In-depth information on Google Hummingbird

by GGpaul
7 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hey folks, so a digital marketing agency (TSA aka: The Search Agency) that helps me out sent me an e-mail in regards to Google Hummingbird. I figured it would help a lot of you folks to understand more about Hummingbird.

Enjoy the read.

Google Hummingbird POV.PDF
#google #hummingbird #indepth #information
  • Profile picture of the author Clint Faber
    Do you have any practical experience with "Hummingbird"?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8715627].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GGpaul
      Originally Posted by Clint Faber View Post

      Do you have any practical experience with "Hummingbird"?
      Nope!

      But I decided to share what I got from my agency. Search Marketing and Optimization Firm - SEO - SEM -The Search Agency .

      They're pretty big and based in Los Angeles. I've visited their office, they have a ton of employees. I figured that some of the people here will get something out of it since I see a bunch of people asking about it.
      Signature

      RIP Dad Oct 14 1954 - Mar 14 2015.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8715667].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author wayneh
        Thanks for sharing this. Some interesting stuff especially about the new authority trust and the personalization of search results.
        Signature
        CLICK HERE for techniques and reviews of affiliate marketing training
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8715703].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    That's a good read but to be honest not much has changed as far as ranking pages, relevancy/links has been the core of Google SERPs for years, I don't think that will change anytime soon.

    Notice how Google likes to reference Wikipedia in the right sidebar for root keywords (ex: elvis, ford, corn, etc...), now look at Wikipedia page/link structure, Wikipedia has a tendency to create larger pages from small snippets of text, then links out from each individual small snippet of text to the main page for each specific subject, that's supporting pages linking to a main page on same subject.

    The who, what, where, when in that PDF nailed it, again I think that's been around for a long time & goes right back to what Wikipedia has been doing for years.

    I think the weather question in the PDF was a bit misleading. You don't have to ask Google a question as the search query for weather related keywords, simply search the root keyword & Google will return the same exact weather forecast for your ISPs GEO location.

    If you search for the root keyword typhoon from a GEO location in Kansas [US] your going to get news related SERPs, not a local weather forecast because everyone knows a typhoon will never happen in Kansas. Now search for the keyword snow from a Kansas GEO location & you'll get the exact same local weather forecast as If searching for a question on the same subject (ex: will it snow today). That proves Google isn't even looking at the additional keywords in the question search phrase, they know it sometimes snows (root keyword) in Kansas (GEO location).
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8716381].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GGpaul
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      That's a good read but to be honest not much has changed as far as ranking pages, relevancy/links has been the core of Google SERPs for years, I don't think that will change anytime soon.

      Notice how Google likes to reference Wikipedia in the right sidebar for root keywords (ex: elvis, ford, corn, etc...), now look at Wikipedia page/link structure, Wikipedia has a tendency to create larger pages from small snippets of text, then links out from each individual small snippet of text to the main page for each specific subject, that's supporting pages linking to a main page on same subject.

      The who, what, where, when in that PDF nailed it, again I think that's been around for a long time & goes right back to what Wikipedia has been doing for years.

      I think the weather question in the PDF was a bit misleading. You don't have to ask Google a question as the search query for weather related keywords, simply search the root keyword & Google will return the same exact weather forecast for your ISPs GEO location.

      If you search for the root keyword typhoon from a GEO location in Kansas [US] your going to get news related SERPs, not a local weather forecast because everyone knows a typhoon will never happen in Kansas. Now search for the keyword snow from a Kansas GEO location & you'll get the exact same local weather forecast as If searching for a question on the same subject (ex: will it snow today). That proves Google isn't even looking at the additional keywords in the question search phrase, they know it sometimes snows (root keyword) in Kansas (GEO location).
      Right on good analysis.

      I'll continue to share on the WF for any interesting findings that I get from the corporate world haha. Hopefully some people can take a thing or two out of it. Even though what people do in the WF is completely different, but at the same time it's still "online marketing" as a whole.
      Signature

      RIP Dad Oct 14 1954 - Mar 14 2015.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8716574].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando1954
    A good read OP, the thing that caught my eye as i'm just in the process of setting up an ecommerce site and implementing schema was this statement.

    To make things more interesting, these formal vocabularies can be linked, so that if there is not a definition for "wrench" in the Schema.org vocabulary, you can extend it with Good Relations, and further using Wikipedia/DBPedia, or one of tens of thousands of these.

    What I don't really understand is this part,( so that if there is not a definition for "wrench" in the Schema.org vocabulary, you can extend it with Good Relations, and further using Wikipedia/DBPedia)

    Anybody now what they are suggesting when they say extend it with good relations and Wikipedia.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8717682].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GGpaul
      Originally Posted by Fernando1954 View Post

      A good read OP, the thing that caught my eye as i'm just in the process of setting up an ecommerce site and implementing schema was this statement.

      To make things more interesting, these formal vocabularies can be linked, so that if there is not a definition for "wrench" in the Schema.org vocabulary, you can extend it with Good Relations, and further using Wikipedia/DBPedia, or one of tens of thousands of these.

      What I don't really understand is this part,( so that if there is not a definition for "wrench" in the Schema.org vocabulary, you can extend it with Good Relations, and further using Wikipedia/DBPedia)

      Anybody now what they are suggesting when they say extend it with good relations and Wikipedia.
      Not too sure but I just take bits of pieces of info that they give and utilize it for my own benefit. Especially since the info provided is catered to big time companies so it might not be in relation to affiliate marketers but still there's valuable info in there to know.
      Signature

      RIP Dad Oct 14 1954 - Mar 14 2015.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8719425].message }}

Trending Topics