I’ve been meaning to write about the new rel=canonical tag, which was proposed by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft on February 12. I managed to squeeze some thoughts on it into my presentation and workshop at SES London, and I’ll be speaking more about it at SES New York next month, but before I blogged about it I really wanted to write more about URL Canonicalisation and Normalisation in general.

Canonicalisation or Canonicalization?
Normalisation or Normalization?

I’m British, so I say Canonicalisation and Normalisation. Your mileage may vary.

What is URL Canonicalisation?

We’re talking about search engines here, so let’s try a definition that applies generally, but leans towards search:

URL Canonicalisation

involves taking a set of different URLs that all serve or lead to the same or similar content, and applying rules to select one URL from that set under which that content should be indexed or presented.

I’ve hyperlinked the terms I think are important to more detail below, but before we go into them let’s try defining URL Normalisation.

URL Normalisation

involves taking a single URL and applying a normalisation algorithm to produce a standard form for that URL.

Others define normalisation and canonicalisation as all part of the same thing, but I like to think of them as separate processes. To my way of thinking:

• you can normalise a single URL but you can only canonicalise a set of URLs
• an un-normalised URL will serve the same content as a normalised URL, because it’s the same URL
• all indexed URLs are normalised; not all are canonicalised
• normalisation occurs before canonicalisation

Now let’s go back and look at those hyperlinked terms in more detail.

Set of different URLs

This is the key to canonicalisation and why it’s needed: the same content is being presented at a number of different URLs. By different URLs, I mean those URLs are really different to each other – they could potentially show different content but (in this case) they don’t.

Here is an example set of URLs:

• http://www.example.com/
• http://example.com/
• http://www.example.com/index.html
• http://example.com/default.asp
• http://www.example.com/?referrer=affiliateName
• http://www.example.com/?sessionid=123456

All serve or lead to the same or similar content

If each of the above URLs served the same, or essentially the same, content, it’s likely that they would be canonicalised to fewer URLs – possibly only one. If they each served completely different content, then it’s much less likely that this canonicalisation would take place. By “or lead to”, I mean that the URL may redirect (e.g. with a HTTP 301 or HTTP 302 redirect) to another URL.

Canonicalisation Rules

The rules for canonicalisation vary from engine to engine and time to time. Here are a few examples of when canonicalisation will take place …

• If www and non-www versions of the URL exist, then canonicalise
• If the same base URL is seen with different numbers of query parameters, then canonicalise
• If the filename component of the URL matches a known set of index pages (e.g. index.*, default.*, etc.) then canonicalise
• If the home page (“/”) redirects to another page, then canonicalise

… and here are some examples of how canonicalisation will take place:

• Choose the URL with the highest Pagerank (or similar link-based or other off-page criteria)
• Obey rel=nofollow webmaster hint
• Choose the simplest URL (e.g. the shortest URL, or the one with fewest query parameters)

Indexed or presented

Sometimes only one URL from a set will be indexed, which means that it will always be the candidate URL to be presented in a set of search results.

At other times multiple URLs may be indexed, even though they are known to be part of the same canonical set. One of these URLs will be selected to appear in a given set of search results. The URL that is selected may vary (for example, by query or by searcher location) – but only one will ever appear on a given search results page.

Single URL

Normalisation operates on a single URL rather than on a set of URLs. That single URL may need be supplemented with other data in order for normalisation to take place. For example, un-normalised URLs may be relative or absolute. A normalised URL will always be a fully-qualified absolute URL so, along with a relative URL, the containing URL or tag will need to be known in order for normalisation to take place.

Normalisation algorithm to produce a standard form

Like canonicalisation rules, the normalisation algorithm may vary from engine to engine and time to time. However, it’s much less likely to vary. Here is an example of the kind of things that are done during normalisation:

1. convert a relative URL to an absolute URL
2. convert the scheme and the host name components of the URL to lower case
3. remove the port component if it matches the default port
4. escape characters that should be represented as octets (or a +)
5. unescape octets that are better represented as plain characters
6. convert all escape sequences to upper case

Here are some examples of each operation:

1. In http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/ , a link to “/contact.html” would be normalised to http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/contact.html
2. HTTP://WWW.SILVERDISC.CO.UK/contact.html would be normalised to http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/contact.html
3. http://www.silverdisc.co.uk:80/contact.html would be normalised to http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/contact.html, because 80 is the default port for HTTP connections.
4. http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/contact.html?name=Alan Perkins would be normalised to http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/contact.html?name=Alan+Perkins or http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/contact.html?name=Alan%20Perkins, because a space is not a valid character in a URL.
5. http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/cont%61ct.html would be normalised to http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/contact.html, because %61 is better represented as the character “a” in a URL.
6. A %2a in a URL would be converted to %2A for consistency

Summary

That completes this introduction to URL canonicalisation and normalisation. In the next post, I’ll look at rel=nofollow.

No tags

The preparations seem to have been going on since she joined us three years ago, but today is a big day on the SilverDisc social scene as Nicola, our Head of Paid Search Marketing, gets married! Miss. Brack becomes Mrs. Richards.

Loads of congratulation to Nicola and Sam, her lucky new husband. Here’s to the bride and groom!

No tags

A big day here at SilverDisc. We have launched our new Web site at www.silverdisc.co.uk. While this is very much a version 1.0 release, we’re very proud of it nonetheless. For too long our own Web site has been a bit of a “busman’s holiday”.

Well done to all responsible, in particular Eric and Tony.

No tags

The Google Adwords trademark policy is aimed at balancing the interests of trademark holders, advertisers and internet users. Does it always do this, or can it sometimes provide a method for trademark holders to restrict competition and potentially cause harm to advertisers, internet users and Google itself? That’s the billion dollar question.

Google Adwords is a paid search marketing program offered by Google that allows millions of organisations around the world to advertise their products and services in Google’s search results. That makes Adwords a big deal. Adwords accounts for the lions’ share of Google’s revenues, which totalled $16.5bn in 2007 alone.

Yahoo! and Microsoft offer similar programs to Adwords. However, Google is the market leader, with estimates of its paid search market share ranging from 58% upwards. Google clearly holds a dominant position within the paid search marketplace, so its policy decisions matter.

Google’s dominance has created a significant demand within Adwords from third party advertisers who would like to market products and services against the results of popular trademarks which they do not own. As a result, there have been several instances where Google has faced legal action by trademark holders trying to restrict third parties bidding on those search terms relating to their trademarks. Trademark holders in the US, such as Geico and American Airlines, have previously filed suit . In Europe, Google has been sued by the likes of Louis Vuitton in France .

These legal actions led to the introduction of the Google Adwords Trademark Policy. There are in fact two policies, one or other of which is in force in any location around the world. These policies allow the trademark holder to exert significant influence over the use of their marks within the Adwords program.

Whilst it may seem a reasonable response on the part of Google to seek to recognise and protect the rights of trademark owners, especially in response to suggestions Google may be facilitating passing off and/or infringement of registered trademarks, the problem is that the Google Adwords Trademark Policy may in fact give far more power to trademark holders than they need to protect their goodwill and prevent passing off. Google’s trademark policies may fail to recognise the legitimate right of third parties to use registered trademarks which they do not own to legally sell products and services which they have a right to sell and facilitate Trademark holder to restrict free trade in goods and services.

For example, in the motor market, many private individuals, non-franchise and franchise dealers have a legitimate right to use manufacturer and model trademarks in order to describe a car or range of cars they wish to advertise.

An example would be if you wished to sell your Peugeot 308. Do you really want to have to call it a mid size French 1.9 litre diesel hatchback? Somehow the sale is much more likely to happen if you just call it by its make and model rather than a bland description.

Clearly in this example there is no passing off and no loss of goodwill. It is completely understood by all parties that the advertiser of the car is not necessarily the trademark holder. Yet Google’s trademark policies mean that advertisers can be prevented from using trademarked terms even so. Has this policy really balanced the interests of trademark holders, advertisers and internet users, as Google purports to do? Commenting, Kevin McGuinness of London-based commercial law specialists Sabretooth Law stated

In restricting the use of trademarks Google may have diminished the ability of non-owners of trademarks to legitimately use such trademarks in the course of carrying on their trade. Given the size of the market in which Google operates and the importance of the advertising market to automobile resale sector this is likely to be an area where both English and European competition authorities may take an interest in arrangements which potentially restrict competition to the detriment of the general public.

Antitrust or anti-competition issues have been one area where both the UK and European competition authorities have consistently demonstrated a keen interest in protecting the European consumer and Google’s dominant position in the paid search marketing sector would suggest it needs to ensure its policies are legal, not only in the US but also in Europe.

In the UK, an organisation can be fined 10% of its worldwide annual revenues for engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. As noted earlier, these amounted to $16.5bn for Google in 2007 alone, so 10% would be $1.65bn. That is a large number!

Is it Google’s responsibility, though, or is it the responsibility of the respective trademark holders? Or is it both?

It seems harsh to hold Google solely responsible, when Google has been simply trying to respect trademarks holders’ legitimate rights; especially in light of the fact that Google has been sued by several trademark holders and to some extent its trademark policy is a result of that. In addition, by restricting competition on some trademarked terms, Google may have impacted its own revenues. Kevin McGuinness again:

As Google is the participant in the on-line market place, which is itself restricting the availability for use of other persons’ trademarks, it could be that Google, not the trademark holders, may be found to be at fault. This hardly seems fair given Google’s long standing commitment to ethical good business practice.

Clearly Google does not exercise its trademark policy in isolation. Only when a trademark holder files a trademark complaint in the appropriate jurisdiction does Google exercise its policy. This is why you can see Google Adwords for lots of trademarked terms, but not all.

Evidence of how trademark holders are working with search engines came in a recent interview with New Media Age magazine (subscription required) when Steve Bowler, Marketing Manager of Land Rover, stated:

One of the areas that wasn’t looked at properly before was search. Previously it was recognised as being somewhat important yet ancillary to TV, press and outdoor. Now, though, we take search very seriously, working with the search engines on how to deal with issues like trademarking.

As a result, Kevin McGuinness states:

Competition authorities could conclude that Google and trademark holders are each using Google Adwords to prevent competition.

Not only Google but each individual trademark holder could be investigated and potentially fined up to 10% of global revenues. Trademark holders who have restricted their trademarks include Alfa Romeo, Peugeot and Land Rover.

Do the same issues also affect Yahoo! and Microsoft? No. Both of these search companies have much more targeted trademark policies. For example, Yahoo!’s policy is:

As applied to nominative uses of another’s trademark, Yahoo! Search Marketing requires advertisers to meet one of the following two conditions: … Reseller [... or ...] Information Site, Not Competitive

And Microsoft’s policy, though targeted, is elegantly simple:

Affiliates and resellers may bid on trademarked terms relevant to the goods, services, or sites that they promote.

Why does Google not have such a simple policy? Perhaps because, though simply stated, the Yahoo! and Microsoft policies require more editorial intervention than the Google policy, or perhaps because Google’s current policy arises from being sued by trademark holders, rather than being pursued by competition authorities. Google’s official response is posted on their Inside Adwords Blog:

We will not allow the use of a trademark term according to the parameters of the trademark complaint filed by the trademark owner. Therefore, unless the trademark owner specifically grants you permission to use their trademarked term by contacting our Trademark team, we are not able to approve the use of the trademark in your AdWords ads.

There is no explanation there, nor has one ever been offered on the many occasions Google has been given to comment on this issue, but one can only assume that Google believes it is on solid legal ground in operating this policy. The question is: are they correct?

Though a vast improvement on Google’s trademark policy, Yahoo!’s and Microsoft’s policies both restrict comparative advertising (advertising which “explicitly or by implication, identifies a competitor or goods or services offered by a competitor”). A recent European court case showed that such restrictions may be unlawful . However that is a different, and far less contentious, issue than the anti-competition issues raised by the Google Adwords Trademark Policy alone.

So, the question remains. Has Google and/or its advertisers been in contravention of UK or EU competition laws in exercising its trademark policy to date? Microsoft’s European court experience should provide ample evidence that American software giants need to be very careful within the European Union. Once the EU competition authorities decide to bite, they rarely let go of their prey quickly. Given the enmity between the two, will Microsoft be at the head of the line to point out the ongoing competition issues in Google’s trademark policies?

Google has, since its inception, been a beacon of best business practice, but it may be on the wrong side of this legal issue by trying to do the right thing by trademark holders who continue to abuse its policies in order to restrict fair competition. With fines of up to 10% of global turnover possible, it’s a high stakes issue.

No tags

SilverDisc is 15 years old today!

SilverDisc was established on March 10, 1993 by three people (Alan Perkins, Allan Todd and Eric Barfield) who had met while working on interactive CD applications at Philips in Surrey. That is why the company is called SilverDisc – because its first products and services were delivered on CD, a “silver disc”.

Alan, Allan and Eric were three guys who enjoyed making a living while having fun doing techie things. Well, they considered it fun anyway! In 1993 they were using very low speed dial-up modems and Compuserve to communicate with each other and a small world of CD developers. In 1994 they got their first Web server and started hosting Web sites for clients. In 1995 they developed a fully functional shop with online credit card capabilities for one client, and started hosting the Web site for HarperCollins, a major publisher – not bad going for three guys working from home and having fun.

Early Years of Search Marketing

In late 1995, on the day AltaVista launched, SilverDisc realised the potential that search engines held for marketing purposes. They started marketing themselves and their clients through search engine optimization, although that phrase was not in use at the time.

During the mid-to-late nineties SilverDisc continued to deliver CD and DVD products and services as well as Internet services and Internet marketing. It remained three guys having fun. Then, a few things happened in quick succession:

• Allan moved back to Scotland and got a real job working for somebody else – he wanted his young family to get a “proper Scottish education”
• Alan moved back to Northamptonshire, mainly to tap into a support network for his young family, but remained with SilverDisc
• Alan and Eric teamed up with a distant relative of Eric’s and formed a new company, e-Brand Management, to take advantage of the “dot com boom”

1998 to 2000 was spent developing patents, products and services based around some ideas that Alan had in the years since 1995. In parallel, SilverDisc continued to service its existing client base.

The patents were filed in 1999 and have since been granted. They cover some very fundamental search engine ground. One patent is in crawling and indexing, and the other is in personalisation – both are hot topics today, nine years later. The first product, Search Mechanics, was launched at the very first Search Engine Strategies to be held in the UK and e-Brand Management was one of only five exhibitors there.

That covers “SilverDisc – the early years”. In a future post, I’ll look at what has happened since 2000.

No tags

Matt Cutts has stirred up a little hornets’ nest with his “What should NOINDEX do?” post. Matt reckons the topic will be colossally boring to some people – but not to me. For some reason I find Robots standards fascinating. Yep, I know I’m weird.

The crux of Matt’s issue is …

The question is whether Google should completely drop a NOINDEX’ed page from our search results vs. show a reference to the page, or something in between?

The obvious response is to completely drop the NOINDEX’ed page. NOINDEX is made up of the two words NO and INDEX; so it means do not index, right?

Maybe not. It’s important to be precise here. What exactly does NOINDEX mean?

Often when talking about indexing issues, it’s useful to separate in your mind the indexing of a URL from the indexing of the content at that URL. This concept is particularly important in the contexts of URL canonicalization, duplicate content and … robots standards. I’ll restrict this discussion to the NOINDEX part of the robots standards, but an equally interesting discussion exists around robots.txt too.

Once we separate URL and content, the question “What exactly does NOINDEX mean?” can be answered in several ways:

1) Index the URL but not the content
2) Don’t index the URL or the content
3) (Somehow, not sure how!) index the content but not the URL

One thing is for sure … it does not mean index both the content and the URL.

In my opinion NOINDEX should definitely mean “Don’t index the content”. Definitely. No question.

The question of whether it should mean “Don’t index the URL” is an interesting one. There are arguments both ways. In my experience, however, there are many, many different examples of when it should mean “Don’t index the URL”. In these instances, if the URL was indexed, it would result in something bad happening either for searchers, or the site owner, or both. Therefore, generally, I think it should mean “Don’t index the URL”.

However, there is one specific case where I think it would be acceptable to index the URL, and which would give benefit to both searchers and site owners (very often). That specific case is when the URL is the home page of the site.

Taking the three “problem” URLs cited by Matt in his post:

If high-profile sites like

- http://www.police.go.kr/main/index.do (the National Police Agency of Korea)
- http://www.nmc.go.kr/ (the National Medical Center of Korea)
- http://www.yonsei.ac.kr/ (Yonsei University)

aren’t showing up in Google because of the NOINDEX meta tag, that’s bad for users

These three URLs are all actually home pages. The second and third URLs are obviously so. The first URL is the result of a couple of 302 redirects:

• http://www.police.go.kr/ is a 302 to http://www.police.go.kr/index.jsp
• http://www.police.go.kr/index.jsp is a 302 to http://www.police.go.kr/main/index.do

This makes http://www.police.go.kr/main/index.do the home page of the site. The way Google works (correctly IMO) is that a redirect from “/” to a deeper page on a site would normally result in the content of that deeper URL being indexed under “/”.

So, I think a reasonable middle ground, that satisfies the best interests of searchers, site owners and search engine, would be the following:

1. Do not index the content.
2. Do not link to the URL in the search results, unless the URL is a “home page” (/, or redirected to by /).
3. If it is a home page with a NOINDEX tag, it’s OK to link to it in the SERPs, but do not index the content; do not provide a snippet; and do not provide a cached copy. Treat it like a “partially indexed page”.

No tags

Charity Christmas cards are commendable, but still a large part of the cost of buying and posting charity cards does not end up with the charity itself.

So this year, SilverDisc has chosen to donate its entire Christmas card budget of £250 to local charity Zach’s Helping Hand, and instead send an electronic Christmas card.

Zach’s Helping Hand is used by families with children near to the end of life to receive palliative care within the love of their own homes. It is dedicated to the memory of Zach Sanders, who died of a brain tumour aged just two, and was set up by Zach’s parents Andy and Claire.

The photo shows me, Andy, Bella (Zach’s sister) and Lynda Litchfield of SilverDisc.

No tags

I’m happy to report that SilverDisc won the bidding for Nick Park’s Austin A35 van on eBay on Saturday, with all proceeds being donated to the Wallace and Gromit’s Children’s Foundation. According to Nick Park, Oscar-winning creator of Wallace and Gromit:

I’ve always been a fan of Austins and this particular vehicle inspired me to come up with the Anti-Pesto van that was central to the plot and rehabilitation of the vegetable eating ‘pests’ in Curse of the Were-Rabbit. The van needed to be big enough to transport Wallace’s invention the Bunvac 2000 while at the same time slick enough to go on high speed chases after the formidable Were-Rabbit, and the Austin was a perfect match.

We’re very happy to be supporting the Wallace and Gromit’s Children’s Foundation with our purchase of this inspirational piece of movie memorabilia. We have some big plans for the van, which we’ll let you know about over the coming days and weeks on this blog.

No tags

Poor old Ming Campbell. Literally, “old” Ming Campbell has resigned/been ousted from the leadership of the Liberal Democrats, the UK’s third political party, because he is too old at 66. Supposedly, in this News 24 society, you need to be young, dynamic and good looking in order to attract votes and one of his likely successors is said to be telegenic enough to fit the bill.

Telegenic. What a horrible word, a real cut and shut job (photogenic and television, but the result should mean “produced at a distance”, not “looks good on television”). But it got me thinking … the phrase “search engine friendly” has always seemed so clumsy. So what about “robogenic” as a one-word equivalent, meaning “search engine friendly”, or “looks good to a robot”.

robogenic

search engine friendly; looks good to a robot

I like it. Unfortunately, robogenic should literally mean “Produced by a robot”, in the same way as photogenic literally means “Produced by light”. Ah, so what? I still like it.

No tags

OK, sorry for the slightly misleading headline (although if you read on you’ll find it’s not that misleading). No apologies, though, for giving my opinion on what is now old news, which is that Google has dropped Best Practice Funding for agencies from 2009 onwards. Don’t ever expect this blog to be first with the news … there are others in the industry who are devoted to that. What you can expect here is considered, truthful opinion and, hopefully, an insight that you won’t find anywhere else.

There’s plenty of comment around about the fact that BPF was not a subsidy, was not a commission and was not, in fact, related to any individual advertiser but rather to the net billings of the whole agency. Personally, I think it’s great the playing field is levelled, but I’m still not looking forward to having to renegotiate rates with clients. Any agency that doesn’t have to renegotiate was either not receiving BPF or was charging too much in the first place, and SilverDisc does not fit either of those two categories, I’m happy to say.

What’s missing is comment on what BPF actually is, and what its withdrawal therefore signifies.

Probably the best document that describes what Best Practice Funding is, if you’re prepared to read between the lines, is the 2007 – Best Practice Funding Terms And Conditions. This lists several conditions that an agency must meet in order to fully qualify for BPF. Those conditions include:

1. the fact that the agency, rather than the agency’s customer, must communicate with Google
2. the fact that the agency is responsible for Google being paid its invoices on time

I can’t help feeling that Google is massively undervaluing the role of agencies in providing these services. Their support role, in both account management and invoicing, will grow enormously in 2009. I hope that Google uses the time between now and then to grow its infrastructure accordingly.

Another requirement on agencies to qualify for BPF is that they employ at least two GAP-qualified staff. This is where my slightly misleading headline actually has a ring of truth. The GAP exam has been the best tool for building and maintaining an understanding of Adwords. I’ve passed it myself and, before Christmas, I’m due to renew my qualification. All my PPC management staff and PPC programming staff (we write PPC API apps to manage our clients’ spends) have passed the GAP exam too and, again, are due to renew before Christmas.

I always thought that the Google’s encouragement of agency staff being GAP-qualified was of great benefit to Google, the agencies, and the industry as a whole. In dropping BPF, I think Google are sending a poor message – in, literally, stopping funding best practices, they are stopping supporting best practices.

No tags