Search marketers have a good bit of reading to do today. Personally, my list of top articles to read around the changes (and directional focii) Google brought up yesterday is:
- Vanessa Fox's coverage of Google's Support for Microformats and Rich Snippets in Search Results
- Matt Cutts on Search Options & Google Squared
- Both SELand's Live Blogging of Searchology and VentureBeat's Blow by Blow of Searchology are worthwhile for those seeking to parse exact meanings
- The Google Webmaster Central Blog's coverage their Design Refresh of Webmaster Tools
Basically, if you've been reading news about search & technology for the past 6 months, you know that the web world and some of the mainstream press has made stories out of threats Google faces from:
- Structured data engines like Wolfram Alpha
- Real-time search like Twitter
- Social search & the social graph from a variety of sources (Facebook is usually the one mentioned)
With the updates announced today, Google's showing how it's fighting back against these potential/perceived competitors.
My question, though, is how does this change SEO? I go back to my post from last November - Oh My God! Search is Changing Forever! SEO is Doomed! Run for the Hills! Do the changes announced yesterday fundamentally change SEO? Are the new options around structured data worth investing in right away? Are richer SERPs, public comments on results and Google Squared going to make a big difference?
Let's discuss in the comments, as I think your opinions will be more valuable than mine. As always, please reward intelligent and valuable discussion with thumbs.
Okay, so here is the thing, I went on a tangent about this via twitter about a week about when there were some people talking about how cool a semantic search engine like "wolfram" is.
My opinion on Semantic Search Engines is that it is ridiculous to think that these search engines would pose a challenge to Google, but, also to Yahoo! and MSN. The reason being is that the web is no where near "semantic ready." We don't have support for it everywhere and there is no real major adoption commercially of technologies like RDF. That said, Microformats are the major things driving the semantic web.
An example of this can be seen looking at LinkedIn and an interview of their Principal Web Developer, Steve Ganz:
https://www.semanticuniverse.com/interviews-linkedins-semantic-technology-initiatives.html?page=2
Now, taking that a step further, I think focusing on building things like Microformats and semantics into the existing search engines is important, but still, not a game changer. This is similar to all the talk about being standards compliant and that helping SEO, which is entirely false, as only ~5% of the web is actually web standards compliant.
I think there is more semantics being built into the web, but we are no where near game changing status or near a fully semantic web for it to be a game changer.
P.S. thanks for posting this Rand, as, I have been wanting to see an insightful debate on this, it's why I went on a tangent on twitter :P
Tony Adam >>> "I think focusing on building things like Microformats and semantics into the existing search engines is important, but still, not a game changer."
I can't believe all the people here don't find Search Options to be incredible. I just found for example that one of my prospects low ranked 2-keyword phrases has a single video result on Google's SO list, guess what I'm going to do now!
Strangely I'm just preparing a blog post on HTML5 and semantic search. Browsers are supporting some HTML5 now, it adds a lot of semantic possibilites - eg finding all web content by author, having SEs check for real contact addresses attached to a site, recognising where in the page an article starts, etc..
Another example on SO I just thought of is the new date dimension, now having old content that's still available is worthwhile!
Ofcourse WolframAlpha poses no threat to Google. Google is in the AdWords business. But just because a majority of websites aren't semantically compliant at the moment, doesn't mean that more and more won't be as soon as (and as long as), more efficient and relevant SERPs come back on queries. Google has already adopted a semantic approach in it's Rich Snippets albeit limited to Reviews and People for the time being. The point of th Seamantic shift is to encourage the emergence of a more efficient and accessible architecture for web published data. Google has nothing to worry about, as long as it is part of that shift.
You can read more ere if you're interested https://oxfordseo.com/blog
Ofcourse WolframAlpha poses no threat to Google. Google is in the AdWords business. But just because a majority of websites aren't semantically compliant at the moment, doesn't mean that more and more won't be as soon as (and as long as), more efficient and relevant SERPs come back on queries. Google has already adopted a semantic approach in it's Rich Snippets albeit limited to Reviews and People for the time being. The point of th Seamantic shift is to encourage the emergence of a more efficient and accessible architecture for web published data. Google has nothing to worry about, as long as it is part of that shift.
You can read more ere if you're interested https://oxfordseo.com/blog
Jeez, this is a lot to take in before 10 am, I'm only on my first cup of tea and it seems the world has shifted while I slept!
I wonder (as with all of the google functions) how much this will seep into the public conciousness, and how quickly. We (as marketers) seem to expect much bigger reactions to these things then happens in the general popultaion, so while these are great new functions, that will impact SEO to some extent, I'm pretty sure if I ask my mum about these features in 3 months time she will still look at me as if I have 2 heads.
Inclined to agree - whilst people say "game changer" - I know that most people will still do the same old "stick words into google" and not notice the enhancements...
Yeah really. Has the general public even noticed search wiki yet? The industry freaked out about that one, but the chatter seems to have calmed down as-of-late and I haven't heard any horror stories of rep. managment issues/spamming/whatever that people seemed to be afraid of.
I don't think these Search Options are going to stay hidden for long.
I hate to say it, but I have seen google really start to move towards giving weight to reviews, which I hate to see. I think it is a good thought, but I can just see people paying to have people post reviews just so they can get tons of reviews and great ratings.....maybe this is already happening.
I agree!!! How exactly could they stop our competitors from posting bad reviews...thats a mountain that I am not sure how they will climb over!
It is already happening.
The Google Product Search store ratings consist of an aggregate ratings score and snippets of customer reviews from third party sites. We don't modify existing ratings; we merely connect users with ratings from seller rating websites.
If you use Googlebase, writing positive reviews is part of the game
Tom had a good oevrview: https://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-rank-well-in-google-products-search-a-big-list-of-places-to-get-reviews. TIme to start applying that generally.
I wonder if people are going to start getting sued for bad reviews ;)
Totally agree! How could Google not see this as a potential problem?
Google doesn't really care about this being a problem.
Look at Rip off Report being ranked so high in comparison to Yahoo, or MSN.
Is it a fundamental change? No, it's a natural step forward in Google's plan to provide richer search results.
We got used to embedded image, video, news and local results. We'll get used to embedded reviews, blog post meta data and contact info- that's about 90% ofmicroformats current capability.
It's interesting to note that Google & Yahoo each have very different approaches to widgetizing the SERPs. Google want a uniform, controlled SERP whilst Yahoo want users to customize using Search Monkey. Either way, better get used to it - contextual widgets are gradually augmenting those ten blue links.
andymurd, I completely agree. In its raw form Search is about finding Content. That content was originally webpages. It was a big deal when PDFs and Word Docs were added and even Videos. As you said this is a Natural Step.
FYI on "Search Options > Images from the page"... I just tested this for a client and their Homepage is showing up on the 3rd page for a competitive keyword of theirs in Google for the standard results. When I switch the Images from the page feature on, they disappear.
I varied the keyword version to a less competitive local version and their Homepage is #2 for the standard version. When I switch on the Images filter they drop to #7 and the page listed is not their Homepage but a sub-page that happens to have more images on it. This sub-page is related to the query, but not to the degree as the homepage.
Here are the differences between their homepage and the sub-page:
Homepage only has 1 image on it (760px × 175px jpg header with logo), 1 video and is extremely relevant to the keyword.
Sub-page has main header also and 4 jpg images that are not relevant to the search and the page itself is only remotely related to the query. 2 of the 4 are showing up along side the listing for this page in the image filtered results.
Since there is such variance between standard and image filtered results, I am wondering if…
Many images from the same sites appear in Google’s standard image search as are in the image filtered SO results. This will probably add another level of depth to optimizing images for Google’s Image Search!
Interesting debate, do think this is a natural progression as Google faces some challenges from Twitter & Wolfram Alpha.
Besides, there's more real estate available on SERPs now with the average browser width increasing as a result of cheaper & larger screens on the market. Why wouldn't Google be tempted to put some of that additional white space to use?
Overall I think this is a +ve step overall by intention, the only real concern is with "reviews":
# Most review sites are affiliate sites (!) & that screams results are open to manipulation.
# How will Google ever be able to trust the quality of reviews when they're open to be submitted by competitors or worse, the Company' employees themselves?
Interested to see a new version of Google's all time fav mantra 'get user off the serp as quickly as possible'.
These changes are fundamentally not different from most other changes we have seen over the past 10-12 years. For some it will be a challenge - for others it will be an option :)
Every new feature open up new "holes" to be used or abused. Same thing with these updates. Peronally, I am more in the "how can we mess with this" category.
However, I don't think many websites will be ready to adopt to microformats yes - at least not if correct implementations are required. Just look at the ultra simple META-tags ... most sites still don't get this right.
To think that a large portion of the web will implement something much more advanced than simple META-tags correct when they can't even get that right is naive at best.
Implement or abuse? How long will it be before we joke about microformat stuffing? :)
The more complex Google makes the SERPs, the better for SEO's. We now have several avenues to get our clients on the front page, which means more screen real estate. I for one welcome our new search
Echoing Tony Adam's comments from way up the chain, thanks for posting a place to have a solid discussion on this topic.
My thoughts are inline with what most are saying here. It doesn't change the need for SEO one iota but SEO now needs to encompass a broader set of techniques.
I actually had a discussion with Tom Hale at our SEMpdx event last night about an overlapping topic. The more avenues that Google chooses to display as part of Universal, the harder it's going to make the job of the SEO. We're going to have to get more and more specialized, in my opinion, and work with peers who are specialized in other verticals (Local, Video, Blog Search, News, Product, etc.) to maximize exposure in Universal search.
Everyone is still going to need a baseline level of knowledge in site architecture, title tags, anchor text, etc., but it's going to be specialists who really add in that extra layer of expertise to push clients over the top across all of these various opportunities.
The SEMpdx event itself was also a great tie-in & Matthew Brown's preso on user signals that Google might be using once people land on a page, Google toolbar data, etc., etc. would seem to be critical going forward.
It certainly changes SEM, whether it changes SEO depends on how broad your definition of SEO is :-)
Seems to me this is about usability of Google vs. other search engines for the consumer 1st...and 2nd, it's about CONVERSION from position in SERPs to click-thrus to your site.
The side effect of this is that it will reward websites who use snippets and other structured data techniques in letting consumers see (at the SERP level) which websites in the results have the kinds of decision-making information (e.g. reviews) to help them get to the buying decision.
#1 Purely as a consumer, I think this is a very good thing.
#2 As someone in the industry, I really hate to see Google do anything that extends their total world domination :-)
#3 As a webmaster, yes it means more work for me to compete, BUT I know that 80% of my competitors won't get around to doing the work so I have yet another opportunity to take away market share :-D
MC
Oh, and I love being able to eliminate old search results.
It means that when I need to cite an authoritative source saying how, for example, search engine submission isn't necessary, I don't find pages of search engine submission services and products because they are older and have more links than current information.
I don't think it's a fundamental change - more another step on an evolutionary curve. I love the squares thing though - I can't wait to see how well that actually works!
Ooh. Though playing with the semantic stuff ("reviews") is going to be interesting as it (inevitably) feeds back into the main SERPs. Reputation management issues abound...
yeah could be a problem for clients where the vocal minority choose to take digital umbridge..
equally a golden opportunity for clients that are able to motivate their customers to evangelise about their brand.. an interesting challenge for the client/agency!
love this industry, it is never ever boring:-)
Reviews are just pulled over from local SERPs though aren't they? I can't see Google pulling in off-site reviews in any meaningful way. [Edit: Doh, yes they are pulling in the review data, no it won't be meaningful in about one weeks time]
But yes, encouraging their client's reviews has been one of my points with clients that have a lot to gain in local search (the majority for me).
[Edit for not reading the linked articles!]
I agree, it looks mainly like the evolution of Google, they cant stand still, nor would we want them to. I do wonder how sucessful some of these ideas will be though.
Guess they've got to try them to find out!
I don't think they changed it dramatically, they're just making search results more useful for the end user.
Honestly, though, the more bells and whistles they add to search results, I suspect the less useful they become as SERPs get more crowded with 'stuff.'
Look how popular voting on search results ended up being - everyone thought THAT would be the end of SEO. It fizzled. For now...
All of these enhancements and algo changes just provide us with more opportunities and enforce a paradigm change (which we all shoudl be used to by now...).
Clearly they have some clue on how their engine will discover and utilize review content for e-commerce as well as integration into their universal SERPS.
And with microformats, just like RSS and XML, will take root over time and will not be heavily utilized for quite some time. Albeit, our time to adopt has shortened, I think we are much more evolved than the typical web/SE user that makes up our visitor base.
SEO is constantly evolving and changing. Search will continue to change, and if you're going to continue to be an "SEO" then you continue to have to adapt your online marketing techniques.
From what I am seeing, the "search engine optimization" industry is actually turning back around to what it used to be: good old fashioned website marketing.
It's not only "optimizing a website" and "getting links", SEO is involving more nowadays: you have to get your site in front of real people and real traffic. It's also about using social media marketing techniques, as well. If you're successful in social media you'll be successful in search. If you can get lots of real people to a site then you'll be successful in SEO.
if anyone wants to hear the news in the mainstream media, here's the on-topic article on the bbc site: https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8047076.stm
If the fundamental question is "did Google change SEO yesterday?" - than the answer is Yes. Does that mean that SEO is going away? No.
But it does mean that there are new wrinkles in the SEO process that we all have to be aware of both for ourselves and for our clients.
I think that Google changed search yesterday. Anytime there are more parameters for search added, there is a change to the process of SEO. Of course, that may just mean that there are more steps to take in the process of standard optimization.
Hello Google Maps.
There is a whole checklist of to do's for a new client, and an existing client, the new client checklist gets longer, while the existing client needs some new additions. I'm sure that we all try to take as many of the basics into consideration while optimizing a given site, if so, then the additional parameters should result in positive results across all of the "Options..."
I enjoy playing with the various options, and I agree with Cutts, that an hour can be spent just toying with the various results, but like Advanced Search, I think that for a while, at least, searchers will continue to use Google's standard feature - type keyword, click search.
I agree w/ Jim completely, its just another piece of the puzzle. Sure, executing and strategizing are important in the SEO biz, but what's more important is research and keeping current. SE's change things all the time, its our job to stay on top of it and inform the client (reinforcing their trust in us) and strategize how to tackle whatever new obstacles the SE's throw our way. Personally I think this sucks but hey, let's drive on.
Ha Ha, I was reading up on microformats last night before I realised that Google was looking to make a change to the SERP's.
I have to agree with Mikkel deMib Svendsen regarding the meta data side of things, so few sites get this right. Lets hope it will just benefit the ones in the know. I need to add my hcard to my site tonight.
Google - I love what looks like it will be real fun - Google Squares. This is very interesting indeed.
One thing to add with the changes to search - business directories will have a tough time to keep up on the listings without a good overhaul. The company I work for has already started. Regular updates to each page will be very important, static and you die.
Rand, as always great article of links to help me with my appetite for knowledge. thanks again.
So...by clicking on the "wonder wheel" and clicking on any given query (long tail?) we can see what Google considers to be relevant for that term?
i.e. Suggesting which sites we should attempt to get links from in our linkbuilding efforts?
Yes?
side note: I seriously wonder how many people who are in a rush to get information from Google will take the time to learn all of these new features? I for one....I'm always in a rush....be it when I drive, when I have sex or whatever else.....gotta go, gotta go.
If I was not into SEO and was just some average internet user, I would not take the time to learn about all these new Google features. I just want my information and I wanted it 100 nanoseconds ago.
Play these new changes off, keyboard cat.
In my opinion these are just new avenues for SEO to explore.
But as a user, I fear for the future of the Google SERPS. It will get mighty confusing seeing Universal Search, Timelines, Reviews, bigger snippets, etc...
The granularity in search options obviously adds insight into how you can organize content to make it applicable to being relevant towards these different types of searches. And all those options should lead to more robust insight into why people are arriving at your pages, what their search intent is, and how to leverage that towards your site's goals. SEO changed? Nope. Just growing more focused.
Adding reviews from the site itself? Seems rather irrelevant since most sites only post reviews which praise their product or service. Google would have to retrieve any "review" found in their index and list those reviews along side the site they are discussing for this new feature to provide any value to searchers.
Has anyone brought up the fact how much weight they are giving to forums...
Not even social networking sites in general but a FORUMS search...
This is gonna be ugly for us who deal with reputation management. Granite it will be easier for us to find negative comments... it is much easier for negative comments to be spread and moved around...
After reading the Matt Cutts post mentioned above about Google Squares one thing that is refreshing to see that has not changed is that Google still rewards sites that stay within the right topical and link "neighborhoods".
It could even be that the portion of the Google algorithm that recognizes these different relationships has improved (i.e. additional squares related to SEO are shown in relation to a "Matt Cutts" search).
All the better to reward those who, for example, market their "health" niche site by working hard to get quality links and content published on other health sites rather than trying to get some type of artificial benefit from linking with all of the webmasters flooding my inbox with "payday loan", "casino", and "viagra" niche link exchange requests :)
Over time this chance will affect the way SEO companies will measure there performances. Still SERP improvements is the mean SEO KPI that companies provide and clients ask for.
IMHO rank position reports are very 1.0 SEO. I propose a new 2.0 metrics that has nothing to do with ranking: traffic share. The ratio between keyword demand traffic volume and real traffic share down to the keyword level on the site. This also help to predict future growth for each keywords and calculate things like profit and conversion rates.
This traffic share KPI also takes into account not only search visibility but also ctr of your listings. If below a certain CTR based on rank position benchmarks this says something about the stickiness of your listing.
Of course other SEO KPI's that depend on your business like keyword conversion rates, brand versus non brand ratio, keyword bounce rates etc. are also important.
What do you think?
I know this conversation is mostly done with, but I wanted to make a quick rant on the topic. Everyone always says "Google killer", but with 60-70% of search traffic dominance it seems like we've been taken in by a press release.
A MSN Live killer, or an Ask.com killer, or even a Yahoo killer seem much more probable. Google could lose half of it's current traffic to a noob engine and still be the market leader, but Yahoo losing half it's considerably smaller traffic could kill the company's search engine prospects.
Todays post on Google Caffeine defines a lot about what they're doing, and one of the largest changes seems to be in the recency department. Eric Schmidt's focus seems to be strongly driven towards real time data much like flipping through a book which is why the page speed is a small yet meaningful variable in a large equation. https://bit.ly/b0MELw
Google still has the unique ability to bring a boat load of targeted traffic to your site for a consistently long period of time. None of the other "services" have the ability to do that. So, while they might get popular for a while, I don't think they compare in the same way. It's like comparing apples to oranges. You can't build your business on Twitter like you can on Google. Google is always going to be great for specific types of searches. Twitter might be a great way to search for information as it's happening and to be tapped into a breathing social organism, but it's not going to give me 5 plumbers in my zip code in two seconds flat or the definition of "Organic".
So no, I don't think it's going to have a big impact on SEO.
I see the adoption of microformats as a huge move forward. I'm excited for my local clients that have followed my advice for the last couple of years toincorporate them into local landing pages... Out of all the areas that need the most help it is definitely with local search.
I want all of my clients to have a video; a particular search for a term that I am ranked third for revealed that there was only one video relavant for that search term (and it wasn't mine). It might be possible for a site ranked on the third page to rank second on the video search engine ranking page (VSERP?) with a keyword titled and tagged production.
For styles and trends sites the phrase "That is so last week" has just found a new meaning with timeline.
I am glad your relatively alright Rand, be well.
Relevant links should be considered only. Linking to non relevant sites is a waste of time.
I think the basic SEO has not changed but it needs to evolve as search engines are adding these new features. It is the natural evolution and actually right now there is a great opportunity to be ahead of competitors if we first take advantage of the new ways to rank higher and get organic traffic while competitors are still doing the same things of the past.
Yes, yes I think they did just change SEO in a huge way. It seems I'm the only one that does, but there you go.
It's a move away from the power of SEOs to steer consumers to our webpages and to the search user to filter and find the content they want.
I'm prepping a blog post on HTML5, the improved semantic markup of HTML5 should put the cat among the pigeons of SEO too.
I think that Google's natural evolution is bent to help webmasters rather than hinder them. There will be different rates of adoption for the features announced yesterday, and each will have an appeal to a specific audience. Much like the time it's taking Twitter to get more and more mainstream (some argue it already is), it'll take time for things like Google Squared to gain mass traction.
One comment I found interesting from Marissa Mayer was that they have SearchWiki data in the hundreds of thoustands of users that are actually using it.
This won't change SEO, I think it'll actually help us along the process.
Ok so had a bit of time to use these and first thoughts:
Reviews: For B2C stuff that will be big, get your affiliate marketing skills out... not sure how the impact elsewhere will be felt.
Search Options: Cool but i suspect more use for advanced search and SEO'rs - Wonder Wheel would be great for keyword research if it had impressions etc data...
Google Squared: Cool but cant see it being relevant yet, unless people link to searches etc.
Definitely no game changers in here, but I think every time Google makes a change it's worth noting. Since search is to some extent a game of incomplete information, new developments help give insight into both the "pieces of the algorithm we can't quite see" and the future of search.
I think the most interesting change is Google search options because:
A) I think it's indicative of a continued attempt to diversify the algorithm and
B) I think there's a pretty good chance it could actually gain traction among users.
I went into a bit more detail on our blog here if anyone's interested.
I don't know if anyone knows exactly how this will affect the SERPS. But we will certainly be watching and glad to be aware.
It could effect companies in the SERP's if they are not publishing regularly; why would many searchers want to find old historical content when they can now look for the most up to date content available on Google. This option is now available, 7 days, last week, month and year.
Why is google so aware of Twitter at the moment?
Its real time updates to thousands of topics, products, services and opinions. I would imagine many of the Twitter users will use the real time option (last 7 days option) while searching. Only my opinion. But I know when I am searching for something now I will want the most up to date information I can find.
Time to start writing more, boys and girls.
This is obviously going to affect the ecommerce sites most first
I can see how a visible price would be a bonus in the search results - but how about displaying a marks out of ten or five for a review?
Wouldn't that make people less likely to click on a link if they feel they have all the information they need in the snippet?
But some of the other stuff announced on M.Cutts blog sounds genuinely interesting and beneficial to the Google ie. Having the option to only show results from the past week.
I would imagine that would depend on the exact information a customer was looking for. Imagine if the serps gave a price and /5 for every listing, so when a customer clicked on your site they went stratight to purchase. Of course because the additional info is optional, if there is information on your site that attracts visitors who convert in some other way, you simply don't include it in the snippet :)
One for the SEO webmasters - the related related searches will be of great assistance as we will be able to understand what google understands in terms of semantics.
This will benefit us all. Game on.
In conclusion:
I think there might well be fluctuations in terms of results over time but it gives all webmasters who make an effort to keep up to date with the SERP's more opportunities to get their clients found.
Happy hunting.....!
Does anyone know where I can find the video for this event? The link doesn't work on SEL. Unless I missed it in this post or comments...
Was fascinated by the 'more options' thing that i'm now seeing on all my Google searches. Will really encourage people to make more use of different methods of content presentation.
Also loving the "Wonder Wheel", reminds me of https://debategraph.org/ and quintura.com. Useful for getting some related search ideas.
As far as normal search results go I don't see an impact on SEO soon.
Rich Snippets are noteffecting SERP's at the moment and I doubt they will any time in the near future.
Power Search is pretty cool but a more or less passive feature that will likely only be used by advanced searchers like SEOers. It is definetally going to put a little more focus on getting your your content out there on review sites and videos sites. Getting blogs up with fresh content will be more important when people start using the search options. And participating forums in your market and what-not.
Another thing people might want to do while this rich snippet stuff is rolling out is keep track of the sites that are showing up with it first. They said it will likely be rolling out slowly starting with the more trusted sites displaying snippets first.
Making a trusted sites list should be helpful to all of us.
That is the beauty of SEO, you have to learn new thing and learn them quickly. come back to Google change, i don’t see this as a big change but i will say it is tweak but big one, let see how this goes, i personally don’t like Reviews stuff
The review system seems like an interesting feature, as a consumer, I'm sure I would click on a site that has a few stars over one that doesn't.
I take it getting reviews from sites like those listed here:
https://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-rank-well-in-google-products-search-a-big-list-of-places-to-get-reviews
Is a great place to start?
i just think it made the potential workload greater now you might have to worry about more than 1 search engine "google" in the next few years...
The changes are not fundamental to SEO and quite honestly they are late to the game, in regards to addressing the way humans (not just developers) process/look for information.
The business impact of these changes will become more evident as businesses embrace/create their corporate social graphs with home pages serving a less prominent role (a la Jeremiah Owyang). The impact on search results will make also make this good for businesses that understand the online landscape.
Fundamentally changed?
Not yet. And shouldn't you all be used to change by now?
My first reaction was to start thinking about ways to coordinate metaformats.
Try language education. There are distinct phases that people go through before acquiring a new concept in a foreign language. How about marking up lessons according to what phase is addressed?
There has to be hundreds more similar concepts that only require a few leaders drive the herd.
Oh, and I bet the leaders get tons of links.