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
-
Canonical Query
If Google decides to ignore your canonical and indexes numerous versions, does that count as duplicate content? We've got a large amount of canonicals ignored by Google, so I'm just trying to gauge if it's an issue or not.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThomasHarvey0 -
Ecommerce - Go to Basket 302 query
Hi I have done a site crawl and there are a lot of 302's on the 'Go to Basket' link when customers go through to pay. Should these be updated to 301's? On just the first part of the link so nothing after the ? /OrderCalculation? Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Possible problem with new site (GWT no queries/very low index vs. submitted)
Hi everyone, I recently launched a new website for a small business loan company in the Dallas area. The site has been live for roughly a month and a half. I submitted everything to GWT as usual, including my sitemap. I am not sure what's going on with the site, as there is no activity from GWT in the impressions or queries. The submit vs. index is 24/3 (and hasn't moved). Also the queries graph on the overview stops at 3/18/2015... On another note, when I go to Crawl > Sitemaps, it shows that there were pages indexed during the month of march and then on April 3 it drops from 17 to 2 and never increases. Google says there are no errors or issues found, but I feel like there's something wrong. When I do site:, my URLs do pop up which makes me believe there's just a problem with my GWT. With that being said, I'm not happy THINKING there's something wrong. I need to actually know what the problem is. The only thing I can think of that I have done is purchase SSL for the site, but when I search what pages are indexed using www. it shows all the HTTPS URLS, so that would tell me that the site is getting indexed without a problem? Does anyone have a clue as to what might be happening? I will attach some screen shots so that you can get a better idea... KQ2366i D5xBNZf mF7kkgW
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jameswesleyhunt0 -
Internal Links Query - What should be use as anchor text
Hello All, We are looking at our internal links and most of them say "More" or "View All" The "more" anchor Text links - are usually positioned on the Body Content as we only display a portion of the content and then the user clicks more to see all the content ? - Should we be changing the "More" Text to something more keyword /phrase friendly i.e " more information about carpet cleaning" or "more information on Tool hire" or would that be deemed as spammy ? thanks Peter
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
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 -
Query parameters for normalization in Bing
Almost everyday I get this- Query parameters for normalization found on www.sitename.com Site: www.sitename.comDate: 3/26/2013Priority: LowBing has detected new parameters in your URLsAnyone know why? We aren't changing anything. I have read it has to do with internal urls but I can find out what internal urls this is a problem with.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Can Location Information Decrease National Search Volume ?
Has anyone observed the effect on G organic traffic when a site which has little or no location information suddenly registers with the reputable "local" directories? I am especially curious about results observations based upon G's behavior during the past several months. It might be a hosting problem (the host is performing some non-routine mantenance) or possibly even a HUGE change in G's algo but I've observed a huge drop in my traffic after claiming a couple of the local listings earlier this week. Until then, I doubt G had associated my site with my city. A couple of other explanations are possible but the timing leaves me to doubt it's a coincidence. T.I.A.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JustDucky0 -
<rel canonical="">and Query Strings</rel>
How are you supposed to <rel canonical="" tag="">a page with a query string that has already been indexed? It's not like you're serving that page from a CMS where you have an original page with content to add to the head tag.</rel> For example.... Original Page = http://www.example.com/about/products.php Query String Page = http://www.example.com/about/products.php?src=FrontDoorBox Would adding the <rel canonical="" tag="">to the original page, referencing itself, be the solution so that the next time the original page is crawled, the bot will know that the previously indexed URL with query string should actually be the "original"? That's the only solution I can come up with because there's no way to find the query string rendered page to tag with the canonical.....</rel>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Yun0