Thursday, January 26, 2012

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog

Link to Google Webmaster Central Blog

Update to Top Search Queries data

Posted: 25 Jan 2012 02:00 PM PST

Webmaster level: All

Starting today, we're updating our Top Search Queries feature to make it better match expectations about search engine rankings. Previously we reported the average position of all URLs from your site for a given query. As of today, we'll instead average only the top position that a URL from your site appeared in.

An example
Let's say Nick searched for [bacon] and URLs from your site appeared in positions 3, 6, and 12. Jane also searched for [bacon] and URLs from your site appeared in positions 5 and 9. Previously, we would have averaged all these positions together and shown an Average Position of 7. Going forward, we'll only average the highest position your site appeared in for each search (3 for Nick's search and 5 for Jane's search), for an Average Position of 4.

We anticipate that this new method of calculation will more accurately match your expectations about how a link's position in Google Search results should be reported.

How will this affect my Top Search Queries data?
This change will affect your Top Search Queries data going forward. Historical data will not change. Note that the change in calculation means that the Average Position metric will usually stay the same or decrease, as we will no longer be averaging in lower-ranking URLs.

Check out the updated Top Search Queries data in the Your site on the web section of Webmaster Tools. And remember, you can also download Top Search Queries data programmatically!

We look forward to providing you a more representative picture of your Google Search data. Let us know what you think in our Webmaster Forum.

Making form-filling faster, easier and smarter

Posted: 25 Jan 2012 10:00 AM PST

Webmaster Level: Intermediate

One of the biggest bottlenecks on any conversion funnel is filling out an online form – shopping and registration flows all rely on forms as a crucial and demanding step in accomplishing the goals of your site. For many users, online forms mean repeatedly typing common information like our names and addresses on different sites across the web – a tedious task that causes many to give up and abandon the flow entirely.

Chrome's Autofill and other form-filling providers help to break down this barrier by remembering common profile information and pre-populating the form with those values. Unfortunately, up to now it has been difficult for webmasters to ensure that Chrome and other form-filling providers can parse their form correctly. Some standards exist; but they put onerous burdens on the implementation of the website, so they're not used much in practice.

Today we're pleased to announce support in Chrome for an experimental new "autocomplete type" attribute for form fields that allows web developers to unambiguously label text and select fields with common data types such as 'full-name' or 'street-address'. With this attribute, web developers can drive conversions on their sites by marking their forms for auto-completion without changing the user interface or the backend.


Just add an attribute to the input element, for example an email address field might look like:

<input type="text" name="field1" x-autocompletetype="email" />

We've been working on this design in collaboration with several other autofill vendors. Like any early stage proposal we expect this will change and evolve as the web standards community provides feedback, but we believe this will serve as a good starting point for the discussion on how to best support autofillable forms in the HTML5 spec. For now, this new attribute is implemented in Chrome as x-autocompletetype to indicate that this is still experimental and not yet a standard, similar to the webkitspeech attribute we released last summer.

For more information, you can read the full text of the proposed specification, ask questions on the Webmaster help forum, or you can share your feedback in the standardization discussion!

No comments:

Post a Comment