Make Way for the Mighty Wren

In case you haven't heard, I've moved. You can find my new blog here.

As you may have guessed, this blog has been mothballed. That's why my last post was in February. However, this is not an exit from the web -- on the contrary, I'm making way for newer and better things.

The new incarnation of this blog will now be known as the Mighty Wren. Old posts will all be available there, and mirrored here.

So, click over to the new blog and enjoy.

Going After The Ballmer

Google presents the economic/technology world with a very interesting question: How does a company benefit by making its key products available for free to consumers? And, does that company benefit more than a company following the traditional model of selling its products for a profit? Consider this latest article from the NYTimes Tech Blog:

Google Goes After Another Microsoft Cash Cow - Bits - Technology - New York Times Blog

Now, most of us know that Google Apps has a way to go before it will really be able to compete with Microsoft on an enterprise level. The tools offered are not quite comprehensive enough.

However, we have seen Google put something out there that - to the average consumer, at least - is adequate. Google Docs is completely adequate for the average consumer, who in most cases would consider the powerful tools offered by Microsoft Word to be overkill. What average consumer really needs to write VBA macros into their Word docs?

So, Google is good for the average user, especially when one considers the price Office. But what about all those enterprise users?

However big Google's plans are, the reality is that there have been free competitors to Microsoft's Office Juggernaut for several years (Don't forget Sun's OpenOffice), and they continue to be suites that ...nobody uses. Oh, I know - you can give me a few token names of companies that have taken the corporate stand against Microsoft and refused to use their products. But on a global scale, no one competitor has been able to unseat Microsoft from their throne yet, even when they give their product away.

What makes Google think they will be able to?

Yahoo!: Bigger, Better After The Great Escape?

We have to wonder what Yahoo! is up to, after they turned down a buyout that was going to give them a 60% bonus over their market cap. Turning down the offer was one thing, but labeling it as "undervalued" leaves me with some expectations. Are they actually going to put feet under this claim, or are they just going to be content with the value they've gained from this arbitrage?

Enter company CEO, Jerry Yang:

Yang Breaks Silence on Microsoft Takeover - Techland | FORTUNE.com
Jerry Yang offers sneak peak of Yahoo’s future: Life! | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com

It looks like they were indeed working on something. Yahoo claims it is on the verge of unveiling "a next generation user experience that unites its various services in a social context". The web portal is also announcing the opening up of its search engine results, so that webmasters everywhere can offer users more options from the Yahoo! SERP.

Now, we have to assume that these developments were in the works before Microsoft made their offer. Could the Microsoft offer have been a signal that they knew what was up? Probably. However, could it also be a sign that Microsoft not only knew about these developments, but knew that they would vault Yahoo! to the top of the Internet world? Was that the basis of Microsoft making a $44 billion wager on the value of Yahoo?

Very interesting questions, indeed, which none of us can answer until we actually see all of Yahoo's cards.

Pandora Rocks, Apple Scrooge, and Other Thoughts...

I know - it's been almost 3 weeks since my last post. OK. I know, I'm an SEO junkie, and I ought to know how detrimental this is to my blog's prospects for visibility. But, alas, as I have failed so far in my attempts to make this blog into a net money-maker, my time has been used up with more profitable ventures.

Back to blogging, I must take a short minute and say something about one of the things I like. Pandora is amazing; if you've never tried it, take a quick detour right now (and then come back). If you don't know what Pandora is yet, just think "Internet radio" - except much, much better than our normal concepts of radio. The site is so user-friendly that spending any more time explaining it would be overkill.

Now for today's first news item: Apple’s cash: It’s one sour cider - Financial Week

It seems Apple is following a troubling cycle, and it goes like this:

1. endure steady, light criticism from tech blogs everywhere for several months;


2. announce an upcoming product release; ride an incredible wave of rising hype as the release date draws nigh;


3. reap big profits from initial sales;


4. endure steady criticism about the new product's shortcomings.

So, it appears we're in the interim period between #4 and #1, a familiar "dead zone", where Apple can't seem to do anything right, and we all wonder about the merits of their closed model of production.

SEO - It's in the (domain) name

I have to say, if your company is big enough to have offices in multiple metro areas or in multiple states, and your company runs commercials on television, then you're also too big to ignore the importance of optimizing your website.

Case in point - Morgan & Morgan Law Firm. It's one of those random TV commercials that you rarely seem to notice, especially if you're a young, healthy American with no traffic tickets. However, I noticed the commercial because the URL for their firm's website seemed a bit odd to me - www.forthepeople.com.

I finally got around to typing the address into my browser and seeing what's there. But my first thought about the website is, "why don't they have the company name in the URL?"

So, I decided to look up a few related to see if this firm had registered any of them. I tried the following:

• morganlaw.com
• morganmorgan.com
• morganandmorgan.com
• morgan-morgan.com

Somehow I wasn't surprised to find that none of these had been registered by our law firm in question.

The point of all this is, if you're a mid-sized business or firm and you want to register some idealistic URL for your company website, then go ahead. But, for goodness sake, also register a URL with your company's name in it!

If a potential customer hears about you, then goes home and blindly tries to guess your website's name, he's going to be unsuccessful in finding you. Fortunately for this firm, they have captured the #1 rankings on SERPs for their company name.

You don't see firms like Orkin or Terminix (pest control) with URLs like www.WeHateBugs.com!

Google's Campaign Against Microsoft

-----------


Official Google Blog: Yahoo! and the future of the Internet

Above is a link to a recent post on Google's official blog that puts forth a very interesting viewpoint from one of Google's senior VPs, Alan Eustace. Here we have someone from Google's camp who is appearing to speak for the company, speaking out against their rival Microsoft.

This post is incredibly interesting, because it is not very often that we get to here one company voicing a profound distaste for another company on such a fundamental, philosophical level. Google is not just Microsoft's competitor - Google believes that Microsoft is actually bent on destroying what Google believes is great about the Internet, and even the world.

I imagine the guys over at Microsoft don't actually carry pitchforks when we're not looking. But I think they do see financial profit as their firm's foremost reason for existence. And who can blame them? This is Economics 101. Firms exist to make a profit.

Now, obviously, it's the way in which Microsoft makes its profit that Google finds deplorable. Google sees Microsoft as ensuring future profits by damaging the markets in which it competes. The obvious result is the current near-monopoly that Microsoft enjoys in the PC operating system market. Especially from Google's perspective, it seems like Microsoft doesn't just seek to protect its own interests, but also seeks to enforce its interests on everyone else. After all, it was just about one year ago that Microsoft decided to launch a massive attack on Google over copyrights.

If Google's perspective is accurate, then what kind of future would we see if Microsoft is able to buy out Yahoo! and start to work toward an Internet monopoly that mirrors its monopoly in software? Perhaps Microsoft would eventually produce an OS that would show heavy "preference" for websites in the Microsoft network of sites. Is it that hard to imagine a Windows message saying something like "You have attempted to access a website outside the Microsoft network. You may be opening your computer to unwanted security risks." Maybe below that box, we'd see a link to a quite imaginative list of advantages of working within the Microsoft network.

Would this be an accurate visualization of what Google is picturing?

Yahoo! / Microsoft Antitrust Approval

----------

San Jose Mercury News - Antitrust approval for Yahoo deal may not be a slam-dunk


Just for further reading, this is an article from the San Jose Mercury News about the antitrust prospects for a possible marriage of Yahoo! and Microsoft. As I said yesterday, I believe that, unlike the Google/Double-click deal, a Yahoo!/Microsoft deal may not get through antitrust scrutiny.

I think the problem with the "Google-click" deal was that the anti-competitive results of that merger were not obvious enough to the public, and therefore there was not enough incentive for lawmakers to block such a big deal. However, Yahoo! and Microsoft have both been household names for a long time, and even if people can't rationally explain why this merger would have some anti-competitive effects on the tech market, they will probably say that anti-competitive effects exist.

Yahoo! Shares May Rise to Equal Offer By Bell

Yahoo jumps 53 percent after Microsoft offer | Markets | Hot Stocks | Reuters

Microsoft reportedly offered Yahoo! for $31 per share - a 62% premium over Yahoo!'s closing share price of $19 on Thursday. However, investors are so positive about the possible deal that Yahoo!'s stock is now up to $30.70 per share, or 60%, in pre-market trading.

By the time the bell rings to open formal trading today, Yahoo! might actually be worth what Microsoft has offered.

Yahoo!Soft? - Early reports say Microsoft to Buy Yahoo! for $44 bil

-------------

Microsoft has reportedly made a bid to buy the struggling Yahoo! for $44 billion. Whether this goes through or not, this is the first serious attempt at formal consolidation among the major search engines.

Unlike the coming Google/Double-click merger, it's likely that average internet users will readily assume that this merger will have a huge affect on them. My guess is that, if this goes forward, this merger will get more anti-trust attention than Google's.

Falling Far From the Tree

----------


Fortune - Apple's $300 Million Gray Market Dilemma
AppleInsider - Steve Jobs to Apple investors: 'hang in there'
Gizmodo - First Proof Apple Making Near Zero on AppleTV (And Big Bucks on iTunes)


Looking out on the tech world today, I see one article about slashed prices on one big Apple product, another article about a gray market problem on another big Apple product (and possible slashed prices in the future), and a "please let us keep your money" letter from Steve Jobs. This Apple is falling far from the tree lately.

For a company that is supposedly on the cutting edge of consumer tech, there have been so many obvious features omitted from several products debuted in recent years.

• For starters, the iPhone was debuted, surprisingly, without 3G support, and didn't initially support any 3rd party software.
• Furthermore, Apple TV had to go through a re-launch after an embarrassed Apple acknowledged that the first version didn't work out. We knew that iTunes did not have a selection of HD content for Apple TV, but what about the other shortcomings? Why release a product like Apple TV with no optical drive?
• And then, there is the MacBook Air. It's obvious to many that this new product is missing more than an optical drive. End users can't even replace the battery.

It's no stretch to assume that these missteps have indirectly contributed to the recent free-fall of Apple's stock price, down $65/share (roughly 32%) over the last month.

The point I'm trying to make is that, while Apple and Jobs seem to be laden with an uncanny sense for creating those gadgets that consumers didn't even know they needed, there have been surprising oversights in their product releases. Too many popular, and sometimes necessary, features have been missing on their new products. These latest stories about subsidizing Apple TV and gray market iPhones seem to be pointing to one idea - Apple either has to shape up and read the tea leaves better before releasing new products, or they must embrace a more open model of production. The current closed model seems to make every move too much of a make-or-break moment - it's too risky. It may still survive for a while to come, but in order for that to happen, Apple's got to put better features on it's "it" products.

Microsoft Helps Us All... For Now

------------


» Microsoft earnings shine; Ups fiscal year outlook Between the Lines ZDNet.com

Microsoft just reported a company record $16.36 billion in revenues for last quarter, which was just above what analysts had expected. In addition, the outlook for the coming quarter is in line with analyst's expectations. The earnings report was strong all the way around. MSFT stock was up $1.58 per share today, or 4.75%.

Hold Your Breath On The Gathering Gloom: Everyone Waits For Microsoft's Earnings Report

--------

Microsoft Earnings: They Really Are A "Big" Deal

The market seems to be back up, along with Google, Apple, and the rest of the technology world today, but everyone also seems to be waiting to hear what Microsoft has to say. Microsoft is up $0.56 per share today, or 1.75%, and it seems that everyone is expecting them to give a favorable earnings report later today.

Analysts estimated revenue of $16 bil for Microsoft for the quarter ending December 31st. Everyone apparently thinks Microsoft made that target. If they did, then the economic gloom may not be gathering so quickly after all.

If they didn't make it, then... Well, I don't really want to think about what might happen if they didn't make it. Let's just hope they did, for the sakes of our IRAs.

Breathe Deep The Gathering Gloom: GOOG Down 3.5% In Early Trading

-------------

Are we seeing further signs in the Internet world of a storm on the horizon? Early reports indicate that Google stock is down 3.55%, or about 20 points, at $564 per share.

According to Google's own SERP, the Nasdaq info that came up in a search for "goog" is delayed by 15 minutes. Whether or not 15 minutes is incredibly significant, when I started to write this post, reports where saying Google was down 2.6%. It's 9:04AM now, and apparently, 5 minutes has been enough for the company to lose an entire percentage point.

Microsoft is also reporting a pre-market loss of 1.9%, or $0.59 per share, which brings them to about $31 per share.

And just to make it a tri-fecta, Apple is also reporting significant losses, down $17.5 - no... $17.6 per share. This is yet another stock that fell further as I was checking on it. That's a whopping 11.3%.

Actually, the consensus seems to be that Microsoft, Google, and the bulk of Silicon Valley's business giants are all being affected by Apple's disappointing Q2 forecast, just released. Apple reportedly thinks that revenue will grow only 29% in Q2, down from Q1's 35% in revenue growth.

It's amazing that positive reports are bringing the world down this fast, just because they're not positive enough. I'm no stock analyst, or prophet of doom, but from the looks of these falling stocks, we could be watching lights fade from every room.

What? No Matt Cutts Among 10 Fascinating Googlers

------------

10 fascinating Googlers - FORTUNE

All I have to say is, Where is Matt Cutts? So what if one of the ones that they did pick eradicated smallpox?

Obviously, I'm just kidding. This is an interesting article over at Fortune, highlighting 10 Googlers with fascinating backgrounds. Maybe they consider Cutts to be too much of the Computer-PhD-type to be a "fascinating" Googler. Maybe. But it's still a look at some of the faces behind Google.

Another bursting bubble?

Sprint to cut 4,000 jobs | Tech News on ZDNet

Tip: Yahoo May Cut 1,500-2,000 Jobs Within 2 Weeks

Here, we have 2 huge companies that may soon be laying off as many as 6,000 workers between them. Is this the beginning of a trend? Even as companies like Slide report venture capital funding of $50 million and Facebook is somehow valued at $15 billion (even without a clear way to make money). So, we have $500 million widgets and $15 billion social networks, and 6,000 people out of their jobs. I'm no analyst, but I can see a storm a'brewin'.

Save Scrabulous!

-
BBC NEWS | Technology | Facebook asked to pull Scrabulous

Above is a link to today's article about the current situation of the beloved Scrabulous game, which now has more than 500,000 daily users on Facebook. Amid all the fan protests, Hasbro and Mattel, who jointly own the rights to the Scrabble game, have put together a joint case asking Facebook to pull the game.

Now, I don't know what everyone expects Zukerberg to do about this - being such a young buck, he may just try to say no to the big corporate um... game... lawyers... and attempt some sort of stonewall on his own. However, my thought is, why does he have to surrender something that has half a million people logging on to Facebook each day to play?

Here's an idea: why doesn't Hasbro buy the Scrabulous game? Why don't they offer the software developer brothers from Kolkata some nice sum of money that's comparable to the cost of waging this war on innocent fun, and then just own Scrabulous? Why is that so hard?

Google Bread

Alas, I am breaking my silence in the blogging world. This one I decided was just too juicy to leave alone - it's another article about another professor out there banning their students from using Google and Wikipedia. Here's the link:

Lecturer Bans Students From Using Google And Wikipedia (from The Argus)

In the article, the professor, Tara Brabazon of the Univ. of Brighton, labels Google the "white bread of the Internet", which drew a good chuckle from my lips as I read. However, the other part of the story that caught my attention was the fact that Prof. Brabazon is a professor of media studies who is banning her students from using a resource provided by the world's largest media company.

Now, I know what the professor is saying - that she feels her students are not properly researching their papers. They are probably not including enough peer-reviewed sources in their bibliographies. But my question is, why then doesn't she just require more sources? Why not give the students a positive admonition, rather than just a negative one that resembles a simple rant against the modern advance of technology.

My view is that knowledge ought to be fluid, open, and above all, free. Knowledge ought not cost us any money. We should not place restrictions on who gets to learn what. And those of us in influential places should work to make sure knowledge is not bound by time or place, either. In my opinion, that's exactly what Google and Wikipedia are doing - they are using technology to bring knowledge freely and quickly to everyone with access to a computer.

Now, obviously, it's what the owner of the computer does with the knowledge that counts. Regurgitating the top 5 links on Google's SERP or an article from Wikipedia is not necessarily good research, but neither is regurgitating an article from the New York Times. One is not worse than the other.

They took my idea! - How To Buy A #1 Organic Ranking

Look what I found over at SE Land:

How To Buy A #1 Organic Search Ranking On Google

So, here's one of the popular SEO blogs talking about how PPC ads and other paid material can benefit your organic ranking. I seem to remember writing about that recently - maybe they read this blog?

I have the new version of Gmail - finally!

Amid all the chatter online about Gmail 2.0, I was beginning to wonder if I would ever get to use it myself. It turns out that when I checked my email this morning, it was there - the link to the "older version" - and I knew that Gmail had quietly upgraded overnight for me. So now I can say with those great SEO bloggers that I read every day - "I have the new version of Gmail - do you?"

Link Text Optimization - Sunday SEO Series

Ok. I know - it's Monday. night. But since I didn't add to my current series of SEO posts, I felt that I should make up for it as soon as I could. So here we go...

Text Link Optimization.

The key word to focus on when thinking of Link Text Optimization is right there in the center. TEXT! That's right - text. No pictures, no JavaScript, no Flash. In order to properly optimize your website's links, the links themselves have got to be text. For this reason, we could probably refer to this as Text Link Optimization. Here's why:

How a search algorithm works.

Search algorithms go out and scour the web, taking in text and links. In general (this is changing every day, but this is still the general consensus), algorithms are not able to read pictures. Therefore, pictures of text do nothing to enhance your site's visibility in the eyes of search engines. When it comes to a picture link, the algorithm will see a link to some web address, but it will not see any text, even if the picture is of text.

Use text links in navigation, and picture links in content.

The basic practice that you should take away from this is to use all text links for site's navigation links. These are those important links that are on every page, and are always the same. Usually, you'll have a row of links across the top and a row down the side. Those are the ones that should be text.

You can use picture links, but you should use them in the content of the pages as you need them. This is the part of each page that is different.

"Alt" Text - a chance to double up.

Alt text is text that shows up when you place the mouse over a link. Specifically, in HTML markup, this is an example of a link with alt text:

Link text goes here...

This text is read by the search algorithm, and it can add to the visibility of your website. Therefore, you should always make use of alt text your navigation links. It's not always necessary to use this attribute of the link tag, but it will give your site a boost if you use it properly in your site's navigation.

OpenSocial Hacked In Minutes, and Other Exciting News

Just to keep the pings going, I decided to post a couple of headlines from the feed world this morning.

Apparently, the first application to be launched on Google's Open Social / Holy Grail framework was hacked in just a few minutes after its launch. Interesting.
OpenSocial Hacked In Minutes
First OpenSocial App Hacked in 45 Minutes

Also interesting, someone is now claiming that P2P users actually buy more music - not less - than everyone else. Could this be the Copernican Revolution of the 21st century music industry? Yeah. Probably not. But it's a good read anyway.
Gov't Commissioned Study Finds P2P Downloaders Buy More Music

Oh - and this could be the announcement of the month - Google is planning to unveil its 'Android' phone software project today.
Google to unveil 'Android' phone software

And I know - I never posted a follow-up to last week's SEO series post. It will be coming soon. Stay tuned...

SEO Title Tags - SEO tips for a Sunday Afternoon

I've had several friends request advice from me on optimizing their websites for search engine visibility, and so I thought it was probably about time to start a series of posts on my blog about SEO. My goal is to provide some clear and quick tips that can get someone started on the right foot when it comes to search engine optimization (SEO). The first thing that comes to my mind is title tag optimization.

Make Title Tags descriptive and unique, but uniform!

For those of you who are new to the web design world, the "title" of a webpage is what shows up in the title bar of your web browser. Usually it is blue, since most people probably have Windows running on their computer, and the default color is blue. So, look in the blue bar at the top of the browser, and you will see the title of the page.

Planning for proper title tags - the step before the step. In order to have good title tags, you've got to have pages, and in order to have good pages, you've go to have good, well organized content. Don't place all your content on one page. If you do this, viewers will find it hard to sift through the content in order to figure out what they want to know about you. Here are some easy things to do that will help you figure out how to structure your site:

1. Think about your business and how you might organize your information.
   
2. Then look at some websites of similar businesses. Go to Google.com and type in your product or industry. How are those websites organized? Are there conventions that your customers might expect when they visit a site in your industry?
3. Organize your content.
   
• Create different "buckets". You'll probably have the "homepage bucket", then the "products bucket", then the "about our company bucket", then the "contact us bucket", then (if you're big enough) a bucket with information about applying for jobs at your firm, and so on.
  
• Under the products bucket, you may have subcategories of products. Think about these things, then divide up your content and place it on corresponding pages.
  
4. Chose titles for the content on each page. Do not make all titles the same. For example, don't just use the company name as every page's title. Chose titles that describe what the page is about.
   

The most common mistake - no variation. Most small businesses probably don't pay too much attention to the title tag, other than making sure it has the company name in it somewhere. The most common thing I've seen is to have all pages in the site have the same title tag. This is a mistake. You want the titles of your pages to be different.

But some uniformity is encouraged! If your company's name were ACME Inc., you would be alright to include ACME somewhere in your title tag on every page. The best way to do this is to add the company name at the end of your title tags.

• The page that has most of the general information about your company would be titled, "About our company - ACME Inc."
• Similarly, if you were a photographer, you could have a page entitled, "Jon & Trish's Wedding - Acme Photography, Inc."

The basic principle: Unique parts of the title should come first, followed by uniform parts. This basically means that, since all titles are to be unique, place the unique parts at the beginning, followed by the category name or company name. If you're a newspaper, you would place article titles in the front of the page title, followed by the name of the newspaper. For example:

• Diplomat's speech stalled by talking donkey - The Bethlehem Chronicle

Also give the reader an idea of where they are in your site. If you have a site with lots of content and subcategories, it is a good idea to include the names of categories in the titles of the site. If you chose to do that, the above example could look like this:

• Diplomat's speech stalled by talking donkey - Local news - Bethlehem Chronicle.
  

This simple example follows the format of [Unique article title] - [Section] - [Website title]. You can easily tailor this to your site.

The moral of the story - capturing a potential customer's specific web search. If you're wondering why these suggestions have been made this way, think about things this way:

• Each search engine user out there is a potential customer of yours.
  
• When a search engine looks for results, title tags are one of the most important factors in determining the relevance of a webpage.
• If your page is relevant to the user's search, the first way you're going to tell the search engine that is by placing specific information about your page in your title tag.
  

Your company name might be important to you, but if your customer is looking for camera parts, they'll be more quickly drawn to a page that has the word "Canon" or "SLR" in the page title. If you've ever done online research about anything, just think about your own behavior when you search for something. "Smith Enterprises Inc." is not going to draw many people, if that's all your title tag says.

How to change the page's title with Notepad.

• Open Notepad.
• With notepad, click File, Open, and then find your webpage that you want to open.
• You'll see confusing text that looks like web programming language. Press Ctrl and F at the same time.
• You'll see a Search box. Type "<title>" and press Enter. (type it with the greater than and less than brackets, but without quotes.)
• You'll see something like this:
• <title>Canon Digital SLR Cameras - ACME Inc.</title>
  
• <title> and </title> The stuff between is open for you to change. That's your page's title.
  
• Change the text, save the document, then close it.
  
• You have now changed the page's title. Open it in a web browser to see the new page.

I hope that was easy enough to follow. This is the first entry in a weekly series about small business SEO. Come back next Sunday for the next article.

Special Y! Ads Still Showing Up

I was just watching the morning news programs and happened to see an ad for Special K (the cereal), which at the end tells the viewer to go to Yahoo! and search for [special k] for more information. So, naturally my first impulse was to get back to the blogosphere and post.

Here are some comments from other bloggers about the ad campaign, which I'm dubbing "Special Y!".

Special K - special idea - Residual Media
Is Yahoo Selling Out? - Scott Hendison
Just What Kind of Ads are Running on Yahoo? - CenterNetworks

The biggest concern among these writers seems to be the fact that the ads that appear do not have the expected shaded box around them, so it doesn't follow Yahoo!'s usual method of displaying sponsored results. Therefore, the concern is that users are likely to not realize the ad is an ad.

However, my main interest would be to see if there is any research out there that shows the success (or failure) of the TV ad campaign in getting people to the web. It's interesting - usually, TV ad campaigns have 1 goal - get people to buy the product. With this one, we still have that goal as the primary one, but we also have another one in the effort to get Special K's people to Yahoo!'s website.

I would really like to see some research showing traffic increases or decreases after the placement of this tv ad. Do traditional media advertisements have the ability to get people to use new media, search, social media, etc?

Bricks and Clicks - Fewer of one means fewer of the other

Perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised at the announcement that AOL will be laying off 2,000 of its current employees. Here's the blurb over at SELand:

SELand: AOL To Let Go 2,000 Employees

Target Accessibility Case Could Be A Gain For Usability

I just read an interesting article at the SEWatch blog:

SearchEngineWatch: Don't Ignore Accessibility

The article is specifically about the class-action lawsuit that has been brought against Target stores by the National Federation for the Blind. Apparently, Target's website is not fully accessible to blind users, and so Target is getting sued because this oversight violates California laws protecting people with disabilities.

Most webmasters out there know that there are things you can do to make your website accessible to blind users. Proper CSS formatting, along with proper separation of content from design in each page is all part of the process. However, doing these things will not only allow your site to be accessible to blind users, but will also allow you to make many Web 2.0-type features available on your site easily.

My hope is that better accessibility across the board will also give basic usability a boast. Perhaps we will see some quasi standards evolve for usability aspects of a site - and perhaps we will see the already existing standards become more concrete.

I Beg to Differ! Buying Ads Just Might Be the Ticket To Better Organic Listings

Consider the following post over at SELand:

No, Buying Ads Still Won't Help You With Google's Free Listings

I know, I know. By even suggesting that I disagree with this post, I'm opening myself up to criticism. Let me say that I know, and agree, with the theoretical law of SEM, that Adwords spending will in no way influence one's natural rankings on Google. I know it, you know it, we all know it.

HOWEVER...

What if we look at PPC spending as part of the SEO effort for a webmaster? SEO focuses on increasing your site's visibility. Visibility is affected by several factors, but some major ones include internal accessibility, usability, and overall popularity.

How would you go about increasing your site's overall popularity? Why, you would do whatever you could to get your site's brand name plastered around the internet. You would talk to fellow webmasters about linking to your site, try to get listed on major indexes and directories in your industry, and just get your name out there. Why wouldn't you consider PPC ads as a way to "get your name out there"? Just imagine - someone searches for your product, and there you are, right in front of them, all because you spent a few dollars.

Basically, I'm just contending that anything you can do to increase the number of links to your site out there on the internet - that is a way to increase your site's visibility and influence your site's natural rankings. Increased visibility on a SERP will result in better branding, more link juice, and eventually, better rankings.

Now, we all know about cannibalization, as well as a slew of other issues that this post raises. I know that there are other issues involved, but all I'm saying is that it may be indirect, but PPC ads can eventually influence your natural listings, if they contribute directly to the traffic on your site.



More later.

A Beginner's Guide to Search

This is another useful post form the folks over at SEOmoz:

SEOmoz | Rewriting the Beginner's Guide - Part I: How Search Engines Operate

Above all, I like their frequently appearing cartoon characters - the Google robot and, in this post, the Yahoo! spider.

Yahoo! Search Assist as a Keyword Generator

This article by Rand over at SEOmoz got me to thinking about Search Assist, the new feature from Yahoo!:

SEOmoz | Yahoo! Leveraging "Content" for Queries

Can you tell I have SEOmoz in my feed reader? Anyway...

As a result of the article, I was looking at Yahoo! SERPs, wondering about implications for my company's PPC campaigns, when I realized that Rand's observations also apply to the entire Search Assist feature in Yahoo! SERPs.

Just to quickly provide some background, Yahoo! recently rolled out the new Search Assist feature, which is advertised prominently by a yellow "post-it note" graphic "hanging" down from the search bar on the Yahoo! homepage. On every SERP, you will see keyword suggestions closely related to your search term, displayed in a box that drops down from the search bar. Click any one, and you'll be taken to a new SERP that hopefully will serve your needs better than the one that you got from your initial keyword.

Basically, the article at SEOmoz was commenting on the fact that Yahoo! has started to place links to SERPs directly on their homepage, driving users to SERPs directly related to the content of the day. For example, one of today's blurbs on the Yahoo! homepage is entitled "Cleaning up 'Rat Island'". Below the blurb, there's a link that says, "find out how to get rid of rodents", which will take a user directly to a Yahoo! SERP for the keyword "how to get rid of rodents". Not surprisingly, the top ads that can be viewed here are mostly for pest control companies.

The thing that I noticed from this is how Yahoo!'s Search Assist feature also takes you to SERPs on pre-determined keywords. Rand rightly observes that if you want to beef up traffic on your blog or website, one good idea might be to keep track of what's showing over at the Yahoo! homepage, and bid on those keywords. However, with that in mind, my observation is that the entire Search Assist feature could be used as a kind of keyword generator for your PPC campaign. You should not only keep track of what SERPs Yahoo! links to from its homepage, but you should also keep track of what SERPs are possible from the Search Assist feature. For example, after looking at the blurb about rodents and doing a few clicks on the Search Assist feature, I was able to get the following 15 keywords:

how to get rid of rodents naturally
how to get rid of rodents rats
how to get rid of rodents bait
how to get rid of rodents in your attic
how to get rid of rodents in the attic
how to get rid of rodents home
how to get rid of rodents in attic
sonic mole chaser
mole chasers
solar mole chaser
windmill mole chaser
mole chaser windmill
electronic mole chaser
solar powered mole chaser
p3 mole chaser
p3 international mole chaser

Now, I know that some of these overlap, but most of them have no ads, or at least not very many. What's more, if there are ads, they don't seem to be that helpful. Basically, I'm saying that this is a new list of 15 keywords, and the ad space for all of them should be easy to penetrate. Savvy PPC managers should not only grab Yahoo!'s content-related SERPs, but they should also grab Yahoo!'s Search Assist-generated SERPs - which will probably guarantee a number of highly targeted impressions.

Gimme a Break, Microsoft: You'll Never be Something You're Not (Google)

It looks like MS is now trying to get on the online-documents bandwagon, with their beta launch of the new MS Office Live Workspace. See this article over at SE Land:

SELand: Microsoft Office Live Workspace To Challenge Google Docs

But, really - give me a break, Microsoft. Your online file-sharing is really nothing better than an FTP account if you must have already purchased MS software in order to use the service. This is no competitor to Google's Google Docs software, which plays an entirely different game by allowing users to use software that is completely free of purchase, along with a file storage system that is also free.

Stop pretending, Microsoft - you'll never be as good as Google!

Search Volume is the Best Indicator of Satisfaction

Consider this article over at SEOMoz by Rand Fishkin:

SEOmoz | Yahoo! Is the Most Fulfilling Search Engine?

Rand acknowledges Compete.com's recent findings that say Yahoo! is the most successful major search engine at getting users to click on a result - in other words, Yahoo! SERPs have the highest CTR. However, Rand extrapolates from this that Yahoo! users are the most satisfied users. I don't know if this is the case - just because Yahoo! has a higher CTR on their search results, I don't know if that means Yahoo! users are more satisfied than Google users.

By contrast, I would look at reports such as this one and extrapolate that, since Google's market share is so large, that means Google is so satisfying that it gets everyone's search attempts - even the ones where people don't think they're going to find anything.

Obviously, there are some differences between SERPs on Google and Yahoo. At least, 7 of the top 10 sites will often be the same, though they may not be in the same order. These differences may be what gives Google its edge in market share.

I would like to see some data on searches per user. I know this would be hard to compile, but I think that would take us closer to knowing which SE is actually more satisfying. If a user identifies one SE as more successful, my guess is that the main indicator would be the return visit. And, based on Google's proven ability to steadily keep its market share up, I think the right assumption would be that Google is most satisfactory.

The New Official DMOZ Blog

The Official DMOZ Blog


DMOZ has launched their own blog now. i wonder if this has anything to do with the disappearing of the DMOZ homepage from the Google listings?

Google Goes Outside

Google Uses Outdoor Billboards To Promote Goog411

Interestingly, Google has chosen to use outdoor billboards for initial promotion of its new 411 service. We'll see if this proliferates. Currently, I get the feeling that if you're not online very much, you don't have the same perception of the Google brand as you would if you were constantly surfing the web.

This has significant implications for the over-40, rural demographic that probably doesn't spend that much time perusing websites or buying adwords. Are those the people more likely to use 411? Or, as SELand observes, is this completely a location thing, an attempt to get people's attention when they're at the place where they're most likely to use 411?

I think it's a mix. Those getting their direction from billboards are more likely to be older, less online-savvy users, and therefore Google wants to not exclude those people. However, billboards are probably also more effective media for 411 ads, simply because of their location - people see them while in cars, which is the time when they're most likely to use 411.

Google News Indexing Ads On UK News Site

Google News May Index Your Ads

SELand noted today that Google News has been indexing a certain Nationwide ad ("Nationwide" the insurance company) in actually SERP listings for news titles. It's very interesting, and bad, but for some reason the text of the ad is showing up under headlines on the SERP for things like the UK kidnapping of Madeleine.

I don't think this is a widespread danger, because it's only happening for one site - InTheNews.co.uk. Anyway, there is something screwy about the way that Overture has chosen to display the ads on the site's pages. It just doesn't seem like a good design choice. Plus, the width of the ad has made a scroll bar necessary in my browser. Check it out.

The Changing Amazon

I'm sure I'm the last to notice this, but it looks like Amazon.com has done a pretty extensive redesign of their site. The ultimate useful site from the popular design book Don't Make Me Think! has made a major change to the tab-driven design that originally made the site so easy to navigate. They do acknowledge that their difficulty in designing their sight in a usable way stems from their expansion to over 40 categories of goods sold on their site. The new site, still in a testing, or beta, phase, does away with the old all-tabbed navigation and opts for a tidy pull-down menu.

I did take 2 minutes to look at the source code of the navigation elements of the pages, and it looks like a pure CSS and JavaScript pop-down menu. All of the elements are always present, and JavaScript changes the display attributes on mouse events. I'm sure you get the picture without me explaining it. In case you're interested, here's a cool example of a menu you can create with CSS and JavaScript.

We'll see how this affects Amazon's status as the most usable major Marketplace website out there. What will their customers and partners think?

Can't Ignore the Drama

YouTube - University of Florida student Tasered at Kerry forum



I decided that I just could not ignore the news that is going on in real life - a student gets tasered for being overly outspoken at a John Kerry event on the campus at the University of Florida.

Looking at it with social media in mind, it is truly incredible. Instantly, the Youtube video was posted by the Gainesville Sun, and in 4 days it's been viewed over 1.5 million times. It has 20,751 comments on Youtube. There are 70 video responses. It's a national media blockbuster on news channels.

My personal opinion is... well, I don't want to give people too many reasons to dislike me...

Going back to the 1.5 million views in 4 days... That's 375,000 views/day. That's about 15,625 views/hour. That's about 260 views/minute. And that's just with the 1 video from Gainesville Sun - I'm not even thinking of all the copies that are floating around the internet.

Since the video is about 6 minutes long, one could say that at any single moment over the past 4 days, 1,562 people have been watching the video from the Gainesville Sun simultaneously.

The Sens Take on the Googs

Google-DoubleClick Senate Hearing To Begin Next Week

As I said before, I don't think it's likely that the government will block the merger of Google and Doubleclick. I think the reasons for anti-trust action are too technical for the average person to care, and people translate to votes. This drastic action would not have a payoff of popularity with the general public, in my opinion. Even though the FTC is supposedly insulated from the voters, they still answer to politicians. And this is why I think that Google-Doubleclick will continue forward as the new organizers of the world's information.

Google Acting Screwy

Just now, I was trying to view the Adwords campaigns that I'm managing, and I got a page with the following message from Google:

The AdWords account interface is temporarily unavailable due to system maintenance. AdWords is expected to be down from approximately 10:00 AM until 2:00 PM PDT [?] on September 8, 2007. Please note that your campaigns will be running normally during this short period of downtime, which only affects your account management pages. We apologise for any inconvenience.

It's probably nothing, but I just thought it was worth noting, since today is September 20th.

Splitting Traffic, not Hairs

SearchEngineWatch: Split Traffic, Raise Conversion Rates, Repeat, Multiply

This is a very good article by Eric Enge over at SE Watch. It's very well laid out, and all the terms are defined for those of us that are still novices. As most PPC experts out there will attest, it is very important to segment your traffic, and find out what about your site is successful.

Superpages / Idearc Continues With Plans For World Domination

Superpages Parent To Acquire InfoSpace Directory Sites - SE Land

Lately, it looks like I could just start a Superpages/Idearc blog, and constantly have new things to write about. Idearc is poised to make Superpages into the world's largest online directory site with the just-announced purchase of InfoSpace's directory assets. That leaves the former online giant Infospace with just their search and mobile assets, raising questions about the company's future.

This also raises questions about the future of Superpages. The purchase was a large one - $225 million - an indicator of the big plans Idearc must have for its new acquisition. What sort of site can we foresee from Superpages? Or, is it more likely that Idearc will just continue the Switchboard site as it currently is?

Presidential Thoughts

Old Dudes Dig Fred [ClickZ]

This is an interesting, if brief, post over at ClickZ's blog about presidential hopeful Fred Thompson. Of note, though is the mention that Republican Ron Paul's campaign site has garnered the most traffic from social networking sites like Facebook, Flickr, and MySpace. Of course, Obama and Hillary are next in line, but does anyone else out there think this is strange? I would think the younger, more internet-savvy voters would be the ones visiting Obama or Hillary's sites - not those perusing the site of a libertarian.

All That Shift

The Online News Shift and Hyperlocal Content | Searchviews

A very interesting development - the LA Times, one of the big-time players in print media, is planning to eventually become a primarily online news source. This is at the expense of their print business. Seeing that the future of news will be in so-called hyperlocal content and other online media, they are saying that their print publication will eventually shrink considerably. This comes as some have labeled the newspaper as "web-stupid", possibly a very telling designation for our times.

I'll write more later - it's late, and I'm busy.

People at SuperPages / Idearc Read This Blog!

I just thought this was cool, so I decided to post about it...

After my morning rant about Superpages, I was surprised (shouldn't have been) to find evidence in my server logs that I was briefly showing up in searches involving the keyword "superpages".

However, I was also surprised to see that the people clicking through to this blog did so from the Idearc offices in Dallas, Texas.

[The screenshot of my analytics software, showing the ISP and location of this user, has been removed. I decided that was a little much.]

So, maybe that means that they'll change the entire layout and architecture of their website because of my previous post. Right.

Superpages Keeps Making Me Think!

Superpages Acquires 'LocalSearch.com' Domain - SE Land

Interestingly, Superpages has purchased another locally-focused domain name. Superpages is interested in branching out, but I would like to see them do more for the discipline of vertical search.

In its present interface, Superpages, like YellowBook, does not do much for you that a plain old paper edition of the Yellow Pages can't. Whether you use Advanced Search or the plain old search bar at the top of the page, you are not taken directly to the businesses you want. I put in [HVAC repair] in my city, and was pointed to a list of categories that would "refine my search". There are 109 businesses listed for "Heating & Air Conditioning Service & Repair", but only 99 listed for "Air Conditioning Service & Repair". Aren't those the same thing? Are businesses cross-listed, or did the website somehow separate the two categories?

There are far too many questions here. Don't make me think!

Anyway, since it's 100 degrees outside, I'm not to keen on the category that begins with "Heating", so I click the second choice. Behold I have a list of contractors. But where do I click? The business names are red, italicized font, with no click-ability. That seems like it would be the place you would want people to click. However, the "Click Here" is hiding over to the right.

Then, after further inspection, I realize the "names" are actually titles chosen by each company. They're not actually business names, but rather catch phrases that are supposed to make me notice each one individually. What tipped me off? I noticed that "Home Cooling Estimates" looked like a pretty weird business name.

And then, lo and behold, some "business names" actually are click-able.

Evidently, usability is not the name of the game here.

Another Style Update

I thought I'd post just to say something about the obvious fact that things look a bit different around here. I decided to change the layout and color scheme - yet again. This time, I genuinely believe this look is better and more suited to the blog.

However, I didn't just decide to change things for change's sake - I was forced to.

"Forced?" you say. Yes - forced. While there was no gun to my head, some things I had done to the raw code in the layout of my blog were making the whole thing go haywire. I was unable to ad or manipulate certain widgets that should not have given me any problems at all. Without going into too much detail, I'll just say that it was a big enough nuisance that I just decided to start things over and give the thing a new look. That's the persistent person that I am!

Enjoy.

Put Yourself on the Map, Google Analytics

Website Optimizer Gets an Update

Amid all the updates and fanfare for the steadily improving Google Analytics service, there is one glaring omission, and that is the Google Map. We have the ability to see a "Map Overlay" of our visitors, showing us primarily where the people came from, but the map lacks the functionality of Google's own maps, which would actually be useful in this application.

Maybe this is part of Google's agreement not to divulge personal information of website visitors, such as I.P. addresses. An exact location, I suppose, may also fall within that agreement. Who knows?

Selling Links what the worst that can happen

Selling Links what the worst that can happen

All I can say is, Dave, please read your posts before we do. That title doesn't even make sense!

He does raise some good questions, as always, though.

Finally!!! Search in the place you'd most expect it

Official Google Reader Blog: "We found it!"

It looks like the millions of pleas for a searchable Google Reader have finally reached the ears of the Google gods. At long last, we now have the ability to search within Google Reader.

When they label the post "We found it!", it makes me wonder what they are trying to communicate. Did they just now remember how to do the one thing that they are good at? Did they create the functionality, then lose it, and then find it again?

Anyway, it seems like this was one feature they should have placed within the Google Reader gadget from the start. Their post makes them sound oblivious to the fact that most people saw this as a glaring omission to this point.

How Search Engines Will Grow

SEOmoz | Where are Search Engines Most Likely To Innovate?

Above is a very quick and interesting look at how search engines might change and grow over the coming years, posted by Rand over at SEOmoz.

Personally, I see vertical search as the area with potential that has been developed the least, and therefore has the most potential for growth. I say this with sites like Magicyellow.com, Yellowbook.com, and ServiceMagic.com in mind, because these are the big players in the game of "who-ya-gonna-call" in the online world. These are the cats throwing the most money into offline advertising and branding, in efforts to push people onto their sites and use their listings.

Basically, these sites are also the reasons that I say the area is under-developed. Case in point: if you need a plumber, and you want to find one online, these days you go to Magicyellow or Yellowbook (or place your own home-service-related website here). You plug "plumbers" into the search box, along with a location, and press Enter, and you are given a results page that has a long list of plumber-related services.

Sidenote: if you're on Magicyellow, you're only given a list of the categories that most closely match your search. Do you want "plumbers" or "Plumbing Drain & Sewer Cleaning"? Will one give you better results because it sounds more specific? Are they really different categories, or just different names listed for the same group of businesses? In spite of the poor interface, I click on "plumbers"... and get a page full of ads! What's the difference between "Premier Advertisers", "Preferred Advertisers", "Sponsored Listings", and "Courtesy Listings"? Did the courtesy listings people pay to get their business listed, or are they provided as a "courtesy" of some sort?

Anyway, when you do get to the list of plumbers, there is no added value - the experience gives you the same benefit as looking up plumbers in the phone book (on paper!). There's a list of companies, and you still have no idea which is best for you. As I said, you might as well just open the phone book.

And don't get me started on sites like ServiceMagic. Here, you don't even get to look at the list - you have to submit your personal information into cyberspace, then wait while the website contacts plumbers "for you". Are you kidding? That's not the internet! That's not what the internet is supposed to be. I want to pick the service myself! I can be my own 411 - just give me the required information!

More on this later... I'm at work, and this is starting to take up more time than I thought it would.

What You Say Is As Important as What You Pay

What You Say Is As Important as What You Pay | Modern B2B Marketing Blog | Marketo

This is a very interesting, and brief, post about the importance of targeted landing pages. I was very surprised to learn that only a quarter of all PPC ads take users to targeted landing pages.

Japan Is Getting its Foot in the Door

Japan Begins Government-led Search Research [SearchEngineWatch]

This is an interesting development. Normally, I would be saying that any government-led foray into anything business is probably going to go very slowly and not do nearly as well as a private establishment could.

It's my opinion that governments are supposed to take us in directions that businesses will not be able to. There are several reasons that business communities don't do things - usually the reason is that there is not a good way to make a profit from providing a service. Other times, the service is something that everyone needs, and there is no business big enough to take on the task. Public transportation is a good example of a service that, in most areas where it is provided, fits these two characteristics.

However, governments all over the world actively direct their own economies. America has farm subsidies. There is OPEC. And Japan looks like it is trying to push its economy forward in the area of search. I think it's a good thing for them, because, at least from the looks of it, someone in the Japanese government has sat down and taken a good look at where the technology market is going. This is an intelligent move by government, and I hope it does well for Japanese businesses.

Changing the Blogger Title Tag

Changing the Blogger Title Tag ~ Widget-based

This is a great post. I recently read another article that said one of the biggest mistakes we bloggers make is letting the blog software automatically create page titles for us. It said to at least change the software code so that it automatically places the post title before the blog's title on post pages. Looking at Google's template, I was a bit clueless until I found this post from the Widget-based blog. This post has some very useful code that will do just what I wanted. It only affects post pages, so the index page of your blog will stay the same.

Print vs Silicon

A few times a month, I don't have time to read a really interesting article that shows up in my feed reader, so I go to the website and print out the article for reading later. I've definitely noticed that once I do that, it usually takes me 2, maybe 3 days to finish reading the article, and I generally read everything in the article. My behavior with reading articles on my computer screen is much different - I rarely read every word (or paragraph even), and I never leave the article until later, if I do decide to read it. Without delving too deeply into the issue (I'm pressed for time), I'm just wondering what the real causes are for the differences in behavior. Thinking of the two situations even more, I realize that I'm fairly likely to click on ads online, whereas I hardly ever pay attention to advertisements in a newspaper or magazine. There definitely are opportunities for exploiting such behavior for gain.

Another New Feature...

Just FYI, I have made another addition to the blog - I've added links to what I'm currently reading. This will be located in the sidebar, labeled "stack" (as in, the stack of stuff that I'm currently reading). I think it'll be a good addition.

Will the Internet Eventually Close the Loop?

SELand: What Influences Online Searches?

OK, so this is not a link to the actual study, but iProspect conducted a recent study that says, according to SELand,

"...offline channels prompt two-thirds of online search. 37% said a television ad encouraged them to conduct a search, 36% said word-of-mouth initiated a search, 30% said a print ad, 20% said a physical store's location and 17% said a radio ad."

If it were me and I were an offline kind of guy, I'd be asking, "where'd that other third of the people go?" It used to be that all searches were prompted somewhere along the line by offline channels. But if a third of the people don't even get their search terms offline, then I am thinking that number is not going to get any smaller.

Is this an indicator of the power of offline channels, or an indicator of the growth of the internet?

A Message to the TV Industry

BBC NEWS | The Editors' Blog: A Message to the TV Industry

If you read this blog at all, you're probably surprised that this post is implying that I've gotten at least some of my news from the BBC, given my recent post about how the news giant just doesn't know how to blog. But, alas, I did read an interesting post this morning in the editorial blog about the upcoming International TV Festival, to be held this weekend in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Basically, the post is just brushing the surface with a couple of general questions about the industry, asking whether TV is trustworthy, and which direction the industry will take in the future. It's a worthy quandary, but I think there are also some other issues to consider.

Like, for instance, how is TV going to follow the example of the internet and become an efficient medium for communication, and a more effective place for investor dollars? It used to be that everyone watched TV at night when they got home. If a Presidential debate was on, or the World Series, or even just the Braves' game, you could bet that most people would be watching something between 7pm and 11pm. The Nightly News, with Dan Rather, with Peter Jennings, with Tom Brokaw... remember? "More Americans get their news... " Now, you can't really say that more Americans get anything from TV, any more than they get it from somewhere else.

But I think that the most important perspective is probably that of the advertiser. With the Internet, there is Cost-Per-Click, which gives you Click-Thru-Ratio, Impressions, and reports on spending categorized any way you like them. Basically, the idea is that you know exactly how much business you are generating from an Internet ad. And so you pump in more money - or, better yet, just the right amount of money.

With TV, there never has been that opportunity for measurement. Everyone just knew that, if you were big enough, you ought to advertise on TV, and in generally, you'll help grow your customer base. But is the ambiguity in knowledge of ROI enough to make people begin to see TV as a second-rate advertising medium, compared to the internet? These are the questions TV must grapple with, I think.

BBC NEWS "Blog" - How not to blog

BBC NEWS | The Editors

I subscribed to the BBC News blog weeks ago, and I really can't find a justifiable reason why. I think I did it mainly because they had a blog, and as I am always reading blogs, I thought it would be good to read one put out by a major news organization that is read by everyone - not just bloggers and SEO geeks (sorry everyone, but that's what we are).

What I ended up with was a bunch of blog entries that I now just gloss over in my feed reader without thinking twice. And why shouldn't I? Does anyone out there actually read the BBC Blog?

For starters, the posts I end up reading have very descriptive titles. That's what I need to get me interested, especially when I have 100 new posts to sort through every day!

Take, for instance, this title from SELand:

AOL's Truveo Introduces New Video Search Site And Consumer Destination


What do you think this post is about? It's a stupid question - the subject is in the title. Now, look at this title from the BBC:

Setting up camp

What is this about? After reading the first paragraph, I'm still not sure. This is how it starts off:

It’s a pretty quiet period for news at the moment - fairly normal for August though - and sometimes it can be a bit of a struggle to find enough stories from around the UK.

It turns out that the post is about climate change protesters setting up camp near Heathrow Airport. What's more, it doesn't say much, besides the admission that there aren't many stories around, and so they're just writing about things people can see from their office window.

And even more than that, only the first 2 lines of the post were visible in my feed reader! Why am I going to go out of my way, click on the feed, open it in another window, and read to the middle of the post, just to figure out what the thing is about?

Here's the lesson for bloggers - learn from my inadvertent behavior.

• Make your titles descriptive and specific.
• Subscribe to your own feed so that you know what it looks like in a feed reader.
• Make sure people can read enough of each post in a reader to grab their interest.
• And... write about interesting stuff - don't just write to be writing!

Google Sued! By Idiots! With Lots of Money!

Google Sued For Trademark Infringement By American Airlines Over Sponsored Ads

Dude, this is amazing. This is just another example of big corporate lawyers making more work for themselves over frivolity. If they're so smart, they could put some of that brain power to use by solving the worlds problems, instead of creating new ones.

Matching Keywords With Yahoo

Got Ads?: Yahoo Panama Tip: Advanced Match vs Standard Match Type - Advertising revolving around Google

This is a short but informative post over at Got Ads about the way to best optimize your Yahoo! keywords. Admittedly, I don't have very much experience with Yahoo search marketing, especially compared to what I have done with Google Adwords. This is one difference that just makes me think, "why couldn't they just copy Google?" Really. Why wouldn't they?

With Yahoo!, you have two options for keyword matching in your ad systems - Standard and Advanced. The two options are vaguely explained:

• Standard match type – for exact matches of your keywords or their minor variations.
• Advanced match type – for matches that use your keywords in various contexts.

That is not very helpful. In an apparent attempt to clarify, Yahoo added:

"When using Advanced match type, we also provide you with our Excluded Words option to help refine your matches by filtering out searches that do are not relevant to your business.

Standard Match Type The Standard match type displays your ads for exact matches to your keywords, as well as for singular/plural variations and common misspellings."

C'mon, Yahoo!, throw us a bone.

Where do you find a good plumber?

MagicYellow online Yellow Pages

Has anyone actually used MagicYellow.com? Basically, it's the phone book online. It's a bunch of companies that said, "hey, Mr. Yellow, let me be in your book. Here's $5." Basically, the point is that there is no quality control to these kinds of sites. There's also ServiceMagic.com, FindaContractor.com, and a handful of other websites that generate leads for the average contractor.

To the contractor, it's a risk, but not a high one. ServiceMagic sells leads in groups of 10, 20, or more per month, and the contractor simply pays a fixed fee.

For the consumer, the service is marketed as a way to find "pre-screened" contractors to work in your home, but in actuality, there's nothing "magic" about the service providers. They are just the ones that were good enough to pay ServiceMagic for the placement on the website.

So, again, where do you find a good plumber? The answer is, we don't know. At least, as far as the internet is concerned, we don't know. Nobody is taking full advantage of the abilities of vertical search or Web 3.0 in this realm on a large scale.

Essentially, MagicYellow is still in the age of Web 1.0, serving up big lists. There's not much of an algorithm to go with. We've got the resources to do much better than that.

Using Vertical Search To Incite Market Upheaval

I was talking with a friend last night about ways to change marketplaces for the better, and we talked for a while about vertical search, and the potential to bring organization to disaggregated industries. How do I find a good web designer? There isn't a plethora of options. However, with the right website and programming, there could be a system that would bring the right person to your door (or to your phone) in a matter of a few minutes and a few clicks of the mouse.

I don't have that much time to write now, so this is it for now, but I will write more soon...

Changes in the Future

Just to let everyone know, I've made a couple of changes to the blog here. Nothing drastic, but if you really don't like them, or if they are harmful to your reading, then please let me know and I'll give your comments consideration.

Now that the site has had over 500 visitors and counting, I've installed some Google-ness between each post. I've given in to the urge to place Adsense between each post. We'll see where this goes. I think it breaks up each post nicely. (!) I don't expect to make much off of it, but I figured it couldn't hurt.

I've also made all the post titles bigger, something I should have done long ago. I'm a sucker for design - which you wouldn't know from viewing this blog - so I like to change things up if I think they will look better.

More to come soon...

JupiterResearch: Google And Yahoo Are Top Online Brands

JupiterResearch: Google And Yahoo Are Top Online Brands

This is an interesting look at brand research

A quick correction to the last post...

My apologies to Rand over at SEOmoz. I said in my post earlier today that he was the author of the post I commented on, when in fact, it was written by James C. Zolman (jameszol).

My bad.

And, according to Rand, the article was actually promoted from YOUmoz. So, it actually wasn't an SEOmoz opinion, I guess, though they did see fit to promote the article to their site.

I just couldn't help but set the record straight.

More to come soon...

JT

SEOmoz Gets It Right, But Also Gets It Wrong

To begin, let me say that, while I have been posting, I have gotten busy and fallen behind on my reading. So my posts have not been much more than, "hey, look at this article." I haven't had much to say that's been my own.

However, today, I've got to say something about this article over at SEOmoz. I'll try to keep it short...

SEOmoz | The Economic Motive Behind Google's New Advertisement Algorithm

This article is of great interest to me, since I was once an Econ major in school. Rand gets the overall idea right by saying that demand has shifted solely because of Google's change in its ad formula. However, his graph is wrong.



He says that demand moves to the right, and he is correct.
However, this is what the graph ought to look like:



Supply does not change - it is the same no matter what demand is. In Rand's graph, supply has actually increased with the new demand, which would mean that there would be more advertising slots to sell than there were before. But in actuality, the supply of ad spots - or Impressions - did not change. There are still just 3 top spots - same as before - and 10 to 12 spots on each SERP.

Most people want to at least be on the first SERP, so that would mean that on each serch, there will also be only 3 top spots at the most, plus an additional 9 or 10 spots - a maximum total of 13. That will never change, unless Google overhauls its format.

So, supply is vertical. It never changes, which means that small changes in demand will significantly affect the price, as we will see here.

A Funny Look At The New Google Adwords Formula

Graywolf's SEO Blog: New Google Adwords Formula = Just Pay Us More

This post is good for a few laughs. Actually, I was reading about the new Adwords formula just yesterday on the Google Help Center, and briefly wondered how this would affect my current ad spending. It's interesting that Michael openly acknowledges that this is bad news, except for...

"except for you pesky blackhat ppc seo’s with two accounts …"

Those pesky people with 2 accounts, huh? Doesn't Google know how to sniff those people out? Seems like yet another thing that Google ought to be able to catch quite easily, but apparently hasn't.

Shocking, but then again not so shocking - Gaming Google

Closed Loop Marketing Blog: Gaming Google - It Really Is That Easy…

This is a very good article from the blog at Closed Loop Marketing. Basically, they unearthed a very (obviously) blatant link-buying scheme, which basically amounts to cloaking (showing Googlebot something different than what the user sees) in order to place links on fairly prominent sites around the internet, thereby juicing up Google rankings for crappy pages like InkAndStuff.co.uk (no link there - they don't deserve any more than they have).

I'm surprised that the research was so obviously incriminating - there are no implications, just obvious facts. MyWebStats.org is using a link selling scheme to fund itself, making its users unwittingly involved in skewing of SE results around the world!

Welcome to Virgin America

Welcome to Virgin America

The newest American air line is here - it's Virgin America, which has started operations on this side of the pond, with its first hub at San Fran.

Anyway, they've got a cool website. I definitely like the flash video on the homepage. Very easy, and very inviting. I almost wish I lived in San Fransisco or LA.

Don't Obsess Over Superficial Details

Don't Obsess Over Superficial Details

A very good article over at SELand. That's a good site they've got going there.
JT

The Real Big Brother

FTC Town Hall Meeting To Examine 'Behavioral Advertising'

It is very nice that the government itself is actually turning its eye to the world of search. This article from SELand is about the upcoming FTC open forum to be held this November about the so-called "Behavioral targeting." However, as we have often seen, the government usually only complicates things and generally slows the progress of innovation. What is a town-hall meeting going to accomplish anyway?

Search Illustrated: Search Engine Click-Thru Behavior; You've Got To Be In The Top Ten!

Something we all knew, but it is nice to be reminded by real data:

Search Illustrated: Search Engine Click-Thru Behavior; You've Got To Be In The Top Ten!

FT article: Online ads will overtake newspapers in US by 2011

Financial Times: Online ads to overtake US newspapers

This article foretells something we all know is coming sooner or later. However, I wonder how the paper's source, Veronis Suhler Stevenson, came to conclude that we would have to wait 4 more years to witness this eclipse. It seems the prediction is based on the fact that growth in online ads has averaged 21% annually.

But if this has been the average growth, who's to say the revenues will increase uniformly along that 21% line? I would think there will soon come a "tipping point," after which we will see the vast majority of serious players shift the bulk of their advertising dollars to the online market. If that were the case, the growth could go to 25%, then balloon to 30, then to 40, and so on. And if so, we could see online ad spending eclipse the old newspaper guard somewhere within the next 2 to 3 years.

However, either way, we are probably only talking about a maximum difference of 12 to 18 months. The point is definitely that the shift is coming, whether it happens 2 years from now or 4 years from now. The important thing is to anticipate it, and use any foreknowledge to jump ahead of your competition.

SEW Blog's Response to Matt Cutts's Blog...

SearchEngineWatch Blog: Google Indexing Near Real Time

Here is SEW's response to Cutts's post about real-time indexing on Google's spidering. It is very interesting as well, and points out that we need to remember that Cutts's post relates just to indexing and not necessarily to ranking. Rankings will change over time. However, indexing - according to Google - ought to happen real-time in the not-so-distant future.

It's not Big Brother, but it is Google helping create a more usable internet.

Matt Cutts -- "Minty Fresh Indexing"

Check out Matt Cutts's blog: Minty Fresh Indexing

Nice to know that those guys over at Google are keeping it real.

This does kind of sound a little bit like Matt is saying, "I work for the greatest company ever" or "My job is better than your job!"

He's probably right...

Anyway, way to go, Google. It's like Google is the feed reader for the whole internet.

ConverStations: Facebook vs LinkedIn

ConverStations: Facebook vs LinkedIn

A very interesting post by Mike over at Converstations. I forgot to put this blog on my feed reader, after finding it interesting enough to put on my blogroll (to the right side of the page). I finally did put it on my feed reader, and I suggest you do the same. Mike is keen on blogging, especially for business purposes, as a way to create an ongoing dialog with the public.

Anyway, Facebook is an excellent online community for people to be plugged into. I finally took the Facebook plunge for myself about 2 months ago, and I am very happy with the site. I agree with Mike that opening up the platform to outside developers might be Facebook's trump card over other communities like LinkedIn.

Google Adwords statistics are going haywire!

Take a look here:




That's right, it says that I actually got more clicks than impressions! 5 clicks, in only 2 impressions, which makes up for the 0 for 3 on the first keyword!

Man, I must have been doing something right when I picked that keyword.

In case you're interested in actually using adwords, take a look at this latest post on the Adwords blog about the new Search Query Performance Report. It's a good addition, which should have been made long ago.

Updates to my favorite travel search engine

About Kayak.com

I just wanted to give some notoriety (and link juice, not that it means anything coming from my little blog) to my favorite travel search engine, Kayak.com, because they have recently updated their website, adding some very good improvements.

This is a site which I check regularly to see if it would make any sense to start planning that vacation to... wherever. The site has been updated with new "Matrix" and "Chart" views for search results, and the SERPs have received some graphical tightening. It looks great, and all the old functionality that drew me to the site in the first place is still there.

The attraction of Kayak.com is that you can use this one website to search for low fares across all the major travel websites (Orbitz, Expedia, Cheaptickets, etc.). Just query a destination and date, and it will search all of those engines for you at once. Very convenient.

So, if you're planning your next trip, I would say go to Kayak.com.

WebAnalyticsDemystified Report Says "Spend Your Money!"

New Report from WebAnalyticsDemystified [SearchEngineWatch]
WebAnalyticsDemystified: The Problem with Free Analytics

Over at SEWatch, they posted yesterday about this report, put out by WebAnalyticsDemystified, which talked about the "problems" associated with free analytics. More properly, the report ought to be titled so that its subject matter is made more clear: the report actually exposes some of the problems with how free analytics programs are used. It doesn't delve into any conspiracy theories about Google using all the data collected by Google Analytics, or anything like that. It just says that companies not willing to spend the money on analytics software are less likely to see high ROI on the money they spend paying an employee to track their website with free software.

*ahem*... Well, duh!

One thing I noticed in the findings of the report that seemed screwy was their finding about ad-hoc usage. According to the report,

"35% of free analytics users reort only an ad-hoc use of the tool, as opposed to less than 20% who used a paid for solution."

Hmmm... Did that say 20%? Obviously, if you don't pay anything for a piece of software, you're going to be less likely to use it in a productive, systematic way. I'm not surprised by the 35% number. But 20% of paying users report "ad-hoc" usage? That's atrocious. And, since the number is so large, I don't think it helps them prove their point. Rather, it just shows that most people out their don't have a very good idea of how they should use their analytics software, including those who pay for it. I would never have thought that 20% of people paying for web analytics would report just ad hoc usage. Shows what I know...

Google Wireless Phone

Google Wireless Phone

Dan Horton just posted about the coming Google Wireless Phone on DaveN's blog. Good post. And, I must add, Dan seems to be a much better writer than DaveN himself. I mean, Dave... c'mon. It makes you look bad when you use such bad grammar. Your sentences often don't even make sense.

Anyway, so Google might put out a phone that will finally liberate us from the wireless tyrants (ATT, Verizon, Sprint). I mean, nobody gets a good deal from these companies, and they all tailor their software specifically so that you'll have to buy more features on your monthly plan in order to do the things that would make your cell phone really useful. Like... send SMSs to your email box.

Anyway, Go Google! Great post on DaveN's blog.
JT



-

White Paper by Scott Cleland on the Proposed Google/Doubleclick Merger

Googleopoly.net

Yeah... I don't really know what to say about the whole anti-trust aspect of the Google/Doubleclick merger. This, even though I did minor in Economics in school, and Anti-trust Econ was my favorite class.

Scott Cleland has taken the time to give us a whitepaper on the proposed merger, basically detailing why he thinks that the FTC is going to beat Google down. I have not finished reading the entire report, but the gist of his outlook for the future is that Google is the next Microsoft: Cleland thinks that Google will displace Microsoft as the leading concern of the Anti-trust community.

While he may be right in saying that Google will get beaten down on this one, I don't know if we're going to see the displacement of Microsoft as the most evil monopolizer of the tech world. Basically, I think that everyone jumped on top of Microsoft because their actions were very obviously anti-competitive, and everyone could understand how. Microsoft had become the number 1 OS in the world, and it was actively trying to use that position to strongarm Dell and other computer manufacturers into placing other MS software on computers that came with Windows pre-installed, thereby reducing the chance that users would use software developed by smaller start-ups once they got their computers. It's obvious. Microsoft was the devil for doing this, especially since the software they were pushing was far from being the best out there.

However, I doubt that the public understands the anti-competitive aspects of Google's activities, and so my guess is that they won't care as much. Yes, some out there realize that Google is getting really big - they are presently the world's largest media company, valued at over $130 billion at the time of the YouTube merger. However, I doubt that most people really understand just how Google makes all of its cash. With Microsoft, it was easy - though they did pay millions to develop Windows, each unit costs them pennies to produce (the cost of a CD... and case... and that good-for-nothing manual... and a box), and they continually get hundreds of dollars per unit. With Google, nobody really sees them selling anything at all, except for the advertisers that buy ads. And, I think it's going to hard to convince the average person that someone can really make 100 billion dollars, just from the little ads on the side of a SERP, which really don't even... exist.

Basically, I'm not saying that Google isn't behaving in an anti-competitive manner, but I am saying that Cleland is wrong: Google will not displace Microsoft as the biggest concern of the anti-trust community. Why? Because I think Google will reach monopoly status before anyone realizes it, and will stay there without the public understanding. Without an outcry from a group that is at least somewhat representative of the general public, there will be no praise for bringing down Google. Without the public praise, there's no incentive, which means there will be more incentive to go do something else... like bring down Microsoft. Or, go fly fishing. That's what those DC-politician-types like to do, anyway, isn't it?

Because the anti-trust world is a political world - at least in some sense - the lack of public outcry over Google means that the anti-trust world will not be able to devote the time that will be necessary to bring down Google in the future. Though they might bring down this merger, Google will be fine. Doubleclick may be fine. Both will continue on, and Google in particular will continue to weave its lengthy fingers around us even further, waiting for the day when we may realize the control they have over us, but also realize that we actually gave them that control long ago, quickly and without consideration, and that dismantling it now would mean dismantling the whole world we have come to know.

Sounds like an old movie. That could never really happen!

FYI - This is what Google had to say about their proposed merger with Doubleclick back in April:
GoogleBlog: The next step in Google Advertising

Adwords reporting is ever more useful

Inside AdWords: Discover your share of voice with Impression Share reporting

One of the problems I had while doing initial research prior to starting my company's Adwords campaign was finding out how many searches keywords actually get each day/week/month. If the keywords don't receive significant traffic, which is usually the case for keywords that are regionally focused, it is often hard to find traffic statistics.

Here's an example of my dilemma. The number of people searching for [used cars] is going to be immense across the whole country. Bob Smith's Used Cars in Des Moines, IA, is not going to really benefit from bidding for that keyword phrase. He would benefit from bidding on a phrase that was obviously aimed at finding used cars in the Des Moines region. However, traffic on [Des Moines used car dealers] is going to be substantially less than [used cars], which is good, in this case. Bob wants to draw from the subset of people looking for the latter keyword, and he doesn't want to mess with anyone searching for the former.

However, what if the town is substantially smaller - like, say, a suburb of a metro area? What if you wanted data on keywords related to convenience stores in Riverdale, Maryland? I doubt you can find much data using whatever tools are available to the general public. Wordtracker and Overture will probably tell you there's too little data to make a calculation.

But now, I can use the Google's Impression Share data to see how often my ad is displayed compared to the total number of available impressions in the market. This gives me an exact idea of how much traffic my keywords get each day, which is exactly what I wanted on the front end. Yes, I did have to actually put the money down first in order to get this data, but it's still a valuable metric to have, and it helps me know what I had wanted to find out originally.

SEOmoz | The AdWords Ad Optimization Process - Little Changes Have a Big Effect

SEOmoz | The AdWords Ad Optimization Process - Little Changes Have a Big Effect

A great post from Rand at SEOmoz about some basic paid search campaign strategies.

Google Planning Mobile Media Search Engine?

Google Planning Mobile Media Search Engine?

Just a link to what I'm reading at the moment. C'mon, Google! We want you in the mobile phone market.

I also was recently thinking that it's interesting that we Google fans usually seem to be Mac fans as well, mostly because of the characterization of MS as the devil incarnate. However, Apple's operations have not been "open source" by any means, though they do continue to strive to produce superior products.

The principle behind most geeks' love for Google seems to be related to organic growth. Finally, here's a company, in Google, that is not perfect, but seems to be honestly stretching its arms to reach the goals that will really advance its industry for the better. There is a connection here with open source software - especially since most of Google opens up most of their products to independent developers by releasing APIs and publishing development tips on blogs.

So do we cheer for Apple based on principle or quality? If we say it is principle, then it would seem that MS should be our shining example of what collaboration could achieve. While it also seems that most collaboration with MS is not by choice as much as by necessity, the PC, MS's domain, is built from the innovation of a variety of companies, big and small, and advances piece by piece, as different corners of the computer world discover new things. The PC's development is a textbook example of organic innovation and growth.

This is in contrast to Apple's Macs and Powerbooks, which have been produced in an almost completely closed system since Apple's inception. Apple writes the software, develops the hardware, produces accessories, and now even owns stores where the computers are sold. Nobody "works" on their IMac or IPod, but most PC owners who are tech-proficient wouldn't consider it necessary to send their computer off to the shop in order to upgrade a piece of hardware.

So, the principle alley seems to lead us away from Apple, and therefore we must go the quality route, which would make some sense, if we can justify spending the extra dollars for what we get out of an Apple. That is the basic question - is the Apple computer worth the bigger price tag?

Facebook to overtake Myspace in UK

Heather Hopkins - Hitwise UK: Facebook overtakes MySpace in Share of UK Internet Searches

The above link is to an interesting article profiling briefly the recent surge in Facebook's popularity in the UK. The actual metric being used the the increase of searches in the UK related to Facebook, which Hopkins says is a predictive indicator of the future direction that users will take. Last year, UK users were searching for Bebo more than other social networks, and Bebo is now the number one networking site in the UK. The same phenomenon is expected to occur in relation to Facebook.

In my opinion, all the recent success that Facebook has enjoyed has been the result of opening their platform to independent development. This is a huge step that suddenly made Facebook more than just a college-aged-party-friend-site. Now, there is serious potential to make money, mine real data about internet use, and expand the usability of just about everything, thanks to the development of the Facebook platform. In addition to the practical benefits of opening up the platform, the move helped put Facebook into the spotlight. People now have a new reason to talk about Facebook, whereas MySpace and Bebo are still the same as they were three months ago. So, the improved usability is the true achievement, but the notoriety has also benefited Facebook immensely in the short run.

BBC NEWS | The Editors

BBC NEWS | The Editors

Wow... look who's (finally) taking a stab at "real-time" blogging, as they put it. I don't really know what they were hoping for their blog to become in the first place. If they were thinking of a blog as a place to post well-written, reviewed news stories, then that's what the newspapers are for. If they were thinking of it as a place to do an op-ed piece on themselves every day, then that's kind of egotistical. But... um... that's what bloggers do, mostly. So now, we get a myspace sort of page that lets us be the fly on the wall in the BBC offices. hmmm...

comScore Publishes the First Comprehensive Review of Asia-Pacific Internet Usage

comScore Publishes the First Comprehensive Review of Asia-Pacific Internet Usage

This is yet another interesting article on the web, reviewing the published report on internet usage in Asia-Pacific. It caught my eye because of the relevance to my earlier post about market share between the big 4 SEs.

According to the press release,

Yahoo! Sites are the most popular in the region, ranking in the top three positions in seven of the ten countries studied.

However, I thought the following line was the most interesting:

New Zealanders constitute the smallest online population in the region (1,949 million people) but are online 16.4 days per month, versus the regional average of 13.8 days.

1,949 million people? That's one crowded little island!

Compete Blog » June Search Market Share: Big Surprise from MSN

Compete Blog » June Search Market Share: Big Surprise from MSN

This is an interesting article about the market shares of MSN, Yahoo!, Ask, and Google. The big story is, of course, that MSN has surprised everyone by making serious gains in their share of overall users. However, Google is still making slaves of everyone else, by itself commanding over 60% of the market share, when placed against the other 3.

C'mon, Ask.com!

A few words about GoogleBlog

Google Blog >> Welcome, Postini Team

Once again, I looked at my server logs and noticed that my traffic is way down from a month ago for this site. I know that the main reason for this is the fact that my posting activity has been really low over that period. However, I also noticed a trend that has become so regular that I want to highlight it as a tip for you SEO bloggers that might be reading this -- linking to the Office Google blogs.

Notice the below screenshot, which is a picture of a typical post on the Official Google Blog:



I recently linked to this article with this post, and Google subsequently placed a link at the end of their post, linking to my post. It's an automatic script, which is effectively a back-scratching utility, sending Google's readers to other blogs and articles that provide comments on Google's post.

This is no marvel of technology of anything, so that's no the reason I'm posting about it. I am posting about it because I still see regular traffic coming in from the Google posts to which I linked - weeks after my links were created. This is simply showing that Google's blog has enough traffic from SEO-types, that their link-backs will send your blog traffic even months after your links were first created.

Now, there are a couple of obvious qualifiers here. Your blog post needs to be relevant to Google's in order to sustain this flow of readers from Google to you. You also need to post regularly. Nobody is going to read a blog that has 5 posts in the last year. Also, you need to post links directly to their post pages; don't just post links to the blog's homepage.

So, this is not really getting something for nothing. But it is a good way to get something for something. Often, bloggers' attempts to drum up traffic on blogs are unsuccessful, so this is a proven way to provide more traffic, provided your blog's subject matter is related to one of Google's blogs.

Some other Google blogs:

Google Summer of Code Blog
Google Webmaster Central Blog
Blogger Buzz
Google News Blog
Google Analytics Blog

[update 9/19/07] - Corrected the broken link "this post" just below the screenshot.

JustBlogIt :: Firefox Add-ons

JustBlogIt :: Firefox Add-ons: "JustBlogIt with a simple right-click."

I have to give major kudos to Dylan Parker, author of this Firefox add-on. Maybe I'm a dumb-@$$, and couldn't see something that was right in front of me, but I had the hardest time trying to find the old BlogThis! button to put in my Google Toolbar. It seems to have disappeared. No worries though, because having the basic BlogThis! functionality with the simple action of a right click is far superior, in my opinion, to having it in a button. My advice would be to go get yourself this plugin, then enjoy blogging it up with a simple right-click.

Enjoy!

Notes on Blogging

I apologize for the absence. The Independence Day week has taken me to several locations around the southeast, most notably Lake Junaluska, North Carolina - a place that is, in the words of one Anglican minister, "not far from the heart of American religion." Family reunions are fun, even when you're still just getting to know everyone (I'm married in).

Anyway, back to a subject that is more relavent to this blog. Blogging. Due to my week-long absence, and my recent business at my job, I have been left with very little time to devote to other things, including posting on this blog. Not surprisingly, the traffic on the site went down very near to zero during the past two weeks, and I have had no comments to moderate.

So I think the take-home point is very clear: frequent posting is essential to improving traffic on your blog. Of course, other things are also equally important, but everyone needs to be clear that there is no reliable way to gain readership without also providing fresh content. This is true because your readers will always be searching for something new to read, but also because of pings - your blog won't ping the server if new content is not posted. Pings signal feed readers, and feed readers tell people who's got the freshest, most relevant material. So, that's all just to say that there is no static solution. A couple of tips to help with frequent posting:

Keep your posts relatively short. I still have a personal blog that I started a couple of years ago. I would post long dicourses on philosophy, religion, literature, and life in general. However, it very quickly became such a burden to write these long posts that I very nearly quit posting. It became a thing where I would post two or three times every six months, just because it took so long. Don't do that! Keep your posts under 500 words, and you'll be best served.

The other point to realize in this is that nobody reads your blog in the first place. Let's be honest - besides your friends and a few random surfers out there, who's going to read your blog? A relatively small number of people, compared to the number of people on the internet. You've got a much better chance of increasing that number if your posts are short and to the point. And the truth is that nobody's going to keep reading your blog if your posts are very long. If they don't know you, and you're not a columnist, they won't care about the ins and outs of how you feel about something.

Oh... and if you're not a columnist, you're not going to become one on a blog. Unless you think people only read very short columns.

Pick a well-defined subject matter and stick with it. This blog is about sEO issues, Google, and other issues related to web design. That's definite enough for me to keep the content flowing. The other problem with the personal blog was that there was no subject matter, other than me. Therefore, it was extremely hard to figure out what was worthy of posting and what was not.

The last point is to LINK, LINK, LINK! Find a post on the Official Google Blog and link to it. See what happens. The fact is that each post on the Google blog lists at the end all of the pages that link to that post. It's an automatic "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" situation. And if you post about Google and SEO issues often, linkbacks from Google will bring you lots of traffic, because the Google blog itself is a very widely read source. If you post about other things, go ahead and find pages within your subject matter to link to within your posts. Comment on your world within your sphere of influence. This will eventually bring you traffic, as other webmasters and bloggers see your blog on their referral logs and visit your site to see what you're up to, and why you're sending readers their way. You must link to things that are actually relevant, but there is a lot of freedom here. No link is a bad link.

And linking to a blog is better than linking to some website. A blog has an individual author, most likely, who will investigate your site if you send him traffic.

OK, got to go do some work. If I ramble on any more, I may violate my first point!

Give us a Google Map, Google!

This is just a quick post to recognize a glaring shortcoming in the new (and old, for that matter) Google Analytics. Weeks ago, on the spur of the moment I decided to use both Google Analytics and Statcounter, another free analytics service, to track visitors on this blog. One feature I enjoy thoroughly is the visitor map, which displays the locations of visitors on... a map.

Here's the Google version of the visitor map:



And here's the Statcounter one:



Notice that the Statcounter version is actually a Google Map! However, Google is for some reason incapable of allowing us to use the very functionality that they created! Statcounter's version is a Google map, and therefore has most of the functionality of the Google map service. The Google Analytics version, however, is useless by comparison, as it has none of this functionality. There's no zooming in, no satellite photos, and no click-and-drag of the map. What is this?!

This is all said with a certain amount of surprise, given Google's apparent commitment to innovation and excellence. I would bet that a Google map feature will be available sometime in the near future within the Analytics service. It's probably just a matter of time. Such an addition would greatly improve any already useful analytics service.

Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO » Tip of the hat, wag of the finger

Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO » Tip of the hat, wag of the finger

I apologize for the recent silence. I have been up to my ears in spreadsheets, databases, and VBA. For now, this is a link to what I'm reading during a brief break.

More soon.

The Death of SEO?

A very interesting article by Mike Grehan over at ClickZ:
SEO Is Dead. Long Live, er, the Other SEO

Mike waxes for a while in this one about the "death" of SEO, or, more specifically, the death of SEO as we know it. Perhaps this "death" will also be a way for SEO to catch up with the technology of the current day. Mike points to Ask.com several times in this article, saying that their 3-column approach has basically turned the SERP into a virtual portal on the information searched for. He's right, and he may also be right about this being the future of SERPs.

If it is, then we may see Google follow suit and ditch the adwords column on its SERP in favor of a 3rd column displaying more universal search (US) results. However, since Google rarely seems to follow trends that it didn't start in this industry, I wouldn't hold my breath. It's just possible, that's all I'm saying.

One question to ask is, if Google and other SEs did go to the 3-column SERP, what would be the future of adwords-type advertising? Where will it go on the page? If you view this Ask.com SERP, you can see only one sponsored link, for Target.com, who obviously paid a lot of money to get their link right in the center of the page. If you actually go to page 2 and following, it's at the top of each page.

I've actually thought that Google's layout for US SERPs was lacking something, and now that I've taken a decent look at the Ask.com SERPs, I think the 3-column approach is where they should go if they want to improve it. I look at this SERP from Google, and I have to say that Ask has the upper hand. I see a lot of white space - that could be used just to drive revenue (adwords), if not for US results. The US results are there, but it's at the expense of traditional results, which I don't think is the answer.

The Google Privacy Debate Rages On

Relevant articles:

Dave Naylor a UK SEO » DaveN » Google and Privacy
Google Blog: How Long Should Google Remember Searches?
Int'l Herald-Tribune: The Face Behind AOL User 4417749

I could go on posting links, but I'm not a link farm, and I only have so much time. OK. Enough with the silly business here. Google is coming under some serious fire these days, and I don't believe that they are worthy of such scrutiny. In light of the IHT article especially, they've shown themselves to be up to the task that has tripped up other big players - namely AOL. At this point, internet use, though so common, is still a choice. Use of Google's services is a further choice beyond the choice to use the internet.

I think it is like driving a car. The standard that people are setting up for Google and other ISPs is like trying to make car manufacturers prevent all accidents on the road. Obviously, in the case of cars, different people out there are going to misuse their Ford Mustang, play chicken, customize it too much, make mistakes while driving, and unintentionally make themselves vulnerable to wrecks. There are others out there who are going to take their F-350 and ram it into a Walgreen's store, hook it up to the ATM inside, and drive off with the ATM in tow. The laws of the land don't hold car manufacturers accountable for wrecks that are the result of misuse. However, they do hold the manufacturer liable for things that result from blatant mistakes in construction of the cars. This is when a recall is issued.

Basically, I'm trying to say that the reporters out there are holding Google to a standard that is too high. Google is not a bank, and while they have an obligation not to make mistakes that would compromise the privacy of millions of users, they have definitely, in my opinion, shown themselves to be up to the task.

Even the Little Guys Can Influence The World of SEO

Google Updates Analytics

I just wanted to point out, as I've seen everyone else already do, that Google has again updated Analytics, this time adding a feature that I called for on this blog several weeks ago: quicker reporting.

I think this is an indicator that anyone can have an effect on those big giants of the internet game - even little guys like me, trying things out and then blogging about what they like and don't like. Honestly, though, this is probably the result of hundreds of hours of review and development on Google's side, since they seem to be just as perfectionistic (is that a word?) as the rest of us. This is a great improvement.

The other great improvements in this new edition of Google Analytics are clickable URLs and the ability to cross-segment reports by network location. This adds a lot of functionality to the already redesigned interface, making it even better than before.

However, some questions have been raised about the entire Analytics service, and why in the world it has been offered for free. I will be blogging about this very interesting caveat soon.

Web 3.0

A humorous but surprisingly insightful post at the O'Rielly Radar

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/the_future_of_w_1.html

Over 100 visits

This blog is in the middle of its fourth full week of existence, and I'm proud to say that I've now received over 100 visits. The number must remain approximate because of the nature of web statistics, and also because I missed about a week of data around Memorial Day. I made changes which deleted my tracking code right before leaving town for 4 days (silly me). To all of you out there who check this blog from time to time, I extend my thanks.

BTW, be sure to check out the link to ConverStations on the blogroll. Mike Sansone is completely right about the importance of frequent posting in the blogging world. I made no posts yesterday, and consequently received no visitors. However, today I received 2 visitors within 30 minutes of making a post about Ask.com.

Thanks again to all you out there who read this blog. The blog is only a month old, and its growth has been pleasing to see. Feel free to comment, if you have any ideas about things I ought to pay attention to in my posts. Take care.

Ask.com: The better marketer

Take a look:

ClickZ News - Yahoo Shows Off Panama
PC World - Yahoo Opens Access to Panama
SEW Blog - Ask.com: The Other Search Engine

Does anyone see a dichotomy here? What we have is a whole bunch of people that want to throw Google off of their thrown. We've got different news stories, all asking the question, "Is this going to be the thing that enables [Insert Company Name] to catch up with Google?"

However, the story about Ask.com is very interesting, because it shows a company that seems to be openly embracing its standing in the marketplace, behind Google and the other search engines out there. They're not content with their standing, but in order to move up in the world of search, they are openly acknowledging that they are not number one, or even number two for that matter. Perhaps this line of thinking will help them better identify with the majority of users out there, who also designated Google as the SE to beat. Ask.com seems to further feed this line of thinking by advertising on YouTube, a Google-owned property.

Yahoo, on the other hand, like Microsoft, is continuing with the more traditional approach of pointing people to itself as the best search engine out there. Of course - why wouldn't they want people to think they are the best? The problem with that is, most people don't. They've got a larger network, perhaps more tools, and a different ad platform now, but everyone still says Google is better. That perception doesn't seem to be changing soon, either.

This is all to say that, while Yahoo and Microsoft seem to be taking the old, traditional approach to marketing themselves, it doesn't seem to be working, and Ask.com's approach seems to be more in line with the users out there.

Purpose of Bread Crumbs

This post is basically a "c'mon, people!" post.

Above we have a screenshot of Dell's page for purchasing Limited Warranty and Service Extensions - a page that you would think Dell wants to be highly accessible for Dell computer users. Today I was there, trying to find the page where I could purchase a warranty extension for our company's server.

After about 20 minutes of fruitless clicking around the Dell website, it was only by going to Google's incredibly useful Web History feature that I was able to finally find the pages I was looking for. I ran a search in my history for [Dell warranty], and was able to find the path I had followed last week.

However, after looking at the Dell page I found, I thought, "no wonder!" Look at the bread crumbs:

You are here: USA > Small Business

I could have been anywhere in the Dell Small Business portal!

Dell is using a common device known as "bread crumbs" to help users navigate through the site. But here is the problem: BREAD CRUMBS ARE USEFUL ONLY IF THEY ACTUALLY HELP SOMEONE FIND OUT WHERE THEY ARE IN THE SITE!

You students of web usability out there may be able to give an even better solution than this, but here's my suggestion for an alternative bread crumb system:

You are here: Small Business Services > Service & Warranties > Warranty Extensions

Some other thoughts on bread crumbs, with Dell specifically in mind...

• The presence of "USA" in the bread crumb trail is of absolutely zero use to me as an American user. I'm betting that the case would be the same for a UK user viewing the UK Dell website. Perhaps the webpages could display the American flag elsewhere, with some statement like, "This is the Dell USA website. Click here for another country." Imagine that for usability.
• I understand the presence of the "Small Business" designation, but as it is currently, this is also of zero use to me, as a small business user. More descriptive classifications would greatly help the usability of the website. For example, is there a need for separation of "small business products" from "small business services"?
• Besides the issue of bread crumbs, there is the issue of making the account homepage more useful. Granted, there is probably some way in which my company could have used the Dell website in the past that would have made it easier for me to find the computer in question and purchase the needed services. But it is also likely that doing so was not obviously useful enough to go through the necessary steps. It's got to be obvious for us! Dell, you've got the time and the people - give us a website devoted to current accounts. Make it all-inclusive for us, like a bank website, so that it's obviously the place where we view ALL of our past Dell purchases, make new purchases, and manage our warranties. Dell ought to be able to use computers just as well as banks can.
  

Those are my thoughts. If Dell disagrees, well, then... they're wrong.

The Value of PageRank

Paul Barrett's post at Apple Pie & Custard about Google PageRank:
http://www.sitevisibility.co.uk/2006/10/google-page-rank-update.html

It's early, so I figured I'd comment on this article, since it's short and to the point, and commenting on it would not take too long. PageRank is something that has baffled me for a while, as another one of those things in the field of SEO that is good to have, but is not exactly essential to good visibility. The crazy thing is, we know that it is part of the mix somehow, but we don't really know exactly how - it just another one of those weird puzzle pieces to SEO. We know it fits, but we don't always know just where. For example, the Google blogger page that I'm using to write this post has a PageRank of 7, but each page in my website at work a PageRank of 3, even though the site hundreds of pages of content, all interlinked, with several inbound links from outside sources. We've never been able to raise the PageRank, even though I've been able to increase in SERPs considerably over the past year.

So, I guess I'm just saying that I wish there was an A+B=C equation in this business for something, mostly so that I could go show my boss something that is certain, and he could say, "well, I'm glad you found that out..," or something like that.

That's my ramble for the morning. Enjoy.

Bloggers vs. Journalists

From SeoMoz:

Are Bloggers more Connected than Journalists

I just had to say that I think this post is incorrectly comparing journalists to bloggers. She says that, because bloggers in general have significantly more Plaxo address book contacts than journalists, they are more connected. The post then goes on to speculate about the implications of the fact that bloggers are enjoying higher connectedness than journalists, and what this means for the field of journalism.

However, I think she needs to back the post up considerably, because I don't think this is an indication that bloggers are more connected, as much as it is an indication that bloggers are more tech-savvy with their contacts. In other words, a blogger will be more likely to have all of their contacts in their Plaxo address book, while a journalist might only have his work contacts, or, more likely, might not use Plaxo at all. I think the journalist is more likely to download Plaxo, then forget he has it running, and stick with a system of Rolodex cards. The system of cards isn't broken, so why fix it? Furthermore, it doesn't make him a better or worse journalist.

Big Brother Google

From SE Watch Blog:

Google Is Big Brother

Looks like Frank Watson has it in for Google. Still. He has a point, yes. Google still seems to enjoy this "golden" status that it had before it was publicly traded. Some interesting points about Google:

Though everyone seems to know that Google is a giant, nobody seems to view Google as being "out to get" the little guys in the business world. This is different from, say, Microsoft, for instance, who seems to be the software world's bad guy for everything.

People don't seem to be averse to giving personal information to Google, as they might be to other personal networking/information portals on the web. Google's tools are increasingly powerful (i.e., checkout, book search, picasa, analytics), but the controversies about invasion of privacy don't seem to stick for Google. Some may disagree, but I don't see Google suffering in the public eye from the insecurities surrounding the proposed DoubleClick deal.

Google seems to be bent toward sincere pursuit of knowledge and advancement in computing. Of course, we all know that they have to make a buck, just like the rest of us, but their continued initiatives seem to be directed more toward advancing their overall field, rather than just their company. This too is different from the perception surrounding most other large software firms.

With all of that said, if things were to suddenly change, and Google were to suddenly seek their own interests above all else, it is feasible that we could see the Big Brother incarnation that Watson is prophesying.

But... C'MON!!!

The Future of Search - Personalization

Here are two links:

Official Google Blog: Putting Users In Charge

Financial Times: Google's search policy puts the user in charge, by Peter Fleischer

These are links to one Googler exercising some educated speculation about where the future of search (and Google) might lie. Basically, the article on Financial Times website is about how personalization is really the key to the future of search. If search algorithm is not built to remember a user's preferences and history, we can only take search so far. By producing universal results that are the same for everyone, we're never going to solve the problem of intentions behind the search phrases. For example, when someone searches for "Paris", are they searching for the city or Paris Hilton? Nobody really knows, but we will probably have a clue if we know the person.

What if they are looking for pictures of Paris, France? An image search for "Paris" brings up just as many pictures of the woman as the city. Of course, we all know how dangerous an image search can be for any phrase, especially if conducted in a work environment. Just spend a few minutes using city names as search phrases in Google image search.

But that aside, what is this going to mean for the future of the SEO industry? Right now, SEO involves aiming at SERs that are absolute. For example, someone searching for “Paris” in Bogota will see the same thing as someone in Miami searching for the same phrase. However, if SERs suddenly become relative to the user’s preferences and history, the user in Miami might see different results based on his/her perceived age (past searches for myspace, facebook, or other social websites), entertainment savvy (past click-thrus to EntertainmentWeekly.com), or other personal web surfing habits. The user in Bogota may be a college professor (past visits to Google Journal Search, Google Book Search, and click-thrus to university websites). This is similar to the philosophy of Amazon.com’s algorithm, which has been profiled in several new stories as a seriously intelligent marketing machine, remembering users’ past behavior and recommending new products accordingly.

The foremost question for SEOers is, how are we going to optimize pages if we don’t know what users are going to see on the SERPs? How much business are our clients going to loose because of this, and will it outweigh the business that they stand to gain?

But another question is, how is this going to affect advertising on SEs? If I want to make a bid on a phrase on Google adwords – for example, “Paris” – how can I be sure that Google is giving me a proper ROI if some people who type in “Paris” are going to see different things than other people, based on their usage history? On the other hand, will this greatly improve the quality of the impressions I get, when I do get impressions? Will the viewers be more likely to be interested in my ad, if Google is sure that their past usage indicates an interest in the subject matter?

I think I’ve just formed two complete paragraphs with nothing but interrogatives. I’m sure there is a grammar rule against that.

A Tour of the Office

It's late in the afternoon, it's Thursday, and I'm leaving tomorrow morning for a 4-day vacation over the Memorial day weekend. Therefore, it seemed good to me to leave everyone with a huge post about the shortcomings of the most popular office supply store websites currently on the web!

Seriously, though, this is a post about web usability. I was flabbergasted yesterday when I set out to buy a few phone accessories for my office - these office websites are so unbelievable hard to use! In fact, my experience was so dissatisfying that I ended up going to Google and finding a completely random online store - www.golinuxshop.com. This website gets my vote, and will also get my repeat business, as it was immensely easy to use, and served up prices that I couldn't beat anywhere else. Prices aside, though, if someone else had been easier to use , I might have never found the deals I did at www.golinuxshop.com.

To start, I was looking for some very common phone accessories - some phone line couplers (female/female), duplex adapters (all female), and triplex adapters (male/female). I thought these ought to be easy to find, since we have tons of them already in the office.

First try - OfficeDepot.com - My first stop was the place where we already have an account. To start, let's take a look at the top menu bar:



Hmmm... Now, how do I know where to look? I'm looking for phone line adapters. Are they "office supplies"? Are they "technology"? I do know that they're not "furniture", but that's about it. So, I go to the search bar.




This is a reasonably usable web search bar, where you don't have to tell the website which categories to search through - it just figures that out for you. However, after multiple searches, I became convinced that Office Depot online did not have exactly what I wanted, and so I was obliged to go elsewhere.

Second try - RadioShack.com - Now, I know you're probably thinking what I was thinking at this point - "Surely Radio Shack carries everything I need." However, when I get to their website, I'm greeted by several problems.

Let's take a look at the top menu bar. My, this would be a hard decision, if I were to try and navigate to my product, or sub-category, from the options on the top bar. They've got one choice for "Phones & Radio Communications", and another called "Cables, Parts, & Connectors". Which one is most likely to have adapters for my phone cables?

I didn't know, but I figured that I would find out if I just quickly moused over each option to see the sub-categories that slide out below. Here are the options for "Phones & Radio Communications":



And for Cables & Connectors:



When I was first viewing the menus, nothing from the "Phones" menu made it obvious to me that my adapters would be there, even though that was where I thought they should be. When viewing the second menu, I've got 2 choices that all seem like they could be good places to look for my adapters - "Wire & cable management", and "Connectors & connectivity". However, my feeling is that neither one of these is what I want, so I just decide to search for the thing, which is what most people would probably do anyway. That's when I happened upon the bar:



There's just too many questions here, as there were with the menu bar. Do I search in a category? The Entire site? Of course, I chose the entire site, but I still think you should not give the user so many search options from the home page, unless the options are all obviously diverse. I believe that by this demonstration so far I've shown that they aren't.

I then typed my search phrase, [duplex phone adapters], into the box, and it showed me something that was similar, but not exactly what I wanted:




Focus your attention on the bread crumbs at the top of the image: "You're shopping in: Home>Phones & Communication>Accessories>Corded & Cordless Phone Accessories>Adapters, Jacks & Plugs". Perhaps it seems intuitive now, but it certainly didn't upon my first visit to the site. Why should adapters be buried underneath 5 layers of categories, when Radio Shack is the go-to for the world's "adapter" needs? Anyway, it wasn't exactly what I wanted, so I decided to move on to Staples.com. Big mistake.

Third Try - Staples.com - This was the worst office website I had ever seen. Just look at the screenshot:


It looks like advertising. The site's content looks like advertising. It's just a bunch of links, with no pictures, and very little explanatory text. The search bar is obscured of its small size and the business of the page.

I'm not even going to try to figure out which category to pick, because it would take too long to look through the long list. However, I did notice the fact that "Ink & toner" has made it to the top, next to "Products". I know some usability specialist must have charged Staples big bucks to tell them that "Ink & toner" is the one thing people visit the website for, but it seems like overkill to me. Actually, it makes Ink and toner the ONLY easy thing to find on the entire website.

But then, I enter a search term, and it asks me for my zip code. Is this really necessary? Radio Shack doesn't need to do that! I realize why they do it, but it seems like the site would be much improved if they could ask for such information at a later time. At this point, they can't be sure someone is actually going to buy - the visitor may be a simple casual browser.

Success! - I'll go ahead and end this long rant, and say I found what I was looking for at GoLinuxShop. It seems like an odd place, and I didn't even know it existed, but it popped up on the Google SERP, and I happend to find exactly what I wanted. Just look at the screenshot:




This is the product SERP, but except for the contents of the center block, it is exactly the same as the home page. The list of categories is a bit long, but the subtitle of the website tells you that the site is for selling computer parts and accessories, which makes you expect a pretty specific list of categories. The images are large, and the descriptions are very brief but informative, making the site very easy to use. The search bar is intuitively placed in the top left corner of the content area. The only better place would be right in the center of the page, but then they wouldn't have room for products.

So, I guess the moral of this story is that the big guys certainly don't have it all figured out. Especially with the "Easy Button" campaign that Staples has been touting, it seems like they are content to throw money at the market and expect customers to come streaming in. I also think there's a failure to recognize that marketing products on the internet is necessarily different from marketing products in a building - especially for Staples (i.e., the whole zip code thing, which is actually an issue at the Office Depot website as well). The internet is international, and people who visit the website do not want to go to the store (unless they're looking for the store locator, in which case they're not going to buy things from the website). Throwing money at web marketing problems doesn't usually work, unless the money hires a usability expert who knows his stuff.

A few words about NOFOLLOW

The current post over at search engine master DaveN’s blog has a few words about the NOFOLLOW tag, which are actually more questions than opinions or answers. The great NOFOLLOW initiative, begun about 2 and a half years ago by the big three, has left us all with little more than great questions in general, in addition to a little tag that we can put in our website’s link structure if we want. We’re not sure if it works, we’re not sure exactly how it works. Since the SEO industry is in general behind a great cloud of uncertainty that separates the royals (the googlers) from the peasants (the rest of us), as usual, the original statement of intent from Google was not specific enough to sufficiently describe how the tool is really used. In my opinion, the addition of the NOFOLLOW attribute (sorry if I called it a tag earlier), has added much more uncertainty than functionality to an industry of SEO consultants who are already dealing with considerable uncertainty because of the sheer nature of SEO.

Here are a few issues that we don’t really know:

1. If you use a NOFOLLOW link, we know that the link does not contribute to the recipient’s PR. BUT does the link actually count against the recipient? In other words, is a NOFOLLOW vote actually lowering PR of the recipient?

2. Does NOFOLLOW have any affect on the referrer? If I were ranking a page, and I saw that it had a bunch of links to bad pages (signified by the presence of NOFOLLOW), I would not want to rank the referring page highly. Who wants to see a page with a bunch of links for which it has no confidence?

3. What if NOFOLLOW is used within the link structure of the same website? Can a website drive PR to certain pages by using NOFOLLOW in links to less profitable content?

We actually used #3 at my company, before my tenure here, and I convinced everyone that this was not a good idea, since we don’t have definitive answers to #1 or #2. I felt that we were issuing votes of “no confidence” to ourselves by following this strategy, thereby hurting ourselves in the eyes of Google. In addition to this, I didn’t see the same strategy at work anywhere else on the web, which further eroded my confidence in it.

Personally, I wish that NOFOLLOW had never been devised, or that it had been devised completely differently. The device has added, in my opinion, just one more list of questions for which the SEO crowd doesn’t really have answers.

The Bigger, Better Google Analytics

Google has recently introduced a redesigned beta version of its analytics software, touting it as an improvement that takes the application to the "next level," making visitor information more accessible and organized for webmasters than before.

While it seems to do everything short of show you the users' IP addresses, I do have one thing I don't like - again, it's the graph. It seems to waste space, and I don't like the fact that it has to be at least 2 months.

Also, what's the deal with the time intervals always being a day behind? If I'm going to use analytics software that is able to track information in real time, as GA seems to be able to do, I want it to show, by default, today's information.

That aside, I think it is definitely an improvement. The flexibility of the design and layout is now mirroring the flexibility of other Google applications, as well as the new iGoogle.

One of the best improvements is the improved accessibility of information about referring sources. The information was obscured before within the Marketing reports, but now there is an entire sub-section dedicated to "Traffic Sources." It's basically the same information, just organized differently.

More soon; now I must break for the season finale of Heroes. Sylar must die!

The Future of SE Advertising

With the advent of US, I am wondering what the evolution of paid ads will look like. It seems to me that US will change the visibility of paid ads in the future, since it alters SERs. Second search and US capability are going to make it commonplace for the SE to show the results for the requested search, as well as the results for a more useful search - which, hypothetically, the user would have requested in the first place, if they knew what they were doing. Since we're speaking hypothetically, my hypothesis is that, once US and Second search get going, the SE will start to show ads for the keywords that are deemed "more relevant." Why wouldn't they? If I've got a phrase that I think the user is going to find more useful than the phrase he requested, why wouldn't I display more useful ads, if I thought I could?

Just to make sure everyone understands what I'm talking about, the fallout from this would be that the advertisers who bought keywords matching the less helpful phrase would receive lower placement than the ones who bought keywords matching the more helpful phrase. So, if I, the user, search for [travel northeast], and the SE thinks that a search for [airfares new england] would be more useful, then the ads shown would match [discount airfares...], instead of [travel northeast]. The ads that are most likely lucrative for the SE and the advertiser would be the ones judged as most relevant, in my opinion, meaning that the ads matching the Second Search - not the intended search - will receive higher placement.

Of course, that's just my opinion. You are free to disagree.

Universal Search - the best answer

I've been planning for a few days to post about Google's announcement that the next big thing is the so-called "Universal Search." This is the holy grail, judging from posts on Google's official blog. We insiders are excited about Universal Search as only geeks can be. But the Googlers in particular should be excited; after all, it is best answer. The best answer is always the best answer.

I would say that I noticed the changes in Google's UI before I read about Universal Search (US). Here's a quick look at the new SERP:




Click on the image for a larger size. Basically, in the SERP for [steve jobs], the Google team has managed to squeeze image results and natural results, as well as links near the top to News and Video, where there would also be pertinent information about Steve Jobs. A small change, but a change, nonetheless. However, if we were to look at another search,



This time for [new york downtown], notice that there are image results first on the SERP, then a map, and then the natural results come later. This is useful for searches involving place names, which would be better suited for a map search anyway, and are probably tried by less experienced users. This is serving Google's goal of being the one-stop-shop for information for anyone - web savvy or not.

Now look what creeps into the SERP for [darth vader]:



There's a Google video result, about halfway down the first page. The video result would not be as highly ranked, except that Google's new US algorithm judged the video to be just as relevant as the 5th or 6th natural result. Then notice at the bottom:



We've got news results at the bottom of the page as well, in addition to related searches that might be just as useful as the user's intended search phrase.

These are just a few examples to show what Google is striving toward - a truly comprehensive information search, that will let people from all demographics find the information they need, regardless of which search engine or portal they use. Eventually, if US becomes fully developed, people will no longer be limited to a certain type of information when they search. No longer will people need to go to JStor find scholarly publications, or to a news search for current events. After all, if a general search engine has so many categories it is limited from searching, how can it really be comprehensive?

A few words about the new Google Analytics Beta Interface

I have to say that I am impressed with the overall functionality that Google has added with its new version of the Google Analytics interface, but it will certainly take me a while to warm up to it. It is definitely an improvement over the old interface, mostly because the new version better reflects the features that make other Google software good.


The only thing I really didn't like was the fact that the graph (pictured above) seems like it must show at least a month of data, no matter if you tell it to show only a week or a few days. Basically, it takes up the entire width of the screen, which makes it seem like they are devoting an awful lot of valuable screen real estate to the graph. It seems like they could have made it a quarter-screen module, and let you see another piece of info at the top of the screen. But anyway, it's annoying to me mainly because my blog has only been running for two weeks, so the first three weeks or so are zeros. Not a huge deal.

The best thing about the new beta is the added flexibility it grants the user. The user is able to add modules to the Dashboard easily, drag and drop them on the screen, and do other things that are reminiscent of the Google Home Page (oh yeah... it's called iGoogle, now that they admit it's a portal).

More commentary will come when I have time to write a proper post. I just wanted to get some words out there before dinner.

Helping us get our Google on

Google just announced "Second Query" improvements to its search, to which I can only say, "awesome." The new improvements will launch a second query when a user performs a search, if it judges that the user could get more relevant results with a related (second) query. The SERP will then show the results of both queries, giving the user better results.

Perhaps more impressive are the new translation improvements, which will allow Google to translate a query into another language, find results, and then translate those results into the original query language to present to the user.

I think we know that the big wigs at Google and Yahoo are trying to build their search engines so that when grandma tries to search for "gold diamond ring," she gets exactly what she's looking for. It all depends on how they structure the SERP, but this is most likely going closer to that goal.

My question is, "what is this going to do to ad placement?" If you bought a top placement for the 1st query, will your placement be affected because Google judges that a 2nd query would have given the user what they wanted?

Conversely, what if you buy top placement for the 2nd query? Will your results get top billing now, or will the ones from the 1st query get to pull rank?

My gut says that the ads shown will be ones most relevant to the 2nd search. If Google has the opportunity to show ads that are more relevant, then I don't think they are going to pass it up.

Not too Late for SEO

It's almost midnight, which means I ought to be in bed, getting rested for another day, but I haven't posted anything today, so I thought I would just leave a tidbit before retiring. The post about search types has me thinking (still) about my adwords campaign, wondering what quantifiable ROI can be gained from paying for ads that show up in "informational" SERPs, versus ones that show up in "transactional" SERPs.

Just to define terms, by "informational", I mean a search for something like "East Indies pictures". For "transactional", I mean a search for something like "Cheap international airfares".

If you are just beginning to start out on the CPC path, looking for a good ROI so that you can justify continuing the cost of continuing an Adwords campaign, then my first thought is that you want to go 100% toward "transactional" SERPs, leaving the other types of searches for later, when you have more experience.

But you also want to think about the difference, if there is any, in user behavior. Do users view a "transactional" SERP differently than an "informational" one? Are they more likely or less likely to click on the paid ads? I would say that they are more likely, because ads on those pages are more geared toward making a quick deal. Basically, ads on those pages are probably more immediately relevant.

However, sites like Google and Yahoo benefit from users merely perusing the pages of the network - regardless of whether they actually purchase anything. So then, do these kinds of sites consider every SERP transactional in nature?

hmmm...

Segmenting The Market

Segmenting The Market

Frank over at SEW also wrote about this article, on SEOMoz blog:

Segmenting Search Intent

Randy at SEOMoz is onto something, and it has me thinking about my website a little differently at the moment. Since I'm about to help my company launch a paid-search advertising captain to increase the amount of business we drive to clients. My thinking is, obviously, that we want to be showing up in those "transactional" searches as well as the "informational" ones, and that will influence how we buy keywords. But for Google/Yahoo/MSN, if that influences where they place ads on the page, then that is interesting. I would like to see some research on click patterns and with regard to search types. How do people treat an SERP obtained by an informational search, as opposed to one obtained by a transactional search? Do they scan the SERP differently based on their intent? Do transactional searches yield users who are more likely to scan the adds to the right, as opposed to informational searches? I would assume the answer is yes, but I wonder how stark the contrast would be.

Google As Big Brother?

From the Search Engine Watch Blog...

Google Submits Patent for Psychological Profiling

Frank Watson at Search Engine Watch is really voicing his opinion in this post, claiming "it's all over," as Google ventures closer to becoming the incarnation of Big Brother.

Let me say first that this is an impressive new use of technology, and the only real surprise to it is that Google did not do this sooner. If it behooves them to know people's tendencies (obviously, it would behoove any marketer), and they are able to do this from using the existing technology, then how do we know they haven't already been doing this for some time now, and are just now submitting the patent for it? Perhaps they've been doing it with imperfect methods until now, and now that they've got everything down, they're trying to patent it. Makes sense to me.

However, this does come with something of a "slippery slope" realization. Is this the "slippery slope," from which it would be difficult - disasterous, even - to return? Remember our current dependence on foreign oil, as an example of another slippery slope, up from which it would be possible, but economically disastrous at our current point, to climb. Only when it is economically less feasible in the short run to continue in our current dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels will be change course.

So, apply this to a Big Brother concept. Certainly, as the science fiction writer said, when and if we ever let ourselves me overtaken by our machines, we will quite possibly look back on the time when the takeover initially occurred, and recall that it happened so fast, and with so much initial advantage to us, that it was irresistible, and even unrecognizable, unanticipated. At that point, it will most likely be possible to revert, at least theoretically, but so costly and disadvantageous that to do so would be certain economic disaster.

Don't Knock Wikipedia!

Nicholas Carr on how Facebook and Wikipedia might fit together

The above link is to popular author Nick Carr's article on how he thinks that, from a revenue standpoint, it would make sense for Facebook to imitate a Wikipedia website for the next addition to its network. This suggestion is on the heels of Facebook's announcement that it will launch a craigslist-like site to compete with the minimalist classified ad machine that gets most of its traffic from 20-somethings who are in college (i.e., likely Facebook users).

Of course, his idea makes sense from the point of view of Facebook's bottom line. At least, it does in the short run - the very short run. The problem is that, once the Facebook users, as young and self-involved as they are, realize that they are the only ones posting to the "Facebookpedia" (or "Wikiface" - I think that's a better title!). The wisdom of the crowd is only as good as the crowd from which it draws is big. The bigger the crowd, the more wisdom, obviously. Therefore, wisdom drawn from just 22-24 year olds won't grow near as fast or deep as the real wiki, which means that soon, the Facebook users will simply go back to using the same old Wikipedia, at which point Facebook risks losing its growth in popularity completely. An unimpressive venture that's really a copy of a very successful website would be detrimental for Facebook, in my opinion.

From a user-of-the-web standpoint, I'd also be worried if this idea is successful for Facebook. I personally love the site and the company - I think their open-source approach to their calling is great, and they've allowed themselves to branch out, to their benefit, creating the fastest growing network on the web. Such innovation benefits the cause of the web immensely as the forum for the free expression and flow of though. So, I'd be cautious about anything that might take away steam from something as beneficial as Wikipedia.

These are my humble thoughts. Any other opinions would be welcomed.

Back to posting

Sorry for my absence; I know I haven't posted since Friday, but (1) I usually won't have the opportunity to post on weekends, and (2) I was writing a paper for a seminary class I'm taking. It ended up being ...eh... not that good, but good enough for the purposes intended. All I have to say is, Kerkegaard is quite inspirational, and truth is subjective! Anyway, more posts will follow soon, once I get the engine running. Later!

An Open Source OS that's NOT Linux

Google, if you're listening at all - I mean, I am within your blog-dom - I'm asking you to take up the challenge and move toward offering a complete line of software - including an OS. After buying and setting up computers and computer software for my small office over the past year, I have been overwhelmed by way that Microsoft has gradually attempted to force its software down the throats of small offices and large offices across the world - and I believe it is stifling innovation and competition. The latter is a "no, duh" observation; Microsoft is obviously taking a copyright-and-monopoly approach to software development, trying to use the current laws that protect innovation and authorship to cement its own place in the market for years to come. Their attitude has made it virtually impossible for someone else to spend the amount of money necessary to compete. Impossible, that is, until now.

Google is now the world's largest software company, and they have already ventured into software. Now that they're not afraid anymore, I would be the first to buy a Google attempt at a fully-functional operating system that is user-friendly like Windows, but does not cost a person or a company thousands of dollars to outfit just a few systems. Obviously, this need doesn't have to be met by Google-source - it could be met by any number of open-source developers out there who have the time and money to devote to such a project (*ahem* - are you listening, Mozilla?), but the thing I am worried about is usability. I don't have any interest in a piece of software that's only useful to developers and network administrators, as is the current case with Linux. The obvious problem with having a small outfit develop something is support - someone like Red Hat, though well-intentioned, is not big enough to promote or support its product in the same way that MS is. MS has constant updates and help docs online, which are supposed to alleviate the problems caused by the fact that their software is crappy and is designed to use the monopoly status MS enjoys to coerce offices into spending thousands of dollars per year trying to keep current.

My vision is a system that would cost $100, or would come pre-installed on a new computer, and then would always stay current through an online membership system, which would have an annual cost of something like $50 or $100/year. Imagine the possibilities, if the systems were always updated properly, automatically, and then people enjoyed the same massive technical support that MS purports to give.

Good News From Google

I saw this article at the Search Engine Watch Blog...

Google cleans up news website

The website Playfuls.com (not worthy of a link here) has been continuing to gain visibility in Google News SERPs, fueling criticism from Google News users. This has caused Google to re-examine its database of "news-worthy" (that is, Google Newsworthy) websites and discard some that seem to be ad-heavy or unauthentic, including Playfuls.com.

I have read several articles myself from Playfuls.com, and I think that I always suspected that I could find the same articles somewhere else if I had tried - that is, the particles at Playfuls weren't original to them - but I never really worried about it. In my thinking at the time, news was news, and if it came up in a Google search, then there were usually at least 10 or 20 articles about the same event, the Playfuls article being simply the most prominent.

So, I'm all for Google reviewing its sources; I'm just saying that if the stories are corroborated, then news is news. Google News users (should) know better than to accept some flaky story out there as fact, if it just came from one lonely article on Playfuls.

But then again, I always thought Playfuls was a strange name for a news organization. I usually thought it was some kind of porno-news website, or something similar, until I saw them coming up in all kinds of searches.

Anyway, once again, here's to striving.

Check out the Web 2.0 Awards

Check out the Web 2.0 Awards, handed out by SEOmoz.

New Earth-blog at Google

From Search Engine Watch Blog...

Google Launches New "Geo" Blog

This seems like a great opportunity for search to expand, and to me seems like a completely new frontier of technology, even. I also think that this is a huge opportunity for Open Source to show us why open collaboration is far superior to the monopoly-and-copyright approach to web and software development. While it is not really producing true "open source" software, Google genuinely promotes the open source movement by opening up its software APIs to the rest of the world. It also promotes the flow of open source by not charging a penny for the use of the software. They do stake a claim on the authorship of that software, but their claim doesn't cost me several hundred dollars per computer per year, like it does with some other companies. (Yes, that was a NOFOLLOW link.)

Again, I am making a play on the "striving" theme. This is definitely something where we will be always striving, never arriving. I don't really think the Web-Earth project will ever "arrive," in the sense that everyone will be satisfied, all at the same time, causing development to cease for a time until we all have holographic computers that display an actual globe in front of us, and then we work on Web Earth 2.1, or "XP". I don't think the striving of the entire community of developers can be held inside of one company - nor can the desires and needs of the world be met by one community of developers. And that's why open source (combined with "Google source") will be the ones to "win" this war by fighting the true fight.

Frequency Matters!

I found a very informative and helpful post at ConverStations, the blog of Mike Sansone, a Conversation Conductor who lives in Iowa. What a job. For more about Mike, click here.

Frequent and Consistent Posting Does Matter

In the last few months, I've had customers/prospects tell me that frequent and consistent posting isn't important. Wrong. Especially at the beginning.

They insisted that if blogs are such a great thing, they didn't need to update that often. Sounds like a cob-web strategy to me. Sounds like they either don't want to put in the work or it's just not a priority. But for a blog to be successful, the blogger must put in the work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------truncated...

Ok. I know. You're thinking, "duh." Well, we all should be. But his post is pretty true to life, I think. People naturally are going to want more output than input. That's convenience - they call it the American way these days.

Thinking about it from an SEO perspective, pings are never generated when the blog is static, so it doesn't make sense to "strive" for a static entity that will consistently rank highly in the SERPs. The mentality actually goes against everything I said in my inaugural post about the nature of the SEO industry. Nobody ever arrives. It's very existential, very postmodern. Experience is everything, and experiences are by nature fleeting - therefore, SEO does not end. It's the never ending project. That's why you hire a web design team if you're a firm or a company. Or, that's why you become an SEO consultant.

Google's taking over the newspapers now!

From Search Engine Watch Blog...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Google Print Ads Now in AdWords Console

Andy Beal at Marketing Pilgrim has posted screenshots of the new Google Print Ads interface in the AdWords console. Google announced last month that the program would enter an extended beta this month.

The new tab offers advertisers the ability to buy print ads in participating newspapers, including the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and LA Times. The console includes a date range for the campaign, weekly budget, and the ability to select newspapers by schedule, circulation, or relative cost.

----------------------------------------------------------------

So what's next?
I think that Google ought to just buy a bunch of little newspapers. That's right - little, suburban newspaper firms that aren't relatively expensive to buy up. For 3 billion dollars, they could probably buy up an entire metro area... or the eastern seaboard. I haven't done any concrete research on the value of small newspaper firms. But anyway, here's the scenario:

1. Buy 100 newspapers in the same state, MSA, or CMSA.
2. Consolidate the advertising divisions of all 100 of them.
3. Consolidate printing of the newspapers.
4. Sell the ads online mostly, through an auction-based, adwords-style system.
5. Now that they are all printed at the same place, and Google owns the whole operation, the newspaper ads can be printed alongside articles with high keyword relevance. Ads can be run throughout all the newpapers, instead of clients having to decide which individual newspaper they want to run an ad in. Since these papers cover an entire region, the ads will be run in the most efficient way, across the entire region.
6. Watch public opinions change, as people are slowly brainwashed by inundation with ads.
7. Keys to the city are given to Google.

I thought it was kind of interesting, for a theory. Anyway...

Why list your phone number in adwords?

I posted this in the main Google optimization forum at SEO Chat, with no response, so I'm posting this here, hoping some more interested people will see it and respond...

To anyone who feels inclined to answer:

I was doing some research for my company yesterday morning, and noted that some firms advertising on Google have opted to place a phone number in the ad text.

For example, in a search for "riverside ca plumbing", I noticed the following ad:


Need a Low Cost Plumber?
Midtown Rooter Plumbing. Call Now
818-555-5555 - 24 Hour ER Service
----URL address-----
Los Angeles, CA

There were several others like this in other searches that I tried, and most of them seemed to be from companies that are one-man-shows or at least pretty small.

My questions:

1. What are the benefits/drawbacks of putting a real phone number in the actual ad text?
2. Why doesn't Google block this? Or, can they even?

It seems to me (a) that, from a web design perspective, this would defeat the purpose of advertising on Google, since people might be "converted" without actually clicking on the link, and so your click-thru reports would not actually show the real success of the ad. I would think that any web designer would never practice something like this, if they valued the future of their career.

Also, (b) it seems that this is a way for the business owner to get around paying for all the customers he gets through the ad, and therefore Google ought to block this practice if they can.

Any thoughts?

Opening Day

And so starts the first day of this blog. I have started this blog as sort of a message board for people who are actively engaged in some time of SEO, but still consider themselves novices, as they might not have any formal training, or whatever.

Remaining true to existentialist thinking, my opinion is that we would all do best to consider ourselves novices, recognizing that any progress lies in the struggle itself. That is to say, in the ever changing world of SEO, it seems that no one "arrives" (perhaps with Matt Cutts, and a few others that happen to work at Google as noteworthy exceptions), and that the whole idea is to remain locked in the "struggle" - that is, the day to day striving to learn the latest trend. To arrive would be to exit the struggle, and to exit the struggle would admit defeat.

So that is my philosophical rambling for the day (I would like to thank my mentor, Soren...). Feel free to comment as you wish; I hope that before long I will have the SEO of my own blog up to speed, and the visibility will be high enough for you to actually see this post and comment on it. For more philosophical rambling, visit my other blog - Square Peg.

Jonathan

Links

Links

SEO Tools From Around the Web

As the title suggests, below is a list of free tools that are available from various SEO-focused websites. I have used all of these with varying degrees of success, and my comments are included where they are applicable.

Keyword Research

Keyword Suggestion Tool from SEOBook.com - This is perhaps the most efficient keyword suggestion tool on the web today, especially now that they've added csv support, so that you can export your results to a very usable format. Aggregates keyword suggestions from wordtracker, Google, and Yahoo!.

Keyword Cloud Tool from seochat.com - Returns a visual representation of keywords used on a website. Keywords having higher density are showed in a larger fonts.

General SEO Research

SearchStatus for Firefox from quirk.biz - Perhaps the most useful SEO-related browser plugin for Firefox. Of course, it's only of use if you use Firefox - NOT Internet Explorer - for all your browsing needs. Makes available all kinds of information about whatever site happen to be viewing at the moment, including:

• Robots.txt file, if one exists;
• All backlinks from around the web;
• Keyword density for keywords you specify;
• Whois data for the site;
• Any nofollow links on the current page;
• All indexed pages on Google, Yahoo!, or MSN.

Link Research

Site Explorer from Yahoo! - This is an invaluable area of Yahoo!'s vast network, devoted completely to tools that help you analyze any website. In particular, the Site Explorer is helpful in searching for any or all backlinks to any site or page. Also displays any internal links. Any results can also be exported to tab-separated values format for easy use with Excel.

Search Engine Results

Google Ranking Tool from synscon.com - Displays rankings from all major search engines for domain on any keyword that you specify. You must supply Google SOAP API key, which is freely available here.

More tools will be added in the future! Keep checking back.

About This Blog

My name is Jonathan Trousdale, and I work at a small firm where, among many other things, I am in charge of SEO/SEM. I started this blog as a way to express personal comments and opinions on the growing industry of search, SEO, and SEM, and anything I believe is related. Therefore, there are several posts about programming, anti-trust, and other things that may not be specifically about SEO.

My keenest interests within the general heading of "search" rest upon the idea of how vertical search can help unravel a marketplace. I believe that vertical search has not realized its potential, and if it did, we would see more search engines that truly connected consumers with services that are tailored to fit their personal needs. I've taken to learning more programming languages on my own time, and if I don't see this hole being filled soon, I just might try to fill it myself.

If you see anything here that you'd like to converse with me on, feel free to leave a comment, or just email me at jonathan.trousdale@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

Contact The Author

Contact the author of this blog.

Jonathan Trousdale
Email: jonathan.trousdale@gmail.com