Informational query
-
Hello,
In an informational query can the answer people are looking for have multiple intent or will it always have 1 intent ?
For example New York, the intent is probably where ?
On a longer query such as "Provence bike tour" what is the intent ? Where, what, Why, How to, when ?
Thank you,
-
Thank you for your detailed answer.
-
On Google, query-spaces can become ambiguous. For some keywords, Google know that there is a very strong affinity in terms of the user's search-intent
For example, if the query is: "properties to rent in Camden, London" - then it's almost certain that the searcher is looking for a new place to live and wants to see rental property listings
If on the other hand, the query is something like "science", that's extremely broad. Do the users want science news? Maybe to pick up a sciences degree? Do they want to know the basic principles of science (e.g: the scientific method?)
The answer to your question is variable. It's not that Google 'always' assumes one meaning, or 'always' assumes multiple meanings. It depends upon the specific search-query, and the resources available within the appended query-space
You'll find that some query-spaces are very, very noisy and not really very helpful - because there's just too many search audiences 'competing' (through their clicks and queries) for 'control' of the query-space. Some query-spaces are like a battleground, others are much more straight-forwards and easy to interpret
As a general rule of thumb, if a search query returns results predominantly from one type of site - all about the exact same thing, that query-space is 'clean'. If you search for something and the results are messy and all over the place, then the query-space is 'noisy'
It's easier to optimise for clean query-spaces, but because they are clean your competition will be harder to overcome. In a noisy query-space, it's harder to write that one piece of content that addresses everyone perfectly - but competition is usually not as stiff (because most people can't be bothered optimising for noisy query-spaces, you can't do it with crappy textbroker articles - it takes real thought!)
So there you go. You should now have a lens to analyse Google's results with, and decide upon your SEO / content implementation
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
PLEASE HELP - Old query string URL causing problems
For a long time, we were ranking 1st/2nd for the term "Manual handling training". That was until about 5 days ago when I realised that Google had started to index not only a query stringed URL, but also an old version of the URL. What was even weirder was that when you clicked on the result it 301 redirected to the page that it was meant to display... The wrong URL that Google had started to index was: www.ihasco.co.uk/courses/detail/manual-handling?channel=retail The correct URL that it should have been indexing is: https://www.ihasco.co.uk/courses/detail/manual-handling-training I can't get my head around why it has done this as a 301 was in place already and we use rel canonical tags which point to the main parent pages. Anyway, we slapped a noindex tag in our robots.txt file to stop that page from being indexed, which worked but now I can't get the correct page to be indexed, even after a Google fetch. After inspecting the correct URL in the new search console I discovered that Google has ignored the rel canonical on the page (Which points to itself) and has selected the wrong, query stringed URL as the canonical. Why? and how do I rectify this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iHasco1 -
Canonicalisation query
Hi, I'm in a bit of a quandary. I have this page: https://www.commercialtrust.co.uk/compare-products/ As you can see we have provided filters to only display Fixed rate, Tracker rate, Variable rate, High LTV and HMO products for users. At the moment our canonical tags all point to the main Comparison page, but in order for the search feature to work dynamic urls are created. So for example on the fixed rate page (https://www.commercialtrust.co.uk/compare-products/fixed-rates/) when a user puts in their search criteria the url ends up looking like this: https://www.commercialtrust.co.uk/compare-products/fixed-rates/?PrevTab=HMO&PVal=250000&Amt=100000&Tme=20&SearchId=5508 Now, my quandary is this - should I make the canonical tag for the filtered products (fixed, tracker etc) like this: https://www.commercialtrust.co.uk/compare-products/fixed-rates/ or should I keep it at https://www.commercialtrust.co.uk/compare-products/ ? The comparison page shows all products, ordered by the lowest rate and with a pre-set search, limited to 20 - so not all products will be displayed on the page - and some products (like the high LTV ones) are not displayed on the main comparison landing page anyway... Thanks, Amelia
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommT0 -
Whch Google Advanced Search Query To Use?
Hi basically i want to find sites which mention a specific exact keyword on the page e.g. "BMW" but the same keyword "BMW" is not contained in the title tag of the page. Is there a advanced search query to do this? I did try “BMW” Intitle:"-bmw" no luck. I do also have scrapebox if there is a way to do this through that. Cheers, Mark
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mikey0080 -
How Does Google Treat Date Ranges For a Specific Keyword or Query?
How are date ranges interpreted by Google - ie if you type "1993-2003" does Google know 1995 is incl. and should be referenced for a query? What is the best practice for an ecomm site when it comes to a landing page for multiple years? Should be list out each year (looks spammy, "2003,2004,2005...), go with a full range (1993-2003 ), or is a two digit range suffice (88-95)?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andrewv0 -
Why is google automatically showing my competitor's result even when customer types in our brand name on the query?
This is little weird. We run a website specific to mobile phones called as 91mobiles.com. The site has gained lot of user interest and trust in the last 2 years [pre-dominantly indian users]. Lot of our users type mobile phone model and 91mobiles as the query. Example "Sony Xperia P 91mobiles". Google is showing gsmarena.com results on top and then shows our own results below! What's annoying is the fact that google also bolds the term gsmarena [denoting that it's a synonym]. Any idea why this is happening? We are very sure that we are not doing anything wrong..We have worked really hard for the last 2 years to reach where we are..and it's kind of hard to see gsmarena siphoning away our traffic for no reason at all [even when customer types in 91mobiles a part of the query to quality it]...Can some experts here demystify this? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gaadi0 -
URL Structure - Keywords vs. Information Architecture/Navigation
I'm creating the URL structure for an ecommerce site and was wondering if it's better to structure my URLs according to the most popular way people word their key phrases or by what makes most sense from a navigation perspective. Let's say I'm selling clothing (I'm not, just an example). I want the site to be open enough so a user can navigate by Person Type (Men's, Women's, Children's), Clothing Type (Shoes, Shirts, Hats), and Brands (Nike, Reebok, adidas). My gut and past experience say to structure the URLs from the least specific to the most specific: mysite.com/mens/shoes/nike But I know "men's Nike shoes" is searched for more than "men's shoes Nike", which would render this URL: mysite.com/mens/nike/shoes I know mysite.com/mens-nike-shoes would be best, but the folders setup is what I have to work with. So which is best for SEO? URLs that play to the structure of the most searched for key phrases? Or URLs that follow the information architecture/navigation of a site? Nate
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rball10 -
Query / Discussion on Subdomain and Root domain passing authority etc
I've seen Rands video on subdomains and best pratices at
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James77
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-the-microsite-mistake
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/understanding-root-domains-subdomains-vs-subfolders-microsites I have a question/theory though and it is related to an issue I am having. We have built our website, and now we are looking at adding 3rd party forums and blogs etc (all part of one CMS). The problem is these need to to be on a seperate subdomain to work correctly (I won't go into the specific IT details but this is what I have been advised by my IT guru's). So I can have something like:
http://cms.mysite.com/forum/ Obviously after reading Rands post and other stuff this is far from ideal. However I have another Idea - run the CMS from root and the main website from the www. subdomain. EG
www.mysite.com
mysite.com/blog Now my theory is that because so many website (possibly the majority - especially smaller sites) don't use 301 redirects between root and www. that search engines may make an exception in this case and treat them both as the same domain, so it could possibly be a way of getting round the issue. This is just a theory of mine, based solely on my thoughts that there are so many websites out there that don't 301 root to www. or vice versa, that possibly it would be in the SE's self interest to make an exception and count these as one domain, not 2. What are your thoughts on this and has there been any tests done to see if this is the case or not? Thanks0 -
Query deserves freshness
There was an seomoz article - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/does-query-deserves-diversity-algorithm-exist-at-google . I would like to point out the specific part of it - "So - because a lot of searchers express a preference for more diverse results than just those pages that ordinarily would "make the cut," Google provides an extra helping hand to pages they feel help to satisfy those searchers. This data could be gleaned from lower CTRs in the SERPs, greater numbers of query refinements, and even a high percentage of related searches performed subsequently" I don;t understand how data could be gleaned from lower CTRs, don't you think it should have been Higher CTRs ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoug_20050