Posted under my web sites on February 17th, 2008 by gas money
Well i decided to dive into a new project this past week with the start of a new forum. I was pretty excited and It just so happens to be a forum dedicated to SEO (Search Engine Optimization ). The forum URL is SeoModz.com and i hope to have this forum booming soon.
I decided to start this project for several reasons. With SEO forums popularity getting bigger every year i didn’t want to lose any more time in getting it started. I’ve been wanting to have a forum just about SEO (Don’t know why lol). Now let me be completely honest about my knowledge of SEO in general. I am definitely no expert on the subject, but i do know more than enough to start a community. I have read quite a few books as well as trial and error with it on hand over the past 5 years. Plus my bigger thing with it is I know how to run a successful community and thats the most important thing to me. The rest can come with time and new members that know more or different parts of SEO (aka Google optimization) than I do. since the whole meaning of a SEO community is to learn together, I’m sure well do great.
I hope to share my experience on how this community grows and how ill be monetizing it to generate income. I have several ideas for the forum and they will be incorporated as soon as possible. Feel free to join and ask all the questions you might have on SEO as thats what the community is for. I have also uploaded some really cool SEO ebooks for everyone to read and get started. Check out the forum and let me know what you think.
If you like this post then please consider subscribing to my full feed RSS. You can also subscribe by Email and have new posts sent directly to your inbox.
For those who don’t know who Aaron Wall is let me tell you a little about him and what he does. Aaron Wall is the owner of the famous blog named Seobook.com. Hes considered as on of the masters of SEO on the web today. With his ebook online since December 2003, he has helped several sites and companies with marketing tips, search analysis, traffic evaluation, and countless other things to optimize their online presence. His ebook has been revised nearly over 50 times since then.
The SEO Book covers everything, and I do mean everything, there is to know about search engine optimization. The SEO ebook is Currently 328 pages long and a very good read if you ask me. Why pay someone or a company for that matter hundreds of $$$ to do your SEO work for you when you could easily just pay $79 to do it your self. Not only is this the best way to make your business better , but its a way to get one step closer to being a complete online success ( And a big step at that!).
The SEO eBook has A LOT of information – way too much for me to summarize in this review. Even Aaron’s own summary took 22 pages long (in his ebook) so i wont be doing that today. The SEO Book covers everything I have done on my blog and other sites to increase their search traffic. A great feature about the SEO Book is the free lifetime updates. As the search engine game changes, and it always changing, you’ll be completely up-to-date. Now how important is that?
The SEO Book sells for $79 and comes with an unconditional 90 money back guarantee. If the SEO Book is not for you, send Aaron an email and he’ll give you all your money back, no questions ask. Is it worth it?I’m sure i don’t have to answer that for you but, Damn right it is! If you can’t make the $79 back after reading this book, then honestly, you’re beyond help. Return the book and get your money back.
If you like this post then please consider subscribing to my full feed RSS. You can also subscribe by Email and have new posts sent directly to your inbox.
Towards the tail end of PubCon, I noticed a spateofarticles talking about subdomains and subdirectories in Google, and I wanted to talk more about this subject in case I was unclear.
Historically, it’s been kind of a wash about when to use subdomains vs. subdirectories. Just as a reminder, in a URL such as subdomain.example.com/subdirectory/ , the subdomain is “subdomain” and the subdirectory is “subdirectory” (also sometimes called a folder).
If you throw your content into a subdirectory, usually the code is all in the same file storage space. That can make it much easier to find/edit/change code. It can also be easier to move code from one place to another. A subdomain, however, is often a domain name system (DNS) alias. Subdomains can be a little more difficult for a novice webmaster to set up, especially if words like “CNAME” don’t mean anything to you. Subdomains can be managed separately, which can be a joy (you can use DNS to decouple a subdomain if you want to migrate that part of your site) or a pain (it may be more of a hassle to juggle DNS setting instead of just using file commands to make or move directories). When I started my blog, I decided to use a subdirectory (mattcutts.com/blog/) just to keep things simple, for example.
For several years Google has used something called “host crowding,” which means that Google will show up to two results from each hostname/subdomain of a domain name. That approach works very well to show 1-2 results from a subdomain, but we did hear complaints that for some types of searches (e.g. esoteric or long-tail searches), Google could return a search page with lots of results all from one domain. In the last few weeks we changed our algorithms to make that less likely to happen in the future.
This change doesn’t apply across the board; if a particular domain is really relevant, we may still return several results from that domain. For example, with a search query like [ibm] the user probably likes/wants to see several results from ibm.com. Note that this is a pretty subtle change, and it doesn’t affect a majority of our queries. In fact, this change has been live for a couple weeks or so now and no one noticed. The only reason I talked about the subject at PubCon at all was because someone asked for my advice on subdomains vs. subdirectories.
My personal preference on subdomains vs. subdirectories is that I usually prefer the convenience of subdirectories for most of my content. A subdomain can be useful to separate out content that is completely different. Google uses subdomains for distinct products such news.google.com or maps.google.com, for example. If you’re a newer webmaster or SEO, I’d recommend using subdirectories until you start to feel pretty confident with the architecture of your site. At that point, you’ll be better equipped to make the right decision for your own site.
Our goal is to provide users the best search experience by presenting equitable and accurate results. We enjoy working with webmasters, and an added benefit of our working together is that when you make better and more accessible content, the internet, as well as our index, improves. This in turn allows us to deliver more relevant search results to users.
If, however, a webmaster chooses to buy or sell links for the purpose of manipulating search engine rankings, we reserve the right to protect the quality of our index. Buying or selling links that pass PageRank violates our webmaster guidelines. Such links can hurt relevance by causing:
- Inaccuracies: False popularity and links that are not fundamentally based on merit, relevance, or authority
- Inequities: Unfair advantage in our organic search results to websites with the biggest pocketbooks
In order to stay within Google’s quality guidelines, paid links should be disclosed through a “rel=nofollow” or other techniques such as doing a redirect through a page which is robots.txt’ed out. Here’s more information explaining our stance on buying and selling links that pass PageRank:
February 2003: Google’s official quality guidelines have advised “Don’t participate in link schemes designed to increase your site’s ranking or PageRank” for several years.
September 2005: I posted on my blog about text links and PageRank.
December 2005: Another post on my blog discussed this issue, and said
Many people who work on ranking at search engines think that selling links can lower the quality of links on the web. If you want to buy or sell a link purely for visitors or traffic and not for search engines, a simple method exists to do so (the nofollow attribute). Google’s stance on selling links is pretty clear and we’re pretty accurate at spotting them, both algorithmically and manually. Sites that sell links can lose their trust in search engines.
September 2006: In an interview with John Battelle, I noted that “Google does consider it a violation of our quality guidelines to sell links that affect search engines.”
January 2007: I posted on my blog to remind people that “links in those paid-for posts should be made in a way that doesn’t affect search engines.”
April 2007: We provided a mechanism for people to report paid links to Google.
June 2007: I addressed paid links in my keynote discussion during the Search Marketing Expo (SMX) conference in Seattle. Here’s a video excerpt from the keynote discussion. It’s less than a minute long, but highlights that Google is willing to use both algorithmic and manual detection of paid links that violate our quality guidelines, and that we are willing to take stronger action on such links in the future.
June 2007: A post on the official Google Webmaster Blog noted that “Buying or selling links to manipulate results and deceive search engines violates our guidelines.” The post also introduced a new official form in Google’s webmaster console so that people could report buying or selling of links.
June 2007: Google added more specific guidance to our official webmaster documentation about how to report buying or selling links and what sort of link schemes violate our quality guidelines.
August 2007: I described Google’s official position on buying and selling links in a panel dedicated to paid links at the Search Engine Strategies (SES) conference in San Jose.
September 2007: In a post on my blog recapping the SES San Jose conference, I also made my presentation available to the general public (PowerPoint link).
October 2007: Google provided comments for a Forbes article titled “Google Purges the Payola”.
October 2007: Google officially confirmed to Search Engine Land that we were taking stronger action on this issue, including decreasing the toolbar PageRank of sites selling links that pass PageRank.
October 2007: An email that I sent to Search Engine Journal also made it clear that Google was taking stronger action on buying/selling links that pass PageRank.
We appreciate the feedback that we’ve received on this issue. A few of the more prevalent questions:
Q: Is buying or selling links that pass PageRank a violation of Google’s guidelines? Why?
A: Yes, it is, for the reasons we mentioned above. I also recently did a post on my personal blog that walks through an example of why search engines wouldn’t want to count such links. On a serious medical subject (brain tumors), we highlighted people being paid to write about a brain tumor treatment when they hadn’t been aware of the treatment before, and we saw several cases where people didn’t do basic research (or even spellchecking!) before writing paid posts.
Q: Is this a Google-only issue?
A: No. All the major search engines have opposed buying and selling links that affect search engines. For the Forbes article Google Purges The Payola, Andy Greenberg asked other search engines about their policies, and the results were unanimous. From the story:
Search engines hate this kind of paid-for popularity. Google’s Webmaster guidelines ban buying links just to pump search rankings. Other search engines including Ask, MSN, and Yahoo!, which mimic Google’s link-based search rankings, also discourage buying and selling links.
Other engines have also commented about this individually, e.g. a search engine representative from Microsoft commented in a recent interview and said
The reality is that most paid links are a.) obviously not objective and b.) very often irrelevant. If you are asking about those then the answer is absolutely there is a risk. We will not tolerate bogus links that add little value to the user experience and are effectively trying to game the system.
Q: Is that why we’ve seen some sites that sell links receive lower PageRank in the Google toolbar?
A: Yes. If a site is selling links, that can affect our opinion about the value of that site or cause us to lose trust in that site.
Q: What recourse does a site owner have if their site was selling links that pass PageRank, and the site’s PageRank in the Google toolbar was lowered?
A: The site owner can address the violations of the webmaster guidelines and submit a reconsideration request in Google’s Webmaster Central console. Before doing a reconsideration request, please make sure that all sold links either do not pass PageRank or are removed.
Q: Is Google trying to tell webmasters how to run their own site?
A: No. We’re giving advice to webmasters who want to do well in Google. As I said in this video from my keynote discussion in June 2007, webmasters are welcome to make their sites however they like, but Google in turn reserves the right to protect the quality and relevance of our index. To the best of our knowledge, all the major search engines have adopted similar positions.
Q: Is Google trying to crack down on other forms of advertisements used to drive traffic?
A: No, not at all. Our webmaster guidelines clearly state that you can use links as means to get targeted traffic. In fact, in the presentation I did in August 2007, I specifically called out several examples of non-Google advertising that are completely within our guidelines. We just want disclosure to search engines of paid links so that the paid links won’t affect search engines.
Q: I’m aware of a site that appears to be buying/selling links. How can I get that information to Google?
A: Read our official blog post about how to report paid links from earlier in 2007. We’ve received thousands and thousands of reports in just a few months, but we welcome more reports. We appreciate the feedback, because it helps us take direct action as well as improve our existing algorithmic detection. We also use that data to train new algorithms for paid links that violate our quality guidelines.
Q: Can I get more information?
A: Sure. I wrote more answers about paid links earlier this year if you’d like to read them. And if you still have questions, you can join the discussion in our Webmaster Help Group.
If you own or work with a search engine optimization company, or
even if you’re just hoping to better your search engine
placement, then you are probably aware of the recent acquisition
frenzy that took hold among the major search engines. Google
paid $3.1 billion for DoubleClick, Microsoft paid $6 billion for
Aquantive, and Yahoo paid $680 million for the 80 percent of
Right Media that it did not already own and another $300 million
for BlueLithium. The companies purchased are all intended to
help widen the advertising range of each of the engines in
question, and to take advantage of increasingly sophisticated
behavioral-based ad-serving technologies that the acquired
companies owned.
What many people failed to realize was that when Google
purchased DoubleClick, it now was also the owner of a very large
search engine optimization company called Performics, which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of DoubleClick.
This fact is of course raising some eyebrows in the industry.
Google has consistently maintained that there is no way that
people can pay for better search engine placement in the organic
index, a stance that the company still claims applies despite
this recent purchase. In fact, a portion of Google’s published
guidelines about SEO says, “While Google doesn’t have
relationships with any SEOs and doesn’t offer
recommendations…” In another portion, Google says “While
Google never sells better ranking in our search results…”
However, anyone who hires search engine optimization company
Performics is of course now paying Google for better search
engine placement. It seems like a pretty black and white issue,
but Google would obviously prefer that it was kept delightfully
blurry.
A Serious Conflict of Interest
One would think that Google, aware of the controversy that would
come from the fact that it now owned a search engine optimization
company, would be eager to spin Performics off quickly in order
to avoid the appearance of impropriety and of selling search
engine placement. Not so, says the official Google/Doubleclick
acquisition FAQ:
Q. What will Google do with Performics?
A. Performics is part of DoubleClick, and we are acquiring
it as part of the transaction. We have no plans to dispose
of it at this time.[1]
All right, so Google owns a search engine optimization company
and seems prepared to hold onto it for a little while at least.
Yes, there seems to be a huge conflict of interest. Yes, there
appears to be a large double standard. Yes, Google appears to
have abandoned its long-standing principles regarding organic
search engine placement in the interests of profit. But surely,
the search engine optimization company that it bought will
quickly be forced to follow the guidelines that Google has
published for companies that are looking for a search engine
optimization company. Right? Well, no.
Here is a verbatim quote from the guidelines that Google
provides to people thinking about hiring a search engine
optimization company:
* Make sure you’re protected legally. For your own safety,
you should insist on a full and unconditional money-back
guarantee. Don’t be afraid to request a refund if you’re
unsatisfied for any reason…[2]
On the surface, this advice seems solid enough, but as an owner
of a search engine optimization company, I can tell you how
impractical it is. What would prevent a company that achieved
fantastic search engine placement using my service from asking
for its money back, claiming that it is unsatisfied? “For any
reason” is a very slippery slope, and apparently Google agrees
– Performics does not offer a guarantee of any kind. How do I
know? Simple — one of my employees called and asked. We also
have it in writing from an email we received from one of their
sales reps.
What Are Google’s Options?
Let’s be charitable and assume that in the heat of the
acquisition Google has forgotten to update the page of advice
that it has created for website owners. This leaves only four
things that can happen:
1. Status Quo: Google keeps this advice up on the page and
Performics continues to offer no guarantee regarding search
engine placement. We’ll call this the “hypocritical”
scenario.
2. Performics gets in line: Google leaves the advice up as is
and forces Performics to offer an unconditional money-back
guarantee. We’ll call this the “free SEO from Performics”
scenario.
3. Guidelines change: Performics maintains zero guarantees
for search engine placement but Google modifies the advice
to remove the inconsistencies pointed out in this article
from its advice section. We’ll call this the
“shareholder’s delight moneygrubber special” scenario.
4. Google spins off Performics and removes itself from the
search engine optimization industry. We’ll call this the
“sanity over dollars” scenario.
I’m not betting on which of these scenarios is most likely.
Some time back I would have picked #4, but as I pointed out in a
recent article, Google has already crossed an invisible line by
offering free advice about organic search engine placement to
its biggest pay-per-click spenders.
Google owning a search engine optimization company — a slippery
slope, indeed. What does this mean for those hiring other
companies and looking for great search engine placement? We will
just have to wait and see.
The only reason I talked about the subject at PubCon at all was because someone asked for my advice on subdomains vs. subdirectories.
