Archive for the 'Optimization' Category
Subscribe to This Category

They say playing the lottery is a “special tax” for the “math challenged.” I think that’s true. In the search world Google’s new Automatic Matching setup is a special tax on the uninformed advertiser.

What I’m hearing about the new Google Automatic Matching beta is that they will look at unspent funds in your account, and “spend it for you” on terms its algorithms deem appropriate. I blew this off at first thinking it sounded like a rumor, but am now hearing more buzz about it. (more…)

A quick search of Google News shows dozens of cases where homeowners, business owners, and community code enforcement officials are embroiled in battles over improper building permits. In many cases, the builder is forced to tear down the structure - at great expense. Communities put permitting procedures in place so that an even-handed process is applied and ensure safety, prevent shoddy workmanship, and preserve home values. You must stand in line, fill out forms, and pay fees when your project is already complex enough, they reason. So lots of people try to get around it, and some succeed. Houses crack. Fires start. Communities get uglier.

In the website construction industry, we can draw a parallel between SEO advice and building permitting. Pressures placed on any web development project can cause marketing goals to be ignored or at least diluted. The builder doesn’t have to “live” with the results. They get paid and can easily vanish independent of the commercial success of the venture. The SEO gets called to come fix the mess. But the mess is already sealed in the walls. The cracking foundation has already been built upon.

Many companies invest heavily in their web design and construction, and then call on SEO experts to come in after the fact to make suggestions to help traffic flow. Unfortunately this often results in bad news. The website was not designed with search in mind, and you have to re-build it if you want organic traffic to flow. This is the equivalent to being forced to tear down that addition to your home, or that big warehouse building you just put together. You’re stuck. The expense to rebuild it is too high. The expense not to build it is too high (paid search.) I’d like to make the plea to the business community to consider thinking about SEO earlier.

I propose that people involved in web development look to the construction industry for guidance. Involving an SEO/SEM consultant before, during, and after your web development plans are in place can be a money-making proposition. I think that in some ways this is like permitting your building project. In my opinion, SEO/SEM experts should be project managers for any web development project where marketing the site is a core business directive. Decisions will be made with the social, search, and traffic goals take center stage, not the aesthetic “high” of the site being finished and wowing a committee. (more…)

Many times when working on articles, or doing research I’ll come upon posts, pages, or articles that look interesting, but after I click to them, I realize they are from 1999 or 2001. While well written, anything that happened that long ago is usually irrelevant to the search marketing and site design business. The Google Info View lets me limit the dates much like Google Blog Search. Nice.

Here today I checked out Google Alternative Views, which includes the ability to choose between several types of views - and significantly alters the search engine results pages based on your “mode.”

It looks as if there may be the need for a new meta-tag (e.g. like the currently valid ‘address’ tag) which helps pages identify dates, locations, etc, because most of the page results came back “No locations for this page” or “No dates for this page”.

The date sorting feature was slick in concept but I’ve not made it work very well. I wonder if new meta tags or sitemap tags will help to categorize pages into these buckets. The locations page was wonderful when you’re trying to get information relevant to the locale, but you’re not really searching for a local business. I searched for “Search Marketing Seminars” and chose Chicago as the “location” — the results were limited in a very clean way. It works like a filter - but I couldn’t quite pick out what it was trying to do. I had to do a lot of different searches before I found a good results page showing the feature well.

One usability issue… it’s easy to forget you’ve not entered a date yet. I think Google should either allow a default, or show “no” results until you’ve chosen a date, if you’re in that mode. The results that return when you’ve not entered a date are nonsensical. I’d like to see them pop a timeline on the left side like Google Blog search has - with a default.

It’s too early to say how this would affect SEO or how businesses might be able to make sure they rank for each of the data types - but it certainly adds some dimensions to the organic search space to consider down the road.

[carpwp:feed{http://feeds.copyblogger.com/Copyblogger}][/carpwp]

I am always leveraging a company’s PPC brand (and yes, 1+1=3 when it comes to having organic and PPC presence for brand-related searches) there are roadblocks brought on by PPC networks. In the past few months we’ve been dealing with an interloper who has used broad-match on Google Adwords to get around their trademark blocking policy… Note, none of these links are to the interloper in question, I’m just linking to informative posts related to it)
According to Google’s documentation, Google Adwords will not allow competitors to actually use the trademarked keyword phrases in the text of its ads – but does not prohibit purchasing the keyword itself and presenting an ad. This seems to work most of the time, as illustrated by Shoemoney (where it kinda worked.)

For example, I do marketing for a national franchise, let’s call it “Cheeseworks” (fictional) - and I have a high quality score placement on PPC and organic rank. But competitors are able to bid AND DISPLAY “Cheesework Pizza” on Google Adwords (singular, no ’s’.)

Cheeseworks Pizza
Open a Franchise in Your Town
Excellent Opportunity - Low Cost
http://www.fabuliospizza.com

And then somebody else runs this one:

Cheesework Pizza
Are You Ready to Be Your
Own Boss? Learn More!
http://www.franchise-pizza-leads.com

(this company sells leads to franchises - again this is a fictional representation of a real case)

Yes, we filed trademark complaint about them using the singular version of this mark, but since they do character-by-character checks (apparently) - and rejected the complaint. If someone does broad-match triggering on “Cheeseworks Pizza” the ad with the singular version will show. This is wrong. Trademark/Brands are protected from confusingly similar derivatives. I don’t expect Google to become an arbiter of trademarks - they need a scalable system that does much of this - but this case (it is a real case, just as absurd) they should consider the spirit of trademark law considering “use in commerce” and how their match types work.

The interloper had private domain registration and doesn’t answer emails - we couldn’t prove it but there was evidence they were selling leads to others. We had to spend a lot of effort with attorneys to send a C&D and a real substantial threat. The ad is off now, but it required huge work. We’d not expect them to get involved in the McDowell’s vs. McDonald’s case that was in the Coming to America movie. But this was simply a singular versus plural issue that anyone could see was illegal.

Upon removal of the ad (via our legal work) our brand-specific click through rate jumped 4%. This, over the course of several months, adds up to over $6000 in traffic not to mention possible loss of business to a competitor. There is real talk about suing the other advertiser for the harm done. I know Google wants things to be handled “outside” but this is one case where it shouldn’t be.

At the very least Google needs to block by match type when infringement occurs. They should have disallowed broad match at least.

Note: I’m not an attorney - none of this is legal advice. If someone would like to chime in and clarify these issues I will be happy to hear it.

postscript:  I received an email from Google who has approved the singular version of the trademark block.  It took me three tries, and lots of damage done to my client, but at least it’s gone now.  I want to be grateful but still I’m just mad.  

Image from “Coming to America” a terrific Paramount Pictures film. Highly recommended.

Former Technorati CEO David Sifry has launched Web Hot or Not?, a Hot or Not site for websites.

It’s fun-cool, and has been done before, but it spooks me out in the world of multivariate testing and conversions optimization.

What’s hot:

Studies have shown that sites get only 50 milliseconds to give an impression to users. This site may help us learn what sites are attractive and appealing in a new way. The trouble is our assessment of any site is based on the context of that site, and how it was found. Personalized search results further refine these buckets of intent so the site is more likely to be found by certain people.

What’s not:

Anyone involved in web marketing knows that only through testing can we achieve the beauty of conversions and success for the site owner. To skim over websites and vote entirely on how they appear free from any other information (e.g. the search, PPC or organic, inbound link, intended audience, etc.) is to miss the point. It’s true, often “ugly” landing pages outconvert snazzy flash-based slot machines 3:1. Why encourage sites that look pretty but may not perform or worse, distract business owners from testable designs? I hate to see ego-designers who spend entire web budgets on snazz before knowing if the approach is right.

In my mailbox today

Re: [url]

To whom it may concern:
We’d appreciate your forwarding this to the appropriate contact at [url]

….. we have noticed that you have blocked the Ask.com agent from crawling your site in the robots.txt file.

We definitely understand that granting our crawler access to your site is an act of trust, which we will use with utmost integrity. So we are asking you to reconsider allowing our crawler access to your site. If there is some reason you are blocking us, please share that with us and allow us to address it. Or if there is no reason, then we ask you to go ahead and remove the line in your robots.txt file that is blocking us. Our goal is to have the same access you have granted other search engines.

The line in question is:

User-agent: Jeeves
Disallow: /

Nice!

BUT…. long ago, Jeeves was used by Leon Brocard to create a web mirroring bot.

Therefore “Jeeves” used to be listed as

robot-id: jeeves
robot-name: Jeeves
robot-cover-url: http://www-students.doc.ic.ac.uk/~lglb/Jeeves/
robot-details-url:
robot-owner-name: Leon Brocard
robot-owner-url: http://www-students.doc.ic.ac.uk/~lglb/
robot-owner-email: lglb@doc.ic.ac.uk
robot-status: development
robot-purpose: indexing maintenance statistics
robot-type: standalone
robot-platform: UNIX
robot-availability: none
robot-exclusion: no
robot-exclusion-useragent: jeeves
robot-noindex: no
robot-host: *.doc.ic.ac.uk
robot-from: yes
robot-useragent: Jeeves v0.05alpha (PERL, LWP, lglb@doc.ic.ac.uk)
robot-language: perl5
robot-description: Jeeves is basically a web-mirroring robot built as a
final-year degree project. It will have many nice features and is
already web-friendly. Still in development.
robot-history: Still short (0.05alpha)
robot-environment: research

modified-by: Leon Brocard

I don’t know why the bot was on the “evil list” but it explains why this old site had it blocked.

I had always had my eye open for

Ask Jeeves
Ask Jeeves/Teoma
DirectHit

…but never just “Jeeves” - but it is definitely an alias.

I thought it was awesome for Ask.com to take the time to crawl these files and send out notes.