Internet Marketing
« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »
July 31, 2006
Matt Cutts Goes Web 2.0
Matt Cutts went all Ze Frank on us this weekend (though Matt blinks) and uploaded some great information videos over at Google Video. While the backdrop makes it look like Matt has either been kidnapped by some disgruntled spammers or he's hiding out in a cave until Google's SERPs equalize, the bite-size videos are chock full of expert information.
For his first time at bat, Matt uploaded three sessions, not including his disclaimer: Qualities of a Good Site, Some SEO Myths and Optimize for Search Engines or Users? Each session highlights three or four user-submitted questions. Below is our favorite question from each session.
Session One: Qualities Of A Good Site
What are some general guidelines and recommendations for people who want to increase visibility on Google?
While this is a massive question, Matt was able to focus his answer on three key points:
-- The number one mistake site designers make is that they create sites that are not crawl-able. Matt advises "go[ing] back to 1994". Get those Google Time Machine thoughts out of your head, he's talking about using a text browser to view your site. This will allow you to see your site the way the engines see it. If you get stuck, there's a pretty good chance they'll get stuck too. If you don't, neither will the spiders.
Session Two: Some SEO Myths
Can you put an end to some myths about having too many sites on the same server or having too many sites with IPs too similar or having them all include the same JavaScript off the different site?
- Same Server/ Similar IP Issues -- Average Webmasters shouldn't be overly worried about this one. If you're playing by the rules and hosting four or five differently themed sites on the same server, there's no problem. Google understands that everyone does this. However, if you find yourself running thousands of sites on the same server or running two thousand sites on similar IPs, you should stop and ask yourself why. Is this really necessary? Do you have that much unique content for each of your thousand sites? Probably not. Most likely you know if you're doing some wrong.
- Including the same JavaScript – This is another case where you know if you should be worried. If you have an "entirely logical" reason for including the same JavaScript from different sites, you're fine. If you don't have a logical reason and you're just hoping Google won't discover it, worry a lot.
Session Three: Optimize For Search Engines or Users?
Which do you find more important in developing and maintaining a Web site – Search Engine Optimization or user end optimization?
Yes, it's the old usability/spider-ability question. We've always judged these two as being equally important and Matt agrees. Matt told his viewers, if you don't have both your site simply won't do as well. Without SEO, it's harder for your customers to find you, and without user end optimization, you won't get the same amount of conversions you would otherwise. The most successful sites will have both.
The trick, according to Matt, is to see SEO and user end optimization as being the same thing. If you construct your site so that the interests of your users are aligned with the interests of the search engines, you're going to succeed. Like Matt said, you'll be left with compelling content, an easy-to-navigate site and you won't be tempted to do any "weird tricks". Very sage words from Matt.
As you can see, there's lots of great information in the videos Matt gave us. Hopefully he'll keep this up. Do we see a weekly series forming? It's almost like the coming of Google TV. Personally, I think watching the first session where Matt discusses what makes a good site should be a prerequisite for anyone even thinking about creating or optimizing a site. It's probably the best five and a half minutes you'll ever spend.
We love the videos, Matt (though a transcript would be helpful...), and we agree that content is more important than appearance, but if your next video features you holding the day's issue of the LA Times, we're going to start getting really worried that your life may be in danger. Stay safe out there on the interwebs.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/31/06 at 2:15 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Design, Search Engine Optimization
July 28, 2006
Friday Recap
Yahoo! launched a new version of Slurp. Yahoo says the new crawler will scour the Internet faster and use as much as 25 percent less bandwidth. While Slurp: Version Upgrade spent his week running in tandem with Yahoo's older crawler (resulting in more crawls), he has since familiarized himself with the route and will be taking it over full time.
Why do I associate Slurp the Spider as being a rather large, but undeniably friendly, black tongued-dog? There's something wrong with me isn't there?
Did you know Ask's Blog Search allows you to narrow your search by Authored By X or Posts About X when you search for a blog author? I didn't, even though it looks like it's been around since June. It's a pretty cool feature. I know I'm having fun with it.
A DP thread shows Microsoft will be hosting a user interview session sponsored by AdCenter in San Francisco next month. Excellent. Maybe msndude will be there.
Tom Ruscoe hit the Google jackpot yesterday. Snooping around the sandbox.google.com subdomain allowed him to sign up for a bizarre tester account where he could check out unreleased Google services. What'd he find? Things like Google Guess, Google Events, Weaver, Google RS2 and a long list of others. Tom's method of capitalizing on his snooping included registering a credit card with Google, but Danny Sullivan shows you how to mirror some of Tom's finds without registering the evil plastic. Or at least it did before Google shut it down. Rats.
Speaking of Google jackpots, remember that guy who complained about Google Checkout? Well, Google apologized by sending him a crazy amount of Google swag to make it up to him. We're talking hats, T-shirts, pens, mugs, key chains, pens, Google gum, a Google USB hub (and light and thumbdrive...) and stuff so cool I can't even identify it. I'm so jealous.
People are talking about Google Project Hosting. I won't lie to you – I'm far too pretty to know what this is/ means/ implies. But my deductive reasoning skills tell me it's probably a place for people to host open source projects. Smart, huh? All I know for sure is there are terms like "Subversion repository", "Subcommander" and "OSCON" involved. It sounds like an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.
GigaOm's Katie Fehrenbacher teases us that she was selected to be a beta tester for Google's Mountain View WiFi network. Totally cool, but I think Katie is holding out. She gives us no real details about the service and claims she can't see the SSID. Hmm, do we believe her? Katie has screenshots over at GigaOm. But no secrets.
This made me laugh. Gawker (yeah, I know) "poached" Jason Calacanis' letter to Amanda Cognan and ammended to fit the situation now facing the staff of Teen People (they're all now out of work). I don't know what's funnier – how seamless the modifications were or that Jason Calacanis felt the need to clarify:
"Just for the record, this is a parody and I have not made any offers to anyone over there (in case folks are just reading the headline).
In fact, this is the first I've ever heard of Teen Vogue."
Don't lie, Jason. We know your fridge is plastered with images of Kelly Clarkson and that Katharine McPhee girl.
Phil Lenssen created a fun game called The Blog Surprise Game. The objective here is to find people who just posted their first ever blog entry and welcome them to the blogosphere. Phil doesn't want you to know this, but the real objective is to send these newbies so much traffic that their blog crashes and they give up entirely. Phil doesn't like competition. We're on to you.
Google: The Musical, "a fable about the dangers of information ubiquity" is playing at the Minnesota theater festival. Stick around for the after show – The Geniuses Involved With This Play: Google's Suing You for Trademark Infringement.
Want to know what all your favorite logos would look like all Web 2.0'd? Check out this site. My personal favorite is the Olive Garden design that features a "saladshare" option to "let your friends know what you choose from the salad bar in realtime". Sweeeet! And if you order extra breadsticks you put yourself in the running for a free iPod. Now that's a deal. Flicker has even more images.
If you're looking for more Flickr fun, check out this oldie but a goodie thread that shows Yahoo! needs to give its employees parking lessons. Some of these are just ridiculous. I think people who park directly in the center of two spaces should be forcefully taken out of their cars and kicked very hard in the shins. But that's me.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/28/06 at 1:53 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Search Engine Optimization
July 27, 2006
Stuff We've Noticed
Did Your Google Die?
Barry alerted us to a five page WMW thread and an additional DigitalPoint thread where several users were complaining that all of Google properties died last night – Web search, AdWords, AdSense, everything. The "outage" started a little before 10 pm EST, and but didn't seem to affect everyone. I know I was googling during that time with no problem, though I was just using the main search.
If your Google died for any sort of extended period time I'd be very interested to know what you did with your spare time. Do share! You know how to reach me. Don't you?
Are Google's Results Starting to Even Out?
Threads at WMW and DigitalPoint Forums say Google's SERPs are starting to even out after the shift that took place exactly one month ago. We're glad to see many site owners reporting regained rankings. Huzzah!
Yrank?
Steve Rubel noticed a reference to "yrank" while checking his server logs recently. What could it be? Steve guesses Yahoo! may be setting up to launch a new feed reader or that they will begin to rank feeds using a "yrank" measure. With the Google PageRank craze slowly deteriorating, please don't tell me Yahoo! is about to reopen that can of worms. I might have to hurt them. (Beware, Terry!)
Silly Jeremy Zawodny says it's just a case of "their bad".
"I *knew* we should have called it NotPageRank.feeds.yahoo.com! (Or maybe rubelrank?)"
Oh, that Jeremy. I think RubelRank has a nice ring to it.
More Netscape/ Digg drama
Need proof Digg fans are loyal?
Wednesday morning a mischievous Digg user submitted a story over at its clone Netscape site and used a Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability to insert some JavaScript snippets into the story. The result? Each time the story was viewed different "alerts" popped up displaying various messages (often containing expletives) and redirected visitors to the Digg.com site. I guess some of us never lose that junior high mentality. Who thinks Jason Calacanis did this himself to stir up some more PR? Anyone? Anyone? Relaaaax, I'm only kidding.
Om hits the Goog
Om visited the Goog recently and says his trip reinforced one key idea: Google is all about search and advertising. And beanbag chairs. To me, Google will always be about primary-colored beanbag chairs.
And the Worst Kept Secret Award Goes Too...
No, it's not Google. This time around it goes to AOL, who announced they will present "an update to its business strategy" during a conference call Aug. 2nd. Hmm, I wonder if this has anything to do with that other AOL-related story we keep hearing about. Naaah.
Sage Advice
PC World Contributing Editor, Stephen Manes offers Bill Gates some parting words of wisdom: "Stop making crap." Heh.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/27/06 at 4:50 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Search Engine Optimization
Will Google Be Able to Market AdSense Audio?
Last week we told you about a survey regarding radio advertising that two AdSense members had been asked to complete and it how signal AdSense Audio could be just weeks away. Well, it's here. Or at least, it's in Detroit. The service is expected to be "generally available" within three months.
Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt:
"We are in the process of introducing AdSense for radio, which is essentially the integration of the dMarc console and management tools into our advertising system. There are a number of very interesting deals being negotiated."
What the dMarc console does for Google is provide them with an automated radio advertising system that will allow them to branch out to a previously untapped audience. The technology is now in place to make AdSense Audio possible, but will it be successful?
Clearly, there's no guarantee Google's radio project will take off, but the potential is there. Automation could lead to higher efficiency, which would bring lower prices for advertisers and more sales to the radio stations. However, creating an automated system may also cause rifts between radio stations and their sales department since advertisers will now be able to cut out the middleman.
RBC Capital Markets Media Analyst David Banks says ending the need for radio station and sales to communicate with one another will erase a practice that has been in affect for 75 years.
"It's disruptive, and that's what will keep it from really getting off the ground in the short term." It runs counter to 75 years of industry practice. If you (radio stations) sell some of your inventory online, you are kind of competing with yourself. That probably won't make your sales force real happy."
But an automated system of buying ads, placing them in time slots and tracking them could make advertisers very happy. It will be a few months before we see who ultimately wins out.
It Google's radio ads do take off it will be an enormous step for Google, which despite all its recent projects, remains almost entirely dependant the advertising it generates from its AdWords for Search program.
Hitwise released their most recent breakdown of the top Google properties that shows Google's organic search still accounts for almost 80 percent of its market share. Google's Image Search comes in second with just 8.56 percent. It's worth noting that recently launched Google Checkout, Calendar and Spreadsheet didn't even make the top 20. (A top 20 position accounts for just .03 percent market share.)
It would be in Google's best interest to try and strengthen their foothold in some of areas that competitors like Yahoo! and MSN are thriving. For example, comScore data shows GTalk currently boasts 44,000 users, while competitor services from AOL and MSN hold 62 million and 20 million users respectively. Similarly, though Gmail has been successful with techies and the Internet savvy, its adoption rate remains far slower than that of Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail. Perhaps if the two services (Gmail and GTalk) were released together, as a unit, that adoption rate would be higher. You could also add Google Calendar to that equation.
An article from the International Herald Tribune attributes Google's slow adoption rate to their practice of 'throwing things out there' and waiting to "see what sticks". Unfortunately, this approach doesn't always get the "wow" factor Google is looking for.
"Google tends to introduce a lot of new products and then watch to see what works. This has the potential to alienate users if there are too many false starts. At the same time, Yahoo risks being seen as irrelevant if it tries to put so many features into each product that it is always months late to market with any good idea."
I don't think Google's approach alienates users, but I do think it makes them hesitant to get excited over the many Google releases. It's hard to create positive buzz when you remember that a lot of Google products aren't so stellar right out of the gate.
The article states, "Google appeals to those who prefer technological wizardry, even if it is a bit rough around the edges, while Yahoo aims more for those who want a smoother experience." And that's the problem both Google and Yahoo! will need to fix in order to take their services to the next level. But it will be hard.
Users have developed hard-to-break loyalties. They go to Google for their searches and to Yahoo! when they're looking for more portal-based features. Google may offer the more relevant search, but Yahoo!'s product releases are typically more consistent and more developed than Google's. Of course, they are also released months after Google's has made its appearance and can capitalize off their gains and vulnerabilities.
Right now, all the engines are struggling to find a balance between speed and innovation. We suspect the engine that finds the right mix first will win the search race.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/27/06 at 12:51 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Pay Per Click
Click Fraud Settlement Approved
It's official. Judge Joe Griffin approved Google's proposed $90 million settlement. For those keeping score, that's Google and Lawyers, 2; Advertisers, 0.
Google's statement:
"We're pleased Judge Griffin has affirmed the settlement as appropriate and fair to advertisers. We look forward to continuing to manage invalid clicks effectively and provide our advertisers with an outstanding return on their investment."
The Associated Press reports Google will give advertisers credits of $4.50 for every $1,000 spent in its ad network over the last 4.5 years. The lawyers, however, will split $30 million in cash. That sounds like a nice deal. For the lawyers, I mean.
More than 70 objections were filed (up from the 52 previously reported), most by small companies arguing they don't have the resources to research claims that Google purposely allowed click fraud to drive up ad costs. According to the document, plaintiffs' claims against Google were "dismissed with prejudice". More than 550 companies chose to opt-out of the settlement.
It's fitting that the bulk of the objections came from small businesses, as they are the ones who will suffer the most from this settlement. Hopefully, Google's new, more transparent approach to click fraud will help them protect themselves in the future.
You can read Griffin's complete ruling here (PDF). My favorite part is when he says the settlement was the result of a "good faith arm's length negotiation" (a what?) by both parties and that the settlement will "result in substantial savings in time and resources to the Court".
To the Court? Yes.
To the small businesses who suffered from click fraud at Google's hand? No.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/27/06 at 12:33 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Pay Per Click
July 26, 2006
Google Takes Step toward Transparency
Starting today, AdWords advertisers can see for themselves how many invalid clicks Google has preemptively caught and not charged them for, as well as their percentage of overall clicks caught. What's that? Google's taking its first steps toward transparency? Oh, happy day.
From the Inside AdWords blog:
"These clicks are filtered in real-time by our systems before advertisers are charged for them. The resulting data will of course differ from one advertiser to the next. In addition, a much smaller number of invalid clicks may also be credited to advertisers’ accounts after-the-fact, as the result of a publisher being terminated from the AdSense program for invalid click activity. These will appear as account-level credits."
This is a great step for Google and will keep advertisers more informed about what's going on with their account and what Google is doing about it. This is the first time advertisers will have any kind of insight into Google's highly secretive PPC engine.
The new reporting options will give advertisers a clearer idea of how rampant click fraud really is for their industry, as well as how Google defines an "invalid click".
However, until advertisers can confirm that Google is catching the same amount of clicks they are, we recommend advertisers remain vigilant about monitoring their own accounts. This is especially true for advertisers who see Google catching high levels of invalid clicks, though I suppose advertisers who see a very low amount of caught clicks will want to make sure Google's not missing anything as well.
It will be very interesting to see how many clicks Google's system identifies as being invalid and could go a long way to soothe advertisers' fears. Hopefully the other PPC engines will get on the transparency bandwagon and start offering something similar to advertisers. They better, otherwise this is going to give AdWords a huge boost with advertisers.
Though Google says the system works in "real-time", advertisers will be able to view catches by day, week, quarter and per year, not minute-by-minute.
Google says they will have to limit the data it provides to prevent those participating in click fraud from reverse engineering the system. Understandable. Revealing too much information may give fraudsters a leg up in determining just how much they can get away with and how to best slip through the cracks at Google. We'll take what we can get. For now.
Good job, guys. We like this a lot.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/26/06 at 3:05 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Pay Per Click
One Page SEO
We noticed an interesting thread over on the Cre8asite forums (via SER) that deals with the troubles and effect of performing SEO on a one page Web site. The question posted was:
"Is it more of a benefit to having one page whereby you are scrunching all of your content, and subsequently, your keywords onto one page?"
In my opinion, the only time doing SEO on a one page Web site would be beneficial is when your industry only has one or two keywords. I'd give you an example, but I'm not sure one actually exists.
If you're serious about SEO and rankings, creating thin, superficial sites won't help you to meet your ranking goals, as they provide no structure or way to link internally. Ultimately, neither the search engines, nor users, will be able to find what they're looking for.
We believe the engines give more value to bigger, full-bodied sites because they contain far more information than a single page site is capable of and are deemed more authoritative. Bruce touched on this slightly during a session yesterday at ad:tech Chicago asking, "What is going to satisfy users, a small site or a more robust site with lots of content?" We believe the latter.
The search engines reward unique content. Creating a well-rounded site with thousands of unique pages filled with expert content is the way to achieve long lasting results. With a single page site, you lose all ability to create theming, silos, or any other of the tactics important to optimal search ranking.
"Scrunching" up your content will also prevent you from actively targeting your site's keywords. Typically we recommend only going after four or five related keywords per page, and that's only if you are able to properly balance them. Trying to target too many keywords on one page will effectively cause your one page site to rank for nothing because you will dilute your keywords and the search engines will be unable to determine what your page is about. As one forum member noted, it's never a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.
Single pages sites also create severe usability issues for users. How are you going to add new content? Where are going to put it without making your site stretch on for miles? Users will only scroll so far before they feel lost in a sea of text. Trying to cover too many topics at once will prohibit users from getting a clear definition of what your site is about and will send them running for the back button. It also gives them no way to link to the specific sections they find useful and will discourage them from bookmarking you or sharing your site with others.
Ultimately, when you design your site you need to both the search engines and your users in mind. They are the one who will determine the success of your site. Users want usability, while the search engine wants lots of pages with unique and relevant content. A one page site simply won't allow you to achieve this.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/26/06 at 11:49 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Design, Search Engine Optimization
Stuff We've Seen
Watch out for that car in front of you!
Google's "new hotness" (hurt them, not me) is real-time Google traffic maps for your cell phone. Now instead of being stuck in traffic, you can document the mess you've created when you slam into the car in front of you because you were staring at your cell phone instead of watching the road. After your separate yourself from your deployed airbag, glance at your phone and notice as the area around you goes from a happy, easy moving green to a violent shade of people-are-hating-you red. This particular driving hazard is fully available in thirty major cities and partially available elsewhere, so the rest of you are safe. For now.
Google also announced users can now customized their mobile personalized homepage (seemingly nicknamed iGoogle?) from their desktop by clicking the "mobile" link at the bottom of their personalized homepage. Personally, I have enough Google in my life. I choose not to infect my cell phone with it too.
Click Fraud: The Abridged Version
Danny Sullivan has worked up a shortened version of the independent report on Google's click fraud detection practices. Danny picks out the important chunks and gets rid of the filler (like the history of the Internet) for the non-reading inclined. If the mere thought of reading a 47-page PDF gives you a headache, Danny's abridged version may be the way to go.
What are your employees stoked on?
You might not care but, according to Marketing Sherpa, your customers do. Based on the case study, designing fun and original About Us pages make for some especially sticky content. Visitors who view your About Us page convert 30 percent more than visitors who don't. If you're wondering how many people are actually viewing your About Us page, Marketing Sherpa says it's between five and seven percent. Unless you're one of those sites that still doesn't have one, then it's zero. It makes sense that visitors would want to know who they're buying from. Kind of like why blogs are popular.
Think you're original?
Phil Lenssen created another click survey. This one focuses on how visitors respond to different shapes. Interesting, though I'm sure people click differently when they know it's a test. You know how people are.
Oversimplified conclusion: people like to click in the middle of circles and at points of intersection. Some revolutionary concepts there.
Writely Invitations Coming!
Those of you who have been waiting on bated breathe for your Writely invitation, it won't be too much longer. I know, I know, me too! The Writely blog announced invitations began making their way out last week and everyone should be in before the end of the summer. [getsexcited.]
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/26/06 at 9:51 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Design, Pay Per Click, Search Engine Optimization
July 25, 2006
Another Google algorithm, more Google confusion
Two weeks after Google's latest landing page algorithm update and advertisers are still up in arms accusing Google of unjustly sending their bids skyrocketing.
On July 10th, Google warned advertisers they would be making an update to their controversial landing page algorithm and advertisers providing a Google-determined "poor user experience" would see an increase in their minimum bids. Well, they did, and ever since advertisers have been brewing in the forums, several claiming a 4000 percent increase in their minimum bids.
Countless advertisers are reporting seeing bids jump from under thirty cents to an even and bulky $10 -- the most common figure associated with these bid increases. What's responsible for the price hikes?
Search Engine Watch's Jennifer Slegg sat down with Google's Senior Business Product Manager Nick Fox recently to get some specifics on how the landing page algorithm works and what Google is looking for. Here's what I could decipher.
Before the launch of the landing page algorithm, Google used advertiser's click through rate to determine the quality of the ad, however, this wasn't particularly effective. Why? Because with compelling (and often misleading) copy, almost anyone can achieve a high click through rate, while still providing users with nothing. This included sites featuring excessive advertising, work from home ads, offering "things that are 'free but not really free' and other such scams. Get rid of spammy sites? Excellent, Google, we're with you there.
However, quite dangerously, Google also decided to cut back on ads "advertising something similar or identical" to other advertisers. It makes sense, but unfortunately it puts Google in the precarious position of determining which advertiser offers the best user experience and which should be forced to pay the increased bids. I'm not sure that's fair.
Do you trust Google to make that decision? What if the machine-generated algorithm doesn't understand what your site is really about and lumps it into a category it doesn't belong? If Google is going to make this decision largely subjective, I think users need more information so they can craft their landing pages accordingly. I also think there needs to be some human intervention. Machines have never been great with the whole subjective thing.
And just what is the penalty if a Google bot deems your landing page inadequate? Either have your ads disabled or pay $10 per click to keep them running. Ten dollars a click? Raise your hand if that eats away at any and all profit. That's what I thought.
Fox told Jennifer the update would only affect "a small number of publishers" and that he had seen a 'very low number of "false positive"'. Unfortunately for all of us he didn't expand on what a "low number" was, and we've heard quite a large outcry from those claiming to be affected. According to Fox, when it comes to landing page quality it is "pretty black and white".
I disagree there. How can something subjective be considered black and white? It can't. Just like an algorithm can't judge user experience. We're not talking about recognizing keywords and Meta tags here. Judging which ad provides a better user experience is an entirely different game, and one that I think requires a little human intervention.
And the fun doesn't end there. What do these "low quality bids" get after advertisers make their $10 per click investment?
Jennifer says:
"When advertisers are forced to spend $10 a click from under $1, there could be a situation where those advertisers would then be positioned at the top of the paid results, because their significantly higher bids are pushing their placements above other ads. Fox said that because ads are still ranked the same, those advertisers who are now paying significantly more for clicks could see their ad placement increase along with their bid price."
Well, that's interesting. Pay $10 and get your spammy landing page to appear higher than legitimate ones? This should be good.
Advertisers who find them on the wrong side of Google's landing page algorithm should concentrate on "improving the quality" of their ads and then ask Google to have their landing pages re-evaluated. Of course, as always, trying to surmise what Google deems important is never an easy task. (Nor is getting a search engine rep to act when you ask them to.)
Of course, there's plenty of speculation as to what could be part of Google's landing page equation. A thread at WebmasterWorld features some interesting suggestions given to an advertiser by his AdWords rep, including increasing the amount of content, creating a separate privacy policy and contact page, and including quality links to external sites.
We recommend taking a careful look at Google's AdWords Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines, and if that leaves you wanting more (which wouldn't surprise us), Jennifer gives advertisers ten more tips for improving landing page quality page.
- Link to the correct page
- Ensure your ad copy matches the page copy
- Make sure ads are labeled as such
- Ensure you have a privacy policy in place
- Contact information
- Landing pages that require registration for more information
- When offering something for free
- Ensure your content is unique
- When your landing page consists of primarily external links
- Do not take over your visitor's web experience
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/25/06 at 12:37 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Design, Pay Per Click
July 24, 2006
Things We've Noticed
What terms are you tracking?
Web analytics company OneStat.com released a report that states more than 50 percent of searchers query 2 word and 3 word phrases. Four word phrases came in third at 17.11 percent and one word phrases came in a rather surprising fourth with only 11.43 percent.
It's valuable information; however, even more valuable would be if you knew what terms bring the most traffic to your site specifically. Do you know if users search for your brand using one word, two word or three word phrases? How about six or seven words? If you don't, you should. Knowing what terms users query to find your site, combined with aggressive keyword research, will help to you craft the most complete picture as to what words your site should be targeting.
Interestingly, the report also broke down numbers based on country, showing us that unless you live in Germany, putting a lot of effort into taking one word phrases may not the way to go.
People Don't Care About PageRank... Well, not really
If a recent Cr8asite thread is any indication (and we think it is), site owners are no longer driving themselves crazy worrying about the size of that little green bar. According to Cre8asite forum members, the Toolbar PageRank (TBPR) craze is "nonsense". The only sites that should show some semblance of PR concern are new sites looking for validation from other sites. According to forum member EGOL, however, TBPR may have one other benefit. He says the higher your PR, the more likely your updates will make it into the SERP quickly. The lower your PR, well, grab a chair it could be awhile.
David Harry wrote an interesting article recently on TBPR called The Google Toolbar PageRank Demystified that further documents PageRanks deflating balloon. If PR is your thing it may be worth a read.
Google Base Adds Rich Text
Google Base becomes more eBay-like with the addition of a rich text editor that lets posters easily reuse HTML tags. Cool?
SEW: Is Link "Bait" Kosher?
A thread over at SEW asks if link baiting should be considered manipulating the search engines. Huh? I can't fully understand that line of thinking. To me, link baiting is SEO at its best: Create something unique, useful and relevant and your audience will eat the bait and reward you with traffic (and conversions). Create something no one is interested in and you "win" the drowned sewage-infested boot. It makes sense to me. Why would creating something that excites users, something that they'll want to link to, be considered manipulating the search engines? I have no idea.
It Needs to be Said
Microsoft has a sense of humor. Thanks to Scoble for pointing this one out. Heh, poor Mac boy. It's not his fault.
This one is just for fun
We like to keep our Valleywag support at a minimum, but if you have a second and a sense of humor I can't help but point you over to Trackback Mountain. It's pretty funny, even if Brokeback references are so last winter.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/24/06 at 4:48 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Analytics, Fun Stuff, Google, Microsoft, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines
Transparent SEO
Google may not want to hand over prized information, but prominent SEOs have recently taken on the motto of transparency and are letting users in on some typically secretive industry information. Even better, we didn't even have to liquor them up first. Who knew?
Last week the Search Engine Guide's Jennifer Laycock announced she would give users a sneak peak into how her team handles a real SEO project. In SEG's Real Small Businesses, Real Big Ideas series, Jennifer will document what it takes to get an SEO campaign started, including all the ups and downs that come with promoting a business online. It's like Reality SEO. This has the potential to develop into a serious Must Read. Or SEG could invest in some video cameras, get some cheesy graphics and play it seven times a day on cable. An instant hit, I say. Think about it...
Kidding aside, the series will provide the interested-but-unfamiliar with an invaluable look at how an SEO company really works and what goes into a project. I know I'll be reading it. It's always good to see how different SEOs handle different projects, even if it does feel slightly like eavesdropping. But it's totally not spying when you've been invited in, right?
Rand over at SEOmoz seems to have gotten bit by the same transparency bug that hit Jennifer as he lays out his pricing methodology for SEO campaigns in exhaustive detail. The post is great for those looking to build a campaign because it provides them with a solid example of what should be included and how much they can expect to pay for different levels of service. It may also be a good benchmark for SEOs and SEMs to establish their own pricing modules.
With any luck Rand's estimated pricing information will make its way around the Web and curb the frequency of those How Much Does It Cost To Get In Top 10 forum posts that pop up every so often, though I doubt it. In the one above, a newbie member tries to find someone to get him to the top of Google for $100. Think I'm kidding? Go check out the thread, I dare you.
Now that I think about it, I hope Rand's information doesn't travel too far. Threads like the one above are hilarious and I thoroughly enjoy reading people's shock and awe responses when they hear it takes more than $50 and some smiley faces to run an SEO campaign. But then again, I'm mean.
Rand post also details the components of both a basic and advanced SEO campaign. Many seemed shocked that he broke it down in such a way, but we're not sure why. The BC SEO Services page has always broken down our seven different packages to let potential clients know exactly what they can expect from us. We knew our services were revolutionary, we just didn't know it was revolutionary to tell you what was in them. Heh.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/24/06 at 3:21 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Search Engine Optimization
Google Click Fraud Hearing Begins Today
All eyes are on Arkansas today as Federal Court Judge Joe Griffin begins the two-day hearing to rule on the more than fifty raised objections to the Lane's Gift settlement. Griffin will take the recently filed independent report assessing Google's click fraud system and Google's own response into consideration before deciding whether to finalize or modify the proposed $90 million settlement.
Though Alexander Tuzhilin, the NYU professor responsible for the independent report, deemed Google's click fraud efforts "reasonable", he did say that before March 2005 Google allowed some "questionable practices". It will be interesting to see how much weight Griffin will give to such statements and whether he will take into consideration the "intrinsic problem" Tuzhilin identified between PPC and its advertisers.
"This is a source of contention and dispute between Google and the advertisers. On one hand, the advertiser has the right to know why a particular click was marked as valid by Google (when the advertiser thinks that it is invalid) because the advertiser pays for this click. On the other hand, if Google discloses this information, it opens itself to click fraud on a massive scale because, by doing so, it provides certain hints about how its invalid click detection methods work."
Most advertisers are unsympathetic to Google's disclosure dilemma. Fifty-one advertisers have filed formal objections to the settlement, saying it "unfairly shifts to them the burden of proving their losses and that they don't have the resources to easily pursue their claims".
Google denies the settlement is unfair and continues to question the merits of the original class action suit. Griffin is expected to hear arguments Monday and Tuesday before deciding whether to finalize or modify the settlement.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/24/06 at 2:36 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Pay Per Click
July 21, 2006
Reviewer Finds Google's Click Fraud Detection Practices "Reasonable"
The Google Blog posted the results of the independent study conducted to assess their click fraud detection practices as per the Lanes Gift settlement. The study was conducted by Dr. Alexander Tuzhilin, a professor of informational systems at NYU, and found that Google "makes reasonable efforts" to detect click fraud. Google seems pretty satisfied with this finding, as it supports what they've been saying all along.
I haven't read the entire 47 page document, but from what I have read it sounds very pro-Google. Tuzhilin did, however, say he did not have enough evidence to rule that Google's methods "work well" or removed "most" of the invalid clicks, just that they did a reasonable job. Is that enough?
In the report Tuzhilin does mention a previously unknown Google policy change that occurred in March 2005. According to Tuzhilin, during that time Google finally quit double-billing advertisers when customers clicked twice on the same ad. He criticized Google for taking two years to stop the double-click billing practice. I would criticize them for taking more than a year to tell anyone about it.
Also interesting, based on the report Tuzhilin only had access to "descriptions" of Google's filtering methods, log generation, conversion system, and other such information. With the exception of the Google-lead demos he witnessed (three to be exact), he didn't get to venture much on his own. It looks like he was left to review what Google gave him and merely interview a dozen or so members of Google's Click Quality Team.
Again, is that enough? Did that really give him a good understanding about what's going on? I'm skeptical, as usual.
In a separate court filing, Google responded to the objections voiced over its $90 million settlement, asking the judge to give final approval for the settlement. Startling to me, only 51 class members submitted written objections to Google. Fifty-one. The document breaks it down further:
"Out of the 51 objections, ten were submitted by class members who reside outside of the United States, and who presumably lack familiarity with the American legal system. Eight of the 51 objections objected to the attorneys' fees provision only and did take issue with any other aspect of the settlement. Further, one of the objectors objected on the ground that Google should have to pay nothing, because Google has done nothing wrong and should not be liable. Another one, who objected only to the attorneys' fess provision, apparently holds the same view, since he wrote that he is "very happy with Google's advertising program". And three others objected, in part, on the ground that this case cannot properly be certified as a class action – as fact which, if true, would prevent any recovery by the class."
It's important to note that although the Court invited any class member to submit a written objection, it forbade parties who were not named in the suit from doing so. Google admitted they did receive objections from non-suit members, though they didn't reveal how many, and they are now asking that those be struck from the record.
In the document, Google defends both the size of the settlement $90 million settlement and says that payment in the form of credit is "fair, adequate and reasonable". You can read Google's full response to the objections here.
I'm sure we'll hear a lot more about this next week. We would encourage advertisers to read both documents very carefully, as they will give you valuable insights into Google and the way they handle click fraud.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/21/06 at 4:47 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Pay Per Click
Friday Recap
Jason Calacanis is still throwing a fit about the blogosphere's reaction to his botched I'll-Just-Steal-Their-Users proposal. He doesn't get it. People don't have a problem with him paying bookmarkers. The problem is instead of doing the legwork himself, he thinks he can just buy Digg's readership. He doesn't realize that even if he can lure members away, Netscape will never be Digg. The lured away Digg members will be replaced by other loyal Digg followers and Netscape will still be dead in the water.
Sorry, Jason. If you think paying bookmarkers is the way to go, why not start paying the bookmarkers already using Netscape? Doing it that way may have created the appreciative buzz you were originally going for, instead of the... not-so-positive buzz (and laughter) you got.
Garett Rogers uncovered an odd link at the top right hand side of Google Finance marked "v2 test". The link directs to: 0.frontend-live.sfe.scrooge.hs.borg.google.com/finance – which appears to be accessible only from inside Google, though you can try it. Is Google testing a "version 2" of Google Finance? And why is there a mention of "scrooge" and a "borg"? Plans for an out-of-this-world, Star Trek-inspired version of “A Christmas Carol” coming this holiday season? Hmm...
Chris Pirillo sat down with Andy Beal in the latest edition of The Chris Pirillo Show to discuss Google's search space dominance, the story behind the now infamous aspirin, the SEO industry and why Google's products often don't live up to their hype. I'm waiting for things to slow down around here before I take a listen, but if you have a free moment, I'd check it out. It's sure to be worth your time.
In case you were unsure: Google doesn't let people send viruses. And attempting to send one makes them angry enough to break away from their pastels. Try again and Google will reach through the computer and smack you. Go ahead, try it. Heh, sissy.
A thread over at the SEW forums highlights why you should never make an SEO angry –they can ruin your reputation with one optimized page. Don't hate, it's just one of the perks of the job. Don't you have a check to write?
You may remember there was some talk a few months back debating whether multitasking in SEO was a good thing or a bad thing. If you're not sure if your tech nerd can also double as your marketing guru, a new checklist by Stuntdubl may have your answer. Sadly, I now officially know I am unequipped to do both. In fact, at first glance I thought Linux Journal said LiveJournal. That's bad, right? I guess I'll stick to blogging...
Not enough Barry Schwartz in your life? Check him out at the new Cartoon Barry blog, which he promises will feature a mix of SEO headlines with some personal tidbits thrown in for good measure. So far, Barry has used the new blog to give us a sneak peak at his typical day and to ask people not to park that close [about two inches] to him. Maybe because it's Friday and I'm slightly tired, but the photo he provides for that last one broke me into giggle fits.
The mystery of Google's unknown doodler has been revealed. The man responsible for creating the plethora of inspired Google holiday and celebratory logos is webmaster Dennis Hwang. Dennis has been manipulating "Google" into hearts, shamrocks, witches, goblins, soccer balls and other such silliness for six years now. The masses thank you, Dennis.
Phil Lenssen shares a video that leads me to believe Eric Schmidt may have been the "nerd" prototype for the Revenge of the Nerds movies. Oh, heavens. Check out the link to witness Eric in all his nerd glory -- big glasses, bad '80s haircut and bright yellow button-up included. It's a good thing he's rich.
Phil also confirms what we already knew – Google is obnoxious.
Nathan Weinberg is missing. I assumed he was just enjoying his honeymoon festivities, but it looks like no one has heard from him in a week and people are starting to worry. His pals at Inside Google have even slapped his picture on a milk carton. Nathan, wherever you are, we hope you're safe and just having too much fun to call. But do call. People worry.
SEOmoz's Rebecca shares Ten Ways to Take a Break from Tedious SEO Work. The whole list is enjoyable, but my favorite, and the one that caused me to shoot water all over my desk, is number six.
"6. Wait until your boss is on a conference call, then eat saltine crackers right over his head."
Hee!
Lastly, my condolences to Matt Cutts who bravely admitted he traveled to New Jersey recently. He says it was voluntarily, but no one would travel to New Jersey voluntarily (trust me, I'm from Long Island). Well, Matt, we're glad you're on your way back. And don't worry, that smell should only last another week or so.
P.S. – if you liked this entry, show your support and buy me this shirt (via Phil). Kidding. Sort of. Well, not really. I'm a Medium.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/21/06 at 1:39 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google, Search Engine Optimization
July 20, 2006
Google Eyes Are Smiling
If yesterday was a bad day for Yahoo!, today is a very, very good day for Google. Team Goog announced this afternoon it more than doubled its second quarter search profits from this time last year, earning $721 million, or $2.33 a share, for the period that ended June 30.
That's a 77 percent increase from this time last year, and (if I'm reading this right) a $129 million increase from last quarter. Imagine making $129 million dollars in three months? No, really, try and imagine that.
Okay, stop. Don't hurt yourself.
To put those numbers into perspective, yesterday number two engine Yahoo! announced they earned a-meager-in-comparison $164.3 million, or 11 cents per share. I think you can see the difference. Google totally won.
Where'd all that money come from? Take a look for yourself.
Google Sites Revenues - Google-owned sites generated revenues of $1.43 billion, or 58% of total revenues. This represents a 94% increase over second quarter 2005 revenues of $737 million and a 10% increase over first quarter 2006 revenues of $1.30 billion.
Google Network Revenues - Google's partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $997 million, or 41% of total revenues. This is a 58% increase over network revenues of $630 million generated in the second quarter of 2005 and a 7% increase over first quarter 2006 revenues of $928 million.
International Revenues - Revenues from outside of the United States contributed 42% of total revenues, compared to 42% in the first quarter of 2006 and 39% in the second quarter of 2005. Had foreign exchange rates remained constant from the first quarter through the second quarter of 2006, our revenues would have been $26 million lower. Had foreign exchange rates remained constant from the second quarter of 2005 through the second quarter of 2006, our revenues would have been $18 million higher.
Wow. That's all I got. Just, Wow. Good job, boys!
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/20/06 at 4:51 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google
Quick Hits
Some things you should know:
MSN Died Last Night. Yes, Again
Various users are reporting that MSN Search was down for extended periods of time last night. Instead of seeing mediocre search results, users were greeted with a message telling them the service was "unavailable" and that the MSN team was "working to restore service as quickly as possible." Awesome. Just like in April.
Google Cares
Matt Bailey announced Google has released a new product called Accessible Search, especially designed to help the visually challenged and those who rely on the aid of screen readers to view the Web. Accessible Search is a stripped-down version of Google that ranks accessible results higher, making them easier to find. The new search is said to favor pages with few visual distractions and that render well with the images turned off.
Matt says: "The service is designed to filter out sites that may have extraneous content on them and may not be ideal for screen readers to handle. Too much information can prevent users from finding what they need."
Based on that, it might be a good idea to keep the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines in mind when you're designing your site
...But Not About Chris Pirillo
Just like they did with TechMeme, Google has sandboxed Chris Pirillo's new TagJag site, which was 301 redirected several weeks ago from its original Gada.be domain. When is Google going to get this 301 redirect thing figured out? Yahoo! and MSN (yes, even MSN) are both showing the site.
Ask Blogs and Adds RSS Smart Answer
A blog update from the Ask.com gang? Be still my heart. Gary Price and Ryan Massie let us know that starting today when you do a Web search for your favorite blog (other than the BC blog, we're not cool enough yet), Ask will offer you the last three posts from that site's feed as Smart Answers. Pretty cool, I say. I like when people do cool things with/ for blogs.
Microsoft Adopts a Much Needed 12-Step Program
Microsoft has incorporated twelve new principles that it hopes will help appease the EC and maybe even make it some friends. New principles include allowing computer manufacturers and users to set defaults to programs or applications not Microsoft-related (and promising not to retaliate) and giving outside software developers the same access to technical information that its own developers have. A smart move for Microsoft.
And don't worry – Microsoft says the new, friendlier way of life won't affect Vista's January 2007 release. We can only hope.
Google Helps Users Share "Hilarious Monkey Moments"
I took that line directly out of Google's Press Release, I swear. I'm not that clever. Google now allows users to email links to specific points inside a video. I think this is great. There's nothing worse than making someone sit through a four minute video just for eight seconds of comedic genius stuck in the middle (i.e. someone falling down a flight of stairs, getting bit, or hit square in the face. I think I have a problem...). To link to a specific part of a video, just add the time of the hilarity at the end of a video's URL.
Kinda like this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1267626298712917200#35m24s
(Note: This was Google's example. I am in no way vouching for this clip. If it's not funny and/ or interesting and you feel like you wasted your time, take it up with Google. Don't come crying to me, people.)
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/20/06 at 1:30 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Ask, Design, Google, Live Search, Microsoft, Search Engine Optimization
When all else fails, throw money at them!
Jason Calacanis wants to recruit a team of nerdy titled "Netscape Navigators" by luring them away from other social sites with the promise of a monthly paycheck. Oh, Jason, how I loathe thee. I want to admit that it's an interesting, perhaps smart approach to build content production. But at the same time, the fact that he wants to recruit his Netscape Navigators by stealing them from sites like Digg, del.icio.us and Flickr is also kind of offensive and part of me (okay, a lot of me) hopes it fails miserably.
Here's Jason's rather arrogant proposal:
"We will pay you $1,000 a month for your “social bookmarking” rights. Put in at least 150 stories a month and we’ll give you $12,000 a year. (note: most of these folks put in 250-400 stories a month, so that 150 baseline is just that–a baseline).
I’m absolutely convinced that the top 20 people on DIGG, Delicious, Flickr, MySpace, and Reddit are worth $1,000 a month and if we’re the first folks to pay them that is fine with me–we will take the risk and the arrows from the folks who think we’re corrupting the community process (is there anyone out there who thinks this any more?!)."
[Raises hand.]
It was bad enough that Jason stole the entire concept of the new Netscape site from other social sites, but now he wants to buy their users and traffic too?
Jason's proposal may be an excellent business decision. If successful, it could help the newly re-branded Netscape gain a loyal following and attract users. I can appreciate Jason's initial line of thinking. However, as good as it is for business, it's potentially disastrous for social communities and for the vulnerable Netscape.
Users flock to these communities for many reasons – they like the community feel, having the power to judge what's newsworthy or the notoriety that comes with getting noticed and creating a following. None of these reasons have ever had anything to do with money. Members knew others like them took time out of their day to digg a story or bookmark a site, and because there was no paycheck or ulterior motive involved, the selections were trusted.
Jason's proposition changes that, and in the end I believe it will be Netscape that suffers. No one will trust the stories that make it to the top of the Netscape page. Why? Because they were bought and paid for courtesy of Mr. Jason Calacanis. If Jason is looking for quality, as he says he is, this is not the way to achieve it. These new Netscape Navigators are no longer community members; they're Jason's team of hired minions.
I don't think Jason even knows why the sites he's trying to imitate are successful. It has nothing to do with their business proposals. Digg has the following it does because members have developed an allegiance to the Digg brand. Trying to bring users over to Netscape is going to be an uphill (if not impossible) battle. People don't like Netscape, just like they don't like AOL. They didn't like the old Netscape, let alone the new copycat version. Additionally, trying to buy traffic is the mark of an inferior product. Users aren't stupid, and I don't think they'll give up their communities for a dorky title.
I think John Murrell does the best job of capturing the essence (and arrogance) of The Jason Calacanis.
"I don't know Jason Calacanis, but he's starting to remind me of the rich kid in school who wasn't particularly well liked but whose free-spending ways always kept a crowd around him."
Agreed. Kind of like Mark Cuban.
[Update: Aww, Jason's all butthurt. Check out his comment to John Murrell over at Good Morning Silicon Valley.]
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/20/06 at 11:13 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Search Engine Optimization
July 19, 2006
Yahoo!'s Bad Day
Yahoo!'s having a tough Wednesday and the puns just keep on coming.
CNN says Yahoo! investors won't have any reason to yodel...
Om Malik says Yah-oh
John Murrell says Yahoo? More Like Boohoo
And that's just a small sampling. Believe me, it got worse as the day progressed. What caused all this rhyming and punning nonsense? Yahoo! announced that its much-hyped Panama upgrade would NOT be rolled out in the third quarter as initially promised. Instead, the long-awaited new interface for advertisers will debut in the hectic fourth quarter. Maybe.
Yahoo! Chief Executive Terry Semel:
"Given the complexity and importance of going to market with an application of this scale, it probably requires a little more time than we originally anticipated."
Rather surprising since just two months ago, Yahoo! assured us they were still on track for a third quarter summer release. Yahoo! will take the additional time to continue testing its new platform, which is said to include improvements, such as the move to a quality-based ranking model, keyword grouping enhancements, IP-based mapping features, better scheduling capabilities, indirect conversion tracking and more.
The news of the delay, plus the announcement of unimpressive (but in line with predictions) second quarter earnings, are said to be responsible for the plummet Yahoo!'s stock took Wednesday. Within hours of the announcement, Yahoo! stock took a 20 percent NASDAQ nosedive, a new 52-week low for the media moguls. Probably not the kind of record breaking numbers they were looking to achieve today.
Others are speculating the delay will give Microsoft a chance to catch up to Yahoo! in the PPC game. I don't put much validity in that one. Pushing things back a quarter won't give Microsoft legs it wouldn't have had otherwise, especially when Microsoft is having their own set of troubles.
And what about this quote from Stanford Financial Analyst Clayton Moran:
"The most interesting thing is that delaying improvements to Yahoo's search adds to the book of evidence that other companies are not able to keep up with Google. Yahoo is saying we're not there yet and all the while Google is gaining share and showing better results."
Those are some strong words. I don't think a delay shows a weakness in Yahoo! It's a letdown to advertisers who have been waiting for what it supposed to be a very impressive Yahoo! release, but it's no deal breaker. I also don't think it's fair to try and find a correlation between the Panama delay and Google showing (or not showing) better search results than Yahoo!
Hopefully Yahoo! will do its testing and release Panama early in the fourth quarter. We've heard rumors that if it goes too deep into the holiday season Yahoo! will delay even further, possibly even into the first quarter of 2007. No one wants to see that. Panama is Yahoo!'s best hope of catching Google in the sponsored search game. Advertisers are tired of waiting and even I'm excited to see what Yahoo! has in store for us. Me excited about a Yahoo! product? Crazy, right?
But before you start feeling sorry for Yahoo!, the press today wasn't all bad. Yahoo! announced their partnership with Zillow. Yahoo! will welcome Zillow into its Real Estate section and will also offer Zillow Zestimates directly on Yahoo!'s SERP. This is far too exciting for me. I am a proud Zillow enthusiast, and if you haven't given it a shot yet, you should. It's addicting. This is a smart partnership for Yahoo! It helps them fill a hole in its Real Estate area and gives Zillow the exposure it wouldn't have had otherwise. Most excellent.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/19/06 at 4:46 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Pay Per Click, Yahoo
comScore Day
What do you think? Do you think the engines enjoy comScore day? Or do you think they view it with the same fear and trepidation we used to associate with receiving our report cards? I'm thinking even an A student like Google wakes up a little nervous, silently hoping for the best, while preparing themselves for the worst. It's only natural.
comScore released their latest numbers yesterday that showed both Google and Yahoo! growing by a half percent last month to 44.7 percent and 28.5 percent, respectively. MSN ranked third dropping .3 percent to 12.8 percent, while Ask.com came in fifth slipping .2 percent to 5.1 percent.
Google was the only engine to see a market share increase from this time last year. In fact, Google's latest numbers mark its eleventh consecutive month of market share gain. Pretty impressive, I say.
Overall, Americans conducted 6.4 billion searches in June, a 29 percent increase over June 2005. That seems like quite an increase to me. People really need to start going outside more. There's a whole world out there. And it's summer. There are like, flowers and beaches and sprinklers and stuff to see out there!
I was also a bit surprised to learn that Ask.com has lost almost a full percentage point from June 2005. I don't know what it's going to take for these guys to start making their deserved climb out of that number five position. C'mon on now, they should at least be ahead of Time Warner. Ask is so underrated. Even Jeeves himself (may he rest in peace) would be proud of Ask's unique engine, their exploration of new advertising methods, and innovative tools.
They just can't get no respect.
Also, in the I-Have-A-Better-Toolbar-Than-You race, Google and Yahoo! are still fighting it out with 49.6 percent and 46.1 percent, respectively. Toolbar wars are great.
So, those are the scores. Don't worry guys; if you weren't happy with your scores this month, there's always next. With a little hard work and some more discipline, we're sure you can improve those scores in no time!
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/19/06 at 12:20 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Search Engines
Google Audio Ads on the Horizon?
Just how far away are Google Audio Ads? WebProNews says we'll see them by the end of the year. Another AdSense member thinks, if history repeats itself, a beta version could be out in a just few weeks. Here's what we know.
Last week, blogger and AdSense member Tim completed a Google survey in return for some free AdSense dollars (screenshots at his blog). Most notable for Tim was the revelation that Google intends to put advertisers directly in touch with the people creating the radio ads. He envisioned a GUI interface where advertisers input copy, select the type of voice to be used (male, female, adult, child, etc.), include points to be emphasized and then let Google ship it off to a production house for them.
Most notable for us: Last time Tim received a survey like this, a beta version of the product was released within two weeks. Now, we're not expecting to see audio ads by the end of the month (though we wouldn't complain if we did...), but they could be closer than originally thought.
On Monday another AdSense member noted over at SEW that he received the same survey, harking to a "new service that will connect advertisers directly to radio stations through its automated process."
According to the survey:
"This technology seeks to simplify the sales process, scheduling, delivery and reporting of radio advertising, in an effort to help advertisers more efficiently purchase and track their campaigns. In addition, the service connects advertisers directly to creative and production talents for the creation of radio ads. By helping to increase the ease of implementation and accountability of radio spots, this platform seeks to bring greater ROI to advertisers nationwide."
Reaching out to current advertisers is a logical and necessary next step for Google, and leads many to believe users are about to see the fruits of Google's $100 million dollar dMarc investment.
A Google Audio Ad system would be the perfect upgrade for traditional radio and would allow radio advertisers to break into the radio medium for only a couple hundred dollars, not the $20,000 it usually costs. According to Rand Fishkin, who was one of the select few invited to attend Google's AdSense Audio demo last month, Google will allow advertisers to dynamically generate and change commercial content according to demographic and geographic location.
The June viewing was the first time anyone saw a mature prototype for the kind of system described on the dMarc Web site.
Surprisingly, Google seems to be considering a set price model, rather than an ad auction model. The scarcity of radio ads makes me think an auction-based system would be considerably more lucrative (and more Google). After all, most people listen to radio ads when they are stuck in traffic, which happens primarily during two times of the day – morning and evening rush hour. Combine that with the limited number of radio stations, and the relatively short period that listeners are in their cars (as opposed to say, in front of a computer), and it seems like radio ads would be an auctioneer's dream.
But I guess we'll see, and maybe sooner than you think. Labor Day, anyone?
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/19/06 at 11:51 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Pay Per Click
July 18, 2006
The 'Idiots' Have Some Learning To Do
Eric Schmidt says Google is run by a bunch of idiots. Idiots? Really? Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree with Eric there. I think the Google guys are pretty smart. However, like all younglings, Google does have some things to work out if Eric, Larry and Sergey want to avoid spending the rest of Google's life in the courtroom.
Eric recently told reporters Google has something like twenty obvious problems. Twenty? I'm not a giant search engine and even I have more problems than that.
Regardless, I hope one of the twenty or so problems Google is working on is figuring out how to become more transparent without sacrificing the Google way of life. If recent court cases are any indication, Google needs to start showing a little more good faith to users. Packs of aspirin are nice and make for fun Friday blog chatter, but at the end of the day, what users would really like to receive in the mail is more information regarding Google's systems.
As I'm sure you've heard by now, a federal court judge dismissed KinderStart's claim that Google unfairly lowered their PageRank and was guilty of "monopolistic business practices". However, Google's KinderStart troubles are far from over. The child-focused search engine has until Sept. 29 to clarify and strengthen its claim that Google is guilty of defamation for dropping them to a PageRank 0.
But right now even the threat of that lawsuit is moot. The value of the KinderStart case was that it highlighted Google's self-inflicted vulnerabilities and exposed their continued spreading of conflicting information.
The judge in the KinderStart case explained (via Eric Goldman):
"Google’s statement as to whether a particular website is “worth your time” necessarily reflects its subjective judgment as to what factors make a website important. Viewed in this way, a PageRank reflects Google’s opinion. However, it is possible a PageRank reasonably could be interpreted as a factual statement insofar as it purports to tell a user “how Google’s algorithms assess the importance of the page you’re viewing." This interpretation would be bolstered by evidence supporting Google’s alleged representations that PageRank is “objective,” and that a reasonable person thus might understand Google’s display of a ‘0’ PageRank for Kinderstart.com to be a statement that ‘0’ is the (unmodified) output of Google’s algorithm. If it could be shown, as KinderStart alleges, that Google is changing that output by manual intervention, then such a statement might be provably false."
Many viewed KinderStart as SearchKing, Round Two. They saw Google forced back into the courtroom arguing that its algorithm is subjective; a mere opinion it offers about the sites in its index. An innocent opinion? Sure. Tell that to the mass of SEOs and site owners who keep constant tabs on their PageRank, even though Google claims it accounts for very little. Everyone knows, on the Internet, Google's word is law.
Based on the judge's assertion, it looks like even the court system is on to Google. At least this judge didn't seem to take to Google's apparent duplicity when it comes to describing PageRank and its algorithm. Google claims its PageRank and algorithm are subjective and that users know that. I disagree.
Many users don't consider Google's all-powerful algorithm subjective. Why? Because they've read Google's Technology page. [Emphasis added.]
PageRank Technology: PageRank performs an objective measurement of the importance of web pages by solving an equation of more than 500 million variables and 2 billion terms.
PageRank also considers the importance of each page that casts a vote, as votes from some pages are considered to have greater value, thus giving the linked page greater value. Important pages receive a higher PageRank and appear at the top of the search results. Google's technology uses the collective intelligence of the web to determine a page's importance. There is no human involvement or manipulation of results, which is why users have come to trust Google as a source of objective information untainted by paid placement.
So what is it? Subjective? Objective? A contradicting combination of the two? And what about that line regarding no human involvement? SearchKing showed us that wasn't true, as have recent, very public instances of Google's "hand-editing jobs".
Maybe Google just needs to update an outdated Technology page, but until they do, you can't fault users for believing what Google clearly states.
If Google wants to avoid the courtroom there's a few things they need to do:
- Update all site information – The only thing worse than giving people no information, is giving them conflicting or incorrect information. Google needs to take a look at its site, figure out what is still relevant and what information is just misleading. If Google no longer gives PageRank any merit, why is it still listed on their site? If Google can't provide users with the correct information, who can?
- Give users a group of ombudsmen – Several people have brought this up lately and for good reason. Users need help, and frankly so does Matt. Matt Cutts is a Senior Google Engineer. He's not their entire public relations department. Users need a group of Google employees they can turn to with basic questions regarding Google and personal site issues. A timely Google customer service line could save everyone a lot of headaches.
- Start erring on the side of transparency – Users are demanding more information and it is in Google's best interest to give it to them. This stretches from giving users basic information about its algorithm to details about what Google is doing to prevent click fraud. SearchKing and KinderStart may be dead in the water, but eventually users and the court system are going to grow tired of Google's misinformation and they're going to get hit. The mystery behind Google's algorithm may have once been alluring, but today it's merely a source of user frustration.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/18/06 at 12:42 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google, Search Engines
July 17, 2006
Weekend Round Up
There are so many little nuggets to blog about today that I thought perhaps a Weekend Round Up was in order. You're welcome.
Barry Schwartz gives all you procrastinators another reminder: SES San Jose is almost here so make your preparations accordingly. Barry and his gang will once again offer readers quadruple coverage; however, if you're looking for an alternative to Barry's well-informed, years of experience voice, I'll also be live blogging from the SES floor this year. Heh, heaven help us. It's my first SES experience, and you're not going to want to miss it. I guarantee it.
Barry also shows us the newest addition to Google's SERP – OneBox Google Maps. Doing a search for "rustybrick suffern, ny" brings up a OneBox Google Map that leads you directly to your beloved Barry. I'm assuming they'll have to limit this one per query, making it invaluable for small businesses and tolerable for those of us who prefer uncluttered search results.
Andy Beal's Fortune Interactive released the results of a study that found linking and off-page SEO are the factors most important to achieving high organic rankings. The study took the highly competitive keyword "laptop" and analyzed the top 100 results in GYM. What did they discover?
- Inbound link quality was the most important factor across all three search engines.
- For inbound links, the reputation of the originating page was more important than the page's relevance to the keyword "laptop".
- For the keyword "laptop", off-page optimization factors out-weighed any on-page optimization factor.
- The most important on-page factor for Google was Title-tag keyword density.
- Web pages that successfully ranked across the engines all had strong values in at least the two most important influential factors for each search engine respectively.
Over at DigitalPoint Forums, an AdSense publisher reports a hacker wormed his way into his account and changed the Google AdSense Publisher ID. The publisher noticed a problem when he logged into his account and saw zero impressions and no revenue for the day. By checking further, he realized someone had changed the Publisher ID in his AdSense code.
One member commented the problem was likely self-induced; the publisher must have given others access to his account and now he was suffering the consequences. That may be true, but the problem at hand now is how does Google resolve such a situation? It would be unfair to simply punish the owner of the Publisher ID listed, as anyone could change the ID to anything (i.e. a totally innocent competitor perhaps). Publishers should be aware of such scams and avoid giving out personal account information at all costs.
Looking for sites to advertise on? InsideAdwords announced Google's category site selection tool for AdWords, making it brain-dead easy for you to find sites relevant to your products.
India's Department of Telecommunications mandated local Internet Service Providers block users' access to listed Web sites. The full list is confidential, but Blogspot.com, Typepad.com and Geocities.com are among the sites known to be blocked to Indian users. The blocking is believed to be associated with recent terror plots inside the country. Regardless, blog enthusiasts are trying to find a way around it.
YouTube announced they are now serving up 100 million videos per day on its site, making them responsible for 60 percent of all videos watched online. Yowsa, they're like the Google of online video.
Wikipedia has added RSS feeds for its entries. That means if someone updates the Falkor entry I'll immediately be notified. Last week, I learned Falkor is not an overgrown cocker spaniel (even though it kind of looks like one), but instead a fictional luckdragon from The Neverending Story (right, Susan?). [Yes, Lisa. --SE] And should that ever change, I will be among the first to know. I can sleep better at night.
Lastly, Kerry Madden of the LA Times shows us what can happen when you leave your mother unattended with Google access: She googles you. It's my worst nightmare. I'm in so much trouble once my mother learns how to google people (i.e. her only daughter). I can picture my father spouting exactly what Kerry's father tells her horrified mother:
"If you don't want her to write about you, don't talk to her, because that's what writers do. They write down what we say."
Truer words have never been spoken.
Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/17/06 at 3:43 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Search Engine Optimization