Google | Greenlane SEO

I’m A DoFollow Blog, And Proud Of It

Posted by @billsebald | Posted on 17-12-2010

Tags: SEO

Matt Cutts says a small majority of the web is nofollowed (which is confirmed by Linkscape data). He doesn’t say that a huge majority of the social web is dofollowed. I firmly believe it isn’t. And since Google loves editorial links, they should love the good social links – forums, blogs, voting site comments, etc.

So why is so much of the social web still nofollowed? In theory, it helps us webmasters to rank better when we link out. It helps our social contributors receive link love. It’s great for Google in general.

Oh, right… SPAM. The applications that auto-spam WordPress blogs and Pligg, and the SEnuke’s of the world. There’s plenty of them. So, Google gave us the nofollow microformat to let us help them keep the web clean(er). But is slapping an automatic “nofollow” script really that helpful?

It’s a social web. I believe it’s our responsibility as good, contributing webmasters to monitor our user-generated links. If you’d like, put up rules about what you’ll accept and don’t accept (for example, no business names in the anchor text, or no links to product sites, etc). Make these rules simple and visible. Then, routinely prune anything that fails to meet the criteria. It’s a little extra work, but it’s worth it if you love your site.

I’m a dofollow SEO blog, and though Akismet (in WordPress) catches most my obvious automated spam, I still routinely go through my comments and make edits to rule breakers. Oh well. Clearly most don’t see it my way.

But as Google grows into a more contextual, learning machine, I think these nofollows are going to be a hindrance. I have heard of the tests that claim Google may be opting to follow certain links that are marked nofollow when it suits their needs,
but I haven’t seen it yet in my tests. As Google’s algorithm gets better, and they start to better understand what they read, while simultaneously finding other ways to defend against spam, I’m sure they’re going to start hopping the nofollow fence more often.

Popularity: 6% [?]

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugliness Of Conversion Code

Posted by @billsebald | Posted on 08-11-2010

Category : E-commerce, Google, SEM, SEO

Tags: ecommerce, SEM, SEO

In my mind, one of the best and worst inventions for Internet marketing conversion code.

I remember it well, about 5 years ago, when it was released to AdWords. I could qualify the work I’ve been doing for an old eCcommerce employer. He was very ROI focused because he was, well, cheap (not at all generalizing a business who rightfully cares about revenue as cheap). This boss didn’t buy into internet marketing even though he was running an internet store. So this code – which I had to map cart variables too – helped me justified the good work I was doing in my job. While many industry peers were frustrated by the extra scrutiny they were getting, I was actually saved.

But conversion code isn’t everything. It’s not supposed to be. It has its place.

Online analytics is still really young. Now, we have great conversion tracking, and more advanced attribution modeling. But only a few years ago, it was all about impressions and CTR. Basic analytics told us a little of the story, and forced us to take chances. Now, with more of the story, I truly believe many of us find ourselves backed into an ROI corner in which we are afraid to press against. Did these better bullets make us cocky?

“Bullets are great. But you don’t win a war with firepower. It’s with strategy and tactics.”

I had three fortune cookies today with lunch, and this is what they said:

All channels are not created equal
Old school marketing isn’t dead, it’s been reinvented
AdWords is advertising – a “piece” of marketing

I think for many conversion tracking created and atmosphere for marketers to worry about performance to the dollar versus creativity on the web. On the web, creativity is vital and clearly yields bigger results when you strike gold. Creativity with focus speaks to more segmented audiences, which we now know are even more plentiful than we did before the web. General analytics and demos let us focus on those audiences, but data on whether they convert on the last click does not tell the full story. It answers the immediate need of passing a report to your boss, but it doesn’t always lead to the lifetime value.

Marketing is, and should always be about risk taking. If you’re not taking risks, you’re playing on the same level as not hundreds, but hundreds of thousands of other tepid companies. Marketing is also about developing strategies as you build. Tying yourself to ROI alone hurts you in the long run if you’re the kind of company that needs to be competitive. If you disagree, are you really being effective marketers and doing the w0rk the internet demands? Is it our job to encourage options and opportunity? Or is our job to keep stay in a box?

Would love your opinions.

Popularity: 3% [?]

4 Useful Google Search Tricks For SEO

Posted by @billsebald | Posted on 03-09-2010

Category : Google, SEO, SEO Basics

Tags: Google, operators, SEO

Here are a few little tricks you can do to customize or filter Google results. These 4 are clutch tricks for me. I end up using these more than most other tricks in my arsenal (oh, there are plenty…):

Enter -site: to remove sites from the SERPs: If you’re looking for competitors for a popular product, and keep seeing the big players, comparison shopping engines or affiliates, and would like to get a better feel for the other players in the landscape, this trick works well.To see this work, search for a key phrase like Wilson Official NCAA Football. You may see sites like Amazon.com, Nextag.com, and Bizrate.Try the search again like this -site:www.amazon.com -site:www.nextag.com -site:www.bizrate.com Wilson Official NCAA Football. See the difference? There are several ways you can use this iltering for your competitive education.

Discover related keywords: Google has the ability to show pages with keywords related to the actual keywords you searched. They’ll do this when their algorithms suggest it’s a better result. To get a feeling of what keywords variation Google is thinking about, at a tilda (~) to the query. For example, Google ~sofa. At the very least this can inspire your keyword research.

Find File Types in a site: Doing a quick audit and want to see if a site is using a particular file type (like Flash)? This will give you some insight: site:www.nike.com filetype:swf

Figure out where those indented links really rank: Today a Google search (on my computer) for Frank Zappa will show you Zappa.com with an indented link for Zappa.com/whatsnew in the #2 position. Indented links are pages from the same domain that can show up anywhere in the bracket of 10 results, except Google groups them together for user value. In other words, although Zappa.com/whatsnew is ranked at #2, it’s not really the second result. It could be the fifth, or the seventh, or the tenth.When working towards SERP domination, it’s important to know exactly where all the pages lie so you have a better idea of who you need to beat. Add &num=x to the end of the Google search query URL, where “x” is a number less than 10 (remember – without using Advanced Search, there are only 10 true listings in natural results on any given SERP). Keep experimenting with lower numbers for “x” until the indented link is gone. Once it’s gone, you’ll be able to surmise where the actual position of the listing.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Is Your Website Whispering To Search Engines?

Posted by @billsebald | Posted on 15-07-2010

Category : Google, SEO, SEO Basics

Tags: content, Google, SEO

Today I was asked to look at a site and explain why it’s not ranking. The answer… the site was whispering.

If you don’t have content, Google won’t know what your site is about. But I don’t mean any old content. I mean HTML text.

Oh… you say you have HTML content? Let’s see if Google can hear it.

1. Perform a search in Google to get your page to show up.
2. Click the ‘cached’ link.

3. Click the ‘text-only version’ link.

4. Find a sixth grader and ask them to explain what this page is about.

I once heard that Google has a reading comprehension of a sixth grader. If that’s true, then you need to speak to Google like a sixth grader. Give simple context, but be specific. Speak up! Promote your message, hammer it home. Don’t mumble (and spam your pages with junk content).

Granted there are a several ways you can add contextual relevance to a site, it doesn’t need to just be in the body. Tags and links still play a big part, sure. But why be shy in the body of your website? Is it that “text is ugly?” Is it that “people don’t read online?” All untrue. You read this post, and frankly, I think it looks rather beautiful.

Form vs. function, my friends. Form vs. function.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Google’s Still Playing With AdWords Column

Posted by @billsebald | Posted on 12-07-2010

Category : Google, SEM

Tags: adwords, SEM

I often see new features, or hear rumors about other experiments going on in the sidebar (including some social or real time things coming – shhh…), but I really wonder why Google wants to use this property. This long block is where Google makes a good chunk of change. Will new features bring more eyeballs to it, or dilute their click throughs?

I understand maybe using it when there are no ads to place – which they do – but why give other clickable options that take away ad share? Maybe Google’s last redesign was still too traditional after all? Maybe they just don’t have enough space in this format to try everything they want.

Take a look at this search for Technorati. See? No ad – but there was one! I just didn’t get a screen grab, and now can’t recreate it. I hate that. So even if they were only testing something, I don’t understand the logic on this one. I know as an AdWords advertiser, it makes me a little grumpy to have to compete with more noise in this column.

click for larger view

Keep your eyes open. Maybe they’ll go the Ask.com route after all?

Popularity: 1% [?]

How Do You Trick Google?

Posted by @billsebald | Posted on 19-06-2010

Category : Google, SEO

Tags: Google, javascript, SEO

Note: The title is not How To Trick Google. I am not a spammer – not in the slightest. It’s just not the side of the fence I reside in. But, as someone who breathes SEO, I do get curious about understanding blackhat techniques from time to time.

I followed a thread on Webmaster World (via SERoundtable), where an SEO was requesting a direct answer on a tactic he uses. His tactic uses Javascript for hiding affiliate links from Google. His external .js file places the links and content into the webpage quickly after it loads. But, he blocks the external file with robots.txt, so Google never sees the full final page with the inserted Javascript content.

With all the technology that makes up webpages, and incredibly smart techies working as SEOs, it’s interesting to see what clever things SEOs still come up with. Obviously Google engineers eventually learn all these new tactics, but are they really able to defend against them? They provide guidelines on their Google site, but these guidelines are usually written loosely. They often raise more questions then they answer. And per the tactic above, I’m pretty sure that’s why – loosely, Google is able to take the stance against this tactic, without addressing (or even knowing about) this tactic.

As a whitehat SEO, I talk to link building tactics that “are against Google’s guidelines”, or CSS tricks that “are against Google’s guidelines.” Not because I think that Google is definitely able to catch them automatically, but because there’s a possibility. There are humans behind Google’s rankings – they might hear about it. A competitor might report you. Google’s toolbar, that’s on one of your visitor’s browser, may report back a different experience than the Google spiders report back.

Even though I fall for the loose guidelines, it does sounds like a big if though. If Googlet wants to thwart spammers, maybe it’s time to get more clear. Spend the time specifying the guidelines. Is it fear that specified guidelines will act as blueprints to spam techniques? Maybe – but it also might thwart SEOs from walking in the gray.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Speed Is A Ranking Factor, But Don’t Hit The Gas Yet

Posted by @billsebald | Posted on 06-05-2010

Category : Google, SEO

Google recently announced that loading speed is a signal to improved rankings. They even gave us a free tool to gauge it.

It’s always been assumed, but with this announcement it was made truly official. Did we really need Google to tell us? Couldn’t we figure out that Google wants to serve fast loading sites? Of course we could. Just about anything that is good for a user is good for Google.

But before you go running tests in a panic, think about your site. Have you been good to your visitors? Have you been sensible with redirects? Have you been mindful of bloated code and huge files (image, Flash, and otherwise)? Do you have a good webhost? If all of this is true, you’re probably fine. Sure, run the test, but I wouldn’t panic and put in projects to fix prematurely.

Another note – above I recommended watching your page weight. I like a good site validated to standards, but I’m not that kind of SEO anymore. I’m quite sure it’s OK to be a little noisy in code. Semantics in code is great, but don’t worry about a little bloated code. Again, run the speed test. See if Google thinks you have a problem. It probably won’t be from tag soup.

The idea for this post was from a string I just read on Webmaster World. I heard a webmaster talk about recoding to err on the side of caution. Many agreed without the test, simply because they got swept up in Google’s announcement, but not reality. I thought that was a really useless waste of time without some sort of real reason. The bottom line – if your page is chunking while it’s loading, on several fast connections, you have a problem. But I’m sure you knew that.

Popularity: 1% [?]

SEO, PPC, ROI and WTF?

Posted by @billsebald | Posted on 28-03-2010

Category : Google, SEO, SEO Basics

I just got back from SES new York. It was my first one. I’ve been in this game for 10 years, and always wanted to experience SES. Cost and timing always got in the way. I figured all the conference goodness was getting live blogged out anyway. But I was wrong. With more than 80 sessions, I hit about 12 of them. There was incredible value in the side conversations. It’s a social experience.

It was really interesting to be with rooms full of peers, all with different levels of experience and philosophies. No matter how confident (or cocky) you are, it still pulls you out of your comfort zone. You start questioning everything. You’re exhausted by the end.

One topic that routinely came up was the value of search for business. Old topic but finds new life each year. Is PPC or SEO better for your ROI? That’s such an executive level question, but to the shigrin of the asker, it doesn’t get answered straight forward. It can’t. The answer is “it depends.”

So I did attend one SEO only session where PPC came up. The feeling of the panelists was since everyone expects PPC to only be an ROI channel, compensate with SEO. Compensate? As in, clean up with SEO? It was a bit of a knock against the PPC definition of today.

Wait… It’s all coming back to me.

When PPC first came out, it was a way to help searchers, who were looking for yiour offerings, find your offerings. Period. Traditional marketing. PPC offered visibility into your efforts unlike any form before it. Television couldn’t tell you exactly who watched or acted on your ad. Billboards couldn’t do it. Magazines, bus wraps – everything – failed at providing hard data. So naturally, this amazing technology bombed us. A little later, google put out conversion code. Now we could tell how much money we made off an ad. We can report returns on ad spend. A version of interactive ROI became more and more of the focus. Soon, in some circles, it wasn’t about connecting users first. It was about buying revenue. The C-level was ecstatic. Marketers who got good at PPC looked like rock stars and happily spent ad budgets. Life got easy.

Avinash Kaushik had a keynote, and spoke about not just the micro side, but suggested we think about the macro side. What happened to marketing in search? What happened to the value of creating return visits, lifetime value, and brand awareness? Demanding solely ROI means a lot of bidding on brand terms, of which a massive percentage would be picked up by SEO anyway (since you almost always rank for your own terms). I know you have exceptions, and you need to compete against competitors who are going after your brand terms, but if you’re a shop selling dog gift items, and sell dog sweaters, bid the terms even if they don’t convert. Let people know you exist for when they want to buy dog collars or leashes. Get on their radar. That’s worth the cost of a click. You used to think your customers were worth more when you were blindly paying for billboards on the highway. Today, with Google being the most visited website in the world, I would put all my money in search first and foremost. Google owns your brand. Not you. Not your customer. Customers find you first through Google 9 times out of 10. If Google is your portal, advertise on it. Don’t be cheap.

I think the SEOs in this panel saw the miss on PPC, and suggested SEO to the rescue? If you can’t (or more likely, won’t) invest in PPC for the non-ROI of it, then maybe you’ll have some luck with the cheaper alternative – SEO. Branding, reputation management, controlling search engine real estate, and marketing can all be done with SEO. Though SEO is not an ROI channel (where the dollar can guarantee anything like PPC), it is certainly valuable as an avenue to reach massive, larger streams of qualified visits.

When I do PPC for my clients, I explain this value. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don’t. But at least I tried. Technology spoiled us. We lost the real value of marketing and advertising. The 10:1 ROI focus is not the solution to online success. If you think it is, it’s time to look at the big macro picture.

Popularity: 1% [?]

TMZ Has Spammy URLs

Posted by @billsebald | Posted on 11-03-2010

Category : Google, SEO

When Corey Haim died a few days, TMZ put up a page with a pretty spammy URL:

http://www.tmz.com/2010/03/10/corey-haim-dead-died-death-lapd-overdose-corey-feldman-lost-boys-two-coreys/

Dead, died, and death? Corey Feldman? Really???

Maybe it’s an overzealous SEO or overzealous logic in the CMS, but this is pretty much straight against Google guidelines (if it were a title tag I think it would get more of a flag). But my question is, will Google penalize TMZ? They’re a pretty big property. And yes, Google has penalized – even banned – big properties before, but usually for shadier practices. Does Google’s algorithm have a way of forgiving this spam because of the popularity of TMZ? Personally I think so. But what kind of message does this send? If TMZ gets away with it, then I think other webmasters will try.

Unfair for those who follow the rules.

Popularity: 1% [?]

I’m A DoFollow Blog, And Proud Of It

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugliness Of Conversion Code

4 Useful Google Search Tricks For SEO

Is Your Website Whispering To Search Engines?

Google’s Still Playing With AdWords Column

How Do You Trick Google?

Speed Is A Ranking Factor, But Don’t Hit The Gas Yet

SEO, PPC, ROI and WTF?

TMZ Has Spammy URLs

Twitter Updates...

Archives