Initially, I wrote this first post: Sometimes it pays to read those newsletters that come from various companies. A link on Jayde.com’s newsletter reveals a great free SEO and website stats tool. The “Link Popularity” tab will return instant results which eliminates the need to look up these findings manually…. Check it out here: http://www.getip.com But then, I double checked the stats against the tool I use regularly, Quirk’s Search Status for Firefox which can be found here, or at Firefox Extensions. Comparing the two, or conducting a manual check for backlinks indicates a flaw in the getip.com reporting. The Google PageRank and Alexa Rank seem to be correct, but the backlinks are way off compared to SearchStatus. I recommend the Search Status extension for Firefox, but I’m going to use the getip.com site for other things as well. Maybe it was just a temporary glitch. Too bad, I really thought I was on to something! What’s your opinion?

Why am I refusing your link exhange request?

Although not as popular a practice in recent years, link exhange requests still find their way into my email inbox on a daily basis.

It seems that many “link managers” are not up to date on the quidelines of what constitutes good link strategies.

I receive many link exchange requests from websites that have nothing to do with the url they want to link to, or from websites that are poor in content, titles, and/or meta tags.

For example, I recently denied a request from a “cosmetics” website because it is not directly related to dentistry, although one might think it would be related to “cosmetic dentistry”. The problem here is that the main keyword, “dentistry” is not part of the “cosmetics” (lipstick, makeup, etc.) website, and therefore is not a quality or relevant link. As well, the dentistry site is not a good link for a cosmetic website, since “cosmetics” (lipstick, etc.) is not the main topic on the dentistry site.

In addition, in this particular case, the “cosmetics” site is missing keywords in the titles of the web pages, and has no meta tags. Also, the Contact Us page had no content at all….not what I would consider a quality website.

So, my advice to “link managers” is to make sure your website has quality, meaning proper content, titles and meta tags, and is relevant to the website you wish to exhange links with. For more information on SEO or  link strategies, visit http://www.searchwizmarketing.com.

Linking strategies – what does pinball has to do with real estate?

It still is a wonder to me why I receive email requests to “exchange links” that seem to make no sense.

The emails go something like this:

“I found your website on Google, and it is interesting to me. I would like to exchange links with your site so that it mutually benefits the ranking of our websites.”…

Will these so-called “link managers” ever learn?

I just received an email asking me to place a link for a power tools e-commerce website on a real estate website. In return, the link I provide for the real estate site would go on a link page for pinball machines….not related to either website.

For those link managers, I have some advice: Read the SEO forums, blogs, and other resources for information on current link strategies.

The most important link strategy has not changed. Get RELEVANT websites to link to yours, and if possible, tell them to use RELEVANT anchor text with RELEVEANT keywords that match your website.

So called “three way linking”, in my opinion, does not have much weight on ranking….especially if the third party link page is a simple link page filled with irrelevant links.

Furthermore, telling me you are going to place my link in a directory not related to the subject of my website is just plain useless.

If I am to link to your site, your site should be at least somewhat related to the subject of my website. If not, the visitor leaving my website has no use for the information of your website.

It is my opinion, and I’m sure of other SEO consultants, that Link RELEVANCY = better ranking, but only if the anchor text contains RELEVANT keywords and that those keywords are related to the subjects of both sites.

Which brings up a good question: Does a link to a plastic surgery site belong on the links page of a dental website?

Cosmetic surgery is somewhat related to cosmetic dentistry. They are both “doctor” related websites, and they both contain the “cosmetic” keyword.

However, would someone getting a breast enhancement need the information found on a dental site? I don’t think so.

Vise-versa, would someone in need of a root canal want to obtain information from a tummy-tuck site? Probably not.

Some SEO consultants might think this link scenario might not help, but wouldn’t hurt. I’ve administered these types of links, but I have to ask the question: “Did it improve the ranking of either site?” – I doubt it.

Now if the cosmetic dentistry site referred a visitor to an orthodontist’s site, then obviously, there is a relevancy there. They both deal with the subject of “dental services.”

A cosmetic surgery site might be better off referring visitors to a dermatology website or even a self-help website if someone is looking to improve their body, mind and spirit.

Comments?

Historically, search engines have been unable to extract text and links from Flash files.  That is now a thing of the past as Google announced recently that they with the help of Adobe,  have made a deep algorithm change to Googlebot that now enables it to extract text content and links from flash pages.

This new change should make it easier for SEO’s to work with flash. SEO’s should keep in mind however that these new algorithms do not take into account any meta data or formatting markup in the Flash file and, for now, Google’s cache won’t show a representation of the extracted text. Until these problems are perfected however it is still not recommended to design solely using Flash, but at least this is step forward.

Within the last month, Google announced that AdWords is also releasing quantitative data for in their Keywords Tool.  As of January 2008, Google remains as the dominate search engine taking nearly 70% of the market share, up from just over 60% in 2007.    Intuitively, the Google Keyword Tool should seem to be an excellent source for keyword search data.

Google’s search volume data is an approximation of search data from direct searches through Google and through the Google Search Network.  The numbers that Google Keyword Tool produces are rounded off.  It is not specifically stated whether the data is an approximation derived from extrapolating from a small data set, or whether it is actual search data rounded off to the nearest 100.

In comparison to WordTracker and Keyword Discovery, the search volume data from Google is much larger.  But what is more important, is how this data lines up, in regard to keyword ranking, to industry standard tools.  When I rank keywords based on volume searches from each keyword tool, I found that the ranking can be greatly different based on which one used.  Although the top two keywords that I used matched up for all three tools, the differences were wide spread for all the other keywords on my comparison list.  Furthermore, when comparing WordTracker and Keyword Discovery, the results are closer to a one-to-one match.

Some major factors that attribute to the differences in rankings are the source and age of search volume data.  We can assume that Google search data up-to-date, since they source the data from themselves.  On the other hand Keyword Discovery and WordTracker both state that their search data could be months old.  Also KWD and WT must source their data from outside, and their sourcing method is unknown.   What is frightening is that KWD and WT could completely fabricate their results. It is doubtful that Google is fabricating their search volume results, but even so, their data can be inflated and may not show a true picture of search volume even from within Google itself. Google wants to sell ads and larger search volume data can drive the interest and demand for keywords.

Who is to be believed and which tool is the right one to use?  Even though Google is the powerhouse and they have the advantage of using internal search data for their keyword tool, Google is one-sided and does not represent keyword searches across all search engines.  The demographics for search engine usage differ across location, age groups and gender.  Google Keyword Tools is essential for PPC search marketing in Google, but I am somewhat wary of its general usage for developing keyword lists for SEO campaigns to improve organic rankings.   Overall, using multiple tools for generating keyword lists can be important especially for large keyword lists.  Comparing the different results can give an SEO and client clearer insight into keyword importance and usage.  As long as other search engines are being used, the Google Keyword Tool should be used in conjunction with either Keyword Discovery or WordTracker.

I was excited to see that Google had added a complete detailed and down-loadable table of search engine search queries data into the Google Webmaster Tools panel. However, after checking the stats against real-time stats, I discovered discrepancies.

 The latest reports in Google Webmaster Tools indicate “Last updated August 2, 2008.” I  believe the results reflected on that date were incorrect, as some ranking numbers were “too good to be true.” Compared to the search I just ran, those positions are not anywhere to be seen.

SEOChat.com reports an alert that “Google has changed the way automatic search data is handled” which has caused errors in the rendered results. SEO Administrator, and other “automated” tools are also reflecting inaccurate readings, compared to a manual search.

So, to be accurate in our reporting, I suggest picking a few of the main keyword terms and doing a manual search on Google.

At the end of this post is a link to a pretty interesting, high level conversation between heavy peers from the corporate marketing world – there are Clickz.com people involved, an IBM, person, etc. – about Wikipedia and SEM.

Aside from the topic itself – wikipedia and how marketers could / should / do think about it – what’s interesting about this page is that it’s sortof like an open conference being hosted in facebook. it’s actually just a moderated thread on a forum, i suppose. at any rate, most of the comments are smart and read like a very engaged conversation.

though i’ve not really taken facebook myself for a variety of reasons, i have to admit, this simple page feels pretty state of the art and downright well-designed, esp compared to myspace and others.

Reading sites like Clickz.com and as if there’s a whole crowd of corporate marketing big shots that wants Facebook to win the social networking wars, and indeed there are many influentials working to make FB the most advanced & appealing pure social networking platform out there, to both users, marketers & programmers.

To me it seems like at the very least they are winning their class .

FB has critical mass to boot, which as a marketer you always ignore at your own peril.

Of course, at the end of the day, it’s all about context – which tool work best to promote a certain offer, to solve a particular problem, to reaches the right audience, or to develop reputation for that client?

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2570737150&topic=4300

Given that most of our clients are not corporate or even mid-sized companies with in-house marketing departments or long-term brand equity building strategies, a lot of the ideas being bandied around here don’t feel that relevant to our everyday work, concerns, & ambitions.

That said, there probably are opportunities every now & then to think about and even use Wikipedia to promote some of our clients – or, if not Wikipedia itself (since the consensus among these high-brow marketers seems to be that the big WP is not to be directly screwed with), then perhaps some of the sister Wiki sites like wikitravel.org.

In fact, we’ve had some limited success getting links to some clients’s sites on http://wikitravel.org/en/Boca_Raton – although there is no “nofollow” code used on that page, there’s also no anchor text, and the jury is still out as far as I’m concerned on whether there was a real benefit in the end.

Here is the source code from an email I just received from what appeared to be from Google AdWords. It is easy to determine this email was a fraud for several obvious reasons.

1. The “To” field was blank.
2. It was addressed to “Dear Advertiser” rather than being personalized.
3. The source code reveals a link ref code from MSN’s AdCenter:

<link id=”Link1″ rel=”stylesheet” type=”text/css” href=”https://adcenter.microsoft.com/Shared/Styles/jupiter.css”></link>

4. The link to G”Renew your oogle AdWords account” is not a Google URL:

<a href=”http://sellect-words.com/ad.words.google/Login.htm” target=”_blank”>Renew Now your Google Search Advertising services.</a>

For all you fans of The Domain Show Listen up

Effective as of today, The Domain Show has moved to 2 pm est on Friday.

Where: www.ustream.tv/channel/webcastone

WARNIN:

I just received an email telling me my AdWords campaign is not running due to incorrect information. A view of the source code reveals an “imposter” URL. (The Subject line has a typo, whcih also is an indication something is “phishy”):

============

From: Google-AdWords-noreply [mailto:adwords-noreply@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:59 PM
To: Frank
Subject: Your AdWords Google Account is stoped.

—————————————————–
Dear Advertiser,

We were unable to process your payment.
Your ads will be suspended soon unless we can process your payment.
To prevent your ads from being suspended, please update your payment information.

Please sign in
to your account at http://adwords.google.com/select/login, (Although the link looks legit, notice the source code reveals: http://www.adwords.google.com.oiloc.cn/select/Login)
and update your payment information.

We look forward to providing you with the most effective advertising available.
Thank you for advertising with Google AdWords.
——————————————————
The Google AdWords Team

======
So don’t respond to these fraudulent emails!