example.com: Latest News

How is Social Search Working Out For You?

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:48:00 +0100

We may not listen to our friends. We may not listen to our family. But we do listen to people online, telling us where the best products are, the best services, the best places to get Chinese takeout at 3:00 a.m. Social search harnesses the incredible power of virtual word-of-mouth and consumer generated content, reviews, and ratings. We tend to give these words more credence, certainly a consumer saying, “This product worked really well for me. It’s awesome,” holds more sway than a company saying the same thing. But is that exactly the problem? Focusing on social search is indeed important: not only do consumers give it credence, so does Google. The search engine counts +1s, likes, pins, tweets, and other shares. Each of those is a tiny vote of confidence that can build credence. An increasingly common tactic is to “persuade” visitors or customers to give a positive review or rating in return for some incentive. This is common on sites like TravelAdvisor. Hotel owners have been known to pay guests for positive reviews or offer other incentives, such as discounted rates on their next stay. This is a rather grey-hat area, but there is a thriving market for completely black-hat purchasing of reviews. This is becoming widespread throughout China, India, and other countries where these review “mercenaries” make pennies per review. In a Boston.com piece, “A Dark Force, Unleashed Online,” writer Gareth Cook notes, “Being on Facebook or Twitter can lull you into complacency. You have a sense that you are among friends. But know this: one of your new friends could be a teen on another continent, working for pennies on the hope that you’ll make one false click.” Not only does this impact the consumer, it impacts every legitimate business that gives its patrons the chance to write reviews. How do you separate the honest from the paid? The white hat from the grey or black? Social search may end up being too powerful to be of much use.

Pinning Your SEO Hopes on Pinterest

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:27:00 +0100

Forget tweeting; we are now pinning. Twitter is still going strong in its niche, but Pinterest is an up-and-comer that is sparking conversation and buzz around the Internet. There are almost 11,000 Pinterest visitors per minute. Not quite as much as Twitter’s 175,000 tweets/minute or YouTube’s 2 million videos/minute, but it is certainly respectable. Marketers have seized on the online pin board as a way to reach out to a broader community. And while this can be very effective, it is not a great idea to pin all of your SEO hopes on Pinterest. Why not – and what role does Pinterest have in your marketing efforts? In March of this year, Pinterest went to no-follow links exclusively. This just means that the HTML markup tells Google not to visit the site that it points to. The benefit is that you can link visitors to relevant information; the “disadvantage” is that you won’t get that link juice. With social media, marketers many times try to build up those external links, and it can be a good strategy – but it will not work here. What you can do, however, is provide a profile link to your website and do follow links within the pin’s description. But remember: the point of Pinterest is not to build up links. It is not to market to people; the quickest way to make any social media profile a ghost town is to sell. The goal is to be part of the community. Reach your audience with relevant, interesting content and helpful advice/tools. Anything else is immediately discarded as spam. Another point worth considering is that while Pinterest can be a huge source of referrals, they are often not high quality. CopyBlogger did an internal study and found that traffic referred from Pinterest tended to stay only a few seconds and had a bounce rate of over 91 percent. So again, the point is not really getting people to “buy” or complete a call to action. It is to get them engaged – and to get your company/business engaged with the community. Pinterest is a remarkable tool; it is not a means to an end in and of itself, though. Use it wisely!

Google Using Thermal Batteries to Cool Data Center

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:28:00 +0100

Turning from SEO specifically, we are going to look at a pressing issue that affects every IT-related business: the environmental impact of technology. Many times we think that computers can only be beneficial for the environment: we can telecommute and save fuel; we can Skype with friends instead of driving or hopping a plane to see them; we can purchase products online instead of going to a physical store. All of this is true, but it is also true that the global IT community accounts for 2 percent of the world’s total carbon emissions – or about the same as the aviation industry. Google is using a new method to tackle the issue in its Taiwan data center. We picture computers and the internet as being very clean and green; but data centers are like that semi in front of you that is belching out toxic black smoke. They require tremendous energy and cost to cool. Google, and other companies, have been wrestling with ways to reduce imprint. In their Belgium data center, which is the most efficient, Google uses fresh air for cooling so it does not have to run massive chilling equipment. The problem is that the facility is 35˚C and humans have to retreat to separate areas that are climate controlled. In Taiwan, Google plans to cool their facility (still in construction) using thermal energy storage. How will this work? They will run the AC systems at night, when rates are lower, and cool insulated tanks that are filled with ice or coolant. During the day, those tanks dissipate heat. Some describe these tanks as “thermal batteries.” This is the first of Google’s data centers (6 in the US, 2 in Europe, and soon to be 3 in Asia) to use thermal energy. In other facilities, they use sea water and sewage water so they are not diverting the population’s potable water resources. eBay has also started to use alternative methods to cool its data center; it maintains hot temperatures in the facility (up to 47˚C) so it can use hot water from natural sources for cooling. The water is naturally about 30˚C, and even at this temperature, it is cool enough to do the job. Google’s Taiwan data center is set to open in 2013.

Google’s Third-Party Commenting Platform

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:39:00 +0100

Watch out, Facebook! Google is reportedly planning a third-party commenting platform. It is supposed that this will rival – and indeed, mimic – the ubiquitous Facebook comments. Currently, Facebook users can, on equipped websites, log into their accounts and comment on content and articles. What is Google going to offer? Is it going to have an impact on the web world? And should Google stop chasing Facebook? It is understandable that Google would want in on the third-party commenting scene: in addition to Facebook, services like LiveFyre and Disqus are seeing success in this area. Google’s system will tie into their Google+ platform, as well as search and other services, and many speculate that comments will be indexed in Search. Justin Brookman, director of the consumer privacy project at the Center for Democracy and Technology says, “It seems that anything you post on the comment page will be visible to all users of either Google+ or Google products, I believe.” Google commenting faces a hurdle, though, in that on sites that feature Facebook commenting, most people will go with what they know. The search giant has a lot of tools at its disposal, though, and because comments may be indexed, some sites may opt to keep Google+ commenting around rather than Facebook to achieve better rankings. Google+ also offers features such as Hangouts and live newsfeeds that can help sway consumers. Google has been following Facebook’s lead, trying to add services that engage people the same way that the social networking site does. Instead, though, they may be better served offering something completely different and engaging people in ways that Facebook cannot. Commenting is more of the same.

Google Targeting Over-Optimisation

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:00:00 +0100

In an effort to “level the playing field,” Google announced that it would be tweaking their search bots to look for “over-optimisation,” or sites that use too many keywords or appear to have too many links (which indicates link baiting). This effort, says Matt Cutts, would help high quality sites with strong content show up as more relevant in searches. Could you be unintentionally over-optimising? And will this change affect your site? Google’s search bots are already on the lookout for spammy links and keywords within low value content sites, so what exactly does the change target? According to Matt Cutts, it is aimed at “people who sort of abuse it whether they throw too many keywords on the page, or whether they exchange too many links, or whatever they’re doing to sort of go beyond what a normal person would expect in a particular area.” In other words, who knows exactly what they’re looking at? But it is worthwhile to comb through your site to see if you have done things like link to a page from within that same page or have used too many keywords in a particular page. While the density is not exact, shoot for about 2 to 3 percent. In a 100 word paragraph, for instance, you may mention your keyword twice or so – if it flows naturally with the content. You can implement synonyms naturally as well, to help Google distinguish which “bat” you mean, or which version of “football” you’re talking about, for instance. Cutts indicates that “several engineers” are working on the change and the penalty may go live within the next several weeks.

Is Google Indexing Your Website?

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:11:00 +0000

Last time, we touched on some ways that you can make your site more crawlable, or easy for Google’s bots to roam. Taking steps such as building a sitemap, slimming down your navigational structure, and providing quality content enhances the crawability of your webpages. But it does not ensure that Google will then index the pages, and this is really the goal of being crawlable; indeed, it is the goal of having a website for many businesses! How can you make sure Google is indexing your site and you are achieving the visibility you should be? The good news is that making your site crawlable, you are greatly increasing the odds that Google can index it. Creating a sitemap and rich, original content, for instance, will show the bots your site’s value. In addition:

Pay attention to your links. It is essential that your internal links flow smoothly and are not broken. If bots start with your homepage, they continue indexing by following the internal links. This also benefits because you will appear more prominently in searches. Google recommends that every page should be reachable by at least one static link.
If your page has images, considering using the ALT attribute to describe them in text.
Use robot.txt to tell Google which pages to index and which to skip. This is important if, say, you have a printable version of a page; Google will not index the duplicate content.
Use emulators to test your website for different browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer.
Test your page speeds.
Do not keyword stuff, insert hidden texts or links, host duplicate content, or create doorway pages. This indicates to Google that you are trying to game their system, and you could find yourself penalized in results.

The most important aspect of indexing is making sure that you have quality content that is worth being indexed. Google is not looking for whoever did the best SEO; they are looking for the most relevant answer to the searcher’s query. Gear your site to humans, not to search engines. This, in turn, will ensure that the search engines like them more as well.

Enhancing Website Crawlability

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:10:00 +0000

Crawlability: it sounds like something that you don’t want to have. Are you crawlable? Good heavens, no! But in the SEO world, crawlability is a desirable attribute. It is the ease with which search bots can comb through your site, and it has a tremendous impact on organic search rankings. This is especially true of large sites that have thousands of pages, but following a few good practices can benefit any site. First, diagnose your crawlability problem, if you have one. One indicator may be poor traffic flow to your site, but to be sure crawlability is the culprit, use the Fetch as Googlebot tool. This allows you to see your site from the perspective of a Google robot; you can determine which pages are problematic and if you might be unintentionally blocking bots from crawling your site. If you do have areas in which you need help, here are some steps you can take to make it easier for your site to be crawled:

Give the bots some more high quality content to crawl.
Go through existing content and see if you can consolidate or take down pages that do not add enough value by themselves. It is better to have 100 strong content pages than 1000 weaker ones.
Build a sitemap to give the spiders more information and signals to crawl.
Pare down your navigational structure and avoid excessive use of Flash, Ajax, JavaScript, and other heavy elements. Not only will this help bots crawl your site more easily, it will appeal to the humans, too.
Make sure to use search engine friendly URLs, optimised with relevant keywords.
Use robot.txt to suggest which sites the bots should crawl. Google’s bots do not technically have to heed these requests, but they typically do so it can be a worthwhile step.

The next step is to realise that just because a bot is able to crawl your site doesn’t necessarily mean it has indexed it. We’ll talk about that next time!

Sick of Hearing about Google+ Yet?

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:27:00 +0000

The Wall Street Journal describes Google+ as a “virtual ghost town,” compared to Facebook. Facebook users average 6 to 7 hours per month on that network; Google+ users spend only 3 minutes per month. Brianb Solis, analyst at Altimeter Group, says “Nobody wants another social network right now. Google hasn’t communicated what the value of Google+ is. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you can ignore it. Proponents of Google+ say the difference between it and services like Facebook or Twitter is quality vs. quantity. There is a massive amount of content on the latter two sites; Google is hoping to distinguish itself as a more exclusive, relevant atmosphere. It can also boost your position in the SERPs. Google’s algorithm tweaks favor Google+ content; a Circles comment can help with your rank, but 1000 Facebook comments may not. Another advantage touted by fans is that you can segment your audience with Google+, which can help you deliver more targeted content. Many businesses are taking a wait-and-see approach, but there are steps you can take now to get more from Google+.

Install a +1 button on your site and blogs.
Start hanging out. Google Hangouts can help you leverage Google’s reach and deliver content to a much wider audience at a low cost.
Refresh your sites with quality content. Content is still king.
Use a variety of different media. Video, text, images, audio…it all plays together well in Google+.

Google+ is a different world than Facebook; but it is one worth exploring if you are seeking to boost your search position and create more visibility. It is a good idea to position yourself now and hedge your bets on this taking off. You have a little time, though, because as of now, more people are using MySpace than Google+.

Schema.org Video Support

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:39:00 +0000

Last year, Bing, Yahoo, and Google collaborated to create Schema.org, a language that allows webmasters to mark up text. By doing so, they can write a rich snippet, which appears on search results pages, giving the user a chance to see what type of content is inside the page before he/she clicks through. This has been enormously valuable; studies show that the use of these snippets increases click-through rates. Google announced this week that it is officially supporting video on Schema. Henry Zhang, product manager for Google Videos, says, “Videos are one of the most common types of results on Google and we want to make sure that your videos get indexed.” VideoObject enables webmasters to markup videos just as they do other types of content. This benefits the websites, obviously, but it also makes it much easier and more efficient for Google to index the millions of hours of video content that are uploaded each day. It is still a great idea to have a video sitemap, but using Schema will help your video gain visibility and hopefully raise your CTR. Google requires that each video have a:

Title
Description
Thumbnail image
Embed URL or content URL

You then use Schema’s extensive vocabulary to markup your video as precisely as you can so Google can return relevant results to users. For instance, if you are doing your description, it may appear as follows: Video demonstrating proper use of Schema.org and explaining how to markup video The description, or what is inside the > < , will appear to searchers under the title and next to the thumbnail. This is the example that Zhang provided in Google’s announcement:

Video: Title




    content="http://www.example.com/videoplayer.swf?video=123" />



  Video description

Using rich snippets adds a little more work for you, but the results of this on-page SEO may be well worth the effort. Remember to test your markup before going live with Google’s Rich Snippet Testing Tool.

Meltwater: Aggregator or Search Engine?

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:35:00 +0000

One strategy that more websites are turning to is content curation and aggregation; it is no longer enough to have great content. You have to be able to point your visitors to other great content, to be the source of all knowledge, so to speak. Meltwater News is a service that “delivers real-time search results with the industry’s most robust online media monitoring database.” They track over 160,000 news sources all over the world. The media service is also being sued by the AP (Associated Press) for copyright violations; this after being ruled against in the UK. At issue is whether Meltwater is acting as an aggregator or a search engine. A search engine like Google must copy publishers’ content verbatim as part of their results; courts in the US, UK, and elsewhere have found that this meets “Fair Use” tests, meaning it does not infringe on the publishers’ copyrights. And in fact, it is helpful because otherwise searchers could not find this content. The search engine provides a blurb or snippet of information and a link to the licensed site. According to the AP, though, what Meltwater is doing is different because, unlike search engines or free aggregators or aggregators that are licensees of the AP, they charge a fee. Users can only access these results by paying, and the AP contends, it “provides a fully integrated closed system that is designed to supplant the need for an AP subscription, not to drive traffic to legitimately licensed sites.” In other words, the AP is arguing that Meltwater diverts traffic to its own paid sites. In the UK, the Copyright Tribunal ruled that British businesses need to hold a license from the NLA (Newspaper Licensing Association) if they are going to use aggregators, including Google News and Alerts. Meltwater was found to violate copyright, and it now needs to have a £150 license in order to provide this content to customers. It is not clear yet how this will impact SEO, especially for those companies who use Google Alerts or News to monitor links, or how far down the line licensing requirements will go.