50 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO.

1, MARCH 2013

Tutorial

How to Use Search Engine Optimization Techniques to

Increase Website Visibility
—Feature by
JOHN B. KILLORAN

Abstract—Research questions: This tutorial aims to answer two general questions: (1) What contributes to search
engine rankings? and (2) What can web content creators and webmasters do to make their content and sites easier
to find by audiences using search engines? Key concepts: Search engines’ rankings are shaped by three classes
of participants: search engine companies and programmers, search engine optimization practitioners, and search
engine users. Key lessons: By applying three key lessons, professional communicators can make it easier for
audiences to find their web content through search engines: (1) consider their web content’s audiences and website’s
competitors when analyzing keywords; (2) insert keywords into web text that will appear on search engine results
pages, and (3) involve their web content and websites with other web content creators. Implications: Because
successful search engine optimization requires considerable time, professional communicators should progressively
apply these lessons in the sequence presented in this tutorial and should keep up to date with frequently changing
ranking algorithms and with the associated changing practices of search optimization professionals.

Index Terms—Hyperlinks, keywords, organic search, search engine optimization, search-ranking algorithms,
social media, websites.

Most professional communication practitioners Regardless of the intrinsic merits of professional

communicators’ web content, its visibility to
and researchers can point to some content on the prospective audiences often depends on how well
web that they themselves have authored, such the webpage or site ranks in a search engine’s
as on their employers’ or clients’ websites, or on results pages, a seemingly enigmatic arbiter
sites they maintain for professional, personal, or of popularity. As a consequence, professional
community interests. As a simple experiment, communicators, long accustomed to crafting the
they might try to find that content using only a information architecture, content, design, and
general web search engine. If, as is likely, they usability of websites and pages for their human
can compose a carefully worded search query by audiences, should also orient their web work to
recalling very specific features of the content, such the enigmatic intermediate audience of search
as its title, a distinctive key phrase, the name of engines. To help them do this, this tutorial aims to
the website or of the organization that owns it, answer two general questions: (1) What contributes
and so forth, they stand a reasonable chance of to search engine rankings? and (2) What can web
success, with their content appearing on the first content creators and webmasters do on their pages,
page of the search results. On the other hand, if sites, and the web in general to make their content
they ask someone else to find the content, someone and sites easier to find by audiences using search
who does not already know it very well—and that, engines?
after all, is typically the condition under which
we seek out web content—the chances of success To answer these questions, this tutorial focuses
likely diminish. The content may well be found, only on general web search engines and delivers
eventually, perhaps after attempting various search lessons that professional communicators can
queries and scrolling through many pages of search readily implement without specialized technical
results. know-how and without a web marketing budget.

The Key Concepts section introduces a theoretical

Manuscript received March 26, 2012; accepted October 30,
2012. Date of publication February 15, 2013; date of current framework for the tutorial’s approach to search
version February 19, 2013. This paper has downloadable engine optimization, describes how the tutorial’s
materials at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. The files contain literature was selected, defines search-related
Appendices A–C. The material is 163 kB in size.
The author is with the Department of English, Long terminology, and explains how three classes of
Island University, Brooklyn, NY 11201 USA (email: participants shape search engine rankings. In the
[email protected]). heart of the tutorial, professional communicators
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are
available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. will learn three key lessons they can apply to make
IEEE 10.1109/TPC.2012.2237255
it easier for audiences to find their web content and
websites through search engines:
Authorized ©
0361-1434/$31.00 licensed
2013 use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE
KILLORAN: HOW TO USE SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 51

meaningfully visit only a tiny fraction of the web’s

(1) Consider the web content’s audiences sites, a condition that has led sociologist Alex
and website’s competitors when analyzing Havalais to characterize the web’s ecosystem as
keywords. an “attention economy” driven by competition for
(2) Insert keywords into web text that will appear the scarce commodity of users’ attention [3, pp.
on search engine results pages. 57, 68–71].
(3) Involve their web content and websites with
other web content creators. In such an economy, the key logistic role of
channeling users’ attention is played by search
Two additional lessons are available in the engines [3, p. 71], which set the competition’s
appendices, shown in downloadable documents at rules and judge its winners from among the
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org: Appendix A: Optimize contending websites. Nevertheless, two other
website content and structure for both human classes of stakeholders indirectly contribute to the
and search engine audiences, and Appendix B: competition’s rules and results: contending web
Emphasize keywords in key spots on webpages. content creators themselves, and search engine
users [3, p. 83].
To manage these lessons and their sublessons
over the time required for successful search Search rankings enable web content creators
engine optimization, the closing Implications for to continually monitor the exact measure of
Practice section recommends that professional their competitive fitness, or lack thereof: for any
communicators progressively apply these lessons given search query, precisely one site ranks in
in the sequence presented in this tutorial and the coveted top spot, and one other in the less
keep up to date with frequently changing ranking coveted second spot, and so on down the steep
algorithms and with the associated changing slope of increasing obscurity. For the vast masses
practices of search optimization professionals. of the web’s sites ranking beyond the first page
of search results, a search engine like Google,
KEY CONCEPTS according to Havalais, operates as “a technology
as much of ignoring as it is of presenting” [3, p.
Search engines dominate among America’s and the 57]. Accordingly, some content creators orient their
world’s most visited websites [1], [2] and, hence, sites not just to directly attracting and maintaining
provide a common intersection for the otherwise the attention of their prospective human audiences
distinct interests of web users, search marketing but to accommodating and even taking advantage
practitioners, researchers, and of course the search of search engines and their ranking rules, to the
engine companies themselves. These classes of extent that orienting a site to search engines has
search stakeholders contribute in distinct ways to become a professional specialty: search engine
search engine rankings and/or to our research and optimization (SEO). In response, search engines
insight into how to optimize sites to boost those conceal the competition’s rules and frequently
rankings. Their contributions will become evident redefine them in order to prevent agonistic content
throughout this section, starting with this tutorial’s creators and their SEO specialists from gaming the
theoretical framework, which incorporates three system and thereby undermining search engines’
classes of these stakeholders, and continuing with exclusive logistic roles.
a description of how its literature was selected
from a slightly different set of three classes of Search engine users of course hold the attention
these stakeholders. Then, after introducing basic economy’s key commodity, their own attention, and
search-related terminology, this section explains confer it not only among the sites of contending web
how, from these stakeholders, three classes of content creators but also among search engines
participants shape search engine rankings. themselves, thereby compelling search engines to
try to better accommodate users’ interests. Since
Theoretical Framework In principle, the the end of the search is usually more interesting
web, hosting a seemingly endless population than the search itself, it is in users’ interests that
of content creators and their web content, search engines serve up among their top results
would appear to have overcome the kinds of only those sites that best meet their perceived
hypercompetitive conditions that have restricted needs, which entails that search engines must rank
aspiring content creators contending for an sites with increasing accuracy on such criteria
audience in the traditional mass media. In practice, as their authenticity, topicality, and quality, but
however, prospective audiences of web users can especially popularity.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
52 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, MARCH 2013

This tutorial explores in concrete detail how each hence, withheld from public scrutiny. However,
of these three classes of stakeholders contributes some search engine companies publish SEO
to influence search engine rankings in the Three advice to webmasters, in part in a self-interested
Classes of Participants Shaping Search Rankings attempt to promote “white hat” (authentic,
section. More generally, it is this perspective of audience-directed) SEO practices that would ease
search rankings as an outcome of the symbiotic their efforts to accurately read websites and to
relationship among various stakeholders that discourage webmasters and web marketers from
guided how this tutorial’s literature was selected resorting to “black hat” (deceptive) SEO tactics
and that frames its search optimization lessons. that seek to game the ranking system. Though
such advice typically re-states what has long
How Literature was Selected Because a thorough been known by experienced SEO practitioners,
training manual in SEO strategies and tactics this tutorial frequently cites advice from the top
would encompass several volumes, this short two search providers in the market—Google and
tutorial limits itself to SEO advice that would Microsoft (which serves both Bing and Yahoo
seem to be the most broadly relevant to, and searches)—because these two would have to be
readily applicable by, professional communication judged the most authoritative sources on their
practitioners. Accordingly, it focuses its lessons on own search engines and because their advice is
the subset of SEO strategies and tactics that are: so fundamental. Google, in particular, publishes
extensive advice for webmasters not only on its own
• applicable to popular, general-purpose search site but also on YouTube, and these sources as well
engines, such as Google and Bing, as opposed as Microsoft’s more limited offerings were combed
to those specializing just in news, shopping, or for insights into the search engines’ algorithms and
scholarship, and so forth; advice on how webmasters could improve their
• applicable to a broad range of websites, as sites’ rankings with such algorithms.
opposed to sites requiring specialized search
functionality, such as libraries and e-commerce
sites;
Research Community: Whereas much research
• free, as opposed to paid search options such as
has explored issues related to search principles
Google AdWords;
and functionality, research conducted primarily
• ethical, as opposed to the deceptive tactics used
for the purpose of re-discovering what Google and
by spammers; and
other search engine companies already know has
• nontechnical, applicable by practitioners with
understandably remained peripheral to fields like
expertise in professional communication, not
computer science. Hence, this tutorial draws as
necessarily in website coding.
well on research from fields inquiring not so much
SEO strategies and tactics meeting these criteria are into what goes into search engines’ algorithms
of interest not only to professional communication but what comes out, in particular the fields of
practitioners but also to three classes of marketing, library and information science, and
stakeholders—overlapping with those introduced in internet studies. Searches were conducted on the
the Theoretical Framework—whose long-standing keywords “search engine optimization” and, to
involvement with web search outcomes has led a lesser extent, just “search engine(s),” in such
them to share their SEO insight. Accordingly, academic databases as Business Source Premier
this tutorial draws its SEO lessons from the and SciVerse/ScienceDirect, in Google Scholar,
literature disseminated by these three classes: and in specific scholarly journals known to focus
on web-related issues. Works found through such
(1) published advice from search engine means were examined for their citations and,
companies; using academic databases and especially Google
(2) empirical studies from the research Scholar, for later research that, in turn, cited them,
community; a process that led to other works. Works found
(3) much experience-based collective wisdom through Google Scholar—an especially bountiful
and occasional empirical studies from SEO resource for web-related research—were carefully
practitioners. examined for their scholarly provenance and were
selected only if they exhibited a credible research
Search Engine Companies: The ranking algorithms foundation, such as through their authorship
of search engines companies like Google are their credentials, prior presentation in a scholarly venue,
most valuable pieces of intellectual property and, or research methods.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
KILLORAN: HOW TO USE SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 53

SEO Practitioners: Unlike researchers, SEO query. For their organic results, SERPs typically
practitioners have a very strong incentive to default to listing ten webpages, featuring for each
re-discover what Google and other search engine its title hyperlinked to the webpage, a “snippet” of
companies already know about their ranking text often excerpted from the page, and the page’s
algorithms. From their daily experiences monitoring URL (web address).
the websites’ rankings and analyzing their websites’
logs, SEO practitioners and webmasters are Search engines collect their search index (corpus
typically well attuned to the algorithms’ frequent of web content) in the first place mainly by using a
changes. Such experiences are disseminated spider (a program, also called a bot or a crawler)
through various online discussion forums, on to repeatedly crawl (surf) the web link by link and
the websites of SEO companies, and in popular record new and updated pages, defunct links,
press books written by the experienced SEO and so forth. The index includes the words on
practitioners—and turn up copiously in searches the crawled webpages along with their location
for “search engine optimization.” The main criteria and accompanying web coding. While this tutorial
applied in selecting from such discourse of uneven focuses mainly on nontechnical means of SEO,
quality was its credibility. Accordingly, this tutorial those responsible for websites ought to know some
draws, in particular, on books whose success HTML (hypertext markup language), the most
has earned them recent second or third editions fundamental form of web coding, in which various
[4]–[6] and, hence, whose extended exposure in the tags and their attributes are used to encode the
commercial marketplace would have somewhat structure, design, and functionality of a webpage.
tested their SEO advice. It also draws extensively
on the latest in a series of biennial surveys about Three Classes of Participants Shaping Search
SEO techniques conducted by the SEO software Rankings This section draws on the literature
company and community hub SEOmoz [7]. This to explain how search engine rankings are
latest survey, conducted in March 2011, asked 134 directly and indirectly shaped by the three
SEO industry professionals to rank more than 100 classes of interdependent participants introduced
suspected SEO factors according to their estimated in the Theoretical Framework section above:
influence in Google’s ranking algorithm.
(1) search engine companies and programmers
Search-Related Terminology This section (2) webmasters and SEO practitioners
introduces general search-related terminology that (3) search engine users.
reappears throughout this tutorial. More specialized
terms are defined and/or described at points where Search Engine Companies and Programmers:
they are introduced in the key lessons below. Searchers using more than one search engine
will likely have noticed that for a given query, the
According to the Search Engine Marketers competing SERPs tend to show different rankings,
Professional Organization, the main and indeed often show different sites entirely, an
American-based organization that represents observation confirmed by researchers [9]–[11]. Each
practitioners in the field, search engine search engine company has wittingly or unwittingly
optimization (SEO) is “the process of editing a web programmed its own biases. One study observed
site’s content and code in order to improve visibility that in comparison with their competitors, search
within one or more search engines” [8]. The similar engines tended to favor sites and services that
term search engine marketing (SEM) includes their own companies owned, with Google’s SERPs
SEO plus various paid advertising options that listing Google-owned YouTube more often than its
involve search engines, options that are beyond the competitors did, and Yahoo listing Yahoo Answers
score of this tutorial. SEO is typically understood more often [12]. Another study found that Google
not to include—or at least not to overly rely tended to return more commercial results among
on—these paid options in its aim to achieve high its top ten than did its erstwhile competitors Yahoo
rankings among search engines’ organic (“natural”) and MSN [13].
results, listings of webpages that a search engine
derives by “appl[ying] formulas (algorithms) to Perhaps the most distinctive and successful feature
its search crawler index, combined with editorial of Google’s algorithm is PageRank, which (then)
decisions and content weighting ” [8]. These Stanford University doctoral candidates Sergey Brin
ranked listings appear on search engine results and Lawrence Page introduced in a 1998 article
pages (SERPs), often surrounded by sponsored about what was then their prototype search engine
results (paid advertising), after users enter a search [14]. PageRank is a measure of the popularity of
Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
54 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, MARCH 2013

a webpage as determined by the hyperlinks from Entering the same query at different times,
other pages leading to it, as well as the popularity even minutes apart, can produce different SERP
of those linking pages themselves. It is now just rankings, as Google tweaks its algorithm as many
one of more than 200 factors that figure in Google’s as 500 or more times per year [25], [26]. The SEO
algorithm [15]. Google’s Matt Cutts, a frequent software company and community hub SEOmoz
spokesperson on SEO issues, conceptualizes these has cataloged more than 50 major changes over the
200-plus into two general classes [16]: past dozen years, many of enough consequence to
have been dubbed with a nickname from Google
(1) Trust—of which PageRank is only the most itself or, more commonly, from the SEO community
well-known component—an assessment of a [26].
site’s authority and reputation
(2) Relevance—an assessment of how well a site Also, different search queries are thought to trigger
topically matches a particular query. somewhat different Google ranking algorithms [27].
According to the SEOmoz survey of SEO industry
Google’s, and other search engines’, emphases professionals introduced before, these algorithmic
on popularity, authority, and reputation have differences lead to Google SERPs that are thought
raised alarm at least as far back as Introna to sometimes favor recently updated webpages, or
and Nissenbaum’s much-cited critique of search a greater diversity of webpages, or well-established
engine rankings’ inherent, undemocratic “political” “brand” websites. The same survey question
biases [17]. Introna and Nissenbaum, as well as revealed that Google is widely thought to apply
others (e.g., [18]), argued that search engines specific ranking factors to queries within specific
systematically promoted some sites, such as those topical categories, such as travel, e-commerce,
already popular or benefiting from SEO tactics, and real estate, and so forth [7]. Hence, though this
effectively denied or restricted public access to the tutorial will follow convention and refer to Google’s
vast proletariat of the web’s sites by ranking them algorithm in the singular, it may be more accurate
poorly or indexing them only partially or not at all. to conceive of its algorithms in the plural.
For instance, a 2008 study, drawing on a dataset Webmasters and SEO Practitioners: Complicating
of a search engine’s top 100,000 queries, found the efforts of search engines to serve what searchers
that Wikipedia was listed in Google’s first SERP are looking for is the work of webmasters—not all
for more than one-third of such queries, placing of whom have the motivation, time, communication
first for almost one-sixth of such queries [12]. More skills, or technical skills to optimally communicate
recently, two 2012 studies found that Wikipedia’s their web content to search engines—and of wily
dominance had increased to the point where it SEO practitioners, who are well motivated to devote
ranked first in approximately half of Google and their time, communication, and technical skills to
Bing searches [19], [20]. Such “rich-get-richer” achieving rankings higher than their site content
predispositions accentuate the challenge faced by might otherwise merit. Perhaps revealingly, SERP
webmasters and SEO practitioners trying to attract rankings for commercially oriented queries—the
attention to new or less popular sites. On the other kind of queries for which companies would hire
hand, some researchers have argued that search SEO specialists—have been found to be more
engines promote a more democratic, “egalitarian” volatile over time than rankings for queries without
access to a wider range of sites [21], at least in a direct commercial intent [28].
certain fields [22].
In the intense competition to achieve higher
Though Google’s rankings and those of other rankings, some SEO practitioners resort to black
major search engines are automated, they are not hat techniques conceived to game search engines’
necessarily consistent. For instance, entering the algorithms. Among the many such techniques are
same query into Google from different web browsers keyword stuffing, in which excessive keywords
(e.g., Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, are inserted within the coding or cloaked behind
etc.) can produce different SERP rankings, as the content of a webpage; and link farming, in
Google monitors the “sociological” patterns of each which sites filled with outbound links are posted
browser’s community of users. Entering the same for the purpose of making the destinations of
query at different locations can produce different those links appear popular to search engines [29].
SERP rankings, as Google maintains different data Such tactics have led search engine companies
centers throughout the world, not always fully to publish guidelines listing do’s and don’t’s that
synchronized with each other [23], [24]. specify what they deem to be ethical SEO practices,

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
KILLORAN: HOW TO USE SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 55

and to penalize websites that violate the guidelines before [7], among the collective user behaviors
with lower rankings or exclusion from the search thought to be among the more influential in
engine’s index (e.g., [30]). Also, search engines have Google’s ranking algorithm are the following:
frequently changed their ranking algorithms, as
mentioned before, in their ongoing whack-a-mole • The “click-through rate” (CTR) from Google to a
attempts to overcome black hat techniques. webpage—that is, for a given search query, the
percentage of times searchers click on the link
Search Engine Users: Finally, web users’ search to a particular webpage listed in Google’s SERP.
engine preferences and behaviors, in turn, influence A high CTR indicates to Google that searchers
web marketers’ SEO strategies and search engines’ entering that query judge that webpage to
rankings. For years, Web users have been favoring appear highly relevant, and accordingly Google’s
Google by wide margins over such competitors as algorithm is thought to weigh that in its favor
Yahoo and, more recently, Bing [31]–[33]. As well, in future searches.
as a result of a 2009 agreement between Yahoo and • The “bounce rate” from the webpage back to
Microsoft, Yahoo’s search results are now served Google—that is, for a given search query, the
by Bing’s algorithm. Accordingly, SEO industry percentage of searchers who return from a
professionals, following their users, optimize “clicked-through” webpage back to Google’s
their sites primarily for Google’s algorithm and SERP to try some other webpage. A webpage’s
secondarily for Microsoft’s Bing and others, and so bounce rate has the reverse effect of its CTR:
this tutorial frequently focuses on optimizing for a high bounce rate indicates to Google that
Google, though the SEO lessons detailed below also searchers entering that query are disappointed
apply in varying degrees to most other general web with that webpage and, accordingly, Google’s
search engines. algorithm is thought to weigh that against it in
In a 2012 survey by the Pew Internet and American future such searches.
Life Project, majorities of searchers reported that
they trusted search engines as a “fair and unbiased Other survey responses indicated that such
source of information” and that, in their experience, measures of user behavior for one query and one
search engine results had been “getting more webpage are somewhat contagious across rankings
relevant and useful over time” [33, pp. 10–11]. Also, for a site’s other queries and other pages. When
majorities reported that they were confident in their asked in yet another survey question whether
search abilities and that they found what they were the collective weight of these user behaviors in
looking for most or all of the time, though a large Google’s algorithm would decrease, stay the same,
minority also reported that they felt overwhelmed or increase over the subsequent twelve months,
by the volume of search results [33]. In line with almost 70% of the respondents predicted that
such attitudes, many studies have observed that it would increase [7]. If these assumptions are
searchers tend to limit themselves to the first SERP valid, webmasters and SEO practitioners have an
[34], [35], and often to just the top-ranked results additional reason to ensure that the brief bits about
on that SERP [36], even when the order of those their sites that are featured on SERPs are not only
results has been experimentally reversed from top inviting but also accurate in order to encourage a
to bottom [37], [38]. Accordingly, SEO industry higher CTR while discouraging a correspondingly
professionals are driven to earn not just a good higher bounce rate—the focus of lesson 2 in the
ranking but a top ranking. next section.

Google acknowledges in its new privacy policy that

it tracks the history of individual users of its various KEY LESSONS
services, including its search engine, so that it can
serve up a more targeted experience to each user The interests and interplay of these three classes
[39], though a majority of respondents to the Pew of participants have led to search engine ranking
Internet Project survey introduced before objected algorithms that remain relatively unpredictable.
to such tracking of their search engine queries [33]. To optimally ensure that their audiences can
nevertheless find their web content, web developers
Searchers’ behavior patterns are thought to can guide themselves with heuristics as they
influence not just their own search results but compose and maintain their web content and
those of everyone else. According to the SEOmoz engage with other web content creators. These
survey of SEO industry professionals introduced heuristics are detailed in three key lessons, in

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
56 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, MARCH 2013

which web developers will learn why and how they But good candidates commonly recommended by
should: SEO practitioners include, for instance, words
and phrases naming the problems or needs that
(1) consider the web content’s audiences the organization or site resolves [6], and terms
and website’s competitors when analyzing identifying the organization’s off-web location
keywords; [5], [6]. A survey of US consumers found that,
(2) insert keywords into web text that will appear in searches for local businesses, few said that
on SERPs; they enter a query based on the business name,
(3) involve the web content and website with other presumably because it is their lack of familiarity
web content creators. with the business that is prompting their search
[40]. By contrast, at least half said they enter a
In two additional lessons in this paper’s online query that describes the kind of service they seek,
appendices, web developers will also learn why and and almost half also enter a geographical term to
how they should, in Appendix A, optimize website localize their search. Similarly, a study of search
content and structure for both human and search queries related to travel accommodation found that
engine audiences and, in Appendix B, emphasize the destination city was included in almost half
keywords in key spots on webpages. the search queries, and the state or country were
each included in more than a tenth of the queries
Consider the Web Content’s Audiences [41]. By contrast, even though many travelers
and Website’s Competitors when Analyzing are no doubt concerned about the cost of their
Keywords Before optimizing web content or a accommodations, price-related terms figured in
website, web developers should first analyze the fewer than 1% of the queries. Such a contrast
keywords—the search engine queries—for which suggests that web searchers might be adopting a
the site will be optimized. In this lesson, web terse search query genre that does not necessarily
developers will learn why and how they should describe what they are seeking in the same way
they might describe it when, say, speaking with an
• analyze keywords that their target audience will industry specialist like a travel agent.
use
• target long-tail keywords that are competitive. What query might nonspecialist audiences
enter when searching for general information
Analyze Keywords That the Target Audience about the field of technical communication, for
Will Use: Within the fields that technical instance? Among specialists within technical
communicators serve, keywords often emerge from communication’s research, academic, and
the communities of subject matter experts who professional communities, the term technical
conduct a field’s research, patent its innovations, writing is generally recognized as having been
and engineer its applications. However, a website’s supplanted by the term technical communication,
targeted audiences may well use different search a more contemporary and more accurate
queries than the specialists responsible for the representation of the field’s diversity, but that
content and site would themselves use. One study should not necessarily imply that the latter term
found that without even clicking on any of the is the better keyword for a site about technical
search returns, searchers revised their query more communication to target. A recent search in Google
than half the time [38], suggesting that searchers Trends [42], a tool showing the relative popularity
may struggle through an iterative process to of a query over time or in contrast with another
formulate an optimal query. In particular, among query, revealed that technical writing is still more
a website’s targeted audiences, it may be those commonly used than technical communication,
least knowledgeable about the site, its content, though the popularity gap between the two is
or the organization behind it who would turn to closing. (See Fig. 1.)
search engines. Accordingly, whereas the name of
the site or the organization, its trademarks, or the A useful tool for discovering other potential
specialized lingo used by the subject matter experts keywords is Google’s Keyword Tool, which returns
or other insiders who contribute to the site ought to not only the estimated search volume of a keyword
be considered as potential candidates for keywords, but also hundreds of related keywords and
they may not be the sole or best candidates. phrases, in particular marketable ones [44]. For
instance, a search on the keywords technical writing
The best keyword candidates are, of course, and technical communication listed, among the
distinct to each organization and each website. hundreds of related keywords and phrases, several

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
KILLORAN: HOW TO USE SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 57

Fig. 1. Google Trends results comparing the relative search volume of the queries technical writing and technical
communication. According to Google, the graph shows an approximation based on only a sample of data [43].

phrases related to education, like technical writing tail” metaphor was first proposed by Anderson,
courses. (See Fig. 2.) who argued that, especially with digital media,
companies can cost-effectively market not just their
Along with researching the keywords that their most popular products and services (the head) but
own site’s targeted audience would use in a query, also the many lower-volume niche products and
web developers are recommended to research services (the long tail) [46], [47]. As an example,
the keywords that their competitors are targeting he described Google’s search advertising model, in
by examining their webpage titles and text [6], which marketers can effectively target the small
[45]. For instance, an examination of the websites numbers of searchers who enter various tail queries
of journals that share overlapping interests [47].
with IEEE’s TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL
COMMUNICATION (IEEE TPC) will turn up some A meta-review of previous studies of queries logged
that feature the keyword “technical” in both with search engines listed average query lengths
their names and throughout their websites; that ranging between 1.6 and 3.3 terms [34], with
keyword is not featured prominently on IEEE queries of 1, 2, or 3 terms in length being the most
TPC’s own webpages. Not surprisingly, whereas common [35], [48]; many of these are likely head
IEEE TPC’s website typically ranks among the terms. However, because head terms attract so
top for Google queries based on parts of its title, much competition, SEO professionals generally
such as “professional communication journal,” it recommend that most sites, especially new sites,
remains buried in obscurity for near synonymous target some tail keywords and phrases (e.g., [4]–[6],
queries like “technical communication journal.” In [49]), where competition is less intense and fulfilling
general, examining competitors’ sites enables web matches with users’ specialized interests are more
developers to discover search queries that might be likely. More specifically, they recommend that a
relevant to their own sites, to find search niches in site’s homepage target the most popular head
which competition might not be so intense, and to keyword for which the site might be competitive,
discover strategies for phrasing their own sites’ text. whereas the site’s more specialized pages each
target a related tail keyword. It is generally advised
Target Long-Tail Keywords That are Competitive: that each webpage target no more than a few
SEO professionals generally distinguish between keywords or phrases (e.g., [4]–[6], [50]).
“head” and “tail” keywords: the former are more
generic and typically just one or two words long For instance, consider a hypothetical site
(e.g., writer or technical writer), whereas the latter offering various handy resources for technical
are often subcategories of the former and typically communicators, such as trial versions of the
three or more words long (e.g., Silicon Valley field’s software, reviews of such software, as
technical writer). The head and tail nomenclature well as relevant books, tutorials for using such
was inspired by statistical graphs plotting a line software and for composing various technical
starting at a peak (the head) and tapering off as communication genres, sample technical
it moves farther away (the tail). The popular “long communication documents and document
Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
58 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, MARCH 2013

Fig. 2. Excerpt of Google’s Keyword Tool search results on the keywords technical writing and technical
communication, showing a partial list of related keywords and phrases, bidding competition for each in Google
Adwords, and the approximate monthly Google search volumes of each both globally and within the U.S. The full list
included hundreds of related keywords and phrases.

templates, and so forth. Judging that the site Insert Keywords into Web Text that Will Appear
would be particularly popular and competitive on SERPs Terms from a user’s search query
for its software downloads and reviews, its web are shown in bold type wherever they appear in
developers might target for its homepage such head SERP’s listings of webpage titles, snippets of text,
keywords as “technical communication software” and URLs. Aside from acting as strong visual cues
and “technical communication reviews,” whereas a to users who let their eyes skim down the list of
specific tutorial page within the site might target results [38], these three features are thought to
the tail key phrases “how to usability test websites” be among a webpage’s most influential keyword
and “website usability testing tutorial.” The next features in Google’s algorithm. When asked to
lesson as well as the lesson in online Appendix B, rank 21 possible characteristics of keywords on
available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org, detail a webpage—such as their placement, encoding,
how webpages can be optimized for particular formatting, repetition, and so forth—according to
keywords and phrases. the weight that Google’s algorithm allocates to such
Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
KILLORAN: HOW TO USE SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 59

characteristics, respondents to the SEOmoz survey Both Google and Bing encourage webmasters to
introduced before ranked as first and second incorporate keywords into their URL strings, and
keywords placed anywhere in the title tag, and Microsoft has confirmed that such a tactic can
placed first in the title tag. Also ranking near the improve a page’s Bing ranking [50]. For file names
top were keywords within the page’s URL string [7]. based on two or more words, Google encourages
In this lesson, web developers will learn in greater webmasters to insert hyphens, but not underscores,
detail why and how they should: to separate words (e.g., “technical-writing.html”),
explaining that it finds the resulting file names
• name web domains, directories, and files based easier to read than nonhyphenated, fused key
on keywords phrases [51].
• prioritize keywords in webpage titles.
Google recommends against using generic file
As for the snippets, search engines typically excerpt names (“page1.html”), repeating keywords (“seo-
these from text within the webpage; lessons for seo-seo.html”), and relying on computer-generated
composing webpage text for SEO purposes are alphanumeric codes, parameters, and session
presented in online Appendix B. IDs that are meaningless to search engines and
offputting to searchers and web developers creating
Name Web Domains, Directories, and Files Based inbound links [52]. Because SEO techniques
on Keywords: The first tasks in creating a site contribute to a page’s ranking cumulatively, it is
include securing a domain name (web address) generally recommended that each file be named
and creating (and, hence, naming) files. In the using the same keyword that is used in the page’s
SEOmoz survey mentioned before, SEO industry optimized title (see next subsection) [4], thereby
professionals asked to apportion the weight that reinforcing that page’s relevance for that particular
Google’s algorithm accords among various clusters keyword.
of SEO factors allocated approximately 11% of the
weight just to keywords in a site’s domain name. Prioritize Keywords in Webpage Titles: Among the
However, when asked in another question whether page elements extracted on SERPs, perhaps the
that allocation of weight would decrease, stay the most important for human users is the page title.
same, or increase over the subsequent 12 months, In one study, student collaborators evaluating
a majority of respondents predicted that it would sites listed on SERPs were found to rely largely
decrease [7]. Similarly, others have long suspected on the titles, even though the SERPs, of course,
a decreasing allocation in a domain name’s weight also featured snippets, URLs, and direct links
[4]. to the sites they were ostensibly evaluating [53].
Aside from being hyperlinked in SERPs—thereby
When choosing a domain name, SEO practitioners drawing the focus of users as they navigate—titles
generally recommend choosing a name based also appear at the tops of the browser windows
either on an existing keyword or phrase or a new or tabs and in bookmark lists when the pages
brandable name that, in either case, the site will are bookmarked. Titles should not be confused
be optimized for (e.g., [4]). Common keywords and with headings that appear in the browsers’
phrases have long since been claimed, leading main windows (headings are discussed in online
webmasters developing new sites to choose Appendix B) as titles are encoded within an HTML
domain names based on newly invented brand file’s “head” section, not the “body” section that is
names or longer key phrases, sometimes rendered made visible to web browsers.
readable by hyphens. However, SEO practitioners
recommend minimizing the length of a domain In general, web developers are advised to title their
name because future audiences would have to type pages with keywords referring specifically to the
the long URL string to visit or to create inbound page content rather than with generic words [6],
links [5]. They also recommend minimizing hyphens [54], avoiding, in particular, such generic words
in the domain name as these have been a feature as “home” (whose homepage?), “products and
common among the multiple domains created by services” (which products and services?), and so
spammers and could raise the suspicions of both forth. SEO practitioners generally recommend that
prospective audiences and search engines [4], [5]. each page title focus on the keywords or phrase
that page is targeting (e.g., [6]). In the case of the
In a URL string, after the domain name comes organization’s name, which would presumably
the names of directories and, finally, a file name, apply indiscriminately to all of a site’s pages,
and these too provide opportunities for keywords. Grappone and Couzin recommended including it to

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
60 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, MARCH 2013

distinguish a SERP listing from its competition [6], technical communication services, Killoran found
whereas Rognerud recommended omitting it if that that principals of these businesses reporting more
name does not reinforce the keywords and phrases success attracting prospective clients through
that the organization’s pages are targeting [5]. In search engines had sites with significantly longer
a study of the business websites of companies homepage titles than their less successful peers,
and individuals offering technical communication though such an association would not imply
services, Killoran reported that a very large majority causality [55]. On the other hand, in an SEO action
of his sample’s homepage titles included the name research project, Malaga described how a title with
of the company or individual, which he observed 104 characters and spaces, oriented more to users
did not always appear to be good candidates for who had already found the site, was chopped to
queries about technical communication services include only the key phrase that the e-commerce
[55]. Similarly, other common but unlikely search site was optimizing for, with just 25 characters
candidates in his sample’s homepage titles were and spaces. This change, along with a few other
home, welcome, and what are known as "stop changes in the site text, led to a sharp jump in
words," words like the and and which search SERP rankings for searches on that key phrase [45].
engines typically disregard.
Google recommends short titles [54], as do some
If slipping a keyword into a title can boost a SEO industry professionals (e.g., [57]), which
page’s ranking for the matching query, then web can reinforce a page’s focus on just the one or
developers might reason that repeating the keyword two keywords for which that page is optimized.
might boost rankings even more. In a study Indeed, Google says that it displays on its SERPs
involving several search engines including Google, an alternative title if a page’s title is absent,
Zhang and Dimitroff achieved increasingly better uninformative, hard to read, or unnecessarily long
SERP rankings with each successive repetition of [58].
a keyword in a title, but with the keyword’s fourth
mention, rankings declined sharply to below the If a concise, apt, keyword-rich title boosts a
level with no repetition at all [56]. It is possible that page’s ranking for the matching query, then web
at that fourth mention, search engines imposed developers might reason that repeating the same
a penalty; Google explicitly warns that multiple boilerplate title across their site’s various pages
appearances of the same keyword or phrase, might boost the whole site’s ranking for that
including slight variants (e.g., “technical writer, query. However, it is generally recommended that
technical writers, tech writers”), can look like spam each page feature a unique title focused just on
to its algorithm [54]. that page’s content [6], with Microsoft explicitly
indicating that doing so would improve a webpage’s
If just one mention of a keyword in a title boosts Bing ranking [50]. Repeating a title across many
a page’s ranking for the matching query, then pages is viewed as a spamming technique and
web developers might reason that packing titles may result in a search engine penalty [4]. When
with many different keywords might boost a page’s repetition is necessary, such as repeating the site
ranking for the many matching queries. On SERPs, name for branding purposes, Google recommends
however, titles get truncated after approximately 64 that the repetitive portion of the titles remain
characters and spaces, with an even more severe concise and be distinguished from the distinct
truncation in browser tabs and bookmarks lists, portion of each page’s title with punctuation, such
leaving the ends of long titles ordinarily invisible to as a colon or hyphen [54].
their human audiences. Some SEO practitioners
claim that search engines do not even bother Involve the Web Content and Website with
indexing the excess portion of long titles that would Other Web Content Creators Since the advent
never appear on their SERPs anyways [5], [57]. In of Google’s PageRank, the general trend in search
contrast, many practitioners believe that search algorithms has been to progressively decrease the
engines’ algorithms prioritize a title’s opening word influence of a page’s or site’s intrinsic features,
[7], [57]. which are easiest for webmasters to manipulate,
and correspondingly increase the influence of
Research touching on the issue has not isolated extrinsic factors, most notably inbound links
the independent variable of title length and, from other websites. In one question in the
hence, remains inconclusive. For instance, in the SEOmoz survey introduced above, SEO industry
study introduced before concerning the business professionals asked to apportion the weight
websites of companies and individuals offering that Google’s algorithm accords among various
Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
KILLORAN: HOW TO USE SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 61

clusters of SEO factors allocated approximately • participating in online forums related to the
half the weight to various extrinsic factors related site’s field
to inbound links, including various features of • engaging the media by issuing online press
inbound links directly to a webpage, of inbound releases or pitching a story to a reporter
links to the site that hosts that webpage, and of • informing leading and active figures in the field
social media signals pointing to the webpage or about the site and its content in hopes of earning
to the entire site [7]. Put another way, all of the their attention.
lessons discussed before and in the accompanying
online appendices about what webmasters can do Any of these approaches could indirectly induce
to their own sites, plus other onsite SEO tactics inbound links and boost search rankings, though
that are not explored in this tutorial, plus surfer not necessarily immediately, for aside from inbound
behaviors that have been briefly discussed before, links’ quantity and especially quality, their age is
are estimated to contribute only about half of the also thought to be relevant [27].
weight in Google’s ranking algorithm, whereas the
Both search engines warn webmasters against
other half derives from what happens on other
soliciting inbound links for the purpose of quickly
sites, typically beyond a webmaster’s direct control.
and artificially boosting their own PageRank score
That other half is the focus of this lesson, in which
or search ranking [52], [60]–[62], such as by:
web developers will learn why and how they should:
• purchasing links from sites with a higher
• earn inbound links from other websites
PageRank, which these sites sometimes sell for
• develop a community following in social media.
monthly intervals but which attract the suspicion
Earn Inbound Links From Other Websites: An of search engines when the links turn over every
association between the quantity of inbound links month
and various measures of search engine success • arranging for links supplied by link farms, which
has been observed in a number of studies [7], [21], exist mainly to supply hundreds or thousands of
[23], [55], [59]. However, both Google and Microsoft links—sudden surges in inbound links trigger
emphasize the quality of inbound links over their the suspicion of search engines
sheer quantity, specifically the authority of the • indiscriminately exchanging mutual links among
linking sources and the topical relevance of the other sites, especially those not thematically
linked sites to each other (e.g., [50], [60], [61]). relevant to their own site.

To attract such inbound links, both Google and Search engines will penalize such activities by
Bing encourage webmasters foremost to draw on downgrading a site’s rankings or even excluding
their expertise to create high-quality, useful content it from their index [61]. Whereas links included
that will induce others to link to it [52], [62]. As in comments posted to discussion forums, blogs,
examples, Google suggests [52], [62], [63]: and so forth are usually not harmful, they are not
particularly helpful either. In part to discourage
• providing a useful product or service spam, such forums tend to encode a no-follow
• posting new, insightful, entertaining information attribute indicating to search engines not to factor
• maintaining a blog with regular, original, in such links.
interesting posts
• engaging the community of related websites and Since spammers can easily generate many
web 2.0 social media sites that might, in turn, inbound links from such low-quality sources,
elicit back links or other connections. especially link farms, SEO practitioners tend to
reaffirm the advice of search engine companies
Along with similar suggestions, Microsoft suggests about quality over quantity [4], [6]. For instance,
[50], [60], [61]: Grappone and Couzin [6] recommended seeking out
quality inbound links from sites of organizations
• offering to guest post an article or blog entry on and individuals with which one already shares
someone else’s site in exchange for a link back some relationship, such as sites of one’s:
to one’s own site
• joining relevant associations that post links to • clients, customers, and fans
their members’ sites, or approaching business • service providers, vendors, and partners
partners about posting a hyperlinked notice • business and professional associations and
about the partnership accrediting organizations.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
62 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, MARCH 2013

Jones [4] recommended seeking out quality Develop a Community Following in Social Media: In
inbound links from: recent years, social media optimization (SMO)
has emerged as an increasingly important means
• sites that themselves are recipients of many of attracting not just human visitors but also
inbound links relevant to their content, as such search engine rankings. The concept of SMO was
links are a sign to search engines that they are apparently originally proposed in 2006 by marketer
authoritative sites in their field Rohit Bhargava, who described SMO strategy as
• sites with older domains, to which Google grants
optimiz[ing] a site so that it is more easily
more credibility [64]
linked to, more highly visible in social media
• sites with .edu and .gov top-level domains, which
searches on custom search engines , and
search engines assume would link only to other
more frequently included in relevant posts on
high-quality sites
blogs, podcasts and vlogs. [67]
• sites with PageRank scores or Alexa rankings
(see online Appendix C for further details, shown In 2010, he re-styled SMO as marketing by
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org) as high or higher disseminating sharable content in social media
than those for one’s own site to elicit others to engage and participate [68].
• sites that already rank well for one’s targeted Bhargava originally recommended five SMO
keywords. practices, which he updated in 2010 [67], [68]:
In a study of websites created for an SEO
(1) frequently posting useful new content
competition, Evans [23] observed that some
that would invite not only inbound links
SEO competitors had gone through the trouble
from traditional websites but also sharing
of registering their sites with the DMoz Open
throughout the audience’s social networks
Directory Project [65] and Yahoo directory [66].
through “likes” and tweets
Both are moderated and the Open Directory Project
(2) rewarding inbound links, comments,
is considered of such high quality that, for their
discussion, sharing of content, and other
snippets, both Google and Bing sometimes use its
forms of engagement, such as by listing
annotations [50], [54]. But apart from these two,
recently linking sources in a blog scroll
both Google and Bing caution about relying on the
(3) adding one-button functionality to readily
web’s many low-quality directories as sources for
enable content to be relevantly tagged,
inbound links, especially directories that are not
bookmarked, embedded, tweeted, and so forth
thematically relevant, not moderated, or poorly
in social media
structured, saying that they would add no value to
(4) proactively posting content to social media
the destination site’s visibility [60], [62].
sites, such as documents on Scribd, slides on
Killoran cataloged several ways that companies, Slideshare, videos on YouTube, and offering
consultants, and independent contractors offering embeddable versions of such content, and
technical communication services generated links finally publicizing the content such as by
to their business websites, including securing tweeting, with a long-term goal of inducing
inbound links from professional communication links back to one’s own site
organizations and general business organizations (5) facilitating “mashups,” content that is open for
with which they were affiliated [55]. As well, some others to adapt, modify, and recombine with
used their specialized technical communication other content, such as by syndicating one’s
knowledge and skills to induce links, such as by: content with RSS feeds.

• creating informative technical communication In a study of websites created for a 2006 SEO
content for their own sites that would competition, Evans observed that high-ranking sites
tempt others, such as the EServer Technical were more likely to have been bookmarked with the
Communication Library, to link back to theirs social bookmarking site Del.icio.us (now Delicious)
• constructing websites for other organizations and than their lower-ranked competitors, though he was
including a webmaster’s link back to their own cautious in attributing the association to Google’s
• posting their writing, such as articles and wiki algorithm, pointing instead to the assumptions
contributions, on other sites, accompanied by of the SEO competitors themselves as a possible
a back link alternative explanation [23]. At the time that
• being quoted as an expert in someone else’s study was conducted, social media sites were just
writing. emerging, and some now-popular services, such

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
KILLORAN: HOW TO USE SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 63

as Twitter, had yet to be launched. In a couple of that, in the interlude before accumulating static
case studies conducted in 2007, Malaga relied just links from traditional websites, could earn a quick
on RSS feeds and social bookmarks to publicize boost in rankings from the endorsements of the
two sets of small, similar sites he created in just a more responsive social media. However, he also
matter of hours on Web 2.0 hosts (a wiki, a blog, underscored that web content creators must invest
and two webpages). In one of these case studies, he the time to develop a social following that, in turn,
was able to attain relatively high rankings with an would establish their authority in the eyes of social
e-commerce search query; the other case study, media participants and search engines [73].
targeting a more competitive e-commerce search
query, produced much less impressive results [69].
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Because of the fast-growing popularity of social
With this tutorial’s three general lessons and
media, search engines are now thought to be
various sublessons, as well as the lessons
increasingly factoring in social media “signals,”
and sublessons in the online appendices, web
such as links and even the more ephemeral “buzz,”
developers have heuristics for how to optimize
into their rankings. When asked whether the weight
their web content and website. If applied diligently,
that Google’s algorithm allocates to social signals
these lessons ought to contribute positively to their
directed to a webpage, such as inbound links
pages’ and site’s search rankings, at least over the
from tweets and from Facebook, would decrease,
medium to long term it takes for a site to develop
stay the same, or increase over the subsequent
evidence of trust and authority.
12 months, 90% of SEO industry professionals
responding to the 2011 SEOmoz survey introduced To best plan and manage this medium-to-long-term
before predicted that the algorithmic weight would commitment, SEO practitioners typically
increase [7]. Survey respondents ranked the recommend implementing an SEO strategy in
authority of tweeters linking to a webpage and stages following the same general sequence as
the quantity of such tweets as the social media the three lessons presented in this tutorial, with
signals thought to carry the most weight in Google’s the lessons in online appendices A and B applied
algorithm. Ranking behind Twitter was Facebook, at roughly the same stage as lesson 2 [4]–[6].
for a comparable set of signals. A 2010 survey of With minor exceptions, successful case studies
more than 10,000 SEO industry practitioners found documented in the literature also generally follow
that more than 70% used social media as part of this sequence. For instance, in the successful
their SEO efforts [70]. Among the social media most action-research project mentioned before, Malaga
frequently used for marketing purposes, majorities implemented his set of SEO tactics in a sequence
of respondents chose Facebook and Twitter, and roughly comparable to the sequence of this tutorial’s
large minorities chose YouTube and LinkedIn. lessons, though unusually he reached out to other
Google’s Matt Cutts confirmed in 2010 that sites with a couple of easy-to-implement lesson
Google uses some social media signals, explicitly 3-type tactics relatively early in the process, even
mentioning Twitter and Facebook links as well as before his project’s site was itself optimized [45]. In
the reputation of the linking authors [71]. Also a case study of the website of a research institute,
in 2010, influential search engine guru Danny Deoghuria, Sinha, and Sinha implemented an SEO
Sullivan published both Google’s and Bing’s strategy following a sequence of steps roughly
confirmations that their algorithms factor in links comparable to this tutorial’s sequence of lessons,
in tweets as well as the author’s authority, based on though they relied heavily on tactics discussed in
such factors as how many people follow them [72]. the online appendices and omitted lesson 3-type
Both also affirmed that they factor in Facebook tactics. Nevertheless, they achieved a high degree
links but could not access Facebook’s private areas of visibility for their site in Google and went on to
to determine authority based on such potential recommend the kind of lesson 3 type of outreach
factors as friends and wall data. tactics that they had omitted [74]. In a case study
of the website of a museum, Espadas, Calero, and
Duane Forrester, who manages Bing’s Webmaster Piattini likewise implemented an SEO strategy
blog and discussion forums, projected that following a sequence of steps roughly comparable
social signals would play an increasing role in to this tutorial’s sequence of lessons, though they
search rankings. He mentioned easy-to-tally emphasized more analysis of the kind introduced
“crowd-sourced” data such as “likes” and tweets in lesson 1. Their strategy led to increased site
and offered the example of a new content posting visibility in Google and increased site traffic [75].

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
64 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, MARCH 2013

Despite such successful cases, this tutorial’s increasing, and the fast growth of social media has
sequence of lessons ought not to be relied upon as been driving new ranking and optimization methods
a static strategy or a guarantee of high rankings. In that did not exist at all a few years ago. In general,
the time since these case studies were conducted, SEO algorithms have been evolving in a direction
the bar for successful SEO has continued to that grants more weight to offsite factors beyond
rise. As described in the opening sections of this web developers’ direct control and into the hands of
tutorial, three classes of participants contribute, websites’ audiences. Such a trend will increasingly
directly or indirectly, to search engine rankings. challenge web developers to devote more time and
The dynamic interplay of search engines’ ranking resources to cultivating a following for their sites.
algorithms, SEO practices of one’s competition, and
web users’ searching behaviors guarantees that To ensure that their audiences can continue to
search algorithms and a site’s ensuing rankings will easily find their work through search engines, web
continue to evolve. As search engines’ algorithms developers should expect to keep up to date with
evolve, the relative importance and composition the evolving search algorithms, SEO practices,
of these three SEO lessons and other SEO tactics their website’s traffic, and their competition. Along
will inevitably shift. For instance, the influence of with some of the sources cited in this tutorial,
on-page keywords (discussed in online Appendix web developers can keep up to date by regularly
B) has been decreasing over time, whereas the drawing on the dynamic SEO resources featured in
influence of inbound links (lesson 3) has been an annotated list in online Appendix C.

REFERENCES

[1] Alexa. Top sites. [Online]. Available: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/global

[2] Hitwise. (2012, Mar. 17). Top 10 websites. [Online]. Available: http://www.hitwise.com/us/datacenter/
main/dashboard-10133.html
[3] A. Havalais, Search Engine Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2009.
[4] K. B. Jones, Search Engine Optimization: Your Visual Blueprint for Effective Internet Marketing, 2nd
ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010.
[5] J. Rognerud, Ultimate Guide to Search Engine Optimization: Drive Traffic, Boost Conversion Rates, and Make
Lots of Money, 2nd ed. Irvine, CA: Entrepreneur Press, 2011.
[6] J. Grappone and G. Couzin, Search Engine Optimization: An Hour a Day, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011.
[7] SEOmoz. (2011). Search engine ranking factors. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.seomoz.org/article/
search-ranking-factors
[8] Search Engine Marketers Professional Organization,SEM Glossary. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sempo.org/?page=glossary
[9] J. Bar-Ilan, “Comparing rankings of search results on the web,” Inf. Process. Manage., vol. 41, no. 6, pp.
1511–1519, 2005.
[10] J. Bar-Ilan, M. Mat-Hassan, and M. Levene, “Methods for comparing rankings of search engine results,”
Comput. Netw., vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 1448–1463, 2006.
[11] A. Mowshowitz and A. Kawaguchi, “Measuring search engine bias,” Inf. Process. Manage., vol. 41, no. 5,
pp. 1193–1205, 2005.
[12] N. Höchstötter and D. Lewandowski, “What users see—Structures in search engine results pages,” Inf. Sci.,
vol. 179, no. 12, pp. 1796–1812, 2009.
[13] D. Lewandowski. (2011). The influence of commercial intent of search results on their perceived relevance.
Proceedings iConf. [Online]. Available: http://www.bui.haw-hamburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/
lewandowski/doc/iConference_preprint.pdf
[14] S. Brin and L. Page. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine, Comput. Netw.
ISDN Syst. vol. 30, pp. 107–117 [Online]. Available: http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf
[15] Google. (2011, Dec. 9). Google Basics. Webmaster Tools Help. [Online]. Available: http://support.google.com/
webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=70897
[16] M. Cutts. (2011, Aug. 17). Can you explain what Google means by “Trust”? [Online]. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALzSUeekQ2Q&feature=plcp&context=C48e8994VDvjVQa1PpcFM9tIjfVU-
JiHjIPQnJvpTOm8f9_1Clkvw0%3D, Google Webmaster Central Channel.
[17] L. Introna and H. Nissenbaum, “Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matters,” Inf. Soc., vol.
16, no. 3, pp. 169–185, 2000.
[18] M. Hindman, K. Tsioutsiouliklis, and J. A. Johnson. (2003). “Googlearchy”: How a few heavily-linked sites
dominate politics on the web. [Online]. Available: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~kt/mpsa03.pdf
[19] S. Silverwood-Cope. (2012, Feb. 8). Wikipedia: Page One of Google UK for 99% of searches. Intelligent
positioning blog. [Online]. Available: http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2012/02/wikipedia-page-
one-of-google-uk-for-99-of-searches/

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
KILLORAN: HOW TO USE SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 65

[20] D. Goodwin. (2012, Mar. 19). Bing, not Google, favors Wikipedia more often in search results [Study]. Search
engine watch [Online]. Available: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2161910/Bing-Not-Google-Favors-
Wikipedia-More-Often-in-Search-Results-Study
[21] S. Fortunato, A. Flammini, F. Menczer, and A. Vespignani. (2006). The egalitarian effect of search engines.
[Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0511005v2
[22] D. M. Pennock, G. W. Flake, S. Lawrence, E. J. Glover, and C. L. Giles. Winners don’t take all:
Characterizing the competition for links on the web, Proc. Nat. Academy Sci. [Online]. Available:
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/8/5207.full.pdf
[23] M. P. Evans, “Analysing Google rankings through search engine optimization data,” Internet Res., vol. 17,
pp. 21–37, 2007.
[24] Google, (2012, Jan. 24). Site not doing well in search. Webmaster tools help. [Online]. Available:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=plusone&answer=34444
[25] A. Singhal. (2011, May 6). More guidance on building high-quality sites. Google webmaster blog. [Online].
Available: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.
html
[26] SEOmoz. (2012). Google algorithm change history. [Online]. Available: http://www.seomoz.org/google-
algorithm-change
[27] A. Bifet, C. Castillo, P.-A. Chirita, and I. Weber, An analysis of factors used in search
engine ranking,” presented at the Workshop on Adversarial IR on the Web. [Online]. Available:
http://airweb.cse.lehigh.edu/2005/bifet.pdf
[28] M. Truran, J.-F. Schmakeit, and H. Ashman, “The effect of user intent on the stability of search engine
results,” J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1276–1287, 2011.
[29] R. A. Malaga, “Worst practices in search engine optimization,” Commun. ACM, vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 147–150,
2008.
[30] Google. (2012, Feb. 8). Webmaster guidelines. [Online]. Available: http://support.google.com/webmasters/
bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769
[31] Comscore. (2012, Mar. 9). comScore Releases February 2012 U.S. Search Engine Rankings. [Online]. Available:
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2012/3/comScore_Releases_February_2012_U.S.
_Search_Engine_Rankings
[32] Hitwise. (2012, Mar. 17). Search engines. [Online]. Available: http://www.hitwise.com/us/datacenter/main/
dashboard-23984.html
[33] K. Purcell, J. Brenner, and L. Rainie. (2012, Mar. 9). Search engine use 2012. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. [Online]. Available: http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/
PIP_Search_Engine_Use_2012.pdf
[34] N. Höchstötter and M. Koch, “Standard parameters for searching behaviour in search engines and their
empirical evaluation,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 35, pp. 45–65, 2009.
[35] B. J. Jansen, A. Spink, and J. Pedersen, “A temporal comparison of AltaVista web searching,” J. Amer. Soc.
Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 559–570, 2005.
[36] B. J. Jansen and A. Spink, “How are we searching the world wide web? A comparison of nine search engine
transaction logs,” Inf. Process. Manage., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 248–263, 2006.
[37] B. Pan, H. Hembrooke, T. Joachims, L. Lorigo, G. Gay, and L. GrankaIn Google we trust: Users’
decisions on rank, position, and relevance, J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. vol. 12, no. 3. [Online]. Available:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/pan.html
[38] L. Lorigo, M. Haridasan, H. Brynjarsdottir, L. Xia, T. Joachims, G. Gay, L. Granka, F. Pellacini, and B. Pan,
“Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead,” J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol.
59, no. 7, pp. 1041–1052, 2008.
[39] A. Whitten. (2012, Mar. 1). Google’s new privacy policy. Google official blog. [Online]. Available:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/googles-new-privacy-policy.html
[40] WebVisible, Inc. and Nielsen/NetRatings. (Aug. 2006). Measuring a Web site’s ability to drive offline
conversion for local service advertisers. [Online]. Available: http://www.sempo.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/
webvisible_10-23-07.pdf
[41] B. Pan, S. W. Litvin, and T. E. O’Donnell, “Understanding accommodation search query formulation: The first
step in putting ‘heads in beds’,” J. Vac. Market., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 371–381, 2007.
[42] Google. (2012). Google trends. [Online]. Available: http://www.google.com/trends/
[43] Google. (2011). About Google Trends. [Online]. Available: http://www.google.com/intl/en/trends/about.html
[44] Google. (n.d.). Google Adwords. [Online]. Available: https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal
[45] R. A. Malaga, “The value of search engine optimization: An action research project at a new e-commerce site,”
J. Electron. Commerce iOrganiz., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 68–82, 2007.
[46] C. Anderson, The long tail, Wired vol. 12, no. 10. [Online]. Available: http://www.wired.com/wired/
archive/12.10/tail.html
[47] C. Anderson, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion, 2006.
[48] Experian Hitwise. (2011, Nov. 16). Experian hitwise reports bing-powered share of searches at 29 percent in
October 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.experian.com/hitwise/press-release-bing-powered-share-of-
searches-at-29-percent.html
[49] H. Zuze. (2011). The crossover point between keyword rich website text and spamdexing. [Online]. Available:
http://dk.cput.ac.za/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1384&context=td_cput

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
66 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, MARCH 2013

[50] Microsoft.Bing webmaster center FAQs. (2010, Mar. 15.). [Online]. Available: http://download.microsoft.com/
download/4/5/4/454C13D4-D94D-4B54-8E46-FE403DF7632B/WMC_FAQ.pdf
[51] Google. (2011, Jul. 23). URLstructure. Webmaster tools help. [Online]. Available: http://support.google.com/
webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=76329)
[52] Google. (2010). Search engine optimization starter guide. Webmaster tools help. [Online]. Available:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization-starter-guide.pdf
[53] B. J. Jansen and P. R. Molina, “The effectiveness of web search engines for retrieving relevant ecommerce
links,” Inf. Process. Manage., vol. 42, pp. 1075–1098, 2006.
[54] Google. (2012, Mar. 9). Site title and description. Webmaster tools help. [Online]. Available:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35624&topic=2370570&ctx=topic
[55] J. B. Killoran, “Writing for robots: Search engine optimization of technical communication business web sites,”
Tech. Commun., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 161–181, 2010.
[56] J. Zhang and A. Dimitroff, “The impact of webpage content characteristics on webpage visibility in search
engine results (Part I),” Inf,. Process. Manage., vol. 41, pp. 665–690, 2005.
[57] J. L. Ledford, SEO: Search Engine Optimization Bible. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008.
[58] P. Far. (2012, Jan. 12). Better page titles in search results. Google webmaster central blog. [Online]. Available:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/01/better-page-titles-in-search-results.html
[59] L. Vaughan and Y. Zhang, Equal representation by search engines? A comparison of websites
across countries and domains, J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. vol. 12, no. 3. [Online]. Available:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/vaughan.html
[60] Microsoft, Link Building. Bing Webmaster Tools Help & How-To Center. [Online]. Available:
http://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/link-building-7a3f99b7
[61] R. DeJarnette. (2009, Nov. 20). Link building for smart webmasters (No dummies here) (SEM 101). Bing
Webmaster Center blog. [Online]. Available: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/webmaster/
archive/2009/11/20/link-building-for-smart-webmasters-no-dummies-here-sem-101.aspx
[62] K. Szymanski. (2010, Jun. 21). Quality links to your site. Google webmaster blog. [Online]. Available:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/06/quality-links-to-your-site.html
[63] M. Ohye. (2008, Oct. 9). Good times with inbound links. Google webmaster central blog. [Online]. Available:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-times-with-inbound-links.html
[64] R. Baeza-Yates, C. Castillo, and F. Saint-Jean, “Web dynamics, structure, and page quality,” in Web
Dynamics: Adapting to Change in Content, Size, Topology and Use, M. Levene and A. Poulovassilis,
Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 93–109.
[65] DMOZ, Open Directory Project, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.dmoz.org/
[66] Yahoo!, Yahoo! Directory, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://dir.yahoo.com/
[67] R. Bhargava. (2006, Aug. 10). 5 rules of social media optimization (SMO). Influential marketing blog. [Online].
Available: http://www.rohitbhargava.com/2010/08/the-5-new-rules-of-social-media-optimization-smo.html
[68] R. Bhargava. (2010, Aug. 10). The 5 new rules of social media optimization (SMO). Influential marketing blog.
[Online]. Available: http://www.rohitbhargava.com/2010/08/the-5-new-rules-of-social-media-optimization-
smo.html
[69] R. A. Malaga, “Web 2.0 techniques for search engine optimization: Two case studies,” Rev. Bus. Res., vol.
9, no. 1, pp. 132–139, 2009.
[70] SEOmoz. (2010). 2010 SEO Industry Survey. [Online]. Available: http://www.seomoz.org/seo-industry-survey
[71] M. Cutts. (2010, Dec. 17). Does Google use data from social sites in ranking? Google webmaster central
channel. [Online]. Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoFf6Kn4K98
[72] D. Sullivan. (2010, Dec. 1). What social signals do Google & Bing really count? Search Engine Land. [Online].
Available: http://searchengineland.com/what-social-signals-do-google-bing-really-count-55389
[73] D. Forrester. (2011, Dec. 22). The future of search & social. Webmaster center blog. [Online]. Available:
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/webmaster/archive/2011/12/22/the-future-of-search-
amp-social.aspx
[74] S. Deoghuria, S. Sinha, and A. Sinha, Online visibility of website through SEO technique: A case study,
presented at the 6th Int. Conf. Webomet., Informet. Scientomet. and 11th COLLNET Meeting. [Online].
Available: http://arxiv.iacs.res.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10821/163/1/swastiksinha.pdf
[75] J. Espadas, C. Calero, and M. Piattini, “Web site visibility evaluation,” J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 59,
no. 11, pp. 1727–1742, 2008.

John B. Killoran is an associate professor in the English

Department of Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY. He
researches web communication and has previously published in
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, as well as
in other journals, such as Technical Communication, Journal of
Business and Technical Communication, and Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fengchia University. Downloaded on August 26,2023 at 01:05:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.