<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Query classification; understanding  user intent</title>
		<description>Discuss Query classification; understanding  user intent</description>
		<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110531166/Technical/query-classification-understanding-user-intent.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 14:56:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://searchnewscentral.com/feed/com_content/166/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Flag Frenzy says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110531166/Technical/query-classification-understanding-user-intent.html#comment-633</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I really like this post, I've read it several times. Here's what it means to me. For me personally (read: from a noob point of view), I've been armed only with the knowledge that (1) Google loves unique content and (2) my competitors' one paragraphs 'informational' descriptions of flags suck. For example, the manufacturer has in their product description "2x2 ply mercerized cotton," so all my competitors blindly copy that into their product description, and no one, except someone in the garment or flag industry knows what the heck 2x2 ply mercerized cotton is or if it's an asset or a liability. So, when I put my 5 bullet point explanation of that term, explain the chemical process, how it makes a stronger flag, etc, I am becoming Informational. I'm new, and my competitors outrank me right now for Transactional queries. But I'll outrank them for Informational queries, and the links I get from ranking by providing answers for Informational queries will eventually, I hope, help me outrank them for Transactional queries.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Flag Frenzy</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 04:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110531166/Technical/query-classification-understanding-user-intent.html#comment-633</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AJ Kohn says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110531166/Technical/query-classification-understanding-user-intent.html#comment-566</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's great to see forward thinking in SEO. What's funny (not really) is that many still haven't adopted the informational, transactional and navigational model. In genearal I think it's a nice broad brush, but as you have shown there's a lot more that resides underneath. I can't say I have used these specific classifications , but I am always questioning the actual intent of a query or set of query modifiers. What is the intent for someone looking for '[product] manual'? It might be classified as Obtain, but the user is likely (based on some research) looking for answers to a problem they're having with that product. So is satisfying that query matching it with the actual manual and/or providing troubleshooting and repair information? These are the fun questions. It's frustrating to see SEOs get saucer eyes and chase search volume blindly. So it's gratifying to see this post. We need more like it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AJ Kohn</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110531166/Technical/query-classification-understanding-user-intent.html#comment-566</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Harry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110531166/Technical/query-classification-understanding-user-intent.html#comment-564</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hey Jim, good to see you and thanks. Just before I left for a break I had been thinking, 'what to do next' and going back to the begining seemed a good place to start. And is often the case, the more I got into it, the more interesting it became. This really does seem to speak to the core of any SEO program. From KW research to content programs and conversions, intent is a massive player IMO. Makes me wonder why we don't implement these approaches when doing the above. If we're marketing to search engines and this is the type of approach they use, then seems logical its a structure we may want to adopt further. It certainly does have me thinking. Cheers and thanks for the support, already writing some other stuff, have a bit of the ol passion back.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Harry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 14:50:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110531166/Technical/query-classification-understanding-user-intent.html#comment-564</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jim Rudnick says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110531166/Technical/query-classification-understanding-user-intent.html#comment-563</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As ususal, David...spot-on and welcome back to blogging lad! Have missed your stuff here...but what's above is well worth the wait! And the PSU study is a great find too! :-) Jim]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jim Rudnick</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 14:40:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110531166/Technical/query-classification-understanding-user-intent.html#comment-563</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
