Better Ads Standards, Top 100 UK domains, Helpful Content Update
Or get it on:
Show notes
In this week's episode of the Search With Candour podcast, your host, Jack Chambers-Ward, is once again joined by the inimitable Mark Williams-Cook to discuss all the latest SEO and PPC news including:
- Google testing new read-time labels on SERPs
- Google Business Profile guidelines have been updated to include products
- New Better Ads Standards will be introduced in October 2022
Sponsor - SISTRIX
- The updated list (August 2022) of the top 100 domains in UK search
- SISTRIX's latest data from the Helpful Content Update
Transcript
Jack: Welcome to episode 34 of season two of the Search With Candour podcast. My name is Jack Chambers-Ward, and I am your host for this week, joined by Mr. Mark Williams-Cook. Hello, Mark.
Mark: Whoop whoop. Hello.
Jack: How are you?
Mark: I'm very well, giving you some whoops, pleased to be back.
Jack: I appreciate the whoops. We'll get into some SEO and PPC news. Some of it's whoop-worthy. Some of it's more exciting, some of it's less exciting. But in this week's episode, we will be talking about:
Google testing new read time labels on SERPs Google Business profile guidelines have been updated to include products Some new Better Ad Standards will be introduced in October 2022 And we'll be diving into some SISTRIX data around the top 100 most visible domains in UK search.
Search With Candour is supported by SIXTRIX, the SEO's toolbox. Go to sistrix.com/swc if you want to check out some of their fantastic free tools, such as their SERP snippet generator, hreflang Validator, check out your site's visibility index, and their Google update tracker. You can also go to sistrix.com/trends to keep up with trend watch. And sistrix.com/blog for all of the latest updates and data analysis. As I said, some of which we'll be talking about later on in the show.
So we love a good new SERP feature here on Search With Candour. I know all the SEOs around the world do as well. And there has been some tests going on, looks like some read time tests, and actually applying labels to results on the SERPs themselves. We've seen examples of a quick read label and a five minutes or less label as well. And there have been a couple of different people who have verified this with screenshots of their SERPs, including Lily Ray herself, who often talks about this kind of stuff on Twitter. So pretty interesting stuff there, especially with what we've been talking about recently with the helpful content updates, which we'll be talking about later on, that's for sure.
But yeah, I think it's an interesting one because there's always debate in the early moments of everyone's SEO career. Everyone goes to the, "Oh, it's got to be a minimum 300 word article," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But we know word count and the length of an article is not a ranking factor. However, there are studies to confirm that longer articles do often tend to rank better. And we've talked about this on the show before, many times. It's because those articles tend to be more well written, more well researched and actually answer more questions in a broader, more specific term as well. So yeah, it's an interesting one. I think it's a tricky one to quantify how this would affect me, viewing it on a SERP as a user. Do you have any opinions on this, Mark? Do you think it's a positive or a negative thing? Or something you expected?
Mark: Yeah. Well, firstly, I think it's interesting that there is quick read and less than five minute read. Is less than five minute read no longer a quick read?
Jack: Yeah, I guess what's the cutoff point? Is a quick read 90 seconds, and then less than five is anything between 90 seconds and five minutes?
Mark: So yeah, I'm not a fan of this for many reasons. So firstly, I don't think... And I actually think I saw this, and I did try and find it before the show and failed miserably. I'm pretty sure I saw someone testing read times, listing read times in the SERP to see if it affected click-through rate. And they found it basically had no impact whatsoever. So Google doing it themselves, I'm skeptical as to whether that will have any impact on if users decide to click or not, whether it says quick read or less than five minutes. We've already got things like featured snippets. We've got PAAs. We've got dynamic meta descriptions, which I think give users a really good hint as to, "Is the answer right there?" And I don't even think necessarily the length of the content affects how people's information retrieval goes. In that, if I do a search and Google said, "The answer's on this page." I click on that page. Even if it's 2,000 words, if I'm after something specific, I'm still just going to scan the page. Might Control F, might look for a header tag. I'm not reading these things like newspapers or books. That's not how people consume websites. So I'm a little bit skeptical on how useful it is. Yeah, Google has got the ability to test it, and you should always test things. My concern is though that it will just become another metric for people to try and optimize for. Because I've always been a big fan of the content should be as long as it needs to be.
Jack: Agreed.
Mark: So trying to say, "Oh, we need this to be quick read or whatever." There's really good best practices for how you should lay out content, how it should be structured. About yes, there's ways to optimize for feature snippets by including the short canned answer of, "This is the specific question within the intent. And then, here's the long answer." So you can hit both those things. But I'm worried it's something people will focus on. I think it's going to be a test that they probably won't continue is my gut feel on that.
Jack: Yeah, I'd be interested to see if they do a longer one because I agree with you. I don't think it would influence me, particularly, whether it was quick read or less than five minute read. But if I saw 10 minutes plus or something like that, I'd be like, "Oh God, okay, fine." That might actually be an off-putting thing. And I'll be interested to see if they pivot it from that other angle of, "This is a long piece." Rather than, "This is a quick read." Again, I would think that would have more of a negative effect on users, at least from me being a user myself. But yeah, I tend to skim stuff.
And this has been a thing on Twitter and LinkedIn and stuff already. LinkedIn, whenever you embed an article in a post, you get a little summary from the metadata there as well and it pulls it through. I know our blog posts do, when we post the podcast and stuff on LinkedIn. You get that preview with the read time on there and stuff like that. I believe the read time for the 500+ unsolicited SEO tips is in the dozens of hours or something at this point. So I remember when I did the update for that, it was pretty hefty. So yeah, it's already a thing in a few places, but I'm interested to see if it would have a... If it is, and once it is, implemented by Google, would it have a significant impact on people clicking through?
So I mentioned some data from SISTRIX, we now have the updated top 100 domains, the most visible websites in UK search updated for August 2022. The previous update was the end of last year in December 2021. And the good people over at SISTRIX, including the one and only Steve Payne, who we had on the show before, have gone through the data and laid it all out for us. Including some winners, some losers, and all the other bits and pieces, really laying out a percentage change, position change, from how things have shifted in that top 100. I think there's some pretty interesting ones, some pretty surprising shifts. Some things I've literally never heard of being quite high ranking. And other things really dropping off that don't necessarily surprise me. But I think it's an interesting shift to have a look and dive round, and get a big picture of search in the UK as of this month.
Mark: So Jack, who has made the biggest increase in the top few websites?
Jack: Google's one of them, funnily enough. Google are up 53 places up, now up to 21st.
Mark: What's the first move on that list near the top, if I remember rightly?
Jack: Youtube.com.
Mark: And who owns YouTube?
Jack: Oh, what a coincidence. Yeah, YouTube are number three, moving up five places from eight, where they were towards the end of last year. Quick run down the top 10, and then we'll dive around and have a look. It'll be mostly names you recognize, to be honest, folks, if you're even vaguely aware of the biggest websites in the UK. Wikipedia, of course, maintaining its position at number one. And number two, also maintaining their position, is amazon.co.uk.
Mark: And Wikipedia is a significant margin there, just to give you some idea. This is over twice the visibility of the entire amazon.co.uk domain.
Jack: Exactly, yeah. Using SISTRIX's visibility index, we actually get a metric for understanding just how visible they are. And like I said, we get a change in that visibility as well. We also get a percentage change and a position change as well, so you get a few different points of data. And like you said, wikipedia.org reigning with 6482.2 visibility index. To put that into perspective, by the time you get to number seven, which is cambridge.org, you're below 1,000. So there's only six domains in the UK with more than 1,000. And one of them is Wikipedia with nearly six and a half thousand. They are really dominating the visibility in many ways. Next up, as we mentioned, we have YouTube, that's 1807.6. Number four is ebay.co.uk, 1341.7. Imdb.com, which I thought was interesting, owned by Amazon by the way, 1120.1 for IMDb. Facebook.com, this is the last one with more than 1,000 with 1,029. And then we've got cambridge.com, merriamwebster.com, britannica.com, and etsy.com, followed up by a few other well-knowns. We've got the NHS, we've got Argos, dictionaries and stuff, Instagram, even our pals over at fandom.com, which is all the fan wikis and things like that. Anything surprising you, Mark? Anything catching your eye, having a glance over this table?
Mark: Yeah, so I did, conspiracy theories aside, the YouTube increase, the visibility increase, there is 154% from the last time, which is massive. It's over doubling it, which I'm not sure is linear to how much content they're adding, et cetera. If we look at the change in Wikipedia was 13% increase. Amazon was 27%. eBay was 41%. IMDb was just under 20%. And YouTube was over 150%. It's by far and away the biggest increase. So again, not surprising, but always makes me a little bit, "Hmm." Obviously, Google do own that. One thing I did like was, Etsy is in the top 10 at 10th, with a whopping 68.9% increase. And it did ring a memory bell, of when we flagged in my memory. And I checked back and actually we had talked about some of the top domain visibility back in February, and Etsy had actually had another plus 29% in February. So Etsy actually seems to be going from strength to strength.
Jack: We've talked about their directories and their landing pages before as well, haven't we? Because I remember you talked about how... Well, both of us had that anecdotal evidence of, "Whatever you search for, there seems to be a landing page for it." And it's such an obvious thing to do in eCommerce, when you have a thing that is being searched for and you know your customers are searching for that thing, building pages specifically that function as landing pages that then build out that hub. And create internal links to all the different products and stuff like that is such a classic way of implementing that from an eCommerce side of things. And you can really see the evidence of that. And I'm sure plenty of other stuff they've been doing from an SEO perspective as well.
But yeah, Etsy's one that definitely rang my bell. I was like, "Oh yeah, we did talk about Etsy beforehand." Because we've been covering it long enough now, since the start of this year pretty much, where we're getting round to, "Oh yeah, we talked about that six months ago. Let's compare when we talked about it on the previous episode of the podcast," and things like that.
Mark: The other one that surprised me on here, with a 306% increase and number 21, was google.co.uk. Because I was a bit like, "Hang on a minute, why are they appearing in search results?" And SISTRIX had actually done a little bit of a breakdown of this, and it's primarily the books.google subdomain, where they're essentially indexing other people's content and ranking it. And books.google.co.uk as a subdomain, on its own, would make the top 40 most visible sites. Which is, again, mind-blowing amount of traffic. So I found that quite interesting. A couple of other things I've noticed, initially, I saw so The Guardian and BBC news websites both had 22% and 20% respectively drops invisibility. Although, looking at the bigger picture, The Guardian, despite that 22% drop, is still by far the most visible UK news domain. So to give you some context, it's, according to the SISTRIX numbers, three times more visible than The Daily Mail and four times more than bbc.com. So a huge, huge site.
Jack: There's actually a breakdown on the top 20 most visible news domains on that same post as well, as of course, links in the show notes as always. Search.withcandour.co.uk, you know the score by now, listeners. But yeah, The Guardian is far and away, in a similar way to Wikipedia in terms of the overall visibility. Theguardian.com has really taken the cake for a lot of the news in the UK. With independent.co.uk, still 100 behind it, which is a pretty significant drop from number one to number two.
Mark: Picking up from your episode on TikTok as well, TikTok has smashed its way in at number 92. And to give you, again, some kind of scale, you might think, "Oh, 92, that's not that impressive." But this is the most visible domains on the web. So we're talking here in excess-
Jack: Out of a billion...
Mark: We're talking in excess of 150 million organic clicks monthly for TikTok. And this is over their 30-odd million programmatically created pages. And again, to give you some context, in terms of other social media platforms, that's about one quarter of the visibility of Twitter; about one fifth the visibility of Instagram, which is on the down; and about one 10th the visibility of Facebook. Although, as you can imagine, its growth rate is still astronomical. It's well above those things. Whereas, some of the other social media sites are slowly dropping in terms of their visibility. So I would expect that to become more prominent. And I saw as well, published today, our friend Lydia had written an article about some TikTok SEO. And in there, again, I saw some interesting searches, where people are essentially doing brand searches for TikTok, for certain things like recipes. So this, again, is going to impact the visibility of the domain when people are literally choosing... They're using Google, but they are choosing to say, "I want the result from TikTok for this recipe."
Jack: Yeah, yeah. I find that really interesting. And that is, like you said, continuing that shift that Annie-Mai, that conversation we had on that previous episode. As much as you grit your teeth and try to avoid it, Mark, TikTok is making an impact in search results. And very much as Lydia says in her article. Again, linked in the show notes. Very much like it's not here to replace Google, that's not the point, but it's making an impact. And it's something, if it is appropriate for you and your website, your clients, your brand, whatever it might be, it's something to consider from a search perspective. Because it is making big waves. And as you said, Mark, it's growing astronomically, exponentially at this point, when it comes to impact in search.
Mark: The last thing I'll mention is, on the link on this... If you look at these domains on the SISTRIX site, they have a neat little video, which is an animated visual history of the ranking domains over the last 11 years. And one thing I did notice from that, although I made some remarks about YouTube having its big increase, it's way less visible comparatively to how it used to be. So if you hit play on that, and I recommend you watch it, it's really interesting, you'll see YouTube was actually number one for many, many, many years. And it wasn't until 2019, Amazon started battling it for a number one position. But there's been some quite significant changes, as you say. Some of the old guard, like IMDb, have stuck around in the top 10 for a long time. But it's interesting seeing how much those number one positions do change, and how quickly, over the years. But again, to be fair to Google, it looks like they're actually showing their own property less there than they used to.
Jack: Yeah, definitely.
And last little update from SISTRIX, we have an update from Johannes Beus, talking about the helpful content update. Something we've talked about recently on the show in a few different directions. And the summary kind of is, "Nothing significant yet." That was the exact quote from Steve when I last spoke to him. And that's kind of the summary of the article here from Johannes, talking about the post rollout effect on visibility. We've seen a few sites updated and affected by it, but in the grand scheme of things, in the overall landscape from SISTRIX's analyzing of the data, we're not seeing a huge, huge impact. And anecdotally, from people I've spoken to and things I've seen on Twitter and LinkedIn and stuff, that seems to be the case from what other people are saying as well. Would you agree, Mark, from what you've seen?
Mark: Yeah, absolutely. I find it quite hilarious because everyone was really pumped for this update and-
Jack: It's Panda 2.0. Like, "Aaargh!"
Mark: Yeah, everyone was talking about it as if it was going to be a major impact, then nobody has really seen that much. I've still got our canary in the mine, scraped-
Jack: Oh yeah, your little spam site.
Mark: ... content site and that's growing still, slowly. So obviously, we're only one week into the rollout of the helpful content update, but that's very unhelpful, unoriginal content. It's up to about 4,000 clicks a month now from search, with pretty much zero effort. So I'm hoping it gets a penalty because it'll give me some hope that they've really nailed it. But it's a useful-
Jack: You're waiting for your canary to die in your gold mine, essentially.
Mark: It's useful to have these things because it will give us a better understanding of... We've seen a few times how purely generated AI content, while it reads really well to humans, is actually quite easy for machines, if it's unedited, to predict that it is machine written. Because of the statistical relevance of each word that follows the previous words or set of words. So there's free detection output tools online for GPT2 that work very well for GPT3. If you generate something, paste it in, it will give you a 99% plus certainty it's AI driven. If you edit it manually, you can literally put one word in and it wrecks it.
Jack: Throws off the whole thing.
Mark: But, obviously, that's a very simple model, but very interesting. But the reason why I like this test then is because we get an idea of how Google's judging that helpful content. Because, technically, the duplicate content issue aside, the scraped content could be quite helpful because it's probably human written and it reads well. So it'll be interesting to see what's happening to sites we know that have lots of AI generated content, so maybe Google's targeting more of them. Because again, we've spoken about that before. There's lots of them popping up. So it's just seeing which side of the fence the algorithm lands on.
One thing I did learn about the helpful content update, that I hadn't really thought about before, was from a tweet from the Google search liaison, Danny Sullivan, that just talks about a classifier that Google is using to determine if content is, "Helpful or not". And it's in response to a thread where people are talking about if the data's pre-collected, the algorithm runs, and then it's pre-baked, and it's done, and you see the changes. But the reply from Danny is suggesting that it's a constantly running process and that... So this is now to quote his tweet, "The classifier didn't start at launch, it already understood site content over a period of time. At launch, we just began to use the signal in ranking. It does continually work and monitor sites to understand if there's lasting change."
Jack: That makes sense, right? Yeah.
Mark: Yeah. And he's quoting something he has linked to, which is, "A natural question some will have is how long it will take for a site to do better, if it removes unhelpful content. Sites identified by this update may find the signal applied to them over a period of months. Our classifier for this update runs continuously allowing it to monitor newly launched sites and existing ones. As it determines that the unhelpful content has not returned in the long-term, the classification will no longer apply." So it seems like they've been running this classifier in the background, maybe testing it, tweaking it, improving it. But haven't integrated it into the ranking algorithm. That's now happened, but it will be a rolling process. And again, interesting when communicating with clients, or when you're doing your own SEO, that if you chop a load of your unhelpful content off, it's not going to be an overnight thing that it changes. It needs to know it's not coming back in the long-term.
Jack: Something SEO doesn't happen overnight? Surely not.
Mark: I know, right. But yeah, funny that nothing major's happened. I certainly haven't seen anything to write home about.
Jack: We'll keep an eye on it in the long-term. I'm sure plenty of you listeners are as well. But yeah, we will keep you up to date. If there are any updates from SISTRIX or Google themselves about how it's affecting site visibility overall, we will keep you up to date here on the show.
So there's an update to products and how they're included in some Google business profile data, which I think is very interesting. We've been talking about local SEO a bit here recently in the studio, doing some Google business profile updates and things like that. And thinking about how we can best implement that with all the changes that have been happening recently. And obviously, I had a chat with Claire Carlile, one of the local SEO experts at BrightLocal, a little while ago as well. So I'll put a link for that in the show notes at search.withcandour.co.uk. Plenty of great Google business profile tips from Claire on that episode.
This is specifically talking about a product carousel you can find on the mobile version of Maps. So if you're on Google Maps and you're looking at a business, you can see a product tab, if they have implemented their products correctly. You can basically click on featured products as a user. You can find product categories. You can view those products within those categories and view descriptions and details and things like that. It's basically a more clear integration with the products into the map side of things, when you're looking at a business profile. And if you want to do that from you controlling that and being the owner of that business profile, you can do so through the product editor. And you can also use the Pointy app with the point of sale system there as well. And edit your, basically, product carousel and preview how they're going to look and appear in Google search for your customers there as well. There are some updated guidelines and policies to go with that as well. They also don't allow things like alcohol, tobacco, gambling, financial services, pharmaceuticals, unapproved supplements, health and medical devices. All the kind of stuff you would expect from being more tightly controlled and policied is included in this as well. So be aware of that if your site does cover any of those type of products as well. As I said, links for all of this will be in the show notes at search.withcandour.co.uk.
Mark: We got an email notification from Google Ads about a better ads standards via The Coalition for Better Ads, which I hadn't heard of before.
Jack: Same. I'm an SEO, not a PPC guy, but thankfully, Luke here at Candour, who is very much switched into everything PPC, notified Mark and I about it. And yeah, sounded like a thing... I was very skeptical at first. Any coalition of anything I'm like, "All right, okay, this doesn't sound legit." Not realizing, "Oh, this is a legit thing from Google. This is an official notification." But here we are. Yeah, it's very interesting. Some of the listeners might have no idea what we're talking about. So why don't you give us a quick rundown, Mark.
Mark: So this is the email I got, for context, first or Luke got, sorry. It says, "Dear advertiser, in October 2022..." So not exactly a lot of notice. "The destination requirements policy will be updated to include a new policy requiring ad experiences on destinations to conform to The Coalition for Better Ads, Better Ads Standards." And it links to those. "Destinations containing ad experiences that don't conform to the Better Ads Standards will be informed via the ad experience report. And any ads that lead to such destinations will be disapproved. For more information about the types of disallowed ad experiences, please visit The Coalition for Better Ads website. For more information on the Ad Experience Report, please visit the web tools help center, or Ad Experience Report forum." So this, as it says, links off to www.betterads.org/standards, which essentially gives us a lot of information about the different types of desktop mobile experiences. And types of ads that are essentially allowed or are recommended by those Ad Standards.
And I had a little dig around the site. There's actually some super interesting research on there. So one thing that particularly interested me was essentially some preference data they had collected on different ad types. And this is a few dozen, it looks like maybe 30, 40 different types of ads. And essentially, collecting user data on how they rate the experience with those ads. So if you can have a top rated ad, so I guess the least intrusive on the experience are things like sticky 320 x 50 ad on the top is the highest rated one. Closely followed by sticky ad on the bottom, or small static inline ad. So essentially, these are small adverts that just sit on the page, they're there, and you can click on them. And at the reverse end of that, the most hated is popup ad with countdown.
Jack: Yeah, agreed.
Mark: And a commonality you'll see in these types of ads is essentially the more disruptive the ad is to the user experience, the lower rated it is. So there's loads of ad types with interval and countdown in the most hated ads.
Jack: Refreshing ads with five second interval. It's like, "Oh God, that sounds infuriating."
Mark: So I think this is quite interesting for a few different reasons. So it's very hard to do now because of things like the reserve price on Google Ads. But there is still some arbitrage going on various websites. Arbitrage is essentially when you buy traffic from some ads somewhere and then, essentially, you resell that traffic through other ads. And the idea is that you pay less to get the traffic than you sell it off for. The way that this commonly happens is that they use these worst, horrible, intrusive types of ads. Because, essentially, they trick people into clicking on them. So you know the types, when you go to download a driver or something, and there's a massive ad that says download. But that's actually a fake thing, and the real download ad is the tiny text link. Those kind of ads that are getting high click-through rates and they're essentially driving higher revenue than it cost to get traffic to the site.
So it's helping, I think, stamp those things out. And just, again, any of what I would class the more manipulative and user experience breaking ads. So I'm super happy about this. My thought as well is this is probably everything Google does in the grand strategy way, another way for them to make more revenue. We've spoken about this before in terms of people being satisfied with the results of ads. If you could guarantee that if I click on a Google Ad, I'm not going to land on a site with horrendous ads on, I'm probably going to like Google Ads more.
Jack: And we talked about that a little while ago, right, with us as SEOs. I know you have PPC experience, but these days you're more of an SEO kind of guy. And how we both steer away from ads when we're searching for stuff. And I know plenty of other people do as well. I know people we've interviewed on the show before do a similar kind of thing as well. And I think you brought up an interesting thought of, we have experience for when ads were incredibly intrusive, and full of spam, and full of rubbish. So we were learnt from our experience in the early days of the internet... Mark and I are in our thirties, yes, we know. That we've learnt to avoid that kind of stuff and not even trust ads.
Even though, all the stuff like this has been finely tuning Google Ads for so long now that you need to have a decent landing page. You need to have a decent destination. You need to have non-spammy rubbish in your ads to even get featured at all at this point. So actually, a lot of ads aren't spammy and rubbish anymore. But we still have that lingering thing in our brain of like, "Oh, can't click the ad, it might be spam." But this is definitely, I think, fine-tuning and filtering and pruning out all the rubbish here as well, to make sure you've got a really nice landing page. The ad destinations aren't all cluttered and horrible. And we're not getting things like countdowns and refreshing ads and all that kind of stuff.
Mark: This really hit home with me, literally, because I set up a Pi-hole, the Raspberry Pi thing, that blocks ads. And I added Google Ads to it so I wouldn't see AdSense, the display ads on site. As a side effect to that, because it blocks the domain, it also stopped the Google search ads working. And then within two days, my wife came to me and was like, "The ads aren't working on Google anymore, and I find them really helpful." And I was like, "No."
Jack: How is she married to you, and still clicking the ads? How has that happened? How has that not rubbed off?
Mark: I found that really interesting though. So she does use the Google Ads for shopping, basically.
Jack: I think a lot of people do.
Mark: And she says that they're useful. So I've had to remove that again now, very sadly.
Jack: Through gritted teeth.
Mark: It just brought it home though about how there is still huge amounts of people that just are using these ads because they've had a fairly consistent, good experience with them. And that's what I think this is doing.
Jack: Yeah, I think you're totally right. This is pushing it in that direction in general and we're going to see better standards. And I know, Luke, like I said, our PPC specialist here, he was talking about how, hopefully, this just filters out people who have really rubbish landing pages. Which we see still a significant amount of, I know Luke has talked about it with doing research for his clients that he works with and things like that. You still see really rubbish landing pages. But the ad itself is really nicely designed and it has all this extra bits and pieces, but the actual place you're going to is rubbish. So hopefully, this helps to trim that out. And I wonder if, because it's a coalition, it seems to be a bigger project. And like you said, it's backed up by some pretty impressive research. So hopefully, this will have a wide-reaching, significant impact, and filter out a lot of the crap we see on ads.
Well, that's all we have time for this week. Thank you for joining me, Mark. Lovely to have you back. I have a couple of guests coming up over the next few weeks, so you can probably take a few weeks off. Go and relax, go on holiday somewhere, sit on a beach, do an SEO with your laptop. But yes, I will be back next week and the week after that. And the week after that, I think, if the scheduler works out. Basically, in the next three or four weeks, it'll be me talking to PPC and SEO experts from across the world about a variety of different topics. Hopefully you enjoy those episodes and, yeah, I'll be back next week. Thank you very much for listening and have a lovely week.