Got nothing to do with organic traffic. It is completely separate. In Google Product search you can succeed ONLY if you have optimized the product feed properly. There is no other way. I have a jewellery site that is #3 or #5 for its main keywords in natural search and it also has two products in the first page of Product Search. Product search has nothing to do with PR. How could a product feed (a .txt or .xml file that is not hosted anywhere) have a PR? I wouldn't waste my time advertising services on Base. ------ Anyway, if somebody would like his product feed optimized on no-result/no-fee basis, just give me a PM -
I just Concern about google base right now.I dont know the function of it .(please do not laugh)... This post is very useful to me.
That's alright, honey! You may want to read this: http://base.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=73932&src=top5&lev=index One of the best help files that has ever been written.
I'd have to say Tankard's definitely got the grasp of the situation here. All this talk of PR, backlinks, natural search positions and such-like comes across as slightly barmy. PageRank having an effect of a datafeed driven shopping comparison site?!?....Oh-kay. I'm currently testing out a variety of changes to clients Google Base feeds across a range of markets. So far I've tried, - feed re-fresh regularity (just testing the scheduled updates now) - feed content optimisation - this is a tricky one as the content is directly linked to that on the live site due to it all running off the same database but at least we're getting the title and description to contain the product name along with brand. - adding Google Checkout for trust purposes (Does Google think flying the flag of Google Checkout mean you're more reputable than a seller whose doesn't have Google Checkout?) - acquiring more seller reviews - while I can see this being an area that could be spammed by sellers creating fake reviews, I would be surprised if still wasn't a factor to some extent. I've seen too many Google Product Search results top-loaded with sites with high volumes of seller reviews for this not to come into play somewhere. We're optimising our post purchase survey forms to work on this - encourage users to have their say. Can't say the results are conclusive but I persevere. I read that Brandon Adcock (is that ACTUALLY his surname?) article and it's cool but a bit vague, doesn't contain any metrics and a couple of things didn't read right, RE: Descriptions: Odd because from what I've seen, Google Product Search takes a snippet from the description around where the search term appears. I guess you could put "buy the" next to the product name wherever it appears. Worth trying but hard for anyone who's populating their feed from the same DB as their site (or you could get the manpower in to work on custom descriptions). The one thing I've wondered about is that time and time again I see people saying "add as many custom attributes as you can". Does anyone have an opinion on how this can have an affect on how a product listing appears at the top of the results or in the onebox for a particular search term? I can't see adding colours, dimensions, etc. can add value. Maybe I'm missing the trick. FINALLY, has anyone else noticed that the GPS onebox results are appearing down the search results recently? Like in the last month or so. Never noticed this before.
Cheers Freshness and age is very important. An old feed that gets updated regularly will rank higher. I don't see why not. I once knew a guy whose surname was Hiscock... Feed description should be identical to the product description you have on the page. If you alter or keyword-stuff it, you can be penalized. It is better to say that the product description should be informative, entertaining and contain an unobtrussive call to action. This is a step one should take at the very beginning - when building the online shop. If somebody tries to patch crappy on-site descriptions with good feed description, it won't take it anywhere. It won't consume too much time to add some custom attributes. Again, think about what can prove to be helpful for your customers. If you and your competitor both sell blue toilet seats and he has added the colour attribute and you have not: when somebody searches for blue toilet seats, your competitor's product will rank higher than yours...
I do see where you're coming from. Think it's easier said than done especially when the client has the most in-extensible back office software ever. Cheers for the comments though, Tankard. Always good to compare notes.
I've got 8 feeds that have been switched from tab-delimited to RSS 2.0 formatting and they are now being automatically updated each day rather than once a week. Bar one which has back office issues (total pig to work with), the others have shown marked increases in traffic and seem to have gone up the ladder in terms of rankings. So either Google Product Search/Googlebase likes RSS feeds or it likes daily refreshing or a bit of both. Can't imagine the formatting being a big issue though. Content is still the same.
Formatting is not an issue. Google treats delimited text files the same way as RSS. You are doing a great job by updating your feed frequently.
Very interesting read.. will be subscribing to this one for sure. Thanks to everyone's who has constructively contributed already. Tankard, you have a PM.
I'm not sure whether pr has nothing to do with product search results? any one could get one example to prove it? I think if the product keyword is very competitive, the high pr will get more priority to listing.
You don't need any proofs. Google Product search is a war of feeds. If you have the best feed, you win. If your feed is lousy, no PR can save you. Just check the product search results - are all top entries high-PR pages? Nope!
Why Google base dont approve my product. I follow its notes strictly. And use ftp.google.com， also cant be approved.