Category Archives: SEO

Compete.com: Use Caution in providing any personal information or downloading software!?

Posted on by
Reply

One of the most frustrating things “Verification” sites do is make bogus and ridiculous assumptions about websites and offer pathways to remove them if you pony up cash.

When I read about Compete over at Battelle’s I tried it and noted that one of my 10 year old travel sites with a long history and good contact information had a Compete.com “warning”.   Naturally this pissed me off but I assumed a server change last year may have been the problem. 

I felt better when Matt Cutts , whose name appears on no less than the Google Patent documents, pointed out that Compete is questioning his blog’s veracity (see snapshot below).

Adding opportunistic insult to injury, the Compete explanations imply (indirectly) that a legitimate site can get rid of the warning by subscribing to a website service called GeoTrust.     Prices seem to vary depending on the site, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a relationship here, making compete look somewhat more like an extortion racket than a good new online resource.

SnapShot
Use caution in providing any personal information or downloading software on mattcutts.com.

The slow death of printed media … continues …

Posted on by
1

Numbers coming in from print media circulation numbers are starting to suggest that print media as we’ve come to know it is in trouble. Despite this Google’s about to start selling newspaper advertising. I suspect this is more to increasingly corner the advertising market than because Google is bullish on the future of newspapers.

Despite John Battelle‘s concerns about Google’s algorithms and print ads, I think mathematical analysis of advertising is a very good thing to do all of the time. I may be taking him a bit out of the broader context since he’s always advocated the value of online ads but here’s what he said today that bugged me:

>>> Ads for a specific, community driven audience need to be part of a conversation, not an algorithm >>>

Sheesh! What “need” is John talking about? Although this may be true from the publisher/sales perspective it’s not at all true for a smart advertiser who will want maximum ROI on the advertising dollar.

Historically, advertisers have been too mathematically incompetent and manipulated by sales BS to make good ad decisions. This is all changing (slower than it should, but changing nonetheless) thanks to PPC efficiency plus superior analytical tools, both provided by Google at low cost.

Newspapers and magazines should be very, very worried, because even dense advertisers will finally start to see that most print ad campaigns have negative ROIs* The print media industry has been built on overpriced ads and low paid authors, and things are going to get much, much worse.

* This has been my view for some time based on some of my own studies, but obviously ROI can depend on your definition of “return”. I’m defining it as direct sales rather than some sort of branding “lift” which is a confusing and questionable method for determination of return on advertising investments, but one that is increasingly used because, IMHO, it tends to support the status quo of massive advertising waste on foolish print advertising campaigns run by expensive advertising agencies.

More on this from Dan Blank

Measuring internet “engagement”

Posted on by
Reply

Robert Scoble’s asking a great question today about how to measure “engagement” at a website as opposed to just a visit. This issue was recently addressed at some length in the big debate over Comscore metrics for Myspace that Danah Boyd challenged as questionable.

As I suggested in that debate and Scoble is saying now, there’s an important difference between a user who simply loads a page and leaves the site immediately vs a user who engages with the site.

Experiments are needed, since it may be as simple as taking a ratio of total unique visitors to total time online to get a sense of how engaged the visitors are.

Of course that does NOT necessarily translate into somebody who’ll buy from advertisers which is the type of metric that sponsors are most interested in. We wouldn’t see much Golf on network TV if traffic was the metric, but when you count the fact that golf watchers come from a great demographic for big ticket items it works out for the networks who can sell to a key group (e.g. sell Lexuses, Diamondses, and ringses …..my precious!…..)

Even more complications with metrics are here in the form of RSS syndication, extensive duplication of information (e.g. this blog is auto duplicated over at Facebook), and the new gadgetification of the desktop where mini applications are going to run wild all over the place, making a “page view” less relevant, or irrelevant, for many websites and advertisers and measurers.

Re-Ze-lated:
Funny – ZeFrank on “Rocketbooming” your metrics
RocketBoom says Zefrank is full of Zeerrors.

Google launches customized search

Posted on by
Reply

Wow, Matt notes that unlike offerings by Yahoo and LIVE, Google’s going to allow you to include thousands of URLs in a customized search specialized for your own websites.

This is exactly what I was looking for in travel as it allows you toa create a great regionally targeted search engine using “known and trusted” URLs combined with Google’s monster search power. They’ll also be sharing revenues from the searches though historically that’s been too small amount with the generic customized search (which they’ve had for some time).

Good going Google! Yahoo and MSN – copy this approach NOW!

Yahoo really should have come up with this “including many URLs” approach because it’ll encourage the community to pick trusted URLs to include in their searches, and Yahoo, unlike Google, would be comfortable using that human feedback. It’s spammable, sure, but a great spam fighting tool in that the power of the whole community is unleashed in the selection process.

Hey!  I built one for Oregon Travel and will upgrade California Travel with  more good sites soon.    This has a lot of potential if Google uses the community input to help weed out crappy sites and upgrade unknown sites, though they tend to avoid this type of human (and therefore spammable) input.    Yahoo is more comfortable with that approach so I hope they are taking advantage of it via the Rollyo and Yahoo custom search user inputs.

MORE about this:

Google

TechCrunch

CNET

Blogoscoped

Danny I was hoping for more – how about a Search UNconference?

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t know Danny Sullivan personally aside from comments at his blog and forums, but all reports say he’s a fine guy and easily one of the top search specialists in the world.

When it looked like Danny would be leaving Search Engine Strategies earlier in the year I was optimistic that he might break those of us in the publishing and search marketing fields out of the ‘same old speakers’ and ‘same old pitches’ one tends to hear at the two main search conferences: SES and WebmasterWorld’s “PubCon”.   However he’s not leaving yet, so I’m happy for him I guess but disappointed he won’t come up with something new.

I think many would agree that Danny’s the guy who could bring something really new and powerful to the growing, global, search marketing human (and information) network. Something that would capture the spirit of “Web 2.0” which is far more collaborative, information rich, virtual, and unstructured than the internet of the 1990s.   Also, there are a HUGE number of case studies now that reflect all the common problems websites have.  Simply examining all these in a conference environment would be far more helpful than listening to yet another SEO guy talk about how he gamed Google’s Algo five years ago.

I don’t want to be too critical of SES and WMW because these are good conferences all things considered. However after attending some UNconferences such as MashupCamp I’m convinced that the UNconference format (or things like Yahoo’s Hack Day) are vastly superior to the old standard where speakers, often with less experience than many in the audience, struggle to speak clearly and make with their weak powerpoint presentations relevant.

UNconferences, like Startup Camp in a few weeks, tend to unleash the power of the audience and ironically the lack of structure creates far more cohesive sessions. I think this is because your brain goes into active vs passive mode.

So Danny after you make your deserved big bucks back at SES over the next year, how about shaking things up for 2007?

List of SEO blogs

Posted on by
4

Aaron Wall’s got one of the best lists of SEO related blogs I’ve run across. Although I think most of the people here know what they are doing I think SEO as a general concept is overrated. There are risks with even moderately aggressive SEO so it’s not clear to me that a business should invest in specialists. Rather in most cases the best approach is to follow the generally accepted good practices and create as large a content footprint as possible.

Hey, here’s another list of SEO blogs 

Aaron’s reply is such a good point I’m going to change my advice and suggest that sites should either get some SEO advice or assign people in-house to review the wealth of *mostly* accurate SEO advice online.

  1. Until you really dig into them it is hard to appreciate how bad off the SEO is even on some of the leading authoritative sites on the web. For many companies SEO isn’t just about taking chances, but is also about minimizing risks and using the assets you have. Sometimes an external consultant is necessary to get a frame of thought to be able to move through a large corporation.Obviously given my brand and market position I have to state that I think SEO is good stuff, but I think there are lots of way to bake SEO into your marketing plan that cost little extra in terms of time or effort, but can deliver large returns. Comment by aaron wall | October 22, 2006

    Aaron that is such a good point I’ll change my advice. It is clear that many companies, even some huge ones, are ignoring even the most basic aspects of optimizing websites. I agree the money they lose due to this is perhaps even hundreds of times what they would pay to have *you* review their site and suggest changes, and thousands of times what they’d pay to buy your excellent SEO Book.

    Part of the challenge I’m talking about however are the growing number of bogus “SEO Specialists”, online SEO scams, and even folks working at the big SEO companies who suck. I ran an interesting experiment last year with a very prominent SEO firm. They did “good” work but it did not boost my traffic and I realized I would likely do better myself simply adding, for example, a blog and more content.

DMOZ … heal thyself! Wait, you can’t… you are beyond any criticism.

Posted on by
Reply

Well, after about 10 requests at least I got a reply from DMOZ , the ironically named “Open Directory Project”.  Usually requests to become an editor, or comments, or requests for site corrections or additions to this influential but seriously broken directory simply vanish or get scant treatment. At least this time somebody wrote to me:
“I politely request that you do not reapply”

The irony of DMOZ is that they so persistently fail to choose a course to fix the directory, now riddled with bad links, old links, and opportunistic editing. The fix would simply involve accepting more well qualified editor candidates combined with using a more transparent and more PLIGG/DIGG like approach to screening editors and sites (so they could process the huge volume of submissions and corrections effectively).

Yet DMOZ seems to spend much of their time just rejecting editors and defending the project. Over at WebmasterWorld I’ve seen threads with long, careful posts devoted to nothing other than persistent arguing about the merits of DMOZ’s frustratingly inefficient approaches. I’m guessing my posts over there critical of DMOZ’s glaring inadequacies are what got me nixed as an editor.

Would I be a competent Travel Editor for a subcategory of “Oregon Travel”? Seems reasonable given that I’ve worked in the online travel field for over 15 years, have extensive contacts and knowledge of the online landscape in Oregon, and have a Masters of Science in Social Sciences with extensive tourism and online research in my academic and professional background. Yet I’m informed by DMOZ that I’m not worthy because I have …. criticized their project.

The (unsigned) and bipolar reply to my request to be an editor:

Your willingness to volunteer is greatly appreciated and perhaps we will be
able to utilize your talent in the future.
Regards,
The Open Directory Project

Reviewer Comments:
Dear Joseph,
Thank you very much for your application and your interest in the ODP.
However, I feel that given the negative views you appear to have of the project, that this probably isn’t the right hobby for you.
I politely request that you do not reapply,
Kind Regards, [ the email was not signed]

Prediction: Google will buy Facebook for about 1.1 billion

Posted on by
3

Irrational exuberance in the dot com shopping aisles?

No, it’s a chess game and Google’s winning….again.

I’m really starting to understand what seems like irrational exuberance on the part of Google and the major players. A Google aquisition of Facebook would be consistent with what Robert Scoble suggested is happening: Google is building a moat around it’s advertising business.

Steve Ballmer also suggested this notion in his recent BusinessWeek interview, ironically fretting that Google could monopolize the media business. Yikes, Steve would really run out of chairs then?

I can almost hear Ballmer to Schmidt:
“Hey Cowboy, there’s only enough room in this here internet for ONE monopoly you, you, you dirty monopolistic sonofabitch BASTARDS!”

Schmidt to Ballmer:
“HEY! DROP that chair and step AWAY from the Vista Browser!”

Google, with tons of cash to burn and a staggering market cap, has far less to lose in the high stakes internet poker game than Yahoo, Ebay, or even Microsoft. Microsoft is bigger than Google and theoretically richer, but unlike Google Microsoft has yet to figure out good ways to monetize their (improving) search services and (not improving) content services.

Ballmer’s juggling how to preserve his big ticket MS Office and Vista projects. Yahoo’s worried about plunging valuations and people leaving and the fact that a billion represents a lot more to them than it does to Google.   This is almost certainly complicating the Yahoo Facebook negotiations right now.  Ebay’s pretty fat and happy where they are. Meanwhile, Google can focus in laser-like fashion on keeping Google in the driver’s seat with it’s superb contextual advertising monetization.

The best defense is a good offense, so they are buying up properties to increase their control over the advertising space and keep those hundreds of millions of eyeballs out of the hands of MS and Yahoo.

Will this work? I say probably not for similar reasons it was stupid for Yahoo to buy Broadcast.com years ago. Video is junky and won’t monetize well. It’ll be more of an encumbrance to Google’s core competencies than an asset. But … things change, and in the meantime it’s fun to watch this high stakes game of chess unfold.

It’s a show you won’t see on YouTube.

Google may not be evil, but their advertisers often are. Facilitators of illegal ads should be held accountable

Posted on by
Reply

Although I think Google really tries to follow the “don’t be evil” mantra I think it now rings fairly hollow (ha – especially if it’s ringing up a ringtone ad scam at Google Adwords).

The problems are click fraud and downright illegal advertising which is running rampant all over the internet. This is a great set of PPC fraud advertising examples displayed at Google from a Harvard Law researcher, a proverbial drop in the online bucket of fraud.

Google, as the 800 pound gorilla, is the major beneficiary but this is an area that is simply ripe for legislation to prevent the plethora of PPC fraud schemes, ringtone scams, false advertising, and many, many more from polluting the online advertising space.

Why is this such fertile ground? It’s the new and fascinating combination of young users, young advertisers, young and old scammers, anonymity, global reach, and more that make this a complex and growing problem. Google et al are taking a “let the buyer beware” approach which is both evil and ignores the fact that many of the buyers are kids who wouldn’t know a scam from a treasure trove.

Ironically the solution to the scam ads is very simple. One new Law: If you run an advertisement you are responsible for any refunds in the event of a dispute with the advertiser. Make the publisher deal with their friend the advertiser who they are implicitly endorsing by showing the ad. This would clean it up very fast.

PPC fraud solution is not as easy, though I’d consider this:

1) Have teams of objective ombudsman researchers evaluate the fraud component at the different search engines.

2) Engines must refund to each account this average fraud component.

This incentifies the SE’s finding out and killing off the fraudulent clicks quickly, rather than the current lackluster efforts to root out the problems.

Web 2.0 Metrics? Aren’t we still trying to figure out Web 0.1 metrics?

Posted on by
Reply

Jeremy often asks the questions people will be asking next year. Here, Zawodny notes the difficulties as Web 2.0 brings a lot more than pageviews to the browser table and cites this article about how pageviews are problematic as a measure of online success.

There are challenges galore as we move to Web 2.0 analysis. The YouTube deal alone showcases how irrelevant a ‘page view’ may become to full analysis. There, advertisers will probably want a small clip inserted before the video as well as pay per click or aquistion modes of advertising – at least until all advertisers start demanding cost per sale terms.

I think commercial metrics will (must) trend towards firmly establishing costs per sale and/or customer aquisition. At the point where that gets good the advertiser really does not need more detail. Much of the current advertising mis-analysis industry is based on analysis of things that only indirectly lead to sales.

In many cases I’ve been floored by how mathematically unsound so called “objective” conversion studies can be. In Travel and economic development this relates to the fact that those sponsoring the studies typically benefit from high ROI numbers so a cottage industry of “impact inflation” studies and firms has developed that serves the vested interests rather than the taxpayers.

Non commercially focused website metrics are even more complex than commercial, since many bloggers would probably rather be read by a handful of movers and shakers who provide thoughtful commentary than by legions of regular Joes.

A blog read by all G8 world leaders would be about 1000x more influential in terms of changing history than one read by American Idol fans, but would probably have limited commercial value. How do you measure that? Perhaps Yahoo or Google need a “BigWhig Rank” that pulls in personal data and assigns importance to the … person?

Hmmm – they already have been nabbing your search streams so maybe next they’ll take your … soul! I think that is OK with me as long as it’s …. measurable!