Posts filed under 'SEO'
Lisa Barrone from Bruce Clay followed up my previous post on whether Google hated SEO’s (from the 8th of August) which provoked the following response from none other than Matt Cutts from Google
“I also feel like if Google hated SEO, we’d know it. Google isn’t just tolerating SEOs; they’re going out of their way to help them and give them access to more information. We’ll always want more information and more data and more transparency, but if you look at what they’ve given us over the years, it’s pretty impressive.”
What you said. 
Google definitely doesn’t hate SEO. Sure, there are some bad SEOs out there that do bad things - sometimes even illegal things. See e.g. http://justinsomnia.org/2007/08/search-engine-marketeers-are-the-new-script-kiddies/
Stuff like that ends up giving SEO a black-eye with lots of people. And you only need to watch the Scoble video to see that SEO has an image problem with some non-SEO folks.
But Googlers know that there are a ton of great SEOs out there that help clients improve their sites and make the web more crawlable. And the more that we can do to help and encourage those SEOs, the better that is for the web and the search industry.
So the short answer is that Google doesn’t hate SEO or SEOs”
Which as it turns out followed on quite nicely from yesterdays post regarding changing peoples perception of SEO - and growing up into a respected profession - not an easy job - but one I would say is necessary in the long term
August 31st, 2007
A quick linkout to a very good article by Dan Thies, demystifying the SEO myths often bounded round the industry. Statistical SEO is often bounded round in various shapes and sizes including LSI SEO, however the following article explores some of the facts behind these theories.
To read more click here
August 29th, 2007
I have just read John Andrews recap of the SES session on Paid Links (hat tip to Andrew Girdwood for the initial post on this), and have to say from my earlier post, possibly one aspect I missed was the subject of content development.
Both John and Andrew (and Google from the afore mentioned session) make reference to the value of unique content, which I would suggest all SEO specialists would agree with, is one of the most important aspects of SEO. However I do have to still stop short of the ‘Paid links are bad’ argument.
Whilst I would agree, a campaign based purely on paid linkage is surely not advisable or indeed should be rewarded, I still personally don’t see the problem with paid linkage (again I would highlight the fact this is coming from someone who hasnt employed such tactics to any real effect on the past).
However, move back to my original references to the offline model.
If I were to market my product offline, I may use a PR campaign (lets compare this to Content generation) and some direct offline marketing or magazine advertorials (lets compare this to link generation whether it be paid or unpaid). Offline works with a combination of the two factors (albeit the example above being wildly oversimplified), however the point is - surely Google’s algorithm could factor in such factors as uniqueness of content, depth of content, link density, link relevancy and weight accordingly.
Paid links aren’t bad - over-reliance on paid links is bad, however my concern with the approach of such radical action is it merely serves to focus hardcore OVER-SEO activity elsewhere, like reciprical linkage before it. I personally understand what both John and Andrew say about content, however the mere fact Google have said Content is good will no doubt result in millions of pages of so-called unique content being produced thus diluting both the value and quality of content, and I would suggest we may find ourselves in a similar situation regarding content generation in the future.
I will however end this post echoing some of John’s thoughts. Whilst I personally may not agree with some of the factors of Googles recent approach to paid links, we have to live with them, and I will end with a quote from Johns post
“Is Google right in its approach to the web? Is Google just in its delivery of the carrot and the stick? Is Google fair in the way it operates? None of that matters to the search marketer/SEO. …You need to get to know Google, and listen to what Google says. You don’t need to agree” - John Andrews - johnon.com
August 28th, 2007
There is a lot of debate going on within the industry as regards whether paid links are good or bad following Google’s recent decision to ‘clamp down’ on sites using paid linkage for SEO purposes. Opinions vary greatly in the industry, from Andrew Girdwood (of Bigmouthmedia fame) in the ‘Paid Links are bad‘ corner, and Michael Gray in the ‘Paid Links are good‘ corner who it might be said is not in favour of the nofollow tag.
Impartiality over and I’ll now get of the fence. I have discussed this at length with one of my SEO pals in particular (Will Graham). I personally have to say I agree with Michael’s viewpoint (to a certain degree). In my opinion, Paid linkage merely affects those with sufficient budget to exploit such an opportunity, and I would suggest isn’t likely to affect smaller operations.
Whilst I can see the theory behind this, in practise it doesn’t work in my opinion. If I want to advertise on the Superbowl/FA Cup Final - I have to pay the applicable going rate - same applies for pitch sponsorship/press advertising etc). At the end of the day money talks - always has, and probably always will, and whilst that isnt a good counter argument, it is unfortunately true.
Now, I hear the argument for paid search being countered to the above, however Google is clamping down on such activity because of the attempted exploitation of its algorithm. Why does it have to do this - because people are constantly looking for new ways to get to number one, and in fear of alienating myself in the community, I would suggest it is many smaller SEO’s that are responsible for much of the clamping down. Let me explain that comment further.
- Have you ever seen a multinational organisation exploit open blogs/websites via scripting for extra linkage - in all likelihood - no
- Have you seen a lot of big organisations relying heavily on link farms etc - in all likelihood no.
- Have you seen many big organisations write an automated script merely replace keywords on an ongoing basis to target niche localised terms - in all likelihood no
- How many large organisations have you seen employing large scale cloaking techniques - ok there are some - but not many in my opinion
Whilst many of these have been clamped down on - surely there is still a lot of work here to do, and making a big song and dance about paid linkage merely moves the problem on to another area that search marketeers will try to exploit.
At the end of the day (and this is my esteemed friend Will’s main point which we both agree on) - it comes down to Intent. Surely relevant paid linkage is not bad - it is merely exploiting the fact that search engines like Google, have created a commodity (ie something of value). This isn’t the fault of the advertisers, or the SEO’s and thus what is the point of penalising them for it?
At the end of the day, what is the difference between a paid linkage and a paid directory link - nothing at the end of the day, however it should be suggested they are both treated differently. It is a SEO’s job to build links - surely in aroundabout way thats paid linkage (albeit a stretch of the imagination) - however the point is - its a very grey area)
Using a recent example (and this is based on heresay - rather than fact), a major supermarket chain was rumoured to have bought their way to number 2 for the term ‘car insurance’ via a hardcore link building campaign. This is rumoured to have cost a fair amount of money and was successful in its objectives (albeit short term). However upon picking on the pattern, the result appears to have been ‘dropped’ in the index, and thus the effectiveness of those links dramatically reduced.Now ask yourself. Was this result relevant - yes it was. Was it on topic - Yes. Did it deserve to be there - IMO yes - a lot of work went in to generating that linkage - albeit reliant on paid linkage and personally I would rather such sites were found, than irrelevant sites that place merely based on automated scripting and link development
Wouldn’t providing more interaction with the search marketing community, and accepting that people are always going to try and get to number one and thus use people like SEO’s, be a better way for Google to react to such activity. By accepting it goes on and focussing on relevancy, surely Google can only enhance the relevancy of its results.
I personally would like to see some middle ground in the argument, as surely there is some place for paid linkage in the optimisation mix (PS Google check the site - I’m clean - no paid linkage here or client sites - just my own humble personal opinion)
August 24th, 2007
It is a well known fact, that a number of factors aid the route to search, including a number of offline factors. iProspect have conducted a survey regarding Offline Channel Influence on Online Search Behavior Study, covering just that, what influences users to search online?
The study concluded the following
- 37% said a television ad encouraged to use a search engine to find something
- 36% said word-of-mouth initiated a search
- 30% said a print ad
- 20% said a physical store’s location
- 17% said a radio ad.
To read the complete study, please visit the iProspect website.
August 20th, 2007
Its been known for a while … but the supplemental index as we know it is no more. Whilst the index itself still exists, however search engine optimisation specialists such as ourselves are now unable to query the supplemental index in order to find out whether indeed the pages are supplemental or whether there is a greater problem looming.
To this effect, the ‘removal’ of the supplemental is a big step and a big deal for search engine optimisation professionals. Whilst from a visibility perspective it will make no difference at all, it will mean we will have to rely on more intelligent site development. In the meantime however we have compiled a couple of tips to help your pages stay out of the supplemental index.
- Ensure you have unique information on each page - that includes your title, description and to a lesser extent keywords (however probably worth doing for good practise). One of the reasons for being placed in the supplemental index is that Google deems your pages to be too similar
- Ensure your content is unique - this may not sound a big deal but you will be suprised by just how many people just ’scrape’ sites for content. As above - as the saying goes - familiarity breeds contempt (sort of )
- Get good relevant linkage into your site
August 13th, 2007
I have been suprised at many clients ‘reluctance’ to really engage their online marketing activity, focussing instead on website builds, e-mail marketing and traditional above and below the line advertising. I have come across many clients and potential clients who have spent vast sums of money on developing their websites, with little or no thought as to the function of the website, how it is going to convert traffic and how to generate traffic to the website.
To make this point even more clear - how many high street shops just rely solely on passing trade for business. Exactly, many will employ a number of other channels in which to drive both brand awareness and custom through the door, whether it be maildrops or press.
However this train of thought is often not carried through to online. There are many organisations, who merely develop their website and never undertake any activity to drive traffic to it, whether it be Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) or Paid Search (PPC), Online PR or merely just putting their web address on items such as their business cards or vans.
From an agency perspective, particularly from those entering the online marketing landscape from a web design or advertising perspective - there is a reluctance to really sell it as it is often seen as an ‘add-on’. However for a client really buying into online marketing, the revenue derived from such online marketing activity, can often exceed that of the website build itself - particularly in the long run.
In short, you wouldn’t setup a shop without advertising of some sort, so why spend hundreds/thousands on building your website, and then leave it and hope for the best?
June 25th, 2007
Gord Hotchkiss recently wrote about his concerns that the impact of personalised search was being underestimated , and that SEO’s were paying far too little attention to personalised search.
As usual Gord talks alot of sense. In my opinion there are still too many Search Engine Optimisation ‘experts’ in the industry wholly fixated with page views, hits and search engine ranking, with little or no focus on return on investment (ROI). It still suprises me how many ‘experts’ in the field, still discuss at length the use of age old optimisation techniques with little or no regard for or utilisation of new techniques and services.
As Gord himself stated on his post on Mediapost
“ This was a perfect opportunity to start planning for the new world of SEO, post-personalization. There’s a ton of value we can add, as smart, proactive practitioners, but I didn’t see anyone take the opportunity to delve into this. Perhaps the really smart ones were keeping their mouths shut, content to let their competitors bitch about the inevitable while they plotted their takeover.”
Many Search Engine Optimisation specialists appear though to be taking somewhat of a ‘cautious’ viewpoint on personalised search at this stage. I can understand why this approach could be taken, however I would suggest that those exploring the opportunities in its infancy are more likely to be able to exploit personalised search to its full potential. From an optimisation perspective, it could change the whole way we work, and go about optimising sites, and thus as Gord states, many people are approaching it from a damage limitation perspective.
Personalised search isn’t just something that applies to Google, both MSN and Yahoo are currently exploring personalisation of the web, and search itself it going to play an important part in that future. One only has to look at the impact of social networks to see how applying things to oneself is already changing the face of the web.
To read the full article by Gord, please go to http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=62013&passFuseAction=PublicationsSearch.showSearchReslts&art_searched=&page_number=0
PS - Gord - If you fancy sending us your slide deck - it would be much appreciated 
June 19th, 2007
I am constantly impressed by the state of the Search Engine Marketing industry in the UK, in particular the amount of research and ‘noise’ provided by the industry itself. In particular I was impressed with a recent report by Dylan Thwaites (and probably Jon Myers had a lot to do with it - with reference to the whitepaper itself referencing the author Jon Myers). That aside, a very insightful and interesting read,
The whitepaper itself focussed on recent research by the IAB/PWC which stated that 2.5% of all advertising spend in the US is spent on Search, compared against 11.4% in the UK. Dylan went onto state that it was his opinion that the UK online marketing industry is ‘the most advanced in the world’.
“The US market has roughly four times the volume of searches as the UK market and in bid economics should command higher prices for highly competitive phrases. It does not and this indicates a less competitive and less developed market state”.
Not mincing his word you may agree !!!!
The report concluded:
1. The search engines pay commission in the UK and this has had a firestarter effect on search penetration
2. The US market has a much higher proportion of in house search marketers, who to be less innovative and do not operate search as effectively as search agencies, slowing the flow of funds from other media
3. Many US search agencies reacted slowly to the paid search opportunity due to organic inertia
4. The UK market is more mature and more competitive than the US market and hence more intensely innovative
5. Cost per click prices are marginally higher in the UK, but there is no evidence to show that the engines are abusing their market dominance
Whilst I don’t necessarily agree with all the point raised in the report, points 1-3 within the above conclusions would seem to be on the ball from recent research we have conducted, however point 4 is slightly more contentious. In my opinion there are only a handful of agencies in the UK that can handle the large scale projects for the larger organisations, BigMouthMedia, Latitude, a couple of the WPP organisations to name a few. Whilst I don’t argue with his analysis of the recent MSN trials in France vs UK, whether this is comparable to the US market is debatable IMO
However on the whole, the report is well worth a read, and can be accessed by clicking here
May 4th, 2007
Google has just annoumced a raft of new services to the Google webmaster tools, particularly tackling requests for page removal, directory or subdirectory removal or indeed complete site removal. Obviously many of these improvements tackle issues which may arise after your site has been indexed, however this is still a significant improvement in terms of functionality.
For sites that you’ve verified ownership for in your webmaster tools account, you’ll now see a new option under the Diagnostic tab called URL Removals. To get started, simply click the URL Removals link, then New Removal Request. Choose the option that matches the type of removal you’d like from the following options:
- Individual URL’s, web pages or images or other files
- A directory or sub directory on your site
- Your entire site
- Cached copy of a search result
Individual URLs, web pages, images or other files
Choose this option if you’d like to remove a URL or image. In order for the URL to be eligible for removal, one of the following must be true:
Obviously if all of the above do not apply, your page will only be reindexed again… common sense really
Removing a directory
Choose this option if you’d like to remove a directory or sub directory. As with the deletion of individual files, the directories should not be indexable (ie advised by your robots.txt file that they are not to be indexed.)
To remove a folder simply provide the path to the folder/directory you wish to remove ie:
For instance, if you request removal of the following:
http://www.example.co.uk/testfolder
type testfolder after the path provided in the Webmaster Tools interface.
Removal of an entire site
Choose this option only if you want to remove an entire site from the Google index. This option will remove all subdirectories and files.
To use this option, you must block the site using a robots.txt file.
Note:
Do not use this option to remove the non-preferred version of your site’s URLs from being indexed.
If you want all of your URLs indexed using the www version, specify the version you want indexed using the Preferred domain tool in the Webmaster Tools system(and do a 301 redirect to the preferred version, if possible).
Other changes introduced to ther Webmaster interface include:
- Advise of changing of page content
- Checking status of removal requests
- Advise to reinclude content
- Requesting removal of content you do not own
All in all this provides both Search engine marketing specialists and webmasters with a very useful set of tools in order to administer the indexation of their site more effectively.
To read the full google blogpost click here
Other reading:
Search Engine Land - Google introduces improved content removal toolsÂ
Managing Google results
April 18th, 2007
Next Posts
Previous Posts
