« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 30, 2006
The Query Chilling Effect
The Old Grey Lady, admittedly, has seen better days and truer articles, but occasionally some interesting reporting can still occur, as if by accident. Today was one of those occurances, the paper of record suprisingly taking a closer look at the chilling effect the Big Brother Brigade may be having on queries sans any of the balancing opinion "it's really, actually good for us in the long run" cowardly CYA fluff they usually feel compelled to supply (ok, there are a couple paragraphs like that, but less than normal for de rigueur journalism):
Kathryn Hanson, a former telecommunications engineer who lives in Oakland, Calif., was looking at BBC News online last week when she came across an item about a British politician who had resigned over a reported affair with a "rent boy."It was the first time Ms. Hanson had seen the term, so, in search of a definition, she typed it into Google. As Ms. Hanson scrolled through the results, she saw that several of the sites were available only to people over 18. She suddenly had a frightening thought. Would Google have to inform the government that she was looking for a rent boy - a young male prostitute?
...and...
Ms. Hanson, who did the "rent boy" search, said that although she was aware that personal information was not being required in the Google case, she remained uneasy.She pointed to a continuing interest she has in the Palestinian elections. "If I followed my curiosity and did some Web research, going to Web sites of the parties involved, I would honestly wonder whether someone in my government would someday see my name on a list of people who went to 'terrorist' Web sites," she said.
I point out the above not only to thank the New York Times for reporting something I'm sure made the editors a bit squeamish, not having fallen back onto the safety net of talking points and all, but also to remind us all that as we move to Internet 2.0 a significant fight we must wage is the battle against totalitarian urges naturally inclined to wrestle away control of our information medium, reducing it to the propaganda channels our other media have largely become.
Note that both instances in which a chill was felt above were simply in the course of further educating oneself, the great promise of the internet and search, with "all of the world's information" available and all- this great leap forward in the ability of humans to access information, any and all information, is what most troubles the totalitarian mindset. Loss of control of information is the loss of control.
Let's not lose ownership of the world's information, because once it goes down the memory hole it is not likely to come back.
Posted by john at 03:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 27, 2006
Google Financial News
Google is poised to announce it’s 4th Quarter results on 1/31/06 and everyone is eager to see how the search giant does. I have been reviewing the financial filings that Google posts on a regular basis and have been nothing but astounded by the actual results.
A lot of times all we hear about is the stock price. That’s important no doubt, but I also like to look at the internal workings of a company. Remember the old axiom, “numbers don’t lie�? Well, that’s the school of thought I’m in and I also know that stock price is only concerned with what you’re going to do for me in the future. In light let me give you some quick numbers from their September 2005 filing:
From 1/1/04 through 9/30/04 Google posted expenses of $1,820,329.
From 1/4/05 through 9/30/05 Google posted expenses of $2,771,829.
An increase of $951,500.
From 1/1/04 through 9/30/04 Google posted revenues of $2,157,722.
From 1/1/05 through 9/30/05 Google posted revenues of $4,219,168.
An increase of $2,061,446.
Basically for every dollar extra dollar they spent they made $2.17. Not too shabby.
Besides the commentary that says “hey they made more money, cool�, there is a deeper observation to be made. A basic axiom of good business is that you always want your revenues to increase at a faster pace than your expenses. In other words, make more money with the resources that you currently have – increase productivity – don’t incur unnecessary expenses. It sure seems that they are meeting this goal.
This result usually stems from good management. It can come from other means, but that is usually not a long-term thing. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.
I will cover in my next post the question of what are they doing with all of this money since they don’t pay dividends out to shareholders. It will be an interesting look at their balance sheet.
Posted by brent at 03:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 26, 2006
The Matt Cutts Concurrence Committee
Matt Cutts' most recent post was about being tired. He used about 50 words. He has received more than 40 comments and 300 diggs.
In case you missed it, below are highlights from the comments section (and a word from our sponsor).
I concur.Yeah, me too, Matt Cutts. I am really tired too.
Me too! I concur, Matt Cutts.
Do you concur?
I used to rank well for [mail-order bride], but now I'm nowhere to be found. Could you please explain?
C... Concur with what, sir?
I concur to infinity.
With what Matt Cutts just said. Do you... Do you concur?
Uh... well, Matt is tired. Um, he just told us…
Can you explain how you implemented your 301 redirect with Wordpress (from non-www to www)?
So you concur?
Matt Cutts, I know what you mean. I am so tired that I am going to go to sleep right now.
I think the sandbox is as unconstitutional as it is evil. Maybe you're so tired because being the devil is exhausting!
Concur? Uh... I think we should send a doctor over to make sure Matt Cutts is going to be OK.
That's very good, Very good. Well, you don't seem to have much need for me. Carry on.
Great post about being tired, Matt Cutts. It's a problem in the industry that nobody else is willing to confront. Bravo!
I blew it, didn't I? Why didn't I concur?
Posted by tom at 11:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 25, 2006
Pontiac Takes a Swing at Domain Deafness
According to Media Post, some regionally targeted Pontiac television commercials have begun recommending a Google search for Pontiac.
Near the end of a commercial for the G6 Sedan, following the expected laundry list of G6 features, the voiceover says, "Don't take our word for it. Google 'Pontiac' and discover for yourself."
The article does a nice job of explaining the potential motivation behind such an ad, but it didn't address a key question I had: Why use the voiceover to suggest a Google search instead of merely plugging the Pontiac URL? (Note: The pontiac.com URL does appear on the closing screen with some other fine print.)
Suggesting a Google search virtually guarantees that Pontiac won't get every click. True, they'll get most of them, either via the top Google listing owned by Pontiac, or the premium Adwords ads it's purchased. But they can't buy every Adword, and they don't own the full top 10 organic spots.
My theory is that Pontiac believes in something I'll call "domain deafness," which is television's equivalent of the web's "banner blindness." In other words, major brands plugging their URLs in commercials is so common now that our ears naturally filter it out. Pontiac is gambling that even with clicks lost to enthusiast sites and competitors, they'll still get more clicks by suggesting a Google search than they would by merely suggesting "Go to Pontiac.com and discover for yourself."
So "domain deafness" is my theory. But don't take our word for it. Google [domain deafness] and discover for yourself.
You can see the actual commercial here. (Question: In the freeze-frame, does that look like an actual Google screen shot to you? To me it looks like a Google front page with a Photoshop combover. Where are the links to Advanced Search, Preferences, and Language Tools? Where's the copyright notice? Madison Avenue, you superficial tart...)
Posted by erik at 11:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 24, 2006
Yahoo at Number 2: Strategy or Surrender?
It's probably an understatement to say that Susan Decker has had better weeks. Yahoo's Chief Financial Officer likely wasn't too happy that even though revenues increased 39% from last year, the company's stock dropped 13% when earnings fell short of forecast by one cent.
But that was just the beginning. In a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article earlier today, Decker more or less condeded the battle for search market share to Google.
So in case you still haven't read it, here is Decker's money quote:
We don't think it's reasonable to assume we're going to gain a lot of share from Google. It's not our goal to be No. 1 in Internet search. We would be very happy to maintain our market share.
It's been the buzz all day long, and very few of the many stories have been favorable.
First, I'm with Microsoft's Scoble in wondering whether "Yahoo’s CFO gave a quote that’s now being used out of context."
Second, what would we prefer she have said? Last week's search engine market share numbers tell the story: Yahoo is Number Two (and very good at it, as Greg Boser might say). Right now, it has very little hope of beating Google, and very little worry of losing to MSN. (And don't expect those numbers to move much. Check Danny's 2005 timeline - how's that for stasis?)
Would search enthusiasts (or "the Street") have been happier with a little chest-thumping like Microsoft's Steve Ballmer did last summer, promising to match Google's relevancy in "six months"? Here's a quick history lecture. No one believed it then, and six-and-a-half months later, no one believes it now. Will any loyal Yahoo Search users actually abandon Yahoo because of this? (Common sense says no, but there's no accounting for media bloggers.)
Third, does Yahoo even consider search its top priority? Search is an integral part of its list of services, but its groups, news, email, and many other services make it one of the world's biggest brands. To paraphrase one comment at Scoble's blog, a pure search engine like Google sends you away, and a portal like Yahoo sucks you in. Some people make reasoned arguments that Google could take a lesson from Yahoo's model and re-allocate some eggs into alternative, revenue-bearing baskets.
UPDATE: Here's a passionate response from Qi Lu and Eckart Walther, both VPs of Yahoo Search.
Posted by erik at 11:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 23, 2006
When Is Sex Worth 14 Million Dollars?
Apart from the Wagnerian fantasies some of the more romantic of us may wish to hold fast to, it appears that sex is worth 14 Million dollars only when it has a .com extension appended to it. And the value has less to do with the search for sex than the manner in which the search box has supplanted the URL bar for a great number of users.
Erik addressed this earlier last week when he noted the Nielsen//NetRatings Top Search Queries for November, confessing:
I guess I shouldn't always be so shocked at the number of people who use the Search box to type full or partial URLs.
If we consider these searchers to be the least common denominator of search, and I'm not saying that we should (not that there's anything wrong with using the search box that way, of course), then it's also not too far of a logical leap to assume what single word might be the least common denominator that group types in the box.
That knowledge and 14 Million Dollars may just buy you a viable business model.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by john at 08:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 20, 2006
Google vs. Government
I've been reading about the good ol' Bush Administration trying to force Google to cough up a week's worth of search queries in a recent subpoena. It's said that the subpoena is an attempt to resuscitate an Internet child protection law that was overturned a couple of years ago.
Hmmm...I don't know about y'all, but I find the subpoenaed request by the US Government quite bothersome for a number of reasons.
1) It may very well lead to, at some point, blowing the lid off of all searches conducted by any one of us and thus, profiling individuals based upon search strings and search behavior in general. Forget the fact the searches done on any individuals computer could have been conducted by any number of people in a household with or without their knowledge.
2) It's yet another prime example of the "Big Brother" mentality that is the US Government today.
3) Should the US Government succeed in this request now, it may be a prelude to them requesting more information such as associated IP addresses with search strings at a later date. That said, people may think twice about using search engines to find stuff and certainly may cause Google to lose market share traction due to privacy concerns.
I'm not sure I'm totally sold on the fact the subpoenaed request is just about protecting children from pornographic material and other questionable sites. I think you all know where I’m going with this.
Anyway, I’m glad to see that Google flat denied the request and hope they can fend off the government permanently on this issue. I hope Google stands their ground and puts up the good fight. Too bad MSN and Yahoo! already rolled over like submissive dogs on this request:
Google rivals including Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp. have received similar subpoenas from Justice, but say that they have complied with them.
I can only imagine it now. MSN & Yahoo! to USG - What's next, Uncle Sammy? Oh, you want to see the IP addresses associated with these searches?... Uh...OK!!
Good for you Google!! Keep it up!
Posted by sean at 03:21 PM | Comments (0)
January 19, 2006
Link Building is Getting Easier
It has always been my practice to make outrageous claims like I invented the question mark, so it is against character that I do not take credit for improving results in Link Building campaigns. While recent times have seen great improvements, the two greatest factors leading to improvements are completely external and available to all link builders.
The spams getting spammier, and Leon’s getting larger.
I have stated before that the open rate for link requests is very low because people delete anything they think might be spam. Well, spam is getting much worse and much more obvious every day. Open rates are improving because a well-written link request is looking less and less like spam.
Similarly, a good link is looking less and less like spam. Google is getting much better at devaluing bad links, which leads to increased value for every good link. Your relevant links, internal and external, are gaining value.
Stay the Course, Link Builders!
Posted by tom at 12:48 PM | Comments (0)
January 18, 2006
New Search Engine Market Share, Popular Search Terms Announced
Via Search Engine Watch, we find that Nielsen//Netratings has just released (PDF) November tallies for search engine market share and most popular search terms, as of November 2005. Without further ado:
| Engine | Share % | Total Searches (x1000) |
| 46.3 | 2,365,998 | |
| Yahoo | 25.4 | 1,194,519 |
| MSN | 11.4 | 583,304 |
| AOL | 6.9 | 350,899 |
| MyWay | 2.5 | 129,555 |
| Ask Jeeves | 2.3 | 119,679 |
| Earthlink | .6 | 32,172 |
| Dogpile | .6 | 31,563 |
| Netscape | .6 | 30,434 |
| iWon | .5 | 27,670 |
source: Nielsen//NetRatings MegaView Search, January 2006
My initial thoughts here are that while the top three engines more or less maintained their share, Google's growing involvement with and potential influence over AOL could do real damage to Y and M and cause fewer and fewer people to believe it's still anyone's game. (And believing may be all it takes, as John suggested on Monday.)
In addition to the search engine market share numbers, N//N also released the top 10 search terms for November:
| Search Term | Total Queries |
| "ebay" | 13,871,000 |
| "google" | 13,301,000 |
| "yahoo" | 7,997,000 |
| "mapquest" | 7,431,000 |
| "yahoo.com" | 6,528,000 |
| "pogo.com" | 4,062,000 |
| "walmart" | 3,688,000 |
| "ask jeeves" | 3,389,000 |
| "msn" | 3,166,000 |
| "ebay.com" | 3,125,000 |
source: Nielsen//NetRatings MegaView Search, January 2006
I guess I shouldn't always be so shocked at the number of people who use the Search box to type full or partial URLs.
Ken Cassar, chief analyst for Nielsen//NetRatings, had an interesting analysis of this segment (my emphasis added):
"There are two types of online searchers that type a Web site’s URL into a search engine rather than into the browser’s address bar: Those inexperienced enough not to appreciate the difference between the two, and those that are so experienced they have become habituated to using the search engine as their portal to the Internet.
Try as I might, I'm not sure I will ever buy the last part of that. It's like saying that I'm pushing my car down the street because I'm too savvy to drive it. I believe that truly savvy users have come to view the browser - not the search engine - as the portal to the Internet.
But Cassar ends with a note we can all live with:
Whether this behavior is driven by ignorance or savvy, the end result is the same: The search engine is the focal point of the online experience for Internet users across the spectrum.
Amen to that.
Posted by erik at 03:10 PM | Comments (0)
January 17, 2006
Thank You For Asking About Our Product, Please Visit Our Competitor
I called a business today to inquire about their new product. A voice mail answered and said,
"Thank you for calling...
Blah blah blah..."
Then...drumroll...
"If you're calling about [new product name], please call back."
I am not kidding. ... please call back (echo, echo, echo)
Later in the day, I was talking with a business about an indexing issue with their site where several top performing pages at Google were clicking through to 404 error pages (the search-equivalent to Window's blue screen of death and business-equivalent of "please go away".) Well, at least they aren't the only ones.
A few of these pages were major product pages.
See where I'm going?
Has your site gone through recent changes creating indexing issues at search engines? If so, you could actually be directing them to your competitor.
... directing them to your competitor(echo echo echo)
As search engines improve relevancy, chances are if your prospective customer can't find your pages, they are just two clicks away from visiting the next site on the search results page. Work with your internal or external SEO team to clean up any current indexing issues and insert regular checks and balances to avoid these down the road.
Posted by doug at 03:52 PM | Comments (0)
January 16, 2006
Do You Remember What You Used To Think?
Mark Naples makes a search perception argument this Friday last that I have to admit hurt my brain, and one from which I have since been unable to recover. Namely, that Google at the beginning really wasn't as great as everyone thought it was, it's just that everyone thought it was:
It can be because of a very elemental tenet of marketing, and, in fact, of all communications, especially public relations: perception is reality. It's not as important that Google's results were better as it is that media, analysts, IT guys, and other influencers thought that Google's results were better.
Since I read that I have been trying to remember, with as pure a conscience as I can muster, what exactly it was I thought about Google at the very beginning and, essential to Naples' argument, whether I was right or just wrongly influenced by peers and, even more strangely, my own influence among influencers.
Perhaps I was simply projecting my own desire to be counted among the influencers, indeed litmus-testing my own worthiness of inclusion in that august group, when I would perform early searches at the new Google. That's a very difficult onion to unfurl, and one for which I may need to seek therapy.
Dammit, though, I really do remember thinking Google's results were a revolution at the time. Especially against what had become utterly useless results for any given search at say, Alta-Vista, Infoseek, and Excite, just to call to mind the barren search landscape Google was born into. Remember trying to find anything useful there?
So now that Naples has stuck me in a memory glitch matrix, I find solace in the early happy opinions I have, or think I had, rightly or wrongly, about Google. I might even argue after a period of therapy to strengthen my resolve that without the revolution in useful and relevant results Google ushered in, we would still be stuck in that warp of online time where media, analysts, IT guys, and other influencers, Naples' magic group which allegedly started the whole misperception to begin with, were the only ones who attempted to use search as equipment for living in much the same manner as the connected world at large now does, in greater numbers each Month.
So did Google make search accessible as equipment for living and it was just that the above magic group was the first in the world curve to grasp it, or was it all just a conspiracy to make it seem that way so those outside the golden circle would ape their attitudes and actions? Would we be where we are now without the revolution having been based on relevancy, but merely perception?
Posted by john at 06:52 PM | Comments (0)
January 13, 2006
New Google AdWords PPC Tool
Sometimes I think of Google like a toychest that continually has something new to play with. I actually have to dissuade myself from playing with them all because I probably wouldn’t get any work done.
One new toy was added recently that caught my eye as one who works with PPC on a regular basis. It is the new and improved Keyword Tool. This little gem provides much needed information so as to make a more, dare I say, relevant decision in selecting keywords.
I can think of a couple of improvements to the Keyword Tool, such as showing the top PPC results for that keyword. Sure I can do my own research, but it’s so much nicer when it is done for me. I’d also like there to be less vagueness as to where my ad will show up according to my CPC input. A range is nice but show me some specifics.
Even though it’s not perfect, what is really, it certainly is a step in the right direction. If you are an AdWords user this is a toy that you definitely want to have in your toybox.
Posted by brent at 11:36 AM | Comments (0)
January 12, 2006
Google Still Crazy After All These Years
I met my old lover on the street last night. She seemed so glad to see me; I just smiled. And there seemed to be confusion, but I thought it was the beers . . . Still crazy after all these years
So there I was waiting on a friend's arrival as I sat in this bar with Google and her friend, who began discussing power ballads and hi infidelity. When the two asked me who cleverly named the tuna fish album, I lost it.
"Google, how can you still not know who I am?" My impatience was intensifed by the fact that we already had this conversation once before. "I am SEO Speedwagon damn it"
Google responded, as if I were confused, "Did you mean REO Speedwagon?"
"I am absolutely positive that I meant SEO Speedwagon." I thought the emphasis would show that I know who I am.
Google didn't budge. "Are you absolutely positive that you didn't mean REO Speedwagon?"
I tried to calm down a bit. "Please listen to the exact words about to come from my mouth: SEO Speedwagon."
"Are you sure you did not exactly mean to say these words: REO Speedwagon?"
That didn't work. I tried again. "OK. I want you to remove REO from your head, and think Speedwagon."
"OK?"
"Exactly! So keep REO out of your head and just think about SEO Speedwagon!"
Google backstepped (yes, I mean back stepped). "Did you mean keep REO out of my head and just think about REO Speedwagon?"
I thought about asking Google to remove REO from her obsessive head and think about the exact words "SEO Speedwagon." I feared her response would lead to a new level of absurdity and heartbreak, so I walked away.
But then I just had to ask, "What is it about SEO Speedwagon?"
"Well, I just know so much about them."
As I wiped away tears, I thought of starting conversation with her friend as a way to get through to Google. As we made eye contact, Wiki asked me, "What about your friend? Shouldn't he be here by now?"
"I don't think Godot is coming," I said.
Google started to tell me that she knows Godot, but I interrupted. "I know you do, Google. Good-bye."
Now I sit by my window and I watch the cars. I fear I’ll do some damage one fine day, but I would not be convicted by a jury of my peers . . . Still crazy after all these years
Posted by tom at 10:20 AM | Comments (0)
January 11, 2006
Same Subdomain Results in SERPs: What is Excessive?
Sean asked me how long Yahoo had been positioning more than two URLs from a given subdomain on its SERPs, and I didn't have a good answer.
In the Yahoo query for [apple], for example, eight of the ten results come from the www subdomain of apple.com. There's little doubt that Apple has earned a top placement for that search, but I believe that relevance is questionable when the algorithm shows links to the French, Japanese, and German home pages as well, from a computer with a US IP address, set to default English.
(And I'm not trying to be Americentric. If I were German, searching from www.yahoo.de, I wouldn't want a bunch of English-language results either.)
Where are the trade mags devoted to Apple technology? The blogs? The Apple section of Slashdot is the only non-apple.com URL listed. Is that enough?
MSN is similar, but with different apple.com URLs from the www subdomain. The only non-apple.com page is the Wikipedia page for Apple.
It's not confined to Apple. Try searches for other major brands and see what comes up.
Typically, Google doesn't place more than two pages from any given subdomain on one SERP. (You could argue, though, that there's little difference between Yahoo showing more than two instances of one subdomain and Google's habit of showing up to two instances per subdomain, but from multiple subdomains.) While I know that no single engine dictates the gold standard for "mix" of domains on a results page, I have become accustomed to Google's ratio. I'm not saying there's a right and wrong ratio, but the Yahoo/MSN situation seems unbalanced. What do you think?
Posted by erik at 11:38 PM | Comments (0)
January 10, 2006
The Case for Long-term SEO
A few weeks ago, Doug posted about long term SEO and the benefits to companies that are committed to it.
Colin Christofferson of Optimize the Enterprise responded:
One thing that we struggle with here is trying to understand if we are staying "ahead of the curve." Essentially, if we did nothing else, search traffic to our site would grow simply because the web and search are growing. We want to know if we are outpacing that, and it is often difficult to report on.
He followed up with his own post that furthered the question:
I want to be able to measure my impact relative to the web as a whole. Search referral growth of 30% year-over-year seems great, unless the growth of search usage has jumped by 70% web-wide! It is important that we actually gain new mind and market share through search.
All very good points, worthy of some follow-up. Honestly addressing Colin's comments forces us to ask a few important questions:
- What is the growth rate of the internet overall, and of search engine use in particular?
- If I optimized a site and did absolutely nothing afterward, wouldn't I achieve natural growth on pace with the growth of the internet and search engine usage?
- How do we tell if our growth is outpacing our industry's?
To answer the questions, we need to look at some statistics. Wherever possible, I used the range of 2000-2005 as the comparison points.
- From 2000-2005, worldwide internet "usage" grew about 170%. (As you can imagine, the numbers vary wildly by continent, but I want to work with averages.)
- In 2000, search engines were responsible for about 7% of site referrals.
- Today, the average percentage of search-based traffic is quite difficult to determine. Our clients run the gamut, from about 15% to over 80%, depending on their vertical market and additional on- and offline marketing efforts. (Note: If 100% of your traffic comes from search engines month after month, you have a problem, and you ought to know why.)
So Colin's thoughts are panning out. Year over year, we have steady increase in the percentage of each country's population that uses the internet. On top of that, a greater and greater percentage of that user base turns to search each year to find what they're looking for.
So even if you stop optimizing, should your search traffic grow at a rate similar to the pace of the Internet, and more accurately, at the rate of search engine use? In a vacuum, perhaps. But there's one more important number we need to look at:
- Based on domain registrations (.com, .net, .org, .biz, .info, and edu), the number of actual web sites from 2000-2005 increased by about 364% (roughly 10M to 46M domains). So while many more users are out there, and many more of them are using search to find sites, the sheer number of sites competing for those eyes has increased greatly too.
(The standard disclaimers apply: Many of those are probably parked. Many are garbage sites. Etc. But you see where I'm going.)
Sites like Apple will never have trouble with traffic growth for queries like [ipod]. But few of us, including what we consider some big, big names, have a computational grip on our markets (and our resellers) like Apple does. So that leaves the "rest of us." How do we know if we're out performing our industry? Here are some possible ways.
- Watch your list of referring keywords. The total number of referring phrases should grow each month. But don't expect this to happen unless you focus on creating new content regularly, and you ensure that it's easily crawled and indexed. If your traffic grows with the "same old" set of keywords each month, that's probably a sign of simply rising with the tide of new users.
- Watch the sites within your industry. Are your competitors showing up on more and more results pages? Are there "new kids on the block" that seem to have come out of nowhere who are taking some of your traffic, yet you still see growth? Chances are you need to work harder.
- I've never been totally convinced that the Alexa toolbar is accurate for monitoring one site's traffic, but I think it can be fairly useful for watching the relative growth of a group of sites. How have you fared against your top five competitors over the last 6 months?
To test this global thesis fairly, we'd need to compare two identical sites - one that stays static, and one that regularly adds content, pursues relevant links, and breaks down crawling obstacles. Anything you do to your site ideally knocks you out of the first group, so Colin is right - it's very difficult to report on.
To all this, I should add that in some markets, you shouldn't even expect industry-average growth to continue of you stop optimizing. We see plenty of sites that were kings and queens of their respective counties after optimizing a few years ago, who have seen raw search numbers steadily decline since. They're not even staying flat. And that's happening in more and more verticals all the time.
So stay on top of your SEO game. People are still coming online and searching in numbers too great to ignore, and it's up to you to make sure your growth outpaces theirs.
And thanks, Colin, for thought-provoking questions.
Posted by erik at 11:04 PM | Comments (0)
January 09, 2006
Historical Search Traffic - Are You Missing The Boat?
In my last post, I asked the question: "Is your Search Traffic growing Big Time?"
Notice I didn't ask, "Are your search engine placements growing Big Time?" Why? Because your search engine placements are just a means to an end for what you should really be seeking ... target audience visits clicking through to your site from your search engine placements.
If you're not analyzing your search engine traffic at least monthly, the boat has left the dock without you. Make sure you have a web analytics program that provides search engine referrer data. This way you will always know exactly how many visitors find your site through each search engine. Then meticulously track your Search Traffic at least monthly over the long haul.
Here's an example from a client who fits my "7 Characteristics Of Companies That Have Committed To Ongoing SEO". Let's take a look at their Search Traffic for Google, Yahoo, and MSN in 2005:
If you're analyzing your Search Traffic monthly, then you have the advantage of being able to compare it to prior years. Here's what this client's search traffic looked like the prior year (2004):
Now let's go back another year and look at 2003:
There are many observations that can be made from analyzing three years of historical search traffic. Here are just a few:
* Google brings significantly more visitors to this site than Yahoo and MSN. In fact, currently Google traffic is approximately the equivalent of Yahoo and MSN combined.
* Since January 2003, traffic from Google has grown from under 50,000 to nearly 800,000 monthly visitors.
* This client definitely has a seasonal trend to it's Search Traffic with small decreases in search traffic in January and February that recover in March and April, flatten our over the early part of the Summer, then take off in the Fall and reach their peak in December.
The analysis and observations can go on and on. My main point is that we can use this data to make significant strategic decisions about our SEO efforts. And our client can use it to make meaningful e-business decisions that affect their bottom line.
Every site owner should be analyzing their Search Traffic and using whatever intelligence this brings to the table. Be happy about good search engine placements, but be excited about Search Traffic that is growing big time!
Posted by doug at 04:52 PM | Comments (0)
January 06, 2006
A Bite More on the Long Tail, Laddy
Our resident SEO Bard Erik has an excellent piece of keyword category distinction you don't want to miss, especially if you don't hate being able to tell whether or not a given phrase is likely to convert. I know some of us are intent on absolutely never figuring that one out.
Have heart. The Bard explains:
The tail of insurance keywords might include something like "nevada minimum collision coverage amount." Generally, people who bother to narrow a query so specifically are more likely to "act," which, depending on the industry, means make a purchase, download a file, click to read more information, and so on.
You also may want to consider your most recent public gastronomic adventure. Now, tell true: when ordering, which more than any other time, really, indicates a definitive intention to buy, are you much more likely to request:
an unspecified, vague meat product
-or-
a peppercorn fillet, medium rare (if you are so inclined)
And so The Long Tail. If always you only picture yourself sitting, looking up from your menu, and proclaiming "I would like..." followed by the phrase at hand, you've got a very good chance of determining where you are in the "curve" Erik The SEO Bard so cogently coins.
And only 3 days into the new year!
Posted by john at 05:22 PM | Comments (0)
January 05, 2006
'Tis the Season for Link Building
Like my friend Erik, I have developed an allergy to the ubiquitous 2005 retrospectives and 2006 prognostications. The clichéd trend reminds me of college years past when party discourse mandated Swingers statements about being so money, baby, and not even knowing it, at a clip of 7.1 per conversation. Escaping this game might have been the only reason I felt compelled to graduate. One might wonder what I would have become without this venomous dose of motivation.
Obviously, we all hope for our new year's post to be picked up like a Jean Shepherd movie, but what about other holidays? Can we not manipulate them for blog links, as well? We can at least try. Below are just a few suggestions for 2006 Holiday manipulation:
- Ask Matt Cutts to be your Valentine.
- Give updates for an industry conference taking place at a pub on St. Patrick's Day.
- Claim your blog's success is due to automatic search engine submission and scraped content on April 1st.
- State the reasons why a search engine ground hog might not see a site's shadow.
- Post a Declaration of Independence from typical blogaucracy.
- List the Top Ten Halloween Costumes for spammers.
- End a post with Happy Festivus!
Posted by tom at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)
January 03, 2006
How Strong is Your Keyword Torso?
As tired as I am of 2005 retrospectives and 2006 prognostications, I feel obligated to name 2006 the "Year of the Keyword Torso." Yes, I am sober.
Your industry has a "curve" of keywords. At the head of the curve are the most frequently searched-for terms. If you're in the insurance game, a few of your head terms are "insurance," "insurance quote," and "health insurance."
We often call these types of terms "trophy searches" because they're great for the ego, but in most cases, the effort in achieving them is much greater than the payoff. If you sell property and casualty insurance in West Virginia, how many of the "insurance quote" searchers are looking for your product?
At the other end of the curve is the "long tail." From a web analytics perspective, the tail gained a lot of exposure in 2005, even though people like Jill Whalen have been pushing it for years.
The tail of insurance keywords might include something like "nevada minimum collision coverage amount." Generally, people who bother to narrow a query so specifically are more likely to "act," which, depending on the industry, means make a purchase, download a file, click to read more information, and so on.
But between the ill-informed search for the head and the rough, ongoing (but worthwhile) search for the tail, don't forget the torso. (Note: Some people call it the "body" of the curve, but I consider the entire curve the "body," not just the middle section.) Torso searches are characterized by a query length somewhere between the head and tail, and by people looking for resources on a particular topic. They probably aren't ready to make a purchase today; instead, they're looking for an authoritative resource. If you satisfy their needs, they'll come back, eventually with credit card in hand.
Your industry knowledge - and your ability to communicate it - will make or break your chances for targeting the torso.
A torso term for insurance would be something like "child health insurance" or "what is whole life insurance." People searching for those phrases have no doubts that they'll be able to buy online. But for now, they probably want information and don't want a hard sell. Does your content show them what they're looking for? Do you have enough articles, fact sheets, and hard-to-find information that they will consider you a credible industry resource? If not, don't expect them to come back when they're ready to purchase.
To sum it up, success in capturing the keyword torso assumes three major things about you and your site:
- You are creating original, helpful content regularly and often.
- You are creating original, helpful content regularly and often.
- You are creating original, helpful content regularly and often.
Smart bloggers have already figured this out. They're hitting the torso with their blog category pages. The number of articles in the category archive of a prolific blog is constantly fresh, constantly growing, and laser-targeted to a people with particular interests. And that, in 2006, is going to be important.
Posted by erik at 11:48 PM | Comments (0)