Archive for the 'Google' Category

Next Tuesday (the 29th) a few ninjas and I are going to Amsterdam (going to visit with a client). I’ll also try to catch Martijn while I’m there.  We’ll be there during the Queen’s Day celebration…which looks pretty crazy.

Then from June 6-10 there’s about 19 Ninjas going to Jamaica. We should be booking everything probably tomorrow. If you have any tips or suggestions for where to stay, and what to do, in Jamaica, please let me know. (Fyi, this trip is being mostly sponsored by a few very happy clients of ours).

I’ll be in Scotland a few weeks later for the SEO Class in Edinburgh June 23-24.

So far I’m really enjoying the Ninjas world tour 2008! I’m Feeling Lucky!

-

I was just asked if I’d speak on "Buying Sites for SEO" at SMX Advanced in Seattle (June 3-4)… wasn’t planning on attending any SEO conferences in 2008….but man…that’s a prett interesting topic! ….. but I’m not sure if, like link building, I’d feel comfortable talking about the finer points of this….. I wrote about it once long ago (Nov 05)….and we’ve come a long, long ways since then….but it’s a topic I’ve been avoiding ever since then….I love the topic…but I still don’t think I want to say much on it in public….

What do you think?

-

Position 6 Filter - Confirmed, and told "Glitch" and "being fixed".

Some laughed, some cried, any many analyzed and made "guesses". We had 6 sites that we clearly saw this happen to, so I was analzying for countless hours since just before Christmas in an attempt to figure out what could have happened to make those sites go from top 5 rankings (mostly #1’s), to having most of their top phrases go to #6 in Google.

2 Days ago I even did a 41 minute video for internet marketing ninjas, along with writing a paper detailing what happened, and some recommendations for possible solutions to this problem. This video will be released tomorrow on internet marketing ninjas.

FYI, solution #1 was "1. Don’t panic. Sometimes it’s just google testing things and you could bounce right back with no changes."

That turned out to be the case this time….but it still begs the question "What were they trying to do (that went "wrong" and caused this "glitch").

My analysis basically showed that there was no common relations between backlinks, forward links, and on page factors when it came to the #6 position filter. So when those factors don’t seem to come into play, what’s left? In other words, we all think "Links and Content", but what are other factors that could be coming into play? My solutions I gave for "possible solutions" involved looking at some of these other factors that might be playing a role in rankings of websites, and how to "optimize" for these other possible ranking factors.

I was a bit miffed this morning when I saw that Matt said "it was a glitch" and things are rolling back….Damn, the amount of analysis I put it…writing papers on it, creating a video, being 1 day prior to release, and finding "it’s a glitch"….but ya know, the more I think about the "possible solutions" I found, the more I think "what was google trying to do" and "what are other factors that might play a role in rankings that normally are not looked at"…and ya know, my "possible solutions" are not what will get you back to #1, but there are valid, and they are worth looking at…so yes, I’ll still put this video and the analysis paper into Internet Marketing Ninjas tomorrow.

In the mean time, feel free to check out the free preview video (~8 minutes) here. FYI, the preview video does not go into the "possible solutions"…I kept the preview to mostly just the analysis.

FYI, you might also note that the video quality is at a whole new level - yes, we’ve got a professional now for filming and for production. All future videos should be of this quality. We’ll also have some news soon about the next round of videos/presenters and more cool value add on items we’re adding to internet marketing ninjas.

I guess in the end I shouldn’t be upset, the sites are coming back to #1…..but I’ll admit, I did cuss when I heard "glitch".

I recieved an email today (referred from a friend), asking for interviewing advice.  After a brief email exchange I sent him 3 interviewing tips that I believe could greatly help one’s impression during an interview. I thought I’d publish them those on my blog to keep on my short blogging roll I’m on today

#1 - KNOW THE COMPANY you are applying to. Research Research Research…Google, Yahoo, MSN the company name and the top people. See not only what they say, but what others say. Comment and ask questions to the interviewer about what has been written - both good and bad.

#2 - Don’t overstate your knowledge. I ask questions about programming knowledge, and once I hear their answer, I pull out a quiz for them. If you overstated your knowledge, my interview is over.  Don’t be suprised if others give some form of quiz. I side with honesty over knowledge.

#3 - Ask questions. Come prepared with questions too. Remember, we really should be selling each other. Often, the brightest employees, during the interview were selling me, and they made me sell to them as well.
Having questions can show you did researched, you were prepared, and you listened and asked about what was being said in the interview.

What advice would you add?

Jim’s favorite 15 posts of 2007

• Jim might stop blogging - Stay Under the Radar - 2005 Flashback - Oct 11, 2007
• Google Punished My Site For Selling Links - NOT! - September 27
• How to Find if a Page is in Google’s Secret Supplemental Results. August 1, 2007
• How to Achieve Higher Rankings and Stay out of Google Hell Via Optimized Internal Linking - July 3, 2007
• Can Google Find and Spank your Paid Links?"   - April 25th, 2007
• Surviving Rankings, Re-Rankings, Filters and Google Hell."   April 8th, 2007
• Link Building and Emails - Humans do it Better.  -  Feb 21st, 2007
• What’s your comfort level in shades of gray? - Feb 21st, 2007
• Links as Pennies and Old Ben Franklins.  - Feb 16th, 2007
• Sorry, I won’t do SEO for your new website.  - Feb 3rd, 2007
• Expert Link Building Can be Fun!  - Jan 22nd, 2007
• LinkBait alone won’t do it. You need Link Ninjas.  - Jan 18th, 2007
• Putting a Price on a Link - Jim’s Value Indicators.  - Jan 9th, 2007
• If it’s not a Pagerank 4 or higher, it’s worthless.   - Jan 9th, 2007
• Paid Links and Loosing Trust  - Dec 20, 2006 (ok, it was almost 2007 then)

Interview: Shawn Anderson’s (Hobo) interview of Jim.  - November 26
Video: Kris Jones (Pepperjam) Video interview with Jim  - November 2

For 2008, I’m aiming on moving more and more like a Ninja. (here’s a funny thought on that).

Oh, and on Jan 2nd we’re releasing Internet Marketing Ninjas Video Training Program and SEO Tools.

Happy Holidays Everyone!
Jim

The Cool Aid is running thick, and the Google FUD Campaign is doing a great job at letting SEO’s and bloggers spread the paranoia.

In a post by Graphic Designer David Airey originally titled "Google Search Ranking Penalty" (title has since been changed to "Google Search Rank Drop: Advice Needed") David shows how his site has lost rankings for his name as well as some other phrases he once ranked high on. It’s obvious that something has gone wrong…..David consulted some other SEO’s and then guesses that the reason could be that he has sold a few link ads on his site, and that Google is spanking his rankings because he sold a few ad spots.

The story get’s Sphinn’d, hits front page, and the paranoia ensues….."Oh my God, Google’s Removing rankings from sites that sell link ads that pass juice" ….. Yea, and the sky is falling. sheesh!

and I’m sure Matt sat back like a cat with cheshire grin on watching this, and then after this was old sphinn news, the real truth comes out.

Around comment number 65, Danny Rotsaert comes in with:

…Surely, the 302 redirect from davidairey.com towards davidairey.co.uk (which was probably an attempt to address geo targetting issues) is also not doing you any good, David.
Has that one always been in place ?
Avoid 302 redirect for this ! You’re .co.uk site should 301 redirect towards the .com

and David comes back with:

Thanks very much, Danny.

As you can tell, I’m not very clued in on SEO, and it was my host provider who implemented the redirect on my .co.uk address.

and then later again David says:

Thanks everyone.

I’ve corrected the 302 (temporary) redirect I had, from my .co.uk to my .com address, changing it to a 301 (permanent).

I’d no idea that was the case, so thanks for pointing it out.

….but by now, Thousands of Bloggers have drunk the Cool Aid and are spreading Google’s FUD. I don’t blame David for crying wolf here….it was a prime linkbait cry and a great way to get people to find out really what happened. But I wonder how many ran with the idea of "sell a link and get banned in google".

In my experience the only thing I’ve ever seen from google, as far as effect of selling links, is that Google may block your site from passing Pagerank. Doesn’t hurt your site one bit, you’ll rank the way you always would….Google just don’t count your link love you give to other sites. (Pagerank Block beyond your site). The ironic thing is that if you’re wanting to sells links, go ahead. The person buying them will probably never know if that links passes link juice to your site in the eyes of google, and it isn’t going to hurt you.

In the Sphinn comments of that story I was conversing with Danny Sullivan who came back also with:

…I’m within you in that I’ve yet to see anything convincing me that Google is banning sites for paid links….

If Google were wacking rankings from sites that sell links, then all the weather PR9’s, and the Traffic Counters, hundreds of major newspapers, and major tech sites and tons of other huge above the radar sites that sell text links right in such obvious places would be seeing their rankings dropping like rocks….in fact if Google took it a step further and "penalized" all the sites that currently have a Pagerank block on them, you’d see a million sites and webmasters cry out in agony accross the web. It ain’t going to happen. I think there’d be some pretty big companies going after Google if it did happen (some of these companies that sell links on thier site also can afford to bring a lawsuit againt google, and then Google would have to go into legal aspects of a free market in advertising and fair competitive practices….I get a feeling that’s not going to happen in my lifetime.

It is in Google best interest to just try to identify a paid link and to not count it (PR Block). It’s really not that hard to put in a few filters to find the networks or even advertising areas of a website, and to block PR from passing from those pages. The hard part is identifying the paid ads that fall under the radar. One ad on a few pages of your website, in the content area, all different, probably isn’t going to get picked up in the radar. Joining a network or being mapped just increase your chance of having your pagerank blocked from passing to other sites….but again, it doesn’t effect your rankings.

That’s why I’m all about getting our own links from virgin sites that aren’t selling links in above the radar places nor from networks….I’d like my chances of a link to bring traffic and juice to be high.

Tell me you’re not drinking this Cool Aid, are you?

Feel free to Sphinn this.

It’s also worth noting the buyers side: Can Google Find and Spank you Paid Links?

I was just at a website where I saw an ad that blended in so well, that it appeared to be a nav bar.

It was actually a banner that was the size of an adsense ad…but it did not state "Ads By Google".

Adsense has always included  the tag "Ads by Google" - (and Google says, you should clearly state it’s an ad).

But here, the "Ads by Google" was missing…so I didn’t think it was a Google ad.

Upon further inspection, when reviewing the page’s code, I found that is was an ad….in fact, it was actually an ad by Google.

After further research I found that it was a Google Pay Per Action ad.

So here is what Google says about Pay Per Action Ads.

Text links are hyperlinked brief text descriptions that take on the characteristics of a publisher’s page. Publishers can place them in line with other text to better blend the ad and promote your product. They can’t, however, alter the text of the link.

For example, you might see the following text link embedded in a publisher’s recommendatory text:

"Widgets are fun! I encourage all my friends to Buy a high-quality widget today."

(Note that mousing over the link displays "Ads by Google" to identify these as pay-per-action ads.)

Shorter links tend to perform better, because they allow the publisher use the link in more places on their site and in different context. The maximum length is 90 characters but less than 5 words is best. Even better, just use your brand name to offer maximum flexibility to the publisher.

There’s a few interesting points in here, I’ll touch on one.

It’s interesting that Google say it’s ok to not state it’s an ad on the page (unless you mouse over it) - (Google says "that mousing over the link displays "Ads by Google" to identify these as pay-per-action ads").

Also, FYI, I also don’t get the mouse over "Ads by Google" when viewing a live CPA ad, nor on this page where Google gives the example (mouse over "Buy a high-quality widget today"). I tried on one version of firefox, and IE6.0 and 7.0 and on 2 computers, and still no "Ads by Google" mouse over.

It also seems some of these recommendations contradict some of the recommended advertising techniques that Google tells SEO’s to do in their linking practices.

What do you think?