe these rich results are not shown.


So those are kind of the directions I would go there.


There's also the option that there was something so bad


with regards to the structured data on the page


that the Web Spam team took a manual action.


But that's something that's really rare.


And that would be something that you get a notification on


in Search Console.


Then we have the meta description.


I think we looked at that.


Is it OK to choose a domain name with two hyphens?


Or is one hyphen better?


Or should hyphens be avoided completely?


Up to you.


Whatever you think makes sense.


Some websites have hyphens, some don't.


I don't think anything in our algorithms


looks specifically for hyphens in domain names.


The aspect of just putting keywords into the domain name,


I think that's kind of overrated in the sense that, I don't


know, our search algorithms try to understand


the quality and relevance of a website overall.


And the domain name is not really the strongest factor


there.


So that's something, I don't know.


If you're trying to move to a domain


and just add keywords in there, my guess


is that the whole move to a new domain part


will be much more complicated and cause


more issues than any value you would get out


of just having a keyword extra in the domain.


So I would try to avoid doing that.


But again, it's not related to hyphens or anything like that.


It's really just like, should I add a keyword into my domain


name or not?


What's the best way to know if Googlebot


is rendering a page URL?


The best way is kind of to try the inspect URL tool


in Search Console.


It gives you a screenshot.


It gives you the rendered HTML.


You can double check the rendered HTML


to see if it's OK.


And that's essentially what happens.


So the test in Search Console runs almost completely


the same way that we do it for Search.


It's not completely the same way because in Search Console,


on the one hand, we want to give you an answer back quickly.


So the timeouts are slightly different.


On the other hand, in Search Console,


we try to pick up all of the content fresh.


So in particular, when it comes to CSS and JavaScript files


and any kind of other files that you have embedded and used


in your code, that's something in Search Console,


we try to pick it up fresh.


And we have those timeouts.


So sometimes that's kind of tricky.


But when it comes to Search, we tend


to have a lot more flexible timeouts


because we can render a page whenever we need it.


And we can cache the content, the JavaScript, the CSS files


a little bit longer so that we don't need to fetch everything


individually.


But if you're seeing that it works well in the inspect URL


tool, then it definitely works well in Search.


Is having or does having incorrect HTML language


attributes affect search rankings?


No.


So the lang attribute in HTML is not used by Google.


So whatever you put in there is kind of up to you.


I would, however, do it properly because it does affect things


like screen readers.


So that's something where I would still try to get it right.


But I wouldn't assume that you'll


see any SEO effect on Google with regards to that.


I'm not 100% sure about other search engines.


It might be that, I don't know, Bing or one of the other ones


uses the lang attribute in HTML.


But at least at Google, we don't use that.


What we try to do is understand the primary language


of the page based on the actual content.


Because one of the things that we noticed


is that people often use the same templates


as other people.


They'll copy and paste the template,


or they'll install a template automatically in their CMS.


And a lot of these templates come with lang attributes


already predefined.


And then because you don't see it when you look at the page,


it's very easy to end up in a situation


where your language attribute says English,


but the content is actually in French.


So because of that, we try to focus on the actual content


and recognize the language from there.


How different is SEO for product or service page


than a normal article?


For example, for keywords like piano classes near me,


as the user intention would be to find a service rather than


a solution.


It's essentially the same.


I don't think we do anything different with regards


to these different kinds of pages.


But rather, it's like we try to find the content on the page,


understand how it's relevant, and treat that appropriately.


The one thing I think to kind of mention here as well


is it sounds like what you're looking at


is a local service or local business, essentially.


And for that, I would make sure that you really


have a really strong Google My Business entry set up,


because that's something that can be shown a little bit


easier in the search results for queries like this.


And in particular, queries that include something like near me,


it's not that you need to rank for near me,


because near me is essentially global.


It's not something specific on your website.


But rather, what you need to do there


is just make sure that you have your location very clearly


defined on your pages so that we can recognize


this location is associated with your website


or with this page, and the user is in that location.


Therefore, any query that includes near me,


we can apply kind of this geographic distance algorithm


to figure out these are actually results that are near them,


and they match what they were looking for.


So that's something to keep in mind there.


With Google My Business set up, you automatically


have a location specified anyway,


so it's a little bit easier there.


But having all of that combined makes it a lot easier


for us to actually understand this is a local result,


and the user is local, and they're


looking for something local.


Therefore, we should highlight this better in search.


OK, wow, still a bunch of questions left


and a bunch of hands.


Maybe like usually, I'll go back to more live questions


from you all.


And I also have a bit more time afterwards as well


where we can stick around a bit after the recording pauses.


Let's see.


Roshan, I think you're next.


Hi, John.


Thank you so much.


Finally, I get to ask you a question.


OK, so I'm doing SEO for an e-commerce website,


pretty new, around eight months old.


And it's not a huge website.


It's got like 30, 40 products in total.


We sell green tea and herbal tea online.


And so I've been seeing some movement with the efforts


that we put in, regular backlinking process,


on-page SEO, structured data.


We have all that in place.


And we are seeing some movement there.


We are seeing increase in impressions.


We are working a lot on our blog section


because that's what we see a lot of other competitors are doing.


And we try to create skyscraper content, master blogs,


2,000-word, 3,000-word blogs.


And they end up ranking.


So some of our blogs are also ranking ahead of Healthline


or Medical News today.


So I think the efforts that we are making there


are falling in place.


It's just that the products page, they don't rank, man.


They don't rank at all.


I mean, I don't know what else can we do there.


Like, they have valid product structure data, review data.


And yeah, I told you, it's not a big website.


Like, if I go to any competitor's website,


they have a lot of main content and a lot


of supplementary content as well.


That's one thing that I see where the difference is.


And sometimes they have backlinks


to their product and collection pages.


But their product and collection pages rank on the first pages.


We are just having a hard time getting our product pages


to rank.


A couple of times our product pages are ranking,


but then they are ranking on the seventh or eighth pages.


So I really wanted to understand better on how,


what should my approach be from here on.


Yeah, I think that's always challenging.


And I don't think there is a simple trick


to make that happen.


The one thing I would watch out for is,


if these are products of this e-commerce site,


then make sure that you have all of the merchant center set up


correctly.


Because I don't know if this is in every country yet,


but we do have kind of the Google Shopping feed,


where you can kind of submit your products for free.


And then we can show those in the shopping search results


as well.


And sometimes we mix that in with the normal search results.


So that's kind of a way to additionally get


your products a little bit more visibility.


With regards to the kind of the products themselves,


if you're saying that some of your content,


like the blog posts, are ranking well, but the products aren't,


then sometimes you can help that by making sure


that there is clear internal linking between those things.


So the pages where you are seeing


that they're working out well, make sure


that there's really a clear linking from those pages


to your actual products.


My guess is probably you have some of that set up.


If you have really long kind of blog pages that are ranking,


the challenge there might be that it's


very tempting to link to a lot of different products


from there.


And by linking to a lot of different products,


you're kind of saying, well, everything is a little relevant,


but nothing is really relevant.


Whereas if you link to a few products from those pages,


then you can kind of really say, well,


these are really important products.


And that's something where you wouldn't necessarily


need to focus on kind of like things that are ranking badly


at the moment, but things that you care about instead.


So if you say these are products where


you earn the most money from or that are the most popular,


or maybe they're the easiest to sell, something like that,


then those are the kind of things


where with internal linking, you can kind of


promote those a little bit.


And with really strong internal linking,


then over time, the rankings of those product pages


might change as well.


Just to add to that, we have a shopping setup.


We are spending heavily on shopping campaigns.


So of course, the feed that we set up there


is also getting exposed to the organic listings.


And we are seeing some traffic here and there, very small,


not significant.


As for internal linking, what we do is,


let's say I create a blog for, say, green tea or herbal tea.


And that's a 2,000-word blog.


And in the end, we just kind of conclude our blog.


And then we link to that particular page,


not to anything else.


So we try to create blogs focused on one product, one


kind of tea that we have.


And we only link to that tea.


OK.


Right?


But that sounds good.


That sounds good.


Yeah.


Are you saying we just, like, I don't know.


It sounds like you're doing a lot of things right.


And if you're ranking kind of competitively


with some of these really big sites with your blog posts,


then that's really hard work.


And that's kind of a sign that at least there


are different aspects there involved.


And that one angle, you have covered really well.


So that's something where I'd say I would tend


to continue in that direction.


And I would still think about internal linking


a lot with regard to these pages,


especially maybe from your blog post,


but also from the rest of the website itself.


If you say that you have a few products at the moment,


then it's sometimes tempting to link to all of these products


from your shop home page.


And if you can find a way to kind of funnel


that a little bit better, then that


can make it a little bit easier for individual pages


to rank better.


So can I sum it up in the way that if there is a blog


and there is a collection page, there is a product page.


So either of them ranks, that is good enough for us.


So we go a little aggressive on internal linking,


find out the most important products, the products that


sell the most or are most searched for,


and focus on internal linking of those products


and continue blogging the same way.


Right?


Yeah.


Yeah, I think that's generally a good approach.


And I think you're on the right track.


So it's not completely wrong what you're doing there.


It's sometimes just sometimes the competition


is quite strong, and it takes a while to kind of grow.


So we always end up competing with Amazon for no reason.


I mean, it's always there.


So that makes it all the way harder.


Cool, I think I get the approach.


I'll keep at it.


Cool.


Thank you.


OK.


Let me pause the recording here.


It's been great having you all here.


And like I mentioned, you're welcome to stick around,


and we can go through more questions as well.


If you're watching this on YouTube,


feel free to join in one of the next Office Hours sessions


if you'd like to, or at least submit questions


if you have anything pending.


Thank you for watching, and hopefully see you


Cats, muffins and more: Videos in Search

Hello, and welcome to another episode of Search Off The Record, a podcast coming to you from


the Google Search team, discussing all things search and having some fun along the way.


My name is Gary with a B, and I'm joined today by Lizzie Sesman from the Search Relations


team of which I'm also part of.


Hey, happy to be here.


And today we are also joined by Danielle Marshak, who's one of the product managers on the search


team focusing on video.


Hi, Danielle.


Hey, great to be here.


Super excited to be doing my first podcast ever as a big podcast listener.


This is very exciting for me and happy to chat about videos.


Wait, this is your first podcast?


This is my first time ever being on a podcast and it's really cool.


I'm excited.


Well, we are also excited to have you here.


I'm particularly excited about videos because I have a long history of watching videos,


specifically cat videos, because they tend to be funny for some reason.


And I remember when I was a kid, for example, then this was pre-YouTube time.


I spent my internet allowance on basically downloading cat videos.


And that was very, very exciting for me.


The internet is all about cats, as they say.


Wasn't there a machine learning model that just discovered cats organically just by crawling


the internet?


I feel like I read that somewhere.


What?


It's like they fed a bunch of images and it generated a cat, something along those lines.


I don't know the details, but something that proved that the majority of the internet is


indeed cats.


That is amazing.


We should verify that.


Yes.


Fact check this podcast.


I never heard that before.


That's very surprising to me.


I would have expected that there are also other kinds of videos that are very prominent


on the internet and it's not just cats, but...


Wait, did you say videos on the internet or that the internet at large, like any piece


of content is the majority cats, like about cats, like text content too?


I think this might've been images specifically.


So not exactly the topic of this podcast, but you know, if people like pictures of cats,


the only thing better than pictures of cats should be videos of cats, I would assume.


Interesting.


I can totally see how images would play into that bucket because I can has cheeseburger,


for example, that's been around for a very, very long time.


And probably it set a trend that involved cats and images, but with a wake of more processing


power I imagine and phones and such, probably we also saw an uptick in cat videos on the


internet.


So maybe it's even videos that are prominent or are the most prominent nowadays on the


What was your first encounter with videos if you remember?


So I don't know if this was my first ever encounter with videos, but there's an early


internet video that I remember fondly.


And I'm curious if you guys remember this one too.


Did you guys ever watch muffin films?


What is a muffin?


Like...


I might now sound like a crazy person, but I actually checked and this website still


exists.


It's called muffinfilms.com.


And now I think the videos are on YouTube.


But this website was originally created before YouTube.


And yeah, they basically, some animator created a bunch of videos about muffins and there


was a finale video called Muffin Alley.


How do you feel from here?


We were saying before how the only thing better than a picture of a cat is a video of a cat.


And I think one of the reasons why videos are becoming more and more popular online


is that they really can convey so much more emotion, movement, just information that you


couldn't get from text or images alone.


When you think about whether it's a music track that goes with something and helps you


connect more deeply with it, or just the fact that there are certain things where movement


really conveys something beyond just a static image.


So it's a very rich content format.


And I think that's why we see a lot of people creating more videos about all kinds of topics,


not just entertaining topics, but at Google, we really think about organizing the world's


information and videos can be really informational for all those reasons too.


So that's a lot of what we think about on the video search team.


Yeah.


I use videos a lot for cooking or actually seeing how people do specific things in cooking.


And for that, I think they are amazing because with images very often you cannot convey the


same motions.


For example, you could draw lines and images, and then that might help you understand how


you have to stir something.


But with a video, you can actually see the speed.


You can see the motion exactly how it is.


So I definitely understand why people prefer in some cases, videos over images or text.


Do you remember the first time you actually went to a search engine, not necessarily Google,


and you searched for a video?


It was very different from the experience.


I'm thinking about how I'm finding these cooking videos.


And my father was a chef and back in the day we were hunting for new recipes or new methods


or whatnot.


And finding the videos was challenging, let's say.


And this was pre big video sites like Dailymotion and YouTube and so on.


It was basically the wild, wild west for videos.


And then search engines tried to categorize them and tried to surface them.


But very often they did a very weird job, as in you search for how to stir hollandaise


sauce and then you would end up with a cat video because the internet is cats.


Because the internet is about cats, essentially.


Yes.


And it was a similar experience that prompted you to become a video person, basically someone


who tries to fix the videos for the internet.


You know, that's an interesting question.


Was it video or search first that grasped your interest or brought you to Google even?


Great question.


To be honest, the way Google does interviews for a lot of roles is you kind of get the


job and then you pick the team.


And what actually drew me to the search team initially was the people and the fact that


I felt like I could learn a ton from them.


And so that is definitely held true.


I've been on the team for about three and a half years and it's so cool working with


people who have worked on search for way longer than that and being able to learn from them


and how they work.


But when I was joining the video team specifically, I remember I had seen certain video features


that seemed really interesting.


Like you could search and Google would actually pull out a particular moment within a video


that was most helpful.


And that's something that we launched an initial version for that, I think before I even joined.


But since then, we've been building more features along those lines to help make it even easier


to find not just the right video, but the right part within a video.


And I remember seeing that and thinking that was pretty cool.


And when I joined the team, I kind of had a sense of, wow, if that's the type of thing


we can do, how can we do more of that?


How can we make that better for users?


It felt like just the tip of the iceberg.


And I think it really is like even three and a half years since I've joined, we've done


a lot, but there's still so much more to do.


So definitely a really exciting space.


You touched upon an interesting thing, which is kind of understanding because if you have


like segments, basically, you know that this segment is about a certain topic and then


the next segment is about a different topic.


How do search engines or Google understand these things like the segments?


Or do we even understand more about what's in the video?


Yeah.


So there's a few different ways we can understand what's inside a video.


One way is to try to extract text from the video since historically Google has been pretty


good at understanding text.


And so we can extract text in a couple of ways.


We can use the audio from the video file to understand what words are being spoken and


then try to slice up those words into meaningful parts or chunks.


Another way we can extract text is using the characters in the video, optical character


recognition.


And so for example, there might be a heading in one part of a video saying, now we're going


to talk about cats.


And there might be a heading in another part of a video that says, now we're going to talk


about how Google search finds videos of cats.


And so we could extract out those text headings to understand important moments in a video


as well.


But then the other thing is that videos are not just speech and text on images.


If that's all they were, they wouldn't be quite so powerful and useful like we were


talking about.


Videos also have a lot of visual information, right?


So can you see particular types of objects or animals or motion in a video?


And that's an even harder problem and something that we've been working on as well is using


those visual signals in the video to understand what's happening or identify key moments from


that.


I do remember a machine learning model thing that was like, is it a dog or a donut?


And maybe this is going away from the cat theme.


But is that something that you notice is getting better, differentiating between objects?


Like that, like a curled up dog and the picture of a donut in a video to know what it is?


Yeah, I've definitely I've also seen that meme.


It's pretty funny.


Yeah.


I mean, that's exactly the type of thing that our technology needs to keep getting better


at because as humans, even as humans, some of those pictures are a little hard to distinguish.


And so we can't necessarily expect computers to do it automatically.


But yeah, as that type of technology improves, what's really cool, I would say, working at


Google is you have different teams working on different aspects of these problems.


So there might be a research team that's really focused on improving visual perception.


And then we could use those techniques to then apply that visual perception improvement


to videos.


And so that's kind of how we work as a team.


You know, the video team isn't necessarily improving all of these things ourselves.


It's a big and hard problem, but we get to collaborate and leverage different technologies


to make our products better.


So a few years ago, I was at a conference in Berlin, I think.


I think the conference was called CIPIC.


And there we were presenting something about images to image publishers.


And then one of the hot topic was image understanding, or how are we using machine learning to understand


the images.


And then I remember that we extracted for them using the model that we used in production,


just a few examples to give them an idea about how little we can understand about image.


Again, this was like four years ago.


And it was like, if the image had an apple, we could tell that that's an apple.


If it had the Eiffel Tower, then we could tell that that's the Eiffel Tower.


Well, the model could tell that that's the Eiffel Tower.


But if it was a group of people and in the middle, there was Obama standing, it just


said that it's a group of people.


It would not recognize that the former president of the United States is there, which is kind


of weird to me because I would have expected that such a prominent entity and we would


understand it.


But it was also shocking for the publishers.


And it just reinforced that they need to provide more data, textual data, so we can, we as


in search engines, can understand the images better.


Can we understand more from the different frames?


I'm not trying to say that understanding images is the same as videos, because obviously it's


not.


You have 20 something frames per second in a video and you have one frame in an image,


essentially.


Is our understanding still so limited that we need extra information coming in, in form


of text, for example, or structured data or whatever, or people can just abandon that


all together and my dream just came true?


Well, definitely for all of the listeners, don't abandon structured data just yet.


We love structured data because as we were talking about, even though we've come so far,


we're still at the tip of the iceberg in terms of being able to really deeply understand


videos.


So even as we start to use the video content more, we also really rely on structured data


and text signals from the page as well to make sure we understand what the video is


about, what types of queries it could be useful for, et cetera.


So it's really useful to have that additional information.


And another key use of structured data is for us to actually get the video content itself.


So when we visit a page, we see what we think might be the video content file, but if a


site owner actually tells us, hey, this is my content URL in structured data, and ideally


that content URL is something that Google can actually access, that also helps us do


the video understanding as well.


So we get both structured data, you can add text and make sure we have a good title for


the video and a description, and that can help us understand what it's about, but you


can also use it to make sure we actually get the video content.


And that's a common pitfall.


We see a lot of various reasons why we might be actually missing that video content, and


then we don't have that additional information.


And ideally, we want to be able to show videos for all of the queries they could be relevant


for, which might be something mentioned in the title, but it might be something that's


mentioned halfway through the video, and that could be really useful to someone if we know


that it's there.


Yeah, one of the things that was very prominent at that conference was that people, I mean,


publishers were blocking images for various reasons, and then we couldn't access the images,


and then they were mad that we wouldn't index their images so they don't get traffic from


search.


And I find it, I mean, I've been working on search for, wow, 11 years, and I was working


as a webmaster before.


So for me, it's very weird that people wouldn't allow Google bots or other crawlers to access


the images, but yeah, it still happens.


And when we can't access those resources, then indexing can suffer quite a bit.


And the other thing that was really funny to me was that some developer decided that


the image URL should change on every page load.


And that was some caching or cache busting mechanism or something like that.


And they were asking us there in a session, why are we not indexing those images?


It's like, well, we go there, we see the image URL, and then we go back to index it.


And then when we fetch it again, it's not there anymore.


So kind of explains why we don't index the image or don't keep it in the index.


Do you see the same problems with videos as well where publishers would block?


Yeah, we definitely do.


I think, you know, it's pretty common that if you own a video, you created a video, you


don't want that video to be potentially pirated or copied by people who don't have the rights


to do that.


And so we see a lot of content protections, which make a lot of sense to prevent bad actors


from getting a hold of your video.


But the challenge is that if these videos are kind of locked down in that way, if you


see these changing URLs, et cetera, then Google also can't access the content file.


And so then again, as we were saying, yes, we use text, but we also are using content


as well, and if we can't access that, that's kind of just a missing signal there.


So I've actually worked with Lizzie a bunch to update our dev docs and clarify some of


our best practices along these lines.


And we want to make sure that there is easy ways to get your content files in the hands


of people you want them to have it and not in the hands of people you don't.


So there's probably more detail than we want to go into on this podcast.


But Lizzie, any thoughts on the dev doc updates or best practices we've been working on?


I was going to ask, is there a way that we could have both?


So you're mentioning that there's bad actors and we have these concerns around not wanting


my content to be stolen, but also wanting Google to discover it.


Is there a win-win solution for publishers?


Yeah.


So there is what we call reverse DNS lookup or just straight up DNS lookup, because I


think we've recently published our IP addresses.


Is that right, Gary?


To make it easier to actually tell if something is Google and you don't have to do quite as


many reverse and forward back and forth checks.


And so, yeah, you can actually see if it's Google or another trusted bot.


Obviously, Google isn't the only search engine or the only crawler that you might want to


access your content, but you can see if it's Google.


And if you do want Google to access your content, you can allow it.


And so hopefully that makes it a bit easier to control who has your content and who doesn't.


And let trusted actors understand it while keeping it out of the hands of bad actors.


Gary, I don't know if you had any other thoughts to add on that one.


Recently we did publish our IP addresses and I keep them up to date, basically going into


our own internal database and exporting them as needed.


I don't think we had an addition to them.


Turns out that our IP addresses don't change that often.


And it was actually really nice to see that other search engines followed along and they


also published in the same format their IP addresses and published them.


And I imagine that that's really good for video publishers for the reasons that you


mentioned.


Another thing that I'm very excited about on the internet or too excited perhaps is


short form videos where I spend way too much time nowadays because I'm trying to figure


out how could we, as in the search relations team, fit into the short videos format.


Could we publish our documentation in some way?


Did you not get the memo?


Oh, apparently I'm getting it now live presently.


For example, could we have some short videos, like three minute videos or even shorter videos


where we talk about some thing like the site colon query operator or the IP addresses that


we publish or whatever that we can fit in the three minutes.


And it seems that it's also extremely popular on the internet among people.


I have no idea if it's a segment of people or it's the general internet population that's


very excited about it.


I'm assuming it's the younger population, but that's just a gross assumption.


But I'm very curious about how Google is thinking about short videos, if we are thinking about


short videos at all.


You know, you mentioned a good point too.


What is the difference?


What's the cutoff between making it a short video and a regular video?


Is it the length of time or is it the format itself?


Because I also see that it's like a vertical versus landscape switch there.


How do we differentiate between what is a short form video versus full length air quotes?


Yeah, great question.


We definitely are seeing that short form video is really growing, not just as a form of entertainment,


but as you suggested, also can be a great way to convey information.


Everybody loves things that are concise and visual and engaging.


And when we talk about short videos, typically we're thinking about this sort of new format


that's cropped up, usually under a minute, although sometimes it could be longer and


typically really mobile oriented.


So we're looking at vertical aspect ratio as opposed to maybe something that's meant


to be watched on a laptop.


And this format's really cool because, you know, as I mentioned, it is very concise.


You can get a lot of information in a short period of time and you can also get a lot


of different views and perspectives.


So you could, for example, see what five different people think about the best way to make banana


bread all in under five minutes, or you could get five different people's perspectives on


a product they bought and whether it's good or how they use it all in under five minutes.


And so getting that diversity of ideas or perspectives is something that's much easier


when each piece of content is really short.


And again, as we were talking earlier about the benefits of videos generally, that also


applies to short videos.


You can see movement, you can see not quite 3D, but you know, something can be turned


around.


You can look at it more closely in a way that you wouldn't necessarily look at it in an


image.


So we think this kind of content could be useful for a lot of different types of search


queries.


And we've been experimenting with how to show it to users more often.


Do you have any examples?


Yeah.


Well, I mentioned banana bread, you know, being one.


So let's say, again, you're searching for some new ideas to make banana bread.


And right now you might see traditional recipes, you might see longer videos, but you could


also see short videos, which could just give you a different style or perspective.


And people's preferences are different.


Some people might prefer to read, some people might prefer a longer video, some people might


prefer short videos.


And so we want to offer a lot of different options to get that type of information in


the format that is most useful for you.


So that's one example.


Another example, we were talking about shopping as a use case.


So let's say you're trying to decide whether you want to buy a Vitamix and you want to


get a sense for like, how big is it really?


And you know, how fast is it really pulverizing those blueberries?


You know, seeing a video for that might make it a lot easier to understand if you want


to buy it, or you could even see different people talking about how they use it.


And so that's something that a longer video could also do.


But, you know, a shorter, concise video might be even more helpful.


Maybe you just need that quick look at how the blender is working or that quick take


from one person on how they've used it.


And that could be a nice way to understand whether it's worth buying.


Yeah, in my brain, this is similar to recipe sites where you have to read how the recipe


came to be.


And basically, we are going back to Adam and Eve.


And from there, somehow we've reached the recipe at one point versus you just go to


a site and you have the recipe in your face.


And you can start cooking without reading all the stuff.


Yeah, I really like short form videos.


And I see lots of instructional videos on certain sites.


And I really think that one point we might want to try it for education purposes, like


for search docs.


I don't know if we are there yet.


But eventually, especially if I see that the search engines picked it up and they can present


it in some way, then maybe we should push for it.


What do you think, Lizzie?


Like if we started, what would be your requirement, I guess, to see that when we're there yet?


What is the bar of there yet that we would want to experiment with it?


Where we start seeing instructional things showing up?


Or would we want to be ahead of the curve and try it now?


For the search docs, I don't know if we want to be ahead of the curve.


Basically, we want people to consume their content in a way that they are used to.


I don't know if short form videos is something that they expect.


We can surprise them.


I've also seen short videos that are on topics that you wouldn't even expect around like


how to write a resume, for example, or interview tips.


So I feel like you could make a short video about interview tips.


You could probably make a short video about SEO tips.


But obviously, you know, don't want to create extra work for you guys.


Well, a lot of them, like I've seen are question based.


So it's like a user submitted question or something.


And then you're like quickly and under a minute answering whatever the thing was.


But I guess like how would people then would they discover the docs next to it?


Or how would they be linked with like the informational page that is with it?


Because right now with videos, we can embed them on the page.


Would you do that same thing with a short form video?


Also our documentation is primarily desktop users.


Whereas we've been talking about short form being a mobile focused thing.


How would that gel together?


Yeah, I don't know.


I just feel that if we have lots of people who are on short form videos and we know that


there are instructional videos out there, then at one point we might want to try it


also.


Like my go to example is the physics girl, a content creator who is talking about quantum


mechanics, well quantum in general and astrophysics.


And she can deliver great content in under three minutes.


So if she can talk about quantum mechanics under three minutes and the videos are highly


interacted with, then why wouldn't our content?


I mean, maybe it's less interesting, I guess.


No, I think we could do it.


I mean, and Danielle, you've done lightning talks on our channel as well.


Would you be, would this be something that you would be interested in doing a short form


video about short form videos?


Or is that too meta?


I feel like, you know, if anyone's going to do it, it's probably got to be me, right?


If I'm the video person, I got to pioneer the dev docs in short video format.


I think it actually, I think it could work really well, right?


Just you share some short tips and obviously, right, you might want to link out to more


detailed information if people want that, but it could be fun to experiment with.


Yeah.


I mean, I can think of a question right now, like the top one, I don't know why it keeps


getting submitted, but content URL versus embed URL.


Why are there two URLs and which video do I put where?


And that would be something that you could answer probably pretty succinctly.


Yep.


That's a, that's a great one.


I feel like now, now I'm on the spot.


I'm going to answer it right now in under 15 seconds.


All right.


Content URL.


If you have the content URL, you should provide that in your structured data.


If you don't have the content URL, for example, if you're using third party embed service


where you don't have access to that file as a backup, you could use the embed URL and


that can sometimes work too.


But when in doubt, if you have both share the content URL, that was probably under 15


seconds, right?


That could have been a video.


I'm pretty sure we should have been recording this with the selfie mode.


You know, one other common question that sometimes comes up is when we talk about short form


video or videos generally, like how do we discover this content or is this different


from the ways that we discover content on the web generally?


And you know, one thing that's kind of cool is anything that's at a URL really is something


that Google can crawl and can surface.


And so, you know, short form videos are often viewed in apps, but as long as they have a


URL attached to them, it's something that Google can find and can surface in search


results.


So I thought I would share that tidbit as well, since it's a common question I've heard


and maybe helpful if anyone's curious.


Yeah, I was very surprised when I think I shared some TikTok video with Lisia yesterday


or a few days ago or something.


It's every day.


It could be daily activity.


Too much detail, too much detail.


You can actually open it on the laptop and you will end up on a web page and you can


actually watch it on the web page.


You don't have to have the TikTok app for watching the video.


So I imagine that if they allow crawling, I haven't checked, then we can probably index


those videos as well.


Yep.


A lot of short video apps, in addition to the app, have great web experiences, both


mobile web experiences or desktop experiences.


And yeah, if it's at a URL and it's crawlable, then it could show up in search.


And I have one final question.


What is the project that you are most excited about presently?


And please don't say recording videos for us because everyone knows that already.


Absolutely.


Yeah, this is a fun part of the job.


But yeah, I would say there's probably two categories of things we're working on that


are really exciting.


We've been talking a lot in this podcast about how we understand videos and how we could


use that understanding to build features that are more useful for people.


So for example, today, key moments let you jump to a particular moment within a video.


There's a whole world of additional things that we can do to use that video understanding


to help people find information more efficiently.


So that's an area that is super exciting and there's so much more to do.


And then the other thing that we think a lot about is how do we make sure that videos are


a useful part of the search experience as a whole?


So one of the things that's so great about Google is you can come to one place and you


can search for a topic and you don't have to necessarily think, oh, I really want a


video or I really want a text article.


You should be able to see whatever is most relevant, hopefully laid out in a way that's


seamless and useful.


And so we're thinking about, as always, how we can make sure that videos are part of that


whole search experience and that users can come to search and get whatever they're looking


for in one place.


So yeah, that's another area that's maybe a little vague and high level, but just a


theme that we're always working on and thinking about is having that seamless experience across


formats.


As cool as videos are, we don't want to go into a corner ourselves and work alone.


We want to make sure that Google search as a whole is really helpful.


And that's it for this episode.


Thank you, Danielle.


We've been having fun with these podcast episodes.


I hope you, the listener, have found them both entertaining and insightful too.


Feel free to drop us a note on Twitter at Google search C or chat with us at one of


the next virtual events we go to if you have any thoughts.


And of course, don't forget to like and subscribe and link to us, but with a nofollow.


JavaScript SEO office hours May 13th, 2020

Hello, and welcome to another JavaScript SEO office hours.


It's me, Martin Schwitt, from the Google Search Relations


team, and I'm here to answer your questions on JavaScript


SEO.


And a few questions were already submitted,


so I'll go through the submitted ones,


and then we'll take questions from the audience.


If you want to join these live hangouts,


you can go to google.com slash webmaster slash connect.


We have a calendar where they are scheduled.


Or you go to youtube.com slash googlewebmasters slash


community, and I'll post the link to these recordings


a few minutes before the recordings start,


so you can join them live.


Or you can just use the YouTube post to post your questions,


and then see you at the answer later as the recording goes up.


Cool.


So let's have a look.


What was asked?


The thing is, if you ask questions that are not related


to JavaScript, I would ask those in the regular SEO office


hours or the webmaster office hours,


because this is specifically aimed towards JavaScript


questions and problems.


So is it fine that we serve the content pages


without any JavaScript for bots?


Is that considered cloaking?


No.


If it is the same content or roughly the same content,


it doesn't matter if there is JavaScript or not.


And if it's slightly different, that is what


we would call dynamic rendering.


We have a guide on dynamic rendering as well.


And that's perfectly fine.


That's not a problem.


Does it have to decrease the time to download and increase


the number of pages Googlebot can


crawl within the same budget?


Maybe, maybe not.


That depends on many different factors.


So dynamic rendering, usually, when


you render the page without JavaScript, as the request


comes in, it usually takes longer


because you have this extra rendering step


in the middle of it.


So that sometimes makes the site a little slower.


But that's normally neglectable and not a big problem.


Again, it depends on your setup.


You should measure that time.


It might save you a few requests and crawl budget


if your JavaScript is client-side rendered


and does a bunch of API requests to actually fetch


resources and then create the content from that.


You would save these requests.


And that means that you get a little more requests


in your crawl budget.


But then again, crawl budget is only


relevant if you have a really large site with, I would say,


like a million and up pages.


And there's other factors that go into crawl budgets.


So you might not see an increase in pages being indexed.


But you might.


It's not impossible.


OK.


Hi, Martin.


Is the client-side JavaScript redirect treated like a 301


and immediately considered permanent like a 302


temporarily or something else?


It's considered like a redirect.


We don't really make that much of a difference


in terms of 301 and 302.


It does have a different outcome for the users.


301s, browsers cache that and immediately jump


to the target destination, whereas with 302,


it basically jumps to that original URL first


and then jumps to the target.


Client-side redirects for browsers


are pretty much like 302s.


So if you can avoid them, I would.


If you cannot, then that's OK, too.


So it doesn't really hurt anything much.


So you don't have to worry about that big time.


Someone wants to join the session


but doesn't have the link.


So I'll just quickly post the link here as well.


We rebuilt our website in React and implemented


a mobile navigation from one of the component frameworks, which


is not in the DOM until a user clicks on the hamburger icon.


Could that have a negative effect


on how Googlebot sees our page?


None of the links are visible in the HTML.


You kind of answer your question yourself.


If it's not in the HTML, we're not going to see it.


That's what's going to happen.


And if this is your navigation and your navigation


is the only thing that tells us about your page structure,


that's not great.


I would argue that it's always better


to have the links in the HTML in the DOM, maybe hide it,


maybe move it out of the screen, whatever.


But don't just remove it entirely.


You can totally have something that is invisible in the DOM


and only comes in on user interaction.


We wouldn't do the user interaction.


But as long as it's in the DOM, we would see the links.


Whereas if you really just need a user interaction


for the links to be injected into the DOM,


then that's what we are not seeing.


So that's not great.


Is there a difference in how Google handles history push


state versus history replace state?


Good question.


I don't know.


I think there isn't.


But I don't know for sure.


And I would have to test.


You can probably test that as well.


I'm not 100% sure.


I guess I would assume that there isn't a big difference.


But I am really, really not sure.


And I'm not sure if we would count replace state


as a redirect.


But I would have to check.


That's a really good question.


I like hard questions.


I'll come back with an answer maybe on Twitter.


I'll see.


Thanks, Martin.


Sorry for that.


Yeah.


Since the bot should not really care about custom web fonts,


is it OK to serve the bot a page that loads fast and does not


rely on the custom fonts?


Could that have a positive effect?


I wouldn't do it.


Yes, it could have a possible potentially positive effect.


But it also means that you have a more complicated setup


because you then have to inherently figure out


is this a bot or not and then have additional code that


deals with this.


Additional code usually also means additional bugs.


No matter what you do, there will be weird side effects


that you might not have foreseen.


I just wouldn't do something for such a miniscule improvement.


A better way of dealing with this is to either prevent us


from loading the web fonts, like put the web fonts somewhere


where you can robot them away so that we can't fetch them.


If you really care about this mu of performance


and set your CSS to fonts so that they swap in default fonts


and don't have the flesh of style text up front.


But honestly, I wouldn't.


This sounds like something isn't broken


and you just want to tickle these last few seconds out


there.


Don't.


The complexity that you incur is higher than the benefit


that you potentially gain.


So I would not do that.


As mentioned in the JavaScript SEO basics article, yay!


Someone's reading my documentation.


That's great.


Using meaningful HTTP status codes can be impossible for SPAs


with client-side routing.


Yeah.


The article goes on to suggest using a redirect to a server


rendered URL for this purpose, the solution seems


like an overkill for a 404 page.


No.


No, that's not.


Because you should be able to configure your server.


So you can set it to a 404 status code for some URL.


And then you just redirect to that URL.


I don't see why that's hard.


I think in Express.js, that's like five lines of code.


Including the client-side part.


Does Google really not recognize a 404 at this day and age?


Maybe you can shed some light.


We do.


If we think that it's a soft 404, we do usually flag that.


But it's such a bad idea.


And it's so easy to prevent.


If you don't want to do the overkill,


then just no index the page that is a 404.


That's also cool.


That's one line.


That's why I have these both examples in there.


We do recognize soft 404s normally.


But there is a risk.


And there will always be a risk.


Because what we are doing is our machine


has to guess where there is a mechanism, where


there are three mechanisms where we wouldn't have to guess.


The 404 as a server-side response,


which is not available in the client-side rendered


and client-side routed application, I understand that.


That's one way of not having us guess and actually having


us know that this is a 404.


The no index, where we don't know it's the 404,


but we wouldn't put it in the index for sure.


So again, no guessing.


Or the redirect to a 404 page.


Also, no guessing.


So if you can make something more solid, why wouldn't you?


Especially if it's a really, really small amount of code


that you have to write to make that happen.


If you're OK with the risk of potentially ending up


with something in search results that is a 404 page, go for it.


But then don't complain to us later.


There are solutions for this that


make it clear that the page shouldn't be in the index.


So you can use them, or you can not use them.


That's fine.


Most soft 404s are being caught.


But I know at least one example in the recent past


where that didn't work.


And then people were like, why is this showing up in search?


It's an error page.


And I'm like, you're not telling us it's an error page.


You're actually not even saying the word error


anywhere on the page.


You're just showing unrelated things.


So yeah, you can not implement that.


But then you live with a little bit of risk.


Cool.


So those were the YouTube questions.


Thank you so much for submitting.


I hope the answers were helpful.


If not, you can totally ask follow-up questions


in the next week's edition.


And I see that we have a bunch of people here in the audience.


And I wonder if the audience has questions as well.


Hi.


This is Gayatri.


And I joined a bit late.


So my question was about biomic rendering.


So I think I missed that part.


Can you just go through that again, please?


My name is Gayatri Sampath.


Did you ask a question on YouTube?


Yes.


Why am I not seeing it?


Then let me see.


Ah, yeah.


OK, so I see you asked how to join the session.


And then I'm not seeing your question.


Could you ask your question again?


Just give me one minute.


Why am I not seeing the question?


Search for top.


Actually, so the issue was that we are using


ReactJS for our website.


And the navigation bar links, they're


not showing up as links in the Google Search Console.


When you do a live post and when I see the view crawl page,


I don't see the live link.


It's just dumped as a chunk of text.


So we got back to the developers team.


And they told us the dynamic rendering is in place.


And you don't have to worry about this.


But I'm just concerned that if the link


goes to the main domain, it won't be passed on


to the navigation bar categories or the content silos


and then onto the individual pages.


So I wanted to confirm with you if dynamic rendering is


in place for our website.


So how do I confirm that if it has been implemented properly


and it doesn't hurt our SEO?


That's a good question.


It depends a little bit on the dynamic rendering solution


that you have in place.


If it's Rendertron, Rendertron adds an HTTP response header


to a page that it rendered.


I can actually probably show this.


Give me a second.


I need a new Chrome tab for this.


And then I need a Rendertron instance.


OK.


So if you are using Rendertron, which I don't know if you do,


and you don't have to, there's other solutions.


I'm not saying that this is the right solution.


I'm just saying this is one where it's relatively


easy to spot what's happening.


Let's see.


I think this needs to be HTTP.


So if I render and serialize this page, and I get a,


this is now a dynamically rendered page.


And I can tell, because if I go into the Network tab,


and I'll actually make this larger real quick,


that people can actually read what's happening in here.


If I load this again, I get the headers.


And the response headers contain an X renderer Rendertron


header.


So Rendertron makes it quite easy


to see if it has been used or not.


If you would see that in the response headers in Search


Console, then you would know that Rendertron was used.


If not, it's relatively easy as well.


You can go to, let's say, the mobile friendly.


Actually, the rich result app.


I just go for the mobile friendly test.


If you were going to the mobile friendly test, and I,


oh, my screen is still too large for the actual windows


that I put on top of it.


You would look into the rendered HTML.


So what makes me nervous is that you


say you don't see the links in the rendered HTML.


That is great.


Into the layout again.


Ah.


Yeah.


Anyone having a question?


Silence.


Now is your time.


Actually, I do have one more follow-up question on that.


Sure.


Don't header bar links have more priority than footer links?


Like, footer links carry low weight age, right,


when it comes to Google?


Just like follow links or things like that?


It usually doesn't matter that much.


OK.


Cool.


The answer is, as usual, it depends.


But normally, it doesn't have that much of a,


it's not something that I would invest a lot of time in.


Good.


Awesome.


Is there any issues with using Web Workers


to process something quite large in the background


and then spit that data back?


Oh, boy.


I feared this question would come.


Yes.


I did a test on Web Workers.


And I noticed that we are not perfect when it comes,


that's an understatement.


We are not talking as much about Web Workers yet.


Because I think it's a fantastic technique


to actually offload heavy work to the background


to a separate thread, basically.


But I noticed that Googlebot isn't dealing perfectly fine


with it yet.


We are working on that.


But currently, there are certain limitations.


I tested what happens if you do an asynchronous communication


flow with Web Worker.


So basically, I ask the Web Worker,


load something for me.


Then it asynchronously loads something


and then comes back later.


That doesn't seem to work reliably


in Googlebot at the time of this meetup or this recording.


This will hopefully change in the future soon.


But at this point, we don't have guidance on Web Workers yet.


Because we hope to fix that rather soon.


But we'll see.


There are other things with higher priority at this point.


Because Web Workers are a relatively exotic feature


on the web platform still.


But we would love it to be less exotic.


Because I think it's a great way of offloading work


from the main thread.


But be very careful and test that very carefully.


Because there are very clearly limitations,


especially when the worker does something asynchronously.


Right, OK.


Cute.


That's a really good question.


Wow, holy moly.


So many interesting questions.


I also saw a question from Rina now that I apparently


missed earlier.


JavaScript-based site using Angular, 10k URLs,


which is the most important content on the site


and have good interlinking, but still not even a single page


is indexed.


Looks like these pages don't exist for Googlebot.


Even in the log file, I don't find these URLs.


However, URLs can be indexed for life tests and the other tools.


Well, the 41 request, that doesn't say much.


But I'm wondering what happens if I


fill this into the tools.


So is there a status in Search Console like discovered


but not indexed?


Or are we waiting for the crawl queue to do things?


Or what's the background on these?


Let's see.


Right, so this is mobile first indexed.


We did crawl this.


But we're saying this is non-canonical.


That's interesting.


OK, let's run this through the mobile-friendly test.


I'm sorry.


So if I run this through here, because it is possible


that we are not seeing something,


it is possible that there is a caching issue.


None of these things would necessarily surprise me.


Ah.


Why can't I just get a link from any of these tools?


Everyone has some sort of redirector in here.


OK.


Well, when I look at it, hmm.


OK, let me share my screen, because I think


Rina is or was in this Hangout.


So she no longer is.


That's unfortunate.


I'll show it anyways, hoping that she sees the recording.


So if I share this tab, you should be


seeing my screen in the moment.


I think you see my screen now.


I'm not so sure.


The layout doesn't help.


Let me actually change the layout real quick


for Spotlight.


And then hopefully, my screen is showing up.


Yeah, I can see that.


Awesome.


So here we see the slash watch slash movies is the header


and the loading spinner.


And I'm not sure what would I see if I would go to that


website directly, movies slash watch.


Pretty sure I wouldn't see just the loading spinner.


Spinner.


I'm actually seeing just the loading spinner.


So that isn't great.


But OK, right.


So we see a loading spinner here.


If I go to the main page, I see the same.


No, now I actually see content.


That's great.


So this page does load a bunch of content.


Was it movies watch?


Or did I get that wrong?


Watch slash movies.


Let's see.


Interesting.


Right.


So watch slash movies.


Uh-huh.


Well, OK.


So we're not seeing that.


But if we look at what we are seeing here,


we see the header and the loading spinner.


That's what we see in the mobile friendly test for the URL


slash watch slash movies.


And if I test the main domain, I see a header and a spinner.


So as far as Googlebot is involved or is concerned,


we are seeing two similar pages, which


means we are eliminating one for the other.


And if I were to judge this, you're


trying to use a service worker.


Maybe that's failing somehow.


So I would definitely debug this with your developers,


because that's not something that you would want,


I would say.


Good.


And then there was a question in the chat, I believe.


Yes, one easy question.


JavaScript used for accordions, is that a problem


to access the content behind, for instance, the info?


Generally, no.


As long as it is in the DOM, then we


should not have a problem or inherently


have a problem accessing this.


Ah, you're back.


OK.


Hi.


I just had a look at your website.


Do you hear us?


Hello?


Rina?


Ah.


Because we hear you.


All right, going back to the question with the sky URL.


Hello.


Aha.


Yes, we do hear you.


Hey.


Yes?


Am I on it?


We do hear you.


Sorry, I missed D and I missed the part.


Not a problem.


You are in luck.


I still have it open, so I can show with you


what the problem seems to be.


Give me a second.


I just need to reorganize my windows


and also the layout.


I'll present the Chrome tab.


I think it's this one.


Yeah.


So.


OK, so basically, OK, so our problem is a.


Hello, yes?


We still hear you.


Hello.


Hi.


Yeah, we could still hear you initially.


I'm not sure.


Now we don't hear you anymore.


OK, OK, so I start now.


So basically, our problem is we do have a majorly movies


content, right?


But it's still not even a single URL is indexed in Google.


However, the things look fine with the movie test and all.


So this is a directory page only.


It's a folder.


Watch movies.


There are multiple movies, a dedicated page for the movies.


This is not a particular movie page.


Ah, right.


OK, but the thing is, so this URL, Watch Movies,


is showing us a spinner.


No content here.


There's only the main navigation,


and then there's the spinner here.


No, no, no, it's not a ready.


Yeah.


But that's what I'm seeing here.


That's what Googlebot sees.


Because the.


Wait, let me see.


Can you open the live site?


Yes.


Like this, watch slash movies.


Hmm.


Well, actually, I'm just going to click on slash movies.


So this is your live site, right?


OK.


Yeah, so click on any of the movies.


Like one day.


This is the actual movie page.


That was a subfolder only.


OK, then let me have a look.


Come on.


Ah.


Loads forever.


Sorry for that.


Yeah, that looks good.


That looks like we have a bunch of content.


That's pretty nice.


OK, so if we have seen this URL, let


me check 17 days ago.


Indeed, we're not knowing about this URL yet for some reason.


Interesting.


But these URLs are not indexed.


Even in the log details, I don't find any movie URL.


That's an interesting question.


It looks like we have discovered it from the site map,


but it doesn't look like we have done the rest of this.


So let's see.


What is here?


Do we see this properly?


So slash movies is indexed.


That one we know.


That one we have in the index.


But then this one, which is clearly linked, we haven't.


And this happens for the entire site.


Only we do have one particular section, which


is an episode that comes.


Sorry?


Yeah, but site map is already submitted.


OK.


So we have a section.


Right.


I don't know why that is, but I can


try to find out why we are not crawling these.


I'm pretty sure I can have a look at why this is happening.


I don't have an answer to that from the top of my head.


Awesome.


Slash movies, slash TV, slash music.


So the content under that particular folder is not.


So all of these main pages are indexed,


but none of the sub pages are indexed yet.


And I don't know why either.


I'll have to have a look at this because I don't


know from the top of my head.


Yeah, so there is definitely a link here.


Copy and press.


Do we know about this URL?


Have we discovered the URL would be the real question.


And if we have discovered the URL, why have we not?


OK, interesting.


We haven't even discovered this URL.


All right, I'll have a look at what's going on here.


If it's a problem on our side, then we have to fix it.


If not, then I would probably respond on Twitter


or something.


If you ping me on Twitter publicly,


then I can potentially say something about,


well, there is a problem with this and that.


But it looks like we should be able to find this.


Coming back to the original question of the sky accordion,


I'll try out the URL that you have given me here


in the chat, Fairheart.


And I'll see what we see when we go to that page.


Because theoretically, it's not a problem to have an accordion.


Wait, where is the accordion to begin with?


So you said eg-info.


Ah, that's like a tab thing, not really an accordion.


Is it?


Well, no, no, it's an accordion.


You're right.


So if I take this into one of our testing tools,


like the Mobile Frenzy Test, I really


need to get rid of this overscan issue.


I say that every week, and then I still


don't do it because I'm so busy with other things.


I'm too busy to actually fix the overscan problem.


So for accordions or any UI element,


it's not a problem if the content is invisible.


It should just be in the DOM.


If it's in the DOM, we can discover it and work with it.


If it's only injected upon user gesture,


there was an earlier question.


It was like, we have a menu that only is inserted into the DOM


and you click on the button.


Googlebot doesn't click, so Googlebot didn't see the button.


I actually didn't click the button


and didn't see the content that was injected.


Now I need to figure out content that was hidden in the accordion.


So if I click on Info, grenskibidist.yaribia.


I'm getting the German version, sorry for that.


Then it would be this, yaribia.


Yeah, it does show up.


It's in the DOM, so we can see it,


and we can potentially index it as well.


So that's not an issue.


Any other questions while we are here?


So actually, we have a fairly big website, which


has around thousands of pages, and we're


looking to implement a structured data markup.


So I understand that the organizational level


of structured data can be implemented


in the headers across all the pages of the website.


But if I have to do it for individual pages or categories


such as articles or blog content or news or contests,


do I have to go to each page manually


and add the structured data for each of them


in the first leg of implementation,


or is there a better way to do it?


So optimally, your CMS does help you with that in some way,


because your CMS should know what kind of page each page is.


If your CMS does not have any support,


then you can maybe talk to your CMS provider


or to your developers, because hypothetically, developers


should be able to make decisions based on the type of page


and then programmatically add the structured data markup.


That should be the easiest way to do.


There is a possibility that you can do it with Google Tag


Manager if you are really, really careful,


but that is more brittle than implementing it


into your site through your own developers or through the CMS.


So if you really cannot make changes to your own code,


then maybe try to figure out a programmatic way of detecting


which kind of page it is and then


where to pull the data for the structured data types.


But I would advise against it unless you really, really


have to.


SPEAKER 1 OK, so even with this implementation,


can it be done for the existing pages as well?


SPEAKER 2 Sure, sure.


SPEAKER 1 OK, got it.


And I have one more question.


It's about adding review ratings in Google organic search.


So recently, in September 2019, Google


said that it is no longer going to publish


reviews for organizations and local businesses.


So with that, can you still add reviews and give Google


the possibility of displaying it when it organically searches


for it instead of us prompting for it?


And if we do that, do we have to enter the review manually


every time it changes, or does it pull automatically


from Google My Business account or something like that?


SPEAKER 1 I don't know.


I don't know about Google My Business,


and I don't know the policies behind structured data.


So that's, I don't know.


SPEAKER 2 OK, got it.


Thank you.


Thank you so much for that.


SPEAKER 1 You're welcome.


All right, sometimes people are still submitting questions


via YouTube.


Let's check if we have additional comments.


No, not today.


Any further questions?


Audience questions invited.


No one?


All right.


If there are no further questions, I would say.


Martin, hi.


It's me, Ferhat.


Hi.


Just one simple question.


You told us that when everything is in the DOM,


then this should be not a problem.


But can this have an effect on SEO


when content is behind the tabs or accordion at that case?


So you shouldn't hide your primary content


behind a user interaction.


If you consider that content to be central and critical


and important, then I would suggest


that you don't hide it behind a user interaction.


But if you have your content behind a user interaction,


it doesn't hurt.


It doesn't make a big difference.


I don't think we pull such content in for the description


snippet.


So if we decide to rewrite your description,


we wouldn't use content that is hidden on the page.


But I don't think it hurts big time.


Again, make your primary content visible immediately.


That's my biggest suggestion.


OK, at that case, all content behind the info, right?


If that's the content you really care about, then yes.


Yeah, OK.


Thank you.


You're welcome.


Matthew.


More questions?


Oh, there is a URL.


Only this kind of URLs are indexed.


Oh, you're facing an internet issue.


OK, that's unfortunate.


Yeah, so as I said, for your page,


I would have to check what's happening there,


why we are not seeing these things.


I can't answer on the spot for these things


as the URL seems to be fine.


And I'm not sure why we wouldn't see the linked URLs.


That requires me to make sure that it's not


something on our end.


It might be something on your end,


but I can't tell you what without looking at it


and seeing the reason as to why we are not


seeing something specifically.


Other questions?


Where was so many windows?


Yes.


There are no further questions.


Then I would like to say thank you very, very much for joining


this week's JavaScript SEO Office Hours.


And check out our YouTube channel


to see when the next ones are announced.


I'll probably announce them pretty much right now


so that people can post their questions there.


They will be recorded as well.


I'll put up the recording hopefully soonish,


I guess like maybe Thursday, maybe Friday.


And yeah, keep being amazing.


Stay healthy, stay safe.


Thank you very much for joining.


Have a fantastic time.


Bye-bye.


Thank you so much, you too, Martin.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Hello, and welcome to another episode of Search


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

off the Record, a podcast coming to you from the Google Search


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

team discussing all things search


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

and having some fun along the way.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

My name is Martin, and I'm joined today


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

by Lizzie and Gary from the Search Relations


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

team, of which I'm also part of.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Hi, Lizzie.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Hi, Martin.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Hi, Gary.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Quete morge.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Ooh, Swiss German, very nice.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Oh, man.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

I don't know if you noticed, but we


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

have this thing called Core Web Vitals,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

and it's a thing in Search.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And recently, when I was at the first in-person event


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

after the weird time, I got asked a question


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

about Core Web Vitals that fundamentally was like,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

but what if all my users are on slow devices or slow networks?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And isn't that unfair for ranking


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

if I get ranked on that?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And I thought, isn't it unfair to your users


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

when your website is super, super slow on the devices


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

and connections they are using?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And it got me thinking, shouldn't it


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

matter to you as a business and a website owner


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

how your users are experiencing your website?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And then that got me thinking, how important


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

is user experience for someone who makes a website?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And I mean, for instance, our documentation


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

at developers.google.com search, we want our users to succeed


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

when they use our docs, but how do we actually know if they do?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

How do we do that?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

How do we know how our users are experiencing our website?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

This is a huge topic because it does


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

seem like there are two different things.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

There's page experience and user experience.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And are these two different things?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Is page experience part of user experience?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

MARTIN SPLITT


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So I would say things like interstitials,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

like misleading or disruptive interstitials,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

I think we call it.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Core Web Vitals, mobile friendliness.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So is the website working well on mobile?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

HTTPS is a thing.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But that's all very technical bits and pieces.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Yeah, I mean, I think that I did go into our documentation


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

to see what we say about user experience


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

to prep for this episode for UX and SEO.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And we don't actually have anything about that term,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

UX or user experience, but we do have page experience.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And I think it's just because we've branded that


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

from a marketing perspective to label these set of signals


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

to be like a thing in search.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But it doesn't necessarily include all of the things


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

probably for user experience.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

MARTIN SPLITT True.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But Lizzie, you are fundamentally the site owner


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

of our documentation.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

How do you think about user experience?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

LIZZIE HEMMINGSEN That is a loaded question.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Where would we start?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

MARTIN SPLITT Oh, no.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

OK, I opened Pandora's box, huh?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

LIZZIE HEMMINGSEN Yes.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

MARTIN SPLITT Right.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

OK, rephrasing.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

If I were making a website, where would I start


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

in our documentation to figure out what to do,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

like how to make it a good site?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

LIZZIE HEMMINGSEN Well, I think we would probably point you


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

to the Webmaster Guidelines.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And it's interesting because we don't actually


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

say user experience or UX, but we


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

do say to think about the user and make


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

the website work for the people who are coming to your website.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Like what you do when you're designing your website


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

should work for users first and then machines.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But is that the same thing?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

MARTIN SPLITT I think so, to a degree.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

I think that at least encapsulates


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

that the technology side of things


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

is just an aspect of it, I guess.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But I mean, there's so much other things going


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

into user experience, as you said.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

For instance, working with you, I


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

realize how ****** up I am at writing.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

LIZZIE HEMMINGSEN I hope I didn't make you feel that way.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

MARTIN SPLITT No, no, no.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

You made everything always a lot better.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So that made me feel supported.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And that was great.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But it also meant that probably whenever


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

I wrote things like website copy,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

I was probably not doing the best job.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So when writing things or when putting the content together,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

is that UX, would you say?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

LIZZIE HEMMINGSEN I mean, definitely.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

It's what people are seeing when they're reading a web page.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So it's the words on the page.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But in our guidelines, we're kind of hand-wavy about that,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

maybe for a good reason.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

I don't know.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

To say, make sure that you write for your users.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

It's super general.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

What does it mean to write well for your users?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

We don't necessarily spell that out, should we?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

MARTIN SPLITT I mean, in many cases,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

we are abstracting away from things because, for example,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

they are hard to define.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

That's not the only reason.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But when something is hard to define,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

then we might be abstracting away from it.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And in this case, in the case of UX,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

I think the reason why we are abstracting away


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

is that it's very hard to define it.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Because what you mentioned, the website copy,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

that's already one thing.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So basically, write for your users


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

is an abstraction from write for your users level,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

reading level, perhaps.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Then other things like headings and how to structure headings,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

how to structure navigation, those


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

are all part of what the users will experience on the page.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So we are abstracting away from that


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

because you can't define exactly what kind of headings people


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

should use, where they should put their navigation,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

and how the navigation should be structured.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So with some things, we probably can go into detail,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

like with reading level.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But then with other things, it's probably not that easy,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

like with navigation.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

OK, no dumb questions time.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

What is reading level?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

What does that mean?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So it would be like write for eighth grade reading level


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

or something like that.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And they have these tools that can measure


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

how complex your sentences are.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So if it's over a certain number of words in the sentence,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

then maybe it's more complex.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Or the words that you use, are they


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

longer, more complicated words?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Or are you picking simpler words that are easier to understand?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And typically, for our docs, we do try to target.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

I mean, it's hard because our docs are writing


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

about technical things.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So you have terms that are like, well, this is jargon.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Or this is a technical term, but we


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

want to write about the things in a way that


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

is as clear as possible so that people understand.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And then also for translation.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So making sure that the sentence structure is set up in a way


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

that like, OK, I can see where the sentence is going.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And there's not too many ideas in one sentence.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

You should be able to say the sentence in one breath.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Sometimes we do that when we're reviewing something that's


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

just become a paragraph long.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And this is like, try to read this out loud.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

OK, I ran out of breath.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Maybe this is not the best way to communicate


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

whatever this thing is.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Not just for native English speakers,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

but then when it goes to translation,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

it could become even more like, what are we even trying to say?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Yeah, sometimes I just put the verb like miles away


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

from the subject for whatever reason,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

and then put multiple substances in between them


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

just because I can.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And then when we get to review, then Lizzie is like, yeah, no.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Well, usually it's like, oh, we want


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

to add this one clarification or this one edge case thing.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So maybe we just say it like as an aside,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

and then we shove it into this existing sentence.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But then when you read it back, you're like, oh,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

this sentence has run away with us.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And maybe we should have multiple sentences now,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

or if we read this in the context of the whole page.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

But this is becoming super granular.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So you could see how this is complicated with even just


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

the writing or the words on the page,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

just within the context of we're looking


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

at a paragraph on a page.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And then there are headings.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And then there are the words that you get


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

to other pages on your site.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And if people land on a page, do they know where they are?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

OK, so it's also like navigation and structure.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Does it make sense to go from one thing to the other?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And is it a flowing or a jarring experience, I guess?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Correct.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So within a page, even, because I'm


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

guessing you could probably land in the middle of a page,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

maybe from search results.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

I think that they're jumped to the section or something.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

We do that sometimes.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So that's sort of thinking about the user journey,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

how are they coming to our page?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And from search, from some experience in search


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

could be one path.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And do they land in the middle of this document?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And they should know where they are


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

in the context of whatever this larger page is about,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

and then also in the context of our site.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So if they're looking for documentation about site maps


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

or something, and maybe they were searching for some specific


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

thing, they should be able to see in the site navigation


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

other related documents that are related to site maps in case


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

maybe this was not the thing that they were looking for


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

and actually they want to know something


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

that's more high level, like what is a site map?


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

All of that should be accessible.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Oh, that's interesting.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Speaking of accessible, I think that's


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

like a whole different rabbit hole


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

that we should probably have an episode on the entire


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

accessibility conversation.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

That's also mentioned in the Webmaster Guidelines section


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

about make sure that your site works for users.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

There's a bullet there that says, yes, make


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

sure it's accessible because that is part of, I guess,


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

the user's experience on your website.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

It's making sure that there's alt text for images and things


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

like that.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

Yeah.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

And I think that stuff is probably


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

all tricky to get a reading on, so to speak.


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

So I guess that's why Page Experience is only


Let’s talk about UX and SEO

looking at a very technical subset.