Not too long ago, search engine optimizers (SEOs) urged Internet marketers to swap links with other sites in order to enhance their PageRank or ‘authority’ in the eyes of the search engines. This, in turn, would help their sites achieve higher search engine listings and thereby generate more website traffic.

Unfortunately, the search engines caught on and began to detect overt link swaps, and any other kind of linking between sites that seemed unrelated to each other.

That said, most SEOs believe the search engines still regard inbound links from related, authoritative sites as the primary indicator of a site’s relevance for a given search phrase. Which, in turn, is the key determinant of where that site ranks in the natural or organic search engine listings.

So if you still need inbound links… but swapping links is generally out of the question… how do you get ‘em?

In short, focus on the idea of ATTRACTING links. In other words, do whatever it takes to get the right people (websites) saying the right things about you (giving you links). To do this, generate the kind of content that people want to talk about (and link to).

Some ideas for doing this are to:

• Write newsworthy or interesting content on a blog;
• Create a wiki i.e. categorized, helpful information for your niche or industry;
• Write articles for other authoritative, high profile sites (and include your link!); and
• Distribute press releases that include links back to your site.

William Flaiz has written an interesting article in Search Engine Watch. He suggests that the days of compartmentalizing search engine optimization (SEO) are over and that a holistic approach is now what’s required to win in the new environment of “universal search”.

Argues Mr Flaiz:

“An integrated approach across multiple disciplines is the only way to address the diverse nuances of the new SERPs. We can tame universal search if we address it from all fronts: SEO, paid search, social media, Web development and user experience design.”

The article is aimed at SEO agencies but the principle remains the same for SEO departments or individual search engine optimizers. A holistic approach is required if we’re to achieve optimum results.

For instance, we’re currently working with a client to:

1. Optimize some new product pages;
2. Prepare press releases for those products; and
3. Write articles related to those products and website pages.

By understanding the underlying keyword strategy and taking an integrated approach we can ensure that each of these items work together to enhance our client’s search engine ranking for the terms it’s targeting. After all, although the methods are seemingly disparate, the objective is quite singular: a higher listing in the organic results.

And given the (growing) number of Internet “assets” - website, press releases, images, videos, pages on social media sites, and so on - the demand for a holistic approach is only likely to grow.

Bottom line: rather than approach any given SEO tactic in isolation, approach it as one component of an overall effort where your main aim is to optimize your presence on the search engines for the keywords that deliver you the maximum number of targeted, qualified prospects.

Source: William Flaiz, “Universal Search: The (War) Elephant in the Room”, Search Engine Watch, November 10, 2008

Search engine optimizers have long recommended that webmasters submit their sites to authoritative directories such as Yahoo in order to get valuable backlinks. But a glaring deletion in Google’s Webmaster Guidelines indicates that Google may no longer favor links from directories.

Brian Ussery reports that the following bullet points have been removed from Google’s U.S. Webmaster Guidelines Webmaster Help Center:

• “Have other relevant sites link to yours.”
• “Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.”

Hmmm… another search engine optimization (SEO) game changer?

Source: Brian Ussery, “Google No Longer Suggests Directory Submission”, Beussery.com, October 2, 2008

What Google may giveth… it may also take away…

Many of us have learned that the hard way. As domainers, search engine optimizers, advertisers and publishers, we’ve seen revenues and profits rise… and plummet… as Google changes its mind about whether it ‘approves’ of our business model or marketing… or not.

Serves us right, eh? If we choose to play Google’s game, we must accept that Google can change the rules any time it chooses. That’s a right Google reserves legally - i.e. when we agree to Google’s terms of use - and as a practical matter, due to its sheer market power.

Or must we just accept it?

When does a company’s exercise of its rights go from simply being ‘unfair’… to constituting an abuse of market power or being ‘unconscionable’?

‘Unconscionable’ is a legal term that has slightly different meanings in different jurisdictions. In general, it loosely refers to contractual terms that are so unfair that no reasonable person would, under normal circumstances, accept them. They typically arise where a party to a contract has much greater bargaining power than the other party and uses this power to extract unreasonably one-sided and onerous rights from the other party.

Successfully proving the existence of excessive market power or unconscionable contracts is generally tough, whether in the United States, Europe, or here in Australia. But there are indications that businesses, large and small, are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with Google’s dominance over the Internet.

For example, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) recently wrote to the U.S. Justice Department to object to the Google-Yahoo search advertising agreement. And, at the other end of the spectrum, there’s the letter sent by the lawyers of Dan Savage, owner of Sourcetool.com, to voice concerns about Google ratcheting up his Adwords prices due to low Quality Scores.

Warranted or not, I bet those letters to the Justice Department are piling up. Whether it should - or is able - to address some of the concerns remains to be seen.

You know, I would much prefer to see the marketplace - rather than the government or the courts - sort out who wins and who doesn’t when it comes to market share, sales, profits, etc. I’m not convinced that Google is abusing its market dominance. But one thing IS true: none of us can afford to rely on Google for our livelihoods.

Source: Joe Nocera, “Stuck in Google’s Doghouse”, The New York Times, September 12, 2008, Anna Johnson, “ANA Objects To Yahoo-Google Ad Deal”, Kikabink News, September 15, 2008

If you’re familiar with search engine optimization (SEO) you’ll know that getting QUALITY back-links is critical to moving your website up in the search engine results pages (SERPs). Getting a few links from trusted and authoritative websites beats getting a lot of links from “junky” or irrelevant websites every time.

So too, as SEO expert Michael Gray says in a recent blog post, most SEOs would define a good back-link as:

“a keyword rich link from a well linked/important/popular page on a trusted and authoritative website, that is preferably topically relevant to your site.”

Mr Gray goes on to point out the major problem with a definition like this: there is no publicly available or agreed upon metric for what is a “trusted and authoritative website”!

While search engine optimizers will point to sites such as the New York Times or the Wall
Street Journal as trusted and authoritative websites, that isn’t much help to webmasters who have little hope of ever getting a back-link from such news sites.

Consequently, Gray advises webmasters to:

1. Do your research and consider all the available metrics – such as Page Rank, Alexa, Compete, Technorati, Quantcast, Hitwise and Feedburner - looking for correlations between such metrics; and

2. Consider the blogs in your space to see who is getting the most links.

I would also add this:

3. Consider the content of the website. Does it strike you as being of high quality?

If a site scores highly on all the above-mentioned metrics, has tons of links, and is of a high standard… chances are it’s considered reasonably trusted and authoritative by the search engines.

And if you get mixed results for a given site, do what all search engine optimizers do: use your judgment!

Source: Michael, Gray, “Teaching Advanced Link Building and Why Pagerank Will Never Die”, GrayWolf’s SEO Blog, August 13, 2008

Here’s a heads up for search engine optimizers and others who care about Google PageRank - that imperfect measure of webpage popularity that everyone cares enough about to say they don’t care about…

According to Matt Cutts, the head of Google’s Webspam team, new toolbar PageRank values will become visible over the next few days. Some webmasters will be relieved to hear that Google also plans to expire some older penalties on websites. Although others will probably find themselves newly penalized!

Source: Matt Cutts, “New Toolbar PageRanks Coming,” Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO, July 24, 2008

Well, in his blog post, Amit Singhal DOES explain the three main principles governing Google’s search technologies. And explaining the principles is probably as revealing as Google is willing to be…

So what are the three principles governing Google’s ranking technologies? They are as follows:

1. Understanding Pages

Google aims to understand pages by, firstly, associating important concepts to a page even if these aren’t obvious on the page. It also seeks to distinguish between important and less important words in the page, as well as the freshness of the information on the page.

2. Understanding Queries

Google aims to understand what users are looking for - beyond what they type into Google’s search box - by utilizing such technologies as its spelling suggestion system, synonyms system, and concept analysis system. This last system aims to identify critical concepts in the search query in order to deliver more relevant results.

3. Understanding Users

Here Google aims to return results people really want, not just what they seem to want by virtue of their search query. To this end, Google uses its localization system, a personalization technology, and other technologies to help interpret users’ real motivations.

So what does all this tell Internet marketers and search engine optimizers? Everything and nothing.

“Everything” because Amit’s post reinforces the fact that Google’s main aim (apart from global domination) is to deliver relevant results. Your best bet in optimizing your website(s) for given keywords and keyphrases is to offer content that is relevant to those search words.

Yet it also tells us nothing… simply because it tells us that Google’s main aim is to deliver relevant content.

We already know that Google wants to give people search results that are relevant to what they’re looking for!

What we don’t know is why and how Google’s algorithm reaches the conclusion that our competitor’s websites are more or less relevant than ours. And why this conclusion keeps on changing based on… what?

Sure, SEO experts have theories. Theories that are probably close to the truth.

But Google certainly ain’t gonna lay it out for us any time soon!

Source: Amit Singhal, “Technologies Behind Google Ranking”, Google Blog, July 16, 2008