In the latest instalment of Google’s SEO Snippets Q&A videos, John Mueller answers the question:

“Will removing .html from my URLs help my site?”

The short answer is: no. Mueller says Google doesn’t care whether URLs end in .html, .php, .asp, or have no parameters at all. No matter what a URL ends with it will still show up in search the same way in search results.

In fact, removing parameters from URLs may even harm the site. Removing parameters from is the equivalent of restructuring a site, and old URLs will need to be redirected to the new ones. Like any site restructuring, it will take time for it to be reprocessed by Google.

If you’re in a situation where you absolutely have to remove parameters from URLs, like moving to a content management system that doesn’t allow them, Mueller recommends doing this during a time when you’re less dependent on search traffic.

See below for the video, along with a transcript of Mueller’s full response.

VIDEO

”URLs are important for search engines like Google. Do they care which endings your URLs use though? The answer is no.

Google uses URLs to identify pieces of content. Whether your URLs end with .html, .php, .asp, or just have words in them, doesn’t really matter to Google. All of these URLs can show up in search in the same way.

That said, if you need to change your URLs, for example if you move to a new content management system that doesn’t allow you to use .html URLs at all, keep in mind that this change would be a restructuring of your website. You would need to redirect the old URLs to the new ones.

This kind of change can take quite a bit of time to be reprocessed. So picking a time when you’re not dependent on search is a good idea. And because it can take time we don’t recommend doing this kind of change on a wim. When making URL changes pick URLs that you’re sure can last a longer period of time.”

Facebook is shutting down Partner Categories, which was a product that allowed third-party data providers to offer their targeting capabilities to Facebook advertisers.

This includes data aggregators like Experian and Acxiom that are able to provide clients with offline data to improve ad targeting, such as purchasing activity outside of Facebook.

This is a common industry practice, as Facebook itself has noted, but the company believes disabling Partner Categories will improve users’ privacy on Facebook.

To be sure, this change should certainly lead to less so-called “creepy” advertising on Facebook. You know, the ads that seem to be almost too perfectly targeted based on purchasing habits on other sites.

It’s also important to mention that this change comes amid the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal. While Partner Categories were not directly related to the scandal, this is a move that may help restore users’ confidence that Facebook will protect their privacy going forward.

After being removed earlier this month, Instagram has brought back the ability to use GIF stickers in stories.

Both Instagram and Snapchat removed GIF stickers once it was discovered that an offensive GIF made its way into the library. So far only Instagram has restored this feature.

GIPHY, the company that hosts the library of Instagram’s GIF stickers, tells TechCrunch it has reviewed its library 4 times and will now review any new GIFs being added. GIPHY has also apologized that the offensive GIF was ever allowed into the library and takes full responsibility.

”We take full responsibility for this recent event and under no circumstances does GIPHY condone or support this kind of content. The content was immediately removed and after investigation a bug was found in our content moderation filters affecting stickers. This bug was immediately fixed and all stickers were re-moderated. We have also finished a full investigation into our content moderation systems and processes and have made specific changes to our process to ensure something like this does not happen
again.”

Despite the problem being fixed and Instagram restoring the use of GIF stickers, Snapchat says it has nothing new to share in regards restoring the feature on its app.

Instagram is making it easier for businesses to create full ads that can be used in Stories.

Now, when uploading content in Ads Manager it will be automatically converted into the full screen Stories format.

Advertisers will first have to upload a single photo or 15-second video within Instagram Feed aspect ratios in Ads Manager. The content can then be used as a regular in-feed ad, or be automatically converted to a Stories ad.

Instagram will not convert the ad to full screen format by zooming in on the content, which is good because that would result in content on the sides getting cut off. Rather, Instagram uses pixel matching technology to automatically select a background gradient to fill the unused space with.

If the advertiser is using square or landscape content, then text that would otherwise be included in the Instagram feed will be added in stories text font below the photo or video.

In the example below you can see what it looks like when a square photo in the Instagram feed is converted into the full screen stories format.

This feature is now available to all Instagram advertisers.

LinkedIn has finally jumped on the video ad bandwagon with video for sponsored content. LinkedIn is also giving businesses the opportunity to add video to company pages.

Video for sponsored content are ads that can be placed in the LinkedIn news feed as a standalone post. These video ads have a persistent call to action button, giving businesses the opportunity to capture leads at any point throughout the video.

Video for sponsored content can be targeted by traits like job title, seniority, company name, industry, skills, and more.

Performance can be measured through insights and breakdowns of the types who’s watching the ads, who’s engaging with the ads, and who’s converting. Businesses can also see breakdowns of the number of leads, sign-ups, website visits, and other actions generated by video for sponsored content.

In addition to video for sponsored content, LinkedIn is also giving all companies and publishers the ability to showcase video on their company page. LinkedIn notes that company page video is 5x more likely to generate conversation, compared to other types of content.

Video for Sponsored Content and Company Pages will be available to all businesses in the next few weeks.

In celebration of April Fools Google has released a limited-time feature in Google Maps which will be available for the next week.

Waldo of “Where’s Waldo” fame can now be found in Google Maps. Just open the Google Maps app and you’ll see Waldo waving at you from the side of the screen. Tap on him to start the game.

The game will take you through a series of different locations, advancing from one to the other after Waldo has been found.

Here’s a screenshot I took of the first level (hint: Waldo is near the middle).

Extra points and badges can be earned by finding Waldo’s friends, who are also dressed like Waldo, and his dog.

You can end the game at any time and return to your current location in Google Maps. Could be a fun little way to pass time if you’re traveling to visit friends or family this week.

Google announced they are discontinuing their popular URL shortening service, goo.gl. Current users of Goog.gl can continue to use their Goo.gl console for an additional year. The Goo.gl console will permanently shut down on March 19, 2019.

Will Goo.gl Links Stop Working?

The answer is no. Goo.gl links will continue to function. However the Goo.gl console will stop functioning, meaning that you may lose control of those redirects. Fortunately, Google is providing resources for migrating away from Goo.gl and a year to do it. Here is what the Goo.gl home page advises:

You will be able to view your analytics data and download your short link information in csv format for up to one year, until March 30, 2019, when we will discontinue goo.gl. Previously created links will continue to redirect to their intended destination.

What Next for Goo.gl Users?

Google is not leaving Goo.gl users without options. The reason Goo.gl has been shut down is because it has been superceded by new technology called Firebase Dynamic Links (FDL). Google is encouraging users to transition to FDL, Bit.ly or Ow.ly.

“Starting April 13, 2018, anonymous users and users who have never created short links before today will not be able to create new short links via the goo.gl console. If you are looking to create new short links, we recommend you use Firebase Dynamic Links or check out popular services like Bitly and Ow.ly as an alternative.”

Why is Goo.gl Shutting Down?

Google is focusing their resources on a new technology called Firebase Dynamic Links (FDL). FDL is an evolution of shortlinking technology that bridges the web and mobile app environments, providing a seamless path between them.

What is Firebase Dynamic Links?

FDL is part of a larger suite of products focused on app developers. The importance of FDL is its ability to provide a seamless link between a website and a mobile app. With FDL your business can provide a deep link straight to any location in your app. Here is how Google’s documentation describes FDL:

“Firebase Dynamic Links are links that work the way you want, on multiple platforms, and whether or not your app is already installed.

With Dynamic Links, your users get the best available experience for the platform they open your link on. If a user opens a Dynamic Link on iOS or Android, they can be taken directly to the linked content in your native app. If a user opens the same Dynamic Link in a desktop browser, they can be taken to the equivalent content on your website.”

Should You Migrate to FDL?

Firebase Dynamic Links promises to be free forever. If your business has an app or may have an app in the future, FDL may be useful for providing new and better experiences for users.

If your business is focused on app installs, then FDL could be useful for driving app installs.

FDL links also continue the traditional shortlinking function and Google welcomes consumers to migrate to their platform. But the welcome isn’t particularly enthusiastic, as Google also encourages users to check out competing URL shortening services.

Nevertheless, you may wish to at least give FDL a try to see if it provides the analytics functionality you need. If in the future your business decides to transition to an app, having existing FDL links may make the transition easier.

Why is Google Soft Selling FDL to Goo.gl Users?

But it’s not a very hard sell, especially as they also encourage consumers to try Bit.ly and Ow.ly.

That could be a reflection of the fact that FDL is free while Firebase is a suite of free and paid products aimed at app providers and developers. Google won’t make money on FDL, but they will earn income with Firebase.

Image by Author

There has long been a debate as to whether a site or domain can contain authority. Some people feel that Google has a metric that allows a site to rank pages more easily than other sites. While others feel a site authority metric creates a bias favoring older sites. Who is right? John Mueller provides an answer.

Search marketing expert Bill Hartzer asked a question on the recent Reddit AMA with John Mueller about a domain authority ranking signal. John Mueller’s response deflected a straight answer but also was consistent with all previous responses from Googlers that a domain authority ranking signal is not in use at Google.

Google’s John Mueller denied the existence of a domain authority ranking signal with a tongue in cheek response.

Difference Between Domain Authority and Domain Authority

There is an idea in SEO that sites that accumulate age and links also accumulate what’s called Authority. This is interchangeably known as Site Authority and Domain Authority, although some may quibble that Domain Authority is more tightly associated with domain names. Nevertheless, both terms are used interchangeably. The concept of domain authority has been around since at least 1999, with the publication of a paper by Jon Kleinberg called, Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment.

It is this concept of domain authority that is behind the choice of the phrase Domain Authority for Moz’s metric that is also called, Domain Authority. Moz’s metric is their own secret calculation based on their idea of what ranking signals are needed to rank in Google. Moz’s Domain Authority is strictly their own editorial decision based on their understanding of ranking signals and is not what is under discussion here.

History of Site/Domain Authority

15 years ago the overall PageRank score of a site could cause a bias in Google search results that favored sites with a large amount of PageRank. It was not unusual to see the same site rank for phrases such as Web Design San Francisco as well as Web Design Nashville, based solely on the high PageRank score of the main page of the website.

There is a history to the idea and it starts with a famous algorithm called HITS. The HITS algorithm divided the Internet link structure (aka link graph) into hubs and authorities. Hubs were good sites that linked out to good sites. Authority sites were sites that received the most links from hubs. An analogy would be if you were shopping for a car and several friends recommended the dealership down the road from the local malls. The friends making the recommendations would be the hubs and the dealerships would be the authority sites. Here is the research paper from 1999.  The HITS algorithm featuring the concept of site authority was state of the art… for 1999.

PageRank came afterward and it was noticed that sites with high PageRank tended to rank better. Google’s algorithm was biased toward sites with high PageRank. That’s why in this sample SEO Proposal published in 2003 https://ift.tt/2uBplsI one of the goals of the SEO project was to incraese PageRank:

Link popularity building campaign

To achieve high PageRank (link popularity)
…high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search.

That is the root of the idea of Domain Authority. It started with Jon Kleinberg’s Hubs and Authorities algorithm in 1999 and the idea was further reinforced by Google’s PageRank. Site authority/domain authority was a valid idea based on observations in Google’s search results. The idea of domain authority was created for a time before statistical analysis and before large scale CTR testing was introduced.

Observations base don Google’s search results pages in the early 2000’s are one of the origins of the concept of Site Authority/Domain Authority. The other source is the Kleinberg Hubs & Authority algo which predates PageRank.

Evidence of Site Authority

A hypothesis is an explanation for something you can observe. Examples of hypotheses are that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat.

A theory is an idea that has been tested, that has substantiating evidence. An example of a theory are explanations based on official statements from Google, research papers you can read, patents that you can read.

No SEO will ever point to a Google patent or research paper to justify the idea that a Site/Domain Authority exists. Wikipedia has published a page about Domain Authority  and the footnote links do not cite a single research paper or patent by Google. Not one.  According to the footnotes, Wikipedia’s information is largely based on blog posts by SEOs. There are no links to anything official from Google.

The fact that no such official confirmation or evidence exists logically presents a high likelihood that the domain authority ranking signal does not exist. That fact pushes the concept of Site Authority into the classification of Hypothesis.

But let’s set that aside for now and review the evidence for the hypothesis of site authority and why the belief persists.

New Pages on Old Sites Perform Better

The classic hypothesis for site authority is based on the observation that new content on an existing domain performs better than the same content on a new domain.

Is that evidence that an old site has more authority? Or is it evidence that a new site is trying to rank for keywords that are beyond it’s pay grade? A brand new site can rank for phrases. Under competitive circumstances, no site, whether new or old, has a high likelihood for ranking a new web page. The more competitive a keyword phrase is the more difficult it is to rank.

So it follows that a new sites inability to rank is tied more to the fact that it is missing the signals neccessary for ranking in competitive spaces. Those signals can be social media mentions, links, brand name mentions, comprehensive nature of the content itself, ratings, user generated content on the site that indicates site visitors are engaging with the site and so on.

Those are a lot of signals that help a site rank better. taken together they can signal that a site has authority. But they are not a site authority metric. They are a vast amount of signals common to Google’s Core Ranking Algorithm.

The True Definition of Site Authority?

Some SEOs say they use the phrase Site Authority to loosely refer to those signals that indicate that a site has a high quality. That’s a useful way to describe what Site Authority really is.

I discussed the concept of site authority with search marketer Steven Kang, administrator of the popular SEO Signals Lab Facebook Group and he explained his reason for using the phrase Site Authority:

“I am just labeling that unknown multiplier effect as a trust factor, that’s all.”

That’s a realistic definition of Site Authority, as a catch-all for all the quality signals that Google uses in it’s core algorithm. It’s not asserting that Site Authority is an actual signal or metric in itself that is in use at Google. It is simply shorthand for all the signals that are in use by Google.

What Makes a Page Relevant?

The reality is that high PageRank sites no longer dominate the SERPs. That makes it difficult to insist that a metric like Site Authority or Domain Authority is influencing ranks. This is something you can confirm with your own eyes. The sites with the most links no longer win the top of the ranks.

It is well established that Google is looking at CTR and Viewport metrics to identify what kinds of sites satisfy users the most. User sastisfaction is the ultimate decider of what site gets to rank number one not which site has the most links or which site is the most spam free or any combination of those kinds of metrics.

Why a Site Authority Signal Would Not Work

A web page doesn’t need to have a high PageRank, Site Authority or Domain Authority in order to rank well. A page needs to be relatively spam free and generally have qualities that define a good user experience. Inbound links help build credibility that a page is useful. That’s enough to be considered for ranking.

Now, if you dial up the influence of things like site age, domain TLD (.edu, .gov, .com), inbound links, sites with links from .gov or .edu sites, take your pick, what would happen is that little sites would start to lose their positions.

That would be an unfair bias toward small sites that may contain the best answer to a search query. What counts today is the relevance to a user, not how many links a page or a site has.

The ultimate evidence that Google does not use any form of Site Authority or Domain Authority metric is found in the huge body of publicly filed patents and research. There is absolutely no evidence that Google has created and used any kind of Domain Authority metric. If they did, I who collect and read research papers and those like Bill Slawski who write about patents would be talking about it. But the literature is not there.

That and the fact that Googlers have repeatedly stated that no such metrics exist at Google should be enough to kill the idea. But for some reason the idea of Site Authority still exists. Why?

Facts About Domain Authority

Google has come a long way since 2003. The concept of Domain/Site Authority should be set aside because it is no longer valid. To some SEOs the idea of domain authority seems almost eternal and unchangeable, like the right to free speech and guns. Out of their cold dead hands. But let’s tally up the facts:

• Googlers have consistently stated that Google does not use any Domain Authority metric
• Google have never researched or patented a domain authority metric
• The concept of site authority is nearly 20 years old and irrelevant. The algorithms based on that were discarded, depreciated or updated.

An honest and objective review of the concept of site authority has only one conclusion: Site/Domain authority does not exist as a metric that is in use at Google.

Images by Shutterstock, modified by author

Screenshots by author