What makes a good topic aggregation page?
Posted on July 28, 2008
Filed Under information architecture, psychology and psychotherapy | Comments Off
Topic based aggregation pages are all the rage at the moment, David Weinberg comments on the addition of Huffington Post to the list of those adopting content aggregation. At the BBC we have also started to create are own Topic Pages. These pages are primarily designed to attract traffic from search engines or via browsing through contextual navigation.
In order to fulfill these goals I have been thinking about what makes a good topic for aggregation? To answer this question I went back to have a look at Donna Maurer’s discussion of basic level categories. Most of the introduction below comes from her presentation.
What are basic level categories?
How to spot a basic level category:
• A basic level category is somewhere in the middle of a hierarchy and is cognitively basic
• It is the level that is learned earliest
• Usually has a short name and is used frequently
• Highest level at which a single mental image can reflect the category
• There is no definitive basic level for a hierarchy it is dependent on the audience
Why are basic level categories relevant to Topic Pages?
Basic level categories have some characteristics that make them of interest to Topic Pages:
• Things are remembered more readily at basic level.
• People name things more readily at basic level.
• Languages have simpler names at basic level.
Donna explains…
In short, people naturally, at a deep cognitive level, deal easier with basic level categories.
It is important to understand that basic level categories are not just easier on a superficial level, because they are shorter or something. Cognitive scientists say that basic level categories are cognitively real. They seem to be ingrained in the human mind somehow, in a way that makes it easier for us to deal with basic level categories.
The fact that people name things more readily at basic level could lead us to hypothesize two things:
• When constructing a keyword search users are more likely to use basic level categories.
• Users are more likely to visit links labeled with basic level categories.
If this is the case then when selecting candidate Topic Pages we should look to select ones that sit at a basic level.
Basic level categories are good for SEO
Topic Pages are specifically designed to attract traffic from search engine queries and drive users to BBC content, ideally ranking highly for certain keywords in external engines. So they need to match users’ keywords as much as possible. The process of matching search keywords to pages is well documented in SEO and called keyword optimisation.
Selecting what level of granularity to create Topic Pages at is something we have been exploring in the range of Topics selected for the beta launch. A little research should help us identify the keywords that sit at the basic level of granularity. I attempted to do this by looking at the average UK keyword searches for a series of topics.
Taking a range of related concepts from different levels of a hierachy we might expect to find as we move up the tree the more we find people searching with the term, because it is more general and incorporates more concepts. The theory of basic level categories would challenge this and expect the middle basic level concept to be the most used.
Look at this example taken from Google UK on the 17 July 2008.
| Keyword | Average searches per month |
|---|---|
| animals | 1,830,000 |
| dogs | 3,350,000 |
| spaniel | 301,000 |
Here the keyword dogs holds the middle ground between abstraction and detail. I think this example illustrates that search logs could be used to assist in the identification of basic level categories.
Of course this is not always the case
| Keyword | Average searches per month |
|---|---|
| furniture | 16,600,000 |
| chairs | 2,740,000 |
| chippendale | 12,100 |
In this case the more abstract keyword is far more popular. This does not necessarily make it a better candidate for a Topic Page, for example it might be a difficult Topic to train due it being difficult to define.
As a rule popular search keywords indicate suitable Topics and in the majority of cases the more popular search keywords will sit at a basic level.
In the instances where super-categories are more popular consideration must be given to the extra problems this might cause the Topic Page, for example editorial overhead and awkward user navigation of the Topic as a link label.
Basic level categories are good for navigation
In addition to being good SEO practice I would also suggest that selecting basic-level categorises could improve user navigation. An example might be on contextual links where we present the name of a Topic as the link label. This assumption is based on information foraging theory.
Jared Spool has applied information foraging theory to web design with what he calls the “scent of information.” In order to efficiently and effectively forage for information on the web, seekers need to have a sense of where they are going. The design of a navigation system should provide users with an accurate “scent” that they can follow to their destination.
We have argued that basic level categories are more easily grasped than higher level categories. An example might be the categories cars (basic) as compared to vehicles (super). With the category vehicles you have a less clear sense, scent or image of what is included in this group. This could result in a lower click through rate of users from links to Topics.
Basic level catergories are good for editorial staff
Having monitored a number of Topic Pages for the last couple of months we are beginning to get a sense of what makes an easy to manage topic.
An easy to maintain Topic is:
• specific
• easily defined
• discrete
An example of an awkward concept would be crime. A Topic like this makes it hard for editorial staff to judge whether a piece of content should or should not be included. This is because it contains a list of concepts that will vary depending on who you ask and this list is liable to change over time. In the same way we talk about conceptually awkward categories for users a similar problem is presented to the editorial staff maintaining the pages.
This is apparent if you think about selecting a set of representative documents for training a Topic Page about dogs as opposed to a Topic Page about crime. As a Topic dogs is easy to train and easy to review. Content is fairly clearly about dogs or not. This is again an example of the benefits of selecting basic-level categories.
Conclusion
On reflection Topics like elected assemblies do not look like such a good idea. The individual elected assemblies as Topics would have made much better pages.
| Keyword | Average searches per month |
|---|---|
| Elected assemblies | 73 |
| welsh assembly | 2,740,000 |
Not only are they unlikely to be searched for but they are also confusing to users when shown as contextual links. In addition they are difficult to maintain for editorial staff, again because of their conceptual awkwardness.
The following recomendations should be considered when selecting a suitable topic for an aggregation page.
Pick Topics that sit at a basic level between detail and abstraction. These concepts can be identified through the following criteria:
• frequently used in keyword searches
• represent a discrete concept
• are easily defined