"Now what?"

The Alchemy of Search

Archive for the 'SEO' Category

Old School SEO: Whatever Happened to Proximity?

While having a conversation today with a dear first gen SEO friend, the discussion made its way to the topic of SEO today vs. the SEO of years ago. Specifically - we discussed how it seems much of the focus has drifted away from some truly fundamental aspects of optimization, particularly with regard to on-page characteristics.

For example, while links are, without a doubt, essential to the success of any SEO efforts at this point, the on-page content has become way too devalued in some circles. As a very specific example, the concept of “proximity” - the closeness, or “lack of distance” on a given web page between the words that comprise a keyword phrase of two words or more - has all but vanished from the discussion of SEO. It’s not too tough to see what’s getting a page ranked for “cheap tickets” when it appears in the top 10 in Google, but the words “cheap” and “tickets” can’t be found anywhere near each other on the page. Call the bomb squad!

While keyword-rich anchor text in external links is obviously an effective standalone short-term SEO tactic (and a lot of fun for “miserable failure” and “greatest living american”), it certainly does not build the foundation for solid, long-lasting results when the on-page content doesn’t take proximity - and a myriad of other factors - into account.

We rock Connies.

Matt Cutts On The Hot Seat

About Matt Cutts

A personal interview of Google’s Matt Cutts from PubCon 2007 in Las Vegas. Instead of the usual shadow boxing — asking tricky SEO questions hoping Matt will slip up and offer some clues about the Google Secret Sauce — we decide to ask question he never hears and learn about Matt Cutts as a human being.

How does he feel about the annual NCAA conflict: Red State v. Blue State?

What it’s like to be the official taste tester for Ham versus Spam in the Google index?

Hanging with the enemy, does Spam become personal?

Wonder what life’s like after the Google IPO?

What motivates him to get out of bed every day?

Take 11 minutes and get personal with your favorite Google Spokes Model.

Google Gives Valentine’s Day Love to Spammers

Google, please stop giving Valentine’s Day love to parasitic marketers!

Here are some examples of people who are ranking their SPAM by posting it on crowd sourcing sites like NowPublic.com or free classifieds in Topix. Try a search for Valentine Lingerie and you will find the #4 position taken by A Splog Post on NowPublic.com and the #8 and #9 spots taken by two free classified listings from 2 different domains with essentially identical content on Topix.

It is really hard to make a coherent argument why these pages deserve to rank for Valentine Lingerie more than another costume & lingerie site. Topix and NowPublic have no incentive to fight this garbage unless the engines make them suffer for all of their content, because they get paid on the impressions.

For the “marketer” whose Splog post is on NowPublic, the 699 visits on the page to date might be worth the effort, but it definitely doesn’t mean they deserve the eye balls. NowPublic also doesn’t NoFollow links, even ones that seem to clearly be less than editorially controlled, so there may be (NOT) some PR flowing to the Spammer as well.

I am not sure if MSNBC and Foxnews deserve the love their getting from Valentine’s Lingerie more than NowPublic, but at least these articles aren’t spam, they are “news stories about fashion”.

Google, please stop ranking the SPAM. It encourages blackhats and causes blight in the index!

Parasitic Marketers dominate SERP

Search Spend Laps Display Advertising

Two studies tracking this race conclude that search marketing is lapping the alternatives.

Despite all the hype about display advertising and the block buster ad network deals of 2007, search continues to be the high performance engine that is driving online marketing spend. According to GroupM, search will make up 65-70% of the measured online advertising in 2008, up from 50% in 2005. For the mathematically challenged, that means search has gone from about even to 2 times the display spend. It also means most of the revenue growth has been from search. Nothing But Net, a new study by JPMorgan, meanwhile, puts the global search spend in 2008 at $30.5 billion.*

GroupM goes on to note that online advertising in Sweden is expected to exceed spending on any other channel, with the UK and Denmark likely to follow suit by 2009. Given that search is only getting about 10% of the dollars going to television in the U.S., we have a long way to go to catch up with our friends in Europe (and perhaps European companies need to wake up to the superior ROI of investing in SEO instead of relying on paid search)

Another interesting note from the study is that the 2008 U.S. election cycle is expected to contribute $2 Billion in local and national television advertising. No data is available at the moment, but it seems unlikely that search is getting 10% of that pie and it is clear at the moment that few of the campaigns are spending anything for SEO.

*We rarely call out a company’s SEO issues by name, but JPMorgan needs a lot of help. We wanted to link directly to the report, since we believe in citing source material whenever possible. Despite the fact that this study has been widely quoted, it is impossible to find any links to the study on JPMorgan.com. In fact, searching for study by name, JPMorgan + Nothing But Net, “JPMorgan “Nothing But Net” failed to find a press release, abstract or the study in the top 10. We went on to search for “site:jpmorgan.com nothing but net” and still couldn’t find the source.

JPMorgan Executives, if your listening, call us. :-)

Kick Down Doors With Google Alerts

I used to spend more time than I care to think about getting through people whose job it was to make influential people people hard to reach. An amazing tool was introduced a few years ago that makes it easy to get around these roadblocks and get invited in the back door.

That amazing tool is Google Alerts, which allows each of us to get our own private alert whenever Google discovers a new page that contains a keyword or phrase we find of interest. It turns out that there is nothing I find more interesting than reading about me. It happens that many busy and accomplished people share this weakness.

Instead of beating your head against the corporate firewall, do a little social engineering. Post a blog (or even a blog comment) with someone’s name and people will read what you say about them. Does it work? Let me show you with a shout out to some of our friends. I won’t email/text/poke any of them, just to make this a valid demonstration.

Matt Cutts, Danny Sullivan, Kevin Ryan, Aaron Wall, Rand Fishkin, Gord Hotchkiss, Jeremy ShoeMoney, Doug Klein, Bill Gates and Stephen Colbert, let me start by saying hello.

I really appreciate you stopping by and I hope you are doing well. I know you are all really busy and I am really sorry that I called you under what you might consider false pretenses. Since you are here and you have responded to my honey trap…please take a minute and say hello to some of our other friends.

Thanks… and I guess I owe you a beer or something.

Jonah

Worst Search Results

The recent New York Times article about Google search contained a note that Google is always on the lookout for bad search results. They acknowledged that constant minor tweaks occasionally produce results that are low quality.

We are all aware of the occasional site that ranks and appears to defy logic, but I am curious about queries where a majority of the results, or at least the top few, are particularly irrelevant. What “normal” queries do you run that gives really bad results?

Chain Letter Bombs

DazzlinDonna from SEO-Scoop.com has an interesting post about a new variation of the chain letter. This time, you are asked to SEOs for Charity Link Meme and give links for Charity.

This is a annoying but powerful very creative viral link building idea. I am not sure who gets the credit for starting this, but they are claiming inspiration from the Colbert Google Bomb. I wasn’t tagged and I would probably refuse to play along if I had been, so I am not going to tag other bloggers, but here is Donna’s list.

On the other hand, I like how this could give candidates plausible deniability for Guerrilla SEO in politics, so here is an alternative list:

Political Search Marketing: Electronic Grass Roots

In Candidates Need SEO, Scott Willoughby examined the need for political parties and candidates to begin serious search marketing. Scott’s analysis is excellent as far as it went, but he missed the big picture. SEO and PPC for candidate sites is a tiny piece of the potential of search expertise to impact elections.

Joe Trippi, the former campaign manager for Howard Dean and current campaign manager for John Edwards, pioneered the use of the internet in presidential campaign. He was very successful raising money through small donations and using the internet to coordinate local supporters and events. Groups such as Move On have taken that example and refined the model to develop virtual communities and infrastructure that brings together supporters into physical meetings.

Candidates from both parties have borrowed heavily from these ideas. Their sites offer calls to action: donate money, volunteer, create a personalized version of the site (McCainSpace, my.barackobama.com), plan or attend an event, register for emails, download flyers and other ways to harness the energy of their base. The Edwards campaign even has a section on “Action For Bloggers”, although it is unclear what they have in mind.

Candidates and parties need to broaden their view of the internet and see beyond the fund raising channel and a way to interact with supporters, so they can unleash the power of Electronic Grass Roots. Political pundits and organizers frequently refer to the grass roots and the ground game as important factors in winning elections. They stress the ability to get people on the streets, knocking on doors and engaging their friends and family to support the candidate. The internet provides new vehicles for individuals to impact the outcome of an election.

Individual Persuasion:

Individual users, bloggers and webmasters can influence others through posts, comments and discussions. Virtual conversations take place over time and without the pressure of a face-to-face interaction. They can be viewed by thousands of people and provoke additional discussion threads. Virtual campaigning by individuals can be at least as powerful as persuading people by knocking on doors.

Social Media Action:

Political operatives have not begun to understand the collective power of a group of hundreds of thousands of people as social media activists. Reddit, Digg and other crowd sourcing platforms are among the most heavily trafficked sites in America. It only takes 50 or 100 votes on these sites to make an article “popular” and perhaps a couple of thousand votes to keep it on the homepage for a day or more. Even the “marginal” presidential candidates can muster enough support to generate exposure for their point of view or to promote articles and sites that support them into the public discussion.

Search Results As Truth:

For most people, (even the few Americans who are not search professionals :-) ) the internet has become the way to get more information about almost any topic. The top 10 or maybe 20 results are the entire consideration set for people who want to learn about an issue or the candidates.

The true power in Electronic Grass Roots is the ability to affect search results. The power of a few hundred sites to influence search results has been demonstrated over and over again. We’re not talking about Google Bombing, we are talking about SEO and reputation management strategies combined with an organizied effort that influences link acquisition and/or distribution.

An army of hundreds of thousands supporters — orchestrated by a party, a presidential candidate or an interest group with a sophisticated knowledge of search optimization — has the ability to promote virtually any websites, articles and position it near the top of the search results for a given query.

The ham handed political SEO might focus on Rudolph Giuliani in drag, kissing Donald Trump or the fact that Giuliani , a Roman Catholic, demonstrated the strength of his convictions by getting divorced twice, including an annulment after 18 years of being married to his cousin. Ranking a YouTube video or a Wikipedia entry would not require a Herculean effort. Likewise, John McCain cannot escape his defense of Bush’s War in Iraq or the fact that McCain has new bedfellows the Right Wing, such as Paul Weyrich, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

The subtle operative will recognize that this strategy is also effective when employed with a subtle hand. It is much more powerful to assassinate someone character by talking about a $400 haircut than attack John Edwards on the environment .

Pushing a highly negative article from a right wing pundit to the top will be much less effective at reinforcing peoples’ reservations about Hillary Clinton than promoting the New York Times article about Bill Clinton being Strategist in Chief. Equally important, it wouldn’t take a lot of external validation to rank an article from the Times that already contains plenty of content and keywords.

As for Barack Obama, his early opposition to the war in Iraq will have the manipulators of the Right pushing stories linking him with the NAACP in supporting immigrants’ rights.

Who needs talking points when you can get Google, Yahoo and MSN to tell your story. That’s the power of Electronic Grass Roots.

Google Sues SEO Company For Revealing Algorithm Secrets

Yes, the title is link bait…but it serves as the perfect example to prove our point. Need new link bait? Have someone threaten to sue you.

Legal action or the threat of legal action can strike a viral nerve that the savvy search marketer can cook into irresistibly tasty link bait. A large corporation suing an individual, a small business or a group can flavor the dish with essence of David versus Goliath. Stir in a threat of a punishment that is disproportional to the cause of action and you have a recipe that can satisfy your link and traffic cravings.

Last weeks’ firestorm of inDiggnation illustrated the potential of a cease and desist notice to create a media and blog feeding frenzy. In case you were dead last week, or hibernating in some part of the world that doesn’t have an internet connection or newspaper, we’ll summarize the story for you. It all began when Digg executives decided to kill a story about the HD-DVD encryption key in response to a DMCA request. Digg CEO Jay Adelson wrote about the the decision to bow to a cease and desist declaration and remove stories related to the “HD-DVD Hack”. Adelson’s post received about 5,300 back links in less than a week.

The decision created a mutiny by Diggers, who proceeded to submit and promote dozens of other pages about the HD-DVD key while burying everything else. The Digg moderators fought off the Mutiny for a few hours before being overwhelmed. By midnight, Digg’s homepage had been completely taken over by protesters. The next morning, Digg waived the white flag when Kevin Rose posted the HD DVD encryption key along with a message that they had given up trying to oppose the will of the Digg Community. That post gathered another 16,000 20,750 links.

The story broke to the mainstream press, getting coverage (and links) from hundreds of media outlets, including CNet, MSNBC, AP, Forbes, Newsday, PC World, USA Today, ZD Net, InfoWorld, MacWorld and the New York Times.

You don’t need to be Digg or the victim of a RIAA lawsuit for legal action to become viral. Breast feeding advocate –and Search Engine Guide editor– Jennifer Laycock turned a clever t-shirt and a cease and desist letter from an overzealous trademark attorney representing the American Pork Board into a viral firestorm and 2,954 links. A story about a judge losing his pants and suing for $67 million gathered 3,566 diggs – although this story appears to have only collected about a dozen links.

Eric Ward, in his post on The Coming Link Apocalypse, wrote about the rapid depreciation in value from traditional link building campaigns.

You aren’t doing anything wrong, and you do your job well. You try hard. You are conscientious. You care. But no matter the content subject, what I have seen over the past five or six years that link building has gone mainstream is a herd mentality. Everyone uses the same tools, the same tactics, the same tricks, the same companies, the same link requests, the same link-ridden press releases, the same approaches, with almost no thought or differentiation.

We are big fans of Eric and have utilized his services for our clients. He is most likely right that many link baiting strategies acquire links that are of dubious value over the long haul. On the other hand, the sue or be sued approach can create a “real story” and yield the type of high quality editorial links from main stream media outlets that are unlikely to quickly depreciate.

The Digg story is the extreme examples that illustrates the point, but a search of Google News for April 4th to May 4th shows over 22,000 results for stories that contain the word “sued” or “sues”. The media outlets that Google crawls for news syndication are, by definition, high quality editorial sites that can deliver the link juice we are all looking for.

If you enjoy playing with fire and you have the stomach for lawsuits or cease and desist orders, “sue or be sued” might be a strategy for to pursue. For the other 99% of us, if you do find yourself in the unfortunate position of receiving a summons or a cease and desist letter, see if you can make links out of lemons.

Google Drops The Bomb: Hand Job or Cron Job?

ColbertNation.com is no longer showing in the Google SERP for greatest living American or giant brass balls. Google defused the bomb almost exactly two weeks after Mr. Sullivan reported its success.

The Google Bombing experiment has left us with a lot of unanswered questions. The most interesting one is whether their “anti bombing algorithm” has some chronological component which allows the page to rank for a couple of weeks before killing it completely or it was removed by manual intervention.

Did the Algorithm Kill the Colbert Nation or did Google executives decide he wasn’t the greatest living American?

What do you think?