« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

June 30, 2006

Google and Yahoo leave me scratching my head

WARNING: this post may contain material not suitable for those who are willing give up a limb in defense of Google AdWords or Yahoo Search Marketing

Normally I'm not driven to extremes, I'm pretty easy-going and even-keeled. But every now and then the stars align and people do dumb things either around me, to me, or "for me". This time the honor goes to Google and Yahoo.

Google AdWords Related
Urgent, This Just In: We MUST designate our local time zone in our AdWords account or we will NEVER have the chance again after 7/31/06! What kind of offer is that? I’m sure it has something to do with the massive database that Google has to keep running in tip top shape, but come on, it seems kind of draconian doesn’t it? Now I’m FOR selecting a time zone, but why the urgency and the “speak now or forever hold your peace� language? Seems to me an upgrade to AdWords is in order.

Yahoo Search Marketing Related
Urgent, This Just In: Yahoo Search Marketing Customer Solutions Team to get overhauled along with their interface. No not really, but it sure would be nice based on the report that I got in my inbox recently. You see I was offered a complete review of one of my Yahoo campaigns and you know what I received…..a suggestion that I cut my campaign by 90% because there wasn’t the search traffic for our terms. WHAT? Without getting into details I have no idea how they could have come up with their suggestions unless either A) it was completed by a bad computer program, or B) they gave somebody 15 minutes to complete it. Normally I wouldn’t speak out but this is not the first time I’ve received “suggestions� like this from them. Who is running the Customer Solutions Team over there?

Excel corner...
(Macro to REMOVE hyperlinks in Excel 2000)
I do a fair amount of copy & pasting from the web to Excel and one HUGE pet peeve of mine is the automatic hyper linking feature that Excel introduces. And I have yet to find a quick and easy to remove them from inside Excel (they do provide a tedious and laborious way to do this – sigh), I did come across this little macro gem that allows a whole page to be “scrubbed� at the push of a button. This has saved me from a pre-mature mental carpal tunnel meltdown.

Audiophile corner…..For those of us who remember what quadraphonic sound meant this will “blow your mind man�. For the rest it will just be way cool. Try out Holophonic Sound. (Headphones are the best)

The most depressing moment in music over the past 30 years…
The comments are as funny as the video is appalling. Somebody make it stop!

And Finally…
Here’s a link to one the most underrated musicians out there, Owsley. Wow! What a great sound, it’s hard to believe that he’s not on the radio, but who am I eh?

Posted by brent at 11:59 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 29, 2006

Bueller?... Bueller?... Google?... Google?...

This Speedwagon Presentation of Great 80's Moments in Film has been made possible by Peculiar Google Results.

Economics Teacher: Bueller?... Bueller?...

Simone: He's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass-out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

Economics Teacher: Thank you, Simone. Google?... Google?...

Simone: Oh. My sister's boyfriend's brother's best friend's girlfriend heard from this kid who knows this girl who's going with a guy who saw Google pass-out after searching for just 3 therapy products last night. I guess Yahoo took over at that point.

Economics Teacher: Thank you, Simone.

Simone: No problem whatsoever.

Economics Teacher: MSN?... MSN?...

Simone: I totally don't think MSN is in this class.

. . . And Scene.

Special thanks to Sean Bolton for discovering this peculiar Google result and to Ben Stein and Kristy Swanson for reprising their roles as Economics Teacher and Simone, respectively.

Posted by tom at 02:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 28, 2006

Do Moral Victories Count When You Are A Blog?

Alas, we didn't win. But The Wagon is sure proud of the new lustre she gained from shining in front of Annie's 237,000 readers. We admit our wheels will really have to spin fast to catch SEO Roundtable, which took home the SEO Blog prize again this year, making it back-to-back.

Thanks to all who voted for us and congrats Barry!

Posted by john at 07:41 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 27, 2006

When Do We Turn Down a Prospective SEO Client?

Cab fare to nowhere is what you are
A white line to an exit sign is what you are

Or so begins a now-nearly-two-decades-old song by Paul Carrack, called "Don't Shed a Tear."

We received a Request for Proposal this week that caught our eye. The product and/or service offered by the site was extremely vague. The copy hinted around at an industry where we don't spend too much time. Here's why:

• A quick reverse-IP check (paid account req'd) showed 1160 other sites on this site's IP address. Not a big deal in today's world of shared virtual hosting, of course. Except that each of the sites is exactly the same. Same graphics. Same copy. Same Everything. The only difference was the domain names.
• All 1161 sites are hosted by a company that not only hosts sites, but offers a full "internet marketing solution" for all its hostees.
• A quick check of a random text string from the site shows the text duplicated across 14,600 sites at Google, and nearly 3000 at Yahoo. So it wasn't exactly written from scratch.

Sorry, but taking on this client would be a huge waste of her money and our time. This site network has more strikes against it than the Brooklyn Dodgers facing Don Larsen on that fateful day in 1956.

There's a very strong likelihood that the person who sent us the RFP has no idea how many sites are out there identical to hers. Or else she knows all too well, and she wants a leg up on (all 1160) of them. Either way, no thanks.

Posted by erik at 12:05 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 26, 2006

This John Battelle Guy is Pretty Smart...

Those of us who have been in Search Marketing long enough to frequent the thoughts of the best minds therein will seldom find occasion to question the premise of my title today. If you have need for Batelle bona fides, though, this quick little bio should do the trick for you.

I am quite honored, then, to have the opportunity to piggyback on a fine thought of his and add a layer of my own understanding to the mix. John had this nugget of wisdom to add to the recent study generating much buzz about the preferential treatment visitors give ads that blend into the site rather than shout out from it:

It's interesting that the ads which are "native" to a site - in other words, that are driven by text, as much of web still is, and that follow a site's design approach, do best. It reminds me of ads in Wired in the middle years - advertisers started to adapt Wired's unique visual grammar, and the whole publication felt like one ongoing conversation. I've argued for the past few years that advertising needs to not interrupt, but rather be part of a site's dialog. This research seems to confirm that concept.

This is the most brilliant to date explanation of a finding that would seem counterintuitive to most marketers. After all, mustn’t we shout to get attention? But Batelle’s use of ongoing conversation and dialog shout to me the Web 2.0 connection as ultimate explanation. If the current revolution is led by user generated content, should it be a surprise that said users would be most interested in ads that seemingly were a part of the great and growing conversation they visited the site to take part in to begin with?

2.0 assumes a dialog. Shouting with a single mouth is so 1.0…

Posted by john at 05:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 23, 2006

Google AdSpam

First, let me just say that I’m very tired of hearing and reading about Google this and Google that, but I’m unfortunately forced to write about them anyway.

Is it just me or is Google search results continuing to get riddled with tons of Spam sites? For months now, I’ve seen tons and tons of spam sites and alike taking up first page listings for hopes that people will click on their stupid AdSense-only-and-nothing-else-relevant-or-unique-about-this-page web pages for generating revenue from Google via Google AdSense.

For a company that prides itself as the most relevant search engine, I’m starting to feel like Google is allowing this and perhaps wanting this to happen because Google makes money regardless. I don’t get it. Their stock continues to climb to record numbers and everyone (except perhaps myself) loves them, yet their diversification is causing their core product (search) to truly diminish in quality and they seem to be forgetting their roots.

There are so many examples of AdSense-riddled top tens on Google that I’m not going to offer any examples to show our fellow Wagoneers. Instead, I’m wanting feedback from our readers with perhaps links to example search results showing just how pathetic Google’s so-called “relevant� search results are with solid examples of AdSense-only type sites populating most of the top ten real estate.

The more comments we get for this post, the better. AdSpam (aka Google AdSense) is a growing problem and I just don’t hear enough people talking about it. Perhaps this thread can start people talking and more importantly, allow Google to see that people are taking notice of their lack of attention to their core product and audience and just wanting to please share holders.

Now’s the time to chime in boys and girls!!

Posted by sean at 04:23 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 22, 2006

Anatomy of a Blog/Newsletter Archive

Archive, Archive, Archive.

The following transcript is loosely based on many client conversations. For our purpose, we will join this conversation in progress, and leave it in much the same fashion.

Consultant: Oh, so you have a newsletter. Do you archive it?

Client: No. Should we?

Consultant: Absolutely!

Client: Well, we’ll see

. . . And Scene.

The recommendation repeatedly . . . dare I say ritualistically . . . receives reluctance. Why, man, Why? If you go to the trouble of creating fresh, useful content for a targeted audience, why not show it to the search engines? How different is that from a blog? Not too many people argue that blogs do not have search engine value, including newsletter pushers not yet ready to be called bloggers. What they do not realize is that the blog structure is flexible enough for the newsletter pusher to plug in newsletter content postfactum, thus protecting his or her newsletter status.

Enter Jill Whalen. You would be hard pressed to find someone that balances search engine value and user focus better than Jill. When she makes a move, you can guarantee that both parties are justly considered. Jill Whalen has always archived her newsletter, but she did not always archive it like this.

In adopting the blog structure, Jill Whalen has made it easier for humans to peruse her archive, for search engines to index her archive, and for me to advocate such archives. Jill's linking structure is perfect. She drives traffic and correspondence to the archive by linking to the archived location from that article in the newsletter. The article will have a temporary home on the archive main page, as well as permanent homes on its own page, within the monthly and other relevant categories.

With the release of each new issue, the archive will show search engines new pages of fresh, relevant content. And Google loves new content, but Google also loves old content when there is proof of new content, so the older articles will continue to gain steam as new issues are added.

And look at those links, a completely different navigational structure than the main site. Just one link on the left. Jill Whalen is completely emphasizing conversion. And on the other side, she points out the previous issues, beneficial to human and search engine alike. Then she links (with keywords, of course) to her most important sections of the main site. As for the body, every article links to itself in the title, then all categories under which it could be found at the end of the article.

More pages, more fresh content, and more keyword-rich links equate to more relevance, more importance, and better indexability. If you will not do if for me, please do it for Jill Whalen.

Posted by tom at 01:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 21, 2006

SEO Speedwagon Makes the Sherpa Blog Short List

We want to express our gratitude for the nomination of SEO Speedwagon to Marketing Sherpa's list of Best Blogs on Search Marketing.

We're in some great company this year, including last year's winner, Barry Schwartz's SE Roundtable. Despite what Barry says, we're pretty sure he wants the award to go to someone else this year, so true to our mission, we'd like to recommend a site of which we're quite familiar, and of which we're quite proud: Us.

So vote today! (Please.)

Seriously, though, following are the list of blogs in our category. Some you're probably already familiar with, and some might be new:

• Search Engine Lowdown
• Search Engine Roundtable
• Aaron Wall's SEO Book
• Top Rank
• iBlogMarketing
• SEO Speedwagon
• Kieden Blog
• Search Views
• Kelvin Hui
• Make Easy Money with Google and Adsense

Check out the entire list, as well as the blogs in the other categories.

Posted by erik at 02:33 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 20, 2006

Hey, Look At Me! I’m Ethical! (There, I Said It)

I’m becoming a fan of David Spade’s new show on the Comedy Channel called The Show Biz Show. My favorite segment is right after the news and is called “There, I Said It�.

So, here’s to you, little guy Mr. Spade as I tip my cap and say:

I’m getting a little irritated with SEOs calling themselves an "Ethical SEO Company". In fact, it may even be un-ethical calling yourself ethical.

First of all, who runs around saying, “Hey, look at me. I’m ethical.�? Really, have you ever in your lifetime ever heard someone arrogantly say, “I’m ethical�. And isn’t it most often when someone is un-ethical that it gets pointed out?

As for what SEOs do and how it relates to the definition of “ethics�, there are no accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of SEOs. In other words: It’s not a matter of ethics.

Perhaps some SEOs allow their sales staff to tout their company as an “Ethical SEO� simply because it sounds so honest, pure and safe. It really does, doesn't it? ..... [pause for momentary reflection] ..... After all, who would want to hire an un-ethical SEO company? This is just silly. I’ve seen hundreds of SEO RFPs and never once have I seen one with the must-have requirement: Ethical.

Are white hat SEOs ethical companies? Maybe. Are black hat SEOs unethical? Maybe. If an SEO claims to have a black box proprietary technology or techniques that mimic Google’s algorithm, are they ethical or unethical?

The bottom line is that all SEOs have methodologies and techniques that they recommend to their clients. Some of these techniques may be controversial and others may not be controversial. They are one or the other and the industry has done a pretty good job of making it clear which are which.

Ethically speaking, SEO techniques are neither right nor wrong so please, let's keep ethics out of it.

There, I said it.

Posted by doug at 01:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 19, 2006

Nielsen Finally Asked to Go Away?

G, who could be next?

When I read the headline I was as excited as a young boy on Christmas morn': Google's Next Rival: Nielsen Media Research. Surely the Google juggernaut would finally drive a stake through the mythical Gross Ratings Point (GRP) old media uses to protect its medieval villages from knowledge of the shape of Earth.

I was not to be disappointed; Google's vision is one that would make even the most ardent Nielsen fan run for the hills with a lighted torch:

Here's how it works. Plop down on the couch with your laptop and tune into Survivor. Using an audio signature, your computer knows what you're watching and delivers real-time information on the contestants, a chat room for fans to discuss, and an advertisement for a local camping store. The paper's presenters say the technology only notes what's on television and does not "overhear" conversations.

If you shrug off the creepiness of the overhearing conversations part, you notice that Nielsen may be in the typical came-to-a-gunfight-with-a-shiny-sword scenario:

The rich, real-time data Google will collect and provide to television networks to base advertising prices could obliterate Nielsen's offerings of quarterly randomly selected household results, which are sometimes, in more rural markets, still collected via pen and paper diaries.

I'm betting Google will collect more data than that of Nielsen's famed 5,100 households:

Google's viewer data would involve not just what program where and how many people are most likely watching, but what, how many, why, when, and how everyone is watching, what they are saying about it, and which ads get the most distance.

G, think that might be a bit more accurate tha the current 5,100 abaci to be couted?

Posted by john at 10:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 16, 2006

Wasted Time

One of my favorite things in life is Microsoft Excel. It has continually helped me eliminate wasted time since I keep finding ways to mold it to my purposes that it has become one the indispensable tools. I’ve recently found some great ways to use Excel in manipulating large amounts of text with keywords and key phrases and I thought I’d share the wealth.

Have you ever…wanted to compare two lists of data (in my case keywords)? Here is a great link to a formula and some formatting that will compare two lists in a snap.

Have you ever…wanted to break apart key phrases into separate words? Try the “Text to Columns� tool located under the “Data� menu in Excel.

Have you ever… wanted to put the words back together in a different order or with some added tags? For example if you wanted to combine two cells with a # sign between them here how it’s done. [=A1&�#�&A2] This is wonderful for creating dynamic tracking url’s.

On another train of though here’s some recent news from the paid search world….

Google is now offering “Ad Scheduling�. My comment, it’s about time.

MSN AdCenter has finally cut the cord with serving up Yahoo paid search listings. Apparently they switched over to MSN exclusively on 6/1/06. This is from our Yahoo ad representative and some of the numbers I'm seeing would seem to back up this shift.

We are all still holding our breath to see the new version of Yahoo Search Marketing…I’ll keep you posted.

Unrelated, meaningless, and just for fun… And finally, a link to an OkGo’s music video “Do What You Want�. They are a great band with an awesome sound and live show. I highly recommend them!

Have a great weekend!

Posted by brent at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 15, 2006

User Vs. Search Engine Vs. Perception?

We have a client that has developed a beautiful interface. What I enjoy most about it is that it seems so different from other directory structures. You can tell that it was created absolutely with the user in mind. I won’t mention the site because this sounds way too much like a commercial already. Stay tuned because there is a story here, I promise.

We had the typical battle: molding this site into something search engines could crawl and credit properly without detracting from its user-centric interface. When this battle was reasonably conquered, we began searching for external links. The Link Building campaign has received a quite favorable response – until this morning that is.

A free, minor (but respected) directory rejected the site on the grounds that it was “full of hidden spam.� After some shock and some correspondence, we were able to clear up the misunderstanding - mouseover text spawned by JavaScript was assumed to be "stuffing" - but how common is the misunderstanding? We have received very few rejections and even fewer explanations for rejection. How many sites incorrectly categorized our client as a spammer and deleted our request/submission?

A site’s need for external acceptance has increased our dilemma to a 3-pronged battle. In addition to finding the balance between user and search engine, a site must also appease perception. So a site must be geared towards the user, easily digested by the search engines, and accepted by the user who is ignoring usage and attempting to view the site as a search engine.

As SEOs, we understand and abide by webmaster guidelines, but as link builders, we are further subject to that which might be perceived as an infraction of those guidelines. When link candidates are searching for reasons not to link in a matter of seconds, the only thing that matters is perception. If we know the stimulus of their false perception and judge it as reasonable, we must consider making a change even though we know better as best practices SEOs.

Is that what you had in mind, Mr. Page?

Posted by tom at 12:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 14, 2006

Just a Second - Was That an Ad?

Via Threadwatch, I read an interesting bit about Clear Channel considering one-second radio spots for advertisers. One second. Despite the interjectory worst-case scenarios about the character limit in one second of air time ("GoToHooters!"), if well placed, they might just cause the listener enough momentary imbalance to be relatively memorable.

My first thought (alas, my cross to bear) was wondering how such an advertising vehicle would integrate with search. Not too badly, I think. Assuming you approached the campaign correctly (that is, backwards) - finding a unique, memorable, interest-piquing, easy-to-spell phrase, then making sure your organic and PPC positioning was pre-loaded prior to the radio spots, you could probably get a lot page views.

(And maybe even some desired actions, assuming your landing page was tailored to users with one-second attention spans.)

Stepping back, part of the bigger story here is that traditional radio is finding less and less solace in the overstuffed wing chairs at the Old Media Country Club. The terror troika of satellite radio, podcasting, and internet radio are stealing eardrums, and advertisers have a bad habit of noticing things like that.

Still, whether commercials are 30 seconds, or one second, or a photon burst directly into the cerebral cortex isn't really the issue. New media is about pull, and it's going to take more than the audio equivalent of pop-up ads to keep advertisers in FM, where day after day, the morning drive team slings out

Nothin' but blues and Elvis
And somebody else's favorite song

Posted by erik at 11:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 12, 2006

GBuy : Would a Payment System Beginning with any other Letter Smell as Sweet?

That sweet smell of "G" we've come to associate with seemless Ajax integration is actually the perfume of new money being minted, as the buzz surrounding the expected June 28 launch of GBuy suggests.

Teknomo's olfactory senses are the sharpest on the subject of the latest entree on the GBuffet:

By tracking users while they first start looking for a product to their virtual wallets while payment takes place Google will be able to understand the link between products and buying habits.

Let’s track back, for a moment, ourselves. The understanding Google seeks is much more than to understand ultimate user query intent for understanding’s sake alone. This is less about improving their product, which I always remind clients’ is relevancy, than about ultimately owning the capacity to gin the results in favor of the likely buyer, so as to stoke buying through an algorithmic bonfire. Now, obtaining that capacity is quite different than actually allowing that capacity to affect relevancy, and Search Engine God Danny Sullivan remains in the camp of those who believe that fire will never be set.

I sure hope so. Relevance cannot be defined purely on the basis of purchase. Relevance is not a zero sum game, and to this point Google has gained user trust and marketshare through making sure they always erred on the side of not manipulating their users, even though at any point they surely could. Favoring the buyer uber alles would be a significant step in the opposite direction.

Let's cross our algorthmic fingers and hope the smell of this newest G doesn't sour anytime soon.

Posted by john at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 09, 2006

Track Me Consistently, or Don't Track Me

It's no big news that Google sometimes uses tracking codes in the links on its SERPs. People have been discussing it for years.

But I just don't understand what I saw earlier today. Below are Google Results from within the same browsing session, captured within minutes of each other. I have included the linking information that displays in the status bar when you roll over the link on the Google SERP, pointing to the external sites.

Google Results Page 1 shows a redirected link, but Google Results Page 2 shows a direct link.

We're way beyond debating the "rightness" of Google using tracking URLs in its SERPs. It is what it is. What I'm curious about is why, apparently arbitrarily and within the same browsing session, Google is using tracking URLs in one instance, then (literally) the next minute, it's not. Are they getting the full picture? Will they tie my IP address to my query for [fertilizer bombs], but not my refined query of [defusing a fertilizer bomb]? (Yes, I'm also a secret agent.) The last thing we need, especially in these days of government "curiosity" in searcher behavior, is tracking with the same cloudy accuracy as TV's Nielsen Ratings.

Posted by tom at 12:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 07, 2006

Google Analytics Data Blackout

Google Analytics appears to have missed about five hours' worth of data from yesterday. The following shot shows a representative picture that appears for all my clients who utilize GA's statistics. The outage was from 1pm through 5pm, or might be different depending on your time zone.

No one's saying much about this yet. We'll have to wait to see whether the data is merely not there yet or whether it's gone for good.

Posted by erik at 10:17 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 06, 2006

Link Request Craziness

We get a lot of emails from others asking us to link to their site or suggesting a reciprocal link exchange. What I can’t figure out, though, is how dumb some of these folks are.

Now I don’t mean they’re dumb because they are working on adding new links to their site. That's actually pretty smart. What I’m referring to can be found in the first line of many of their emails.

Can someone please explain why some people think that all email addresses use a person’s name first followed by @ and the domain? How else would the link request emails we receive start out with some of these brilliant salutations:

Hi Site-Contact!

Dear Info,

Hello Accounting,

Just a tip to anyone out there sending out link requests to affinity sites. Don't buy a list or pay for an automated program (spam) to send out emails to potential link partners. Actually spend some time finding true affinity sites, get the person’s name that you are sending your email to, and send a personalized email!

Do you really think someone is going to read an email that starts with:

Dear Services,

Posted by doug at 01:42 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 05, 2006

Google Adds to Online Office Suite with Spreadsheet

Coming only a few months after it purchased the Writely online word processor, Google has added another application to its online application suite with the announcement of an online spreadsheet.

While the online spreadsheet concept is new for Google (and the Reuters article implies that it's new to everyone), plenty of alternatives already exist, including iRows, Zoho, NumSum, and spreadsheet-database mashups like Trackslife.

More and more, when we post about Google, it's not always easy to answer the question, "What does this have to do with 'Search'?" Google's move into things like desktop gadgetry sometimes distracts us from the bigger picture. But an online office suite really isn't a distant leap away from the search box - or at least the Desktop search box. Assume that any spreadsheet you create with Google Spreadsheets will be fully indexed by your personal Google Desktop search, and that you (and anyone with whom you collaborate, chat, gmail, or otherwise share sheet-based information) will have quick access to it from any computer on which you've signed into your Google account.

The forums and blogs have plenty of armchairistics and first-round critiques, ranging from "great idea" to wondering who in their right mind would trust sensitive data to a web storage system. Few from the latter camp seem to remember a similar brouhaha when we learned companies like Amazon would store our credit card data (!) within their server farms.

I eagerly await Google's imminent version of PowerPoint and its likely ability to bore large masses of people on a much more efficient, scalable level.

Posted by erik at 11:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 02, 2006

Children Of The Sun

(Instead of writing a big long article on one topic I’ve decided to accumulate and share any news, tools, and of course oddities (who doesn’t like to go to the freak show at the circus) that I’ve come across on the web in the past two weeks.)

Spicy Spam Kabobs Anyone…..
I confess that I use Gmail for my personal email accounts and generally I find that it is a pretty good interface. I have to laugh though whenever I check or clean out my spam folder. You see I have Gmail web clips turned “on� and here is a sampling of what pops up every time I go into that folder….

Spam Swiss Pie - Bake 45-55 minutes or until eggs are set
Ginger Spam Salad - Serves 1, refrigerate overnight
Spicy Spam Kabobs - Serve with hot cooked rice
Spam Fajitas - Serves 8, add extra salsa if desired
Creamy Spam Broccoli Casserole - Makes 8 servings
Vineyard Spam Salad - Combine grapes, spam, peapods and onions in large bowl
Spam Vegetable Strudel - Bake 20 minutes or until golden, serve with soy sauce

Mmmmmmmmm, they sound delicious! I’m not sure if this is a joke by the crew at Google or if it’s just a consequence of contextual search robots, but either way it’s pretty funny and good for a laugh every day.

Google Bot’s To Search Landing Pages….
They been talking about the importance of this for some time, I’m glad to see that they are going to back it up with action. There’s a lot of moaning about this in the industry but I welcome it as something that will only help those of us doing it the right way.

Sick Of The Stupid Travelocity Gnome….
Good site that gave accurate results quickly. Make sure to check the rates though as the lowest available maybe for seniors or veterans etc.

Yahoo To FINALLY Change It’s Interface
I’ve received two voice messages from Yahoo in the past week telling me of the impending doom errrrrrrrr changes that will be taking place in the Yahoo Search Marketing interface. I do anticipate glitches, who of us have ever changed anything without some kind of glitch, but I am crossing my fingers and hoping the changes actually take place. The current interface is slow and cumbersome, and I for one can’t wait for the new interface. FYI, they are telling me to anticipate these changes in 3rd quarter of 2006.

How Do I Get Him On My Linked-In List?

Just When You Thought You’d Seen It All…..
Doggie bag anyone? After I finished laughing I wondered if/why PETA hasn’t been all over this.

Oh, and if you’re wondering where I came up with the title, I heard the song for the first time in years today and thought I would remind us all of a great old classic (go to the audio section to find the track).

Well, that’s all for today. Have a great weekend and have fun on the web!

Posted by brent at 03:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 01, 2006

Maybe There's Something To Google

I'm starting to think maybe Google is on to something. It's still pretty early in the game, but this new search engine is pretty darn good. Not only does it appear to be offering more accurate results than the others, but it gives you more accurate information without having to click.

I know these are new concepts, so just bear with me. Let's take last weekend's race in Indianapolis. Lots of people seem to be interested in that event, so there's probably lots of information across the world wide web about it. And the race just happened, so it would be pretty impressive if these search engines could already give us information about this current event. I'm not interested in visiting any sites right now, but I'd like to see which search engine would be able to tell me who won that race. See, I think in the future people will not just use search engines to find web sites, but to find information in a hurry.

Anyway, who was the [2006 Indianapolis 500 Winner]?

Google's Answer:

And the other guys:

Google has my answer above the fold (twice). Yahoo came up with the answer further down the page (6th result), and MSN did not show the winner anywhere on the first page.

Like I said, maybe there's something to this Google!

Posted by tom at 04:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack