Patience is an SEO Virtue

The Internet moves fast.  You move fast.  You do things today because you want results tomorrow.  Sound familiar?  It probably does.  That’s the way of the online world.  Speed is a necessity.

Guess what?  It’s time to slam on the brakes.  Right now.

Because SEO doesnt’ move fast and if you don’t get out of that “hustle and bustle” mindset, you’re not going to get the best results.

You see, unlike some of the things you can do online to create an immediate impact, SEO takes time.  The actual process of optimizing on-page factors an accruing good backlinks might not be that time-consuming, but you do need to have patience with respect to results and assessing the value of various strategies for your particular circumstances.

Google and the other major search engines just don’t move as fast as you do.  Google’s spiders might find their way to that new link to your site today, but may not follow it right away.  Even if they do follow it instantly, they might not really log it or process its significance right away.  Those great links you secure today may not improve your traffic tomorrow.  Or the next day.  Or the day after that.

At least one source says that you should expect to wait as long as six months or more before you can really develop a clear picture of what your SEO efforts are producing.  In online terms, that’s one heckuva long wait.

Patience is a virtue, though.  If you have it and you can see efforts through to fruitiion and then wait to assess their value, you’re going to be able to produce some high-traffic sites.  If you’re not patient, you’re going to find it tough to see any strategy through to the end.  Six months later, you won’t have anything to show for your “fits and starts”.

Keep working on your SEO.  It does pay off.  It just doesn’t always produce the kind of fast changes we might like.

Yes, Virginia, there Is a Sandbox!

Most have known it for some time. We’ve seen it in action. We’ve heard others gripe about it. Yet, for some reason, the debate lingered.

Did Google really have a “sandbox”?

Though evidence mounted, there was always a cadre of webmasters and SEO-interested parties who would claim that something other than the sandbox effect was responsible for newer and/or recently “renovated” sites that had previously enjoyed Google action suddenly experiencing massive drop-offs.

Now, however, we know that is was the sandbox.

Axandra reports:

“Google has recently filed a patent that details many points that Google uses to rank web pages. The title of the patent is “Information retrieval based on historical data” and it confirms the existence of the Google sandbox and that it can apply to all web pages.”

So, if you’ve been a sandbox denier it’s time to recalibrate your thinking. New sites might get the treatment, rendering them nearly invisible to Google users’ eyes for six to eight months. Older sites that are changed substantially might suffer a similar fate.

If your site does end up playing with the other kids in the sandbox, it’s not necessarily the end of the world. Sure, you’re going to have a rough go of things for awhile until you’re released. But there are a few things you can do while you wait out your time in the search engine equivalent of purgatory.

First, keep on building your site. Eventually, the sun will come up and it’ll be set free to roam the SERPs. It might as well be looking good and fully loaded when it emerges.

Second, there’s no rule against link building during sandbox days. Keep working to get attention and inbound links while it sits patiently.

Third, use the down time as an opportunity to find other non-search traffic streams. You could experiment with article or video marketing and other techniques, for instance. None of this stuff is going to hurt your site and you might just discover that you can develop a great additional source of traffic that won’t even be reliant upon Google.

Who’s Searching Where and Why Does It Matter?

Once upon a time, shortly after dinosaurs ruled the earth but before Google became a verb, there were a million and one different search engines vying for the attention of a relatively small pool of Internet users.

Time passed. We all got up to speed on the making fire and using simple tools stuff and started gravitating toward Google. HotBot became a distant memory. That search engine with the red spider mascot whose name I can’t remember drifted into history’s mist. Everyone gathered round the Big G and the battle for search engine supremacy was nothing more than a legend that kids wouldn’t believe.

Well, not quite everyone went to Google. And a few stragglers kept fighting G out on the hinterlands.

So, if we’re going to be completely honest about things we shouldn’t pretend like Google is the only search engine that matters. Sure, they dominate the race. But the overall volume of Internet users is growing so quickly that even those engines that only claim a slim piece of the pie can be important.

ComScore recently released its February, 2009 search engine rankings. Obviously, Google was on top, getting 63% of the action. Yahoo came in at slightly over 20%. Microsoft was at 8.2%. Ask.com and AOL both snagged around 4%.

What does this really mean, though? Well, the big lesson to be learned is that about 4 out of every 10 searches aren’t coming from Google. That’s a sizable chunk. And we all know that most SEOs focus almost exclusively at pleasing Google. That leaves around 40% of all search engine action in a slightly less competitive state. We also know that if you’re not ranking way up there in the Google SERPs, it probably isn’t doing you all that much good.

Consider these hypothetical question for a moment. Would you rather be on Page 4 for your keyword at Google or Page 1 at Yahoo? Would you rather be on Page 5 at Yahoo or the overall top spot on Ask.com?

It seems as though it might make sense to start investigating ways to climb the charts on some of those secondary engines. Obviously, what’s good for G is probably good for the others, but each has interesting wrinkles and predilections. Those are probably worth exploring.

Adwords on Google’s Content Network… The Debate Continues…

If you’re buying PPC advertising from Google via their Adwords program, you have two different options for where the ads will be displayed.  You can get those sponsored listings that show up alongside search results, or you can place your ads on the “content network”–all of those sites who are displaying Adsense ads.

Everyone knows that getting the search engine results listings is the best way to drive maximum quality traffic to your site.  However, there is an ongoing debate about the value of the content network.  While some argue that the content network can provide you with traffic of adequate quality at a cut rate, others maintain that the visitors don’t convert and that the network is a hotbed of click fraud.

Here’s the scoop.  Both sides are right.  

You can get things done with the content network.  Even people who’ve experienced the dark side of the content network will tell you that it can be a valuable tool.  Recent experiments by even some of the most noted brands in the world have shown that one can use the content network to hit specific niches with laser-like precision (and profitable results).

At the same time, the content network does put you at heightened risk of click fraud.  There’s no way around it.  It really happens and it’s ugly when it does.  It’s also true that, in most cases, the quality of traffic will not measure up to what you’ll get from ads alongside the search results.  That’s why people who use the content network should keep a very close eye on whether or not their efforts are really paying off while simultaneoulsy being mindful of the rip-off potential that exists from click fraud.

Should you be using the content network for your PPC efforts?  There’s no easy answer to that one.  It’s going to depend upon your skill level, your niche, your product and your ability to monitor and maintain your account.  The important thing to remember is that advertising on the content network isn’t an automatic winner or an inevitable disaster.  As with so many things, it all depends on the specifics.

SEO Advice Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

Wrestling with Google in an effort to secure a top spot in the rankings can get tedious sometimes.  Wouldn’t it be nice if the folks in Mountain View would just send you a handy PDF that told you exactly what you needed to do in order to succeed in Google?

Fat chance, right?  Those guys aren’t about to tell you how to crack the code.

Or are they?

Many people don’t realize it, but there actually is a handy-dandy guide to SEO basics that comes straight from Google.  That’s right, the Big G has actually assembled a little instruction manual that you can use as you build your site.

If you haven’t read it, you should grab a copy of Google’s Search Engine Optimization Starter Guide right away.  It makes sense to get direction straight from the horse’s mouth.  The latest version (as of this post) is dated November, 2008.

Now, don’t get too excited.  This is definitely a starter guide.  It’s basic and it isn’t going to give you a lot of insight about the details of truly effective SEO.  Obviously, it isn’t going to contain any tricks or algorithmic loopholes to exploit, either.  It’s the kind of thing that’s indispensable to a newbie and that can even help more advanced users with the basics of SEO, though.

It also sheds a lot of light on Google’s overall attitude toward SEO and where they draw the lines that separate “legitimate” activities from those upon which they frown.  Even more expert SEOs can benefit from the guide if they’re willing and able to “read between the lines”.

If you’ve been wondering how to stay on Google’s good side with your SEO efforts or you need a nice, solid basic guide to SEO, this is a great starting point.  It should certainly be on the reading list of any webmaster who isn’t an SEO expert and it should be on the skim list of those who are.

Three Rapid Indexing Techniques - Get the Googlebots to Your Site Fast!

If a tree falls int he forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?

We can leave that argument to the Zen masters.  There is a corollary, however, for those who do business on the Internet and who want to rely on search engine traffic.  

If a site doesn’t appear in Google, does it get any attention?

The answer to that one is a resounding “NO!”  

You need Google to index your site–and the sooner it’s been scoured by the Googlebots the sooner you can expect to see traffic.

Getting indexed, fortunately, isn’t that tough.  Here are three rapid ways to attract a little attention from those Mountain View spiders.

Digg It.  Submit your pages to Digg.  You’re not worried about getting on the first page and any traffic you secure is icing on the indexing cake.  The goal is to get that link to your site up and running at Digg.  The spiders will follow.

Get Social.  If you aren’t doing the social bookmarking thing, you’re missing out.  Create a little link love for your site by getting those live links up on a variety of social bookmarking sites.  This can produce fast results.

The Big Link.  If you have another web property that has a little bit of heft with Google, use it to your advantage.  Get links up to your new pages for the purpose of hitting the index.  You don’t need to make them a permanent feature, but they can be a good way to get the ball rolling.

You want Google to take notice of your site and you want them to do it quickly.  Every day wasted is another day without traffic, after all.  Any of these three techniques can get your new material into the index quickly.

Is Google Taking Another Look at Directory Links? Change is a Constant.

If there’s one thing you can count on in the world of search engine optimization, it’s change.  What works this year might be useless next year.  Sure, there are a few things you can do that should always work (great content, frequent updating, etc.), but everything else is subject to change.

Take linking, for example.  Links have long been the lifeblood of good off-site SEO and that’s unlikely to change any time soon.  The way search engines evaluate inbound links to your site, however, is subject to change.  The engines have long been trying to perfect the way they evaluate links to insure that they’re legitimate “votes of confidence” for your site and that has made several old-school strategies just as useless as excessive keyword stuffing.  Thing “FFA link pages” and you’ll understand just how different things are today from where they were a few years ago.

We might be witnessing another change right now.

If you looked at the Google webmaster guidelines a few months ago, you’d see that Google recommended submitting your site to pertinent directories.  Google has long relied on DMOZ (the Open Directory Project) and other directory links to help determine the way it ranks sites.

That’s led many webmasters to submit their sites to a wide variety of directories in pursuit of inbound links.  It’s a popular strategy and there are literally thousands of directories out there who are willing to offer a link to almost any submitted site.  

Google, however, has made a change.  That line about submitting your site to directories?  It’s gone.  They removed it from their webmaster guidelines.  As a result, many in the SEO biz are arguing that Google may be devaluing all of those directory links floating around out there.  Paid directories themselves are falling off in rank.  

Although those who claim Google has never valued many of the “lower quality” directories in the first place, it is possible that we’re witnessing another change in how the search engines will be treating the currency of SEO, inbound links.

Using Cache Date Info to Your SEO Advantage

So, you have a shot at securing a link on a good-looking high-PR page. That sounds like a sure winner, doesn’t it?

Well, before you fork over the cash (or do whatever quid quo pro might be necessary to get it), there’s something you need to check. Go to Google, find the page you’re looking for in the SERPs and take a look at the date upon which that page was last cached–or, in the case of some scenarios, if it’s been cached at all. PixelHead breaks it down like this:

Check for cache with the site:url and with out the site:url. I believe that using the site:url returns pages that have been visited by the Google Spider that does deep searches, which are done with less frequency. If paying for links, I want to make sure that the links are cached by regular spiders as well as deep searching spiders for more Google juice for the link.

What you find might surprise you. Some pages and sites get visits from the Googlebot a few times every day. Others, even ones with impressive PageRank, see the spiders less often than you see your great aunt Edna who lives on the other side of the country.

You can find out which category a site falls into by looking at that cache date. That information is going to give you a good idea of how important Google really thinks the page is. If the search engines don’t feel a site’s worth checking out more than once in a blue moon, you should have reservations about its ability to help your site as a backlink source. As one forum commenter noted:

Since you need “quality” backlinks, you can start out by checking the cache date in Google. In the search box enter: “cache:www.thedomainname”. If the cache date is more than a month old, or worse yet, unchached, you might not want to waste the effort.

It actually goes a little deeper than that. Cache date isn’t just a good way of seeing how valuable potential link locations are. It’s also a good way to assess whether your site (or those of your competitors) are really as impressive in Google’s eyes as you might think.

The “Number One on Google” Lie

“If you read this post carefully, you’ll know how to be #1 on Google.”

I hope you didn’t believe that.  I hope you don’t believe anyone who claims to be able to help you lock down a #1 slot on Google for anything that matters.

The reason I hope you don’t believe the story is because you’ll be seeing it again and again from different people.  And if you fall for it, you’re going to end up losing money in the process.

It’s a popular scam carried out by countless “search engine optimization companies” who are far more adept at ripping people off than they are at helping anyone climb the SERPs.  They claim that they can get their clients into top slots and that can be very persuasive (especially to those who aren’t well-informed about SEO).  Unfortunately, it’s just not true.

First, no one knows what it takes to get to the top of the SERPs.  Google’s algorithm is more closely guarded than Colonel Sanders’ friend chicken recipe or the formula for Coca Cola.  Unless someone knows exactly how the engines work, there’s no way to make the guarantee honestly.

Second, no one knows what other sites are going to do.  Anyone who promises a certain SERP position is, in essence, claiming that they know what the competition will do in the future and how much your site needs to fend off their efforts.  Unless the SEO firm has Nostradamus on their team, that’s a ridiculous claim.

Third, read the fine print.  Those #1 promises are generally limited to the kinds of keywords that anyone could dominate with ten minutes worth of effort.  They aren’t applied to the kind of search terms people are actually using.  If the firm assures #1s for the “big fish”, you shouldn’t hold your breath waiting for them to make good on the promise.

The kind of outfits who make those outlandish promises don’t just fall short of snagging top positions.  They also have a nasty tendency to use practices that the search engines don’t appreciate.  These lousy providers are more likely to do long-term damage to your site than they are to vault it into a top position for a competitive keyword.

SEO for Search Engines other than Google? Going After Smaller Fish Makes Sense.

Most discussions of search engine optimization focus on ranking highly for Google searches.  There’s a good reason for that.  Google is the big fish in the search engine pond.  You can add up all of the searches done through all other searches engines and that total wouldn’t even come close to the level of action Google gets.  As of October, Google claimed over 70% of total search activity.

So, should any webmaster really develop an interest or strategy for SEO that’s focused on anything other than improving Google performance?

Surprisingly, the answer is “yes”.  And there are a few good reasons why it makes sense to go after better SERPs at “secondary” search engines like Yahoo.

First, improving SEO for Google isn’t mutually exclusive with efforts designed to improve standings at Yahoo, MSN or other search engines.  The things you do to improve your standing at Yahoo aren’t going to hurt you on Google.  In fact, they’re probably going to help you with the Big G, too.  

Second, Google still isn’t the place for nearly 30% of all searches.  Focusing on a search engine like Yahoo, which gets only around 17% of all searches while being the closest thing to a Google rival might seem like a waste of time until you wrap your brain around just how many searches are still taking place there.  Sure, Google’s numbers dwarf those of Yahoo, but we’re still talking about huge numbers.

Third, so many serious webmasters are focused almost wholly on Google SEO.  That may create opportunities to move up in the ranks at other engines in a less competitive environment.  The return on investment for your SEO efforts can actually be higher when you’re trying to move up the ladder at Yahoo simply because the level of work involved to do so is slight relative to that necessary to “dominate” Google.

The differences between Google SEO and SEO for other engines aren’t that extensive.  What works for one will generally help for all.  However, search engine optimization planning that’s organized particularly for the “lesser” engines can make a big difference in a short period.

There’s nothing wrong with trying to catch a record-breaking fish.  However, it’s sometimes tough to land that trophy catch.  In those circumstances, the happiest fishermen (and fisherwomen) are those who’ve secured enough smaller fish to guarantee a supper.

Next Page »