+ The pulse of the search marketing community

A WebmasterWorld thread asks just how accurate is the table in Google Webmaster Tools that shows the details of "Your page with the highest PageRank." It is found under "Statistics" and then under "Crawl stats" at the bottom of the page.

Here is a picture of mine:

Yes, no data available for December. In fact, I checked four sites really quickly, and they all said the same thing. Maybe it is a bug for me, or a temporary issue. But that is for another blog post.

Most SEOs that I know take very little stock into this report. It seems to be often outdated and often wrong. One webmaster said, "I think this information is nonsense." But other members think that if the report looks bad, then it is a sign of a penalty or a sign of an indexing issue.

Should webmasters take this report seriously? I am honestly not sure - my gut tells me no, they should not. I have too often seen the reports in Google Webmaster Tools to be flat out wrong, due to many reasons.

What do you think? Take the poll:

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Frank Watson posted a thread at Search Engine Watch Forums asking members what they feel Google's top achievements of 2008 were.

Here are some of the responses from the thread:

• Google, swooping in to muck up any and all Yahoo/MSN talks with very little effort was impressive. They didnt even dirty their hands.
• Not related to search but I think it's pretty cool that they invested in esolar and brightsource. These are startup electric power companies that are using concentrated solar energy instead of coal to run steam turbine generator plants.
• But maybe the most notable might be Chrome; the introduction of the long rumored and awaited browser that was long denied being in development and that hasn't exactly taken the world by storm as of yet. I have to wonder what's coming in along behind it.
• VentureBeat's Android netbooks on their way, likely by 2010 article.
• The G1 hasn't really taken off here in the UK like the iPhone has, or it would get a close first vote!
• Beu gave a dozen or so including Google Sites, Website Optimizer, Friend Connect, iPhone Search, Flash support, 1 Trillion unique URLs, Fighter Jet, G1, SearchWiki

I personally wrote about my feelings on 2008, including a lot of Google topics, in my five years of writing at the Search Engine Roundtable. But if Matt Cutts can post that slide set where he goes through all the products and things he loves that Google released in the past year (which he normally does at PubCon and other conferences), that would be cool.

Forum discussion at Search Engine Watch Forums.

Google AdSense began testing AdSense optimization reports about two years ago. They officially released in in April 2007 and publishers were eager to get tips from Google. We then began noticing that the tips were not only repetitive and automated but also sometimes offering wrong tips all together.

So, now two years later, I ask you via a poll, are these optimization reports useful or helpful to you in any way?

Please take the poll, tell your publisher friends to take the poll and I'll publish the results within 30-days.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Last night, Yahoo sent out an email to their Search Marketing advertisers, notifying them that they have updated the terms and conditions. So I compared the current version to the archived version to see what significant changes have been made.

Here is a list of changes that I found, I may have missed some, but I think I got the major items.

(1) Removed "Overture" from the document. Yahoo bought Overture back in 2003.
(2) Removed clause "use any Program in connection with any ultrahazardous activity, or any other activity for which its failure might result in serious property damage, serious bodily injury, or death, nor."
(3) Removed a clause but moved a dedicated section to this API stuff: "In connection with a Program, if you have been granted API Access or you have been provided Analytics, you agree to be bound by the API Access & Analytics Program Terms, below."
(4) Removed clause "provided, however, that you may display different content to different users so long as it is relevant to the Selected Ad Groups and ads), and"
(5) Some changes to the localized legalize in 12.
(6) Added "Upon termination of these Analytics Program Terms or the Program Terms of the Program for which you have been provided Analytics, (i) you must promptly remove or have removed the Analytics from your website(s) and all items under your possession, custody, and/or control, and (ii) Section 2(i), above, will survive."
(7) Added "For dynamically priced campaigns, we may adjust the location of, and price for, your ads in an effort to meet your target goals (e.g., CPC, CPA, or CPL)."
(8) Added "OPTIMIZATION. In the U.S. only, for those advertisers not bound by an Insertion Order, we may help you optimize your account(s). Accordingly, you expressly agree that we may also: (i) create ads, (ii) add and/or remove keywords, and/or (iii) optimize your account(s). We will notify you via email of such changes made to your account(s), and can also include a spreadsheet of such changes upon your written request. If you would like any of such changes reversed, please reply to such email within 14 days of the change(s), and we will make commercially reasonable efforts to reverse the change(s) you specifically identify. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you remain responsible for all changes made to your account(s), including all click charges incurred prior to any reversions being made. It is your responsibility to monitor your account(s) and to ensure that your account settings are consistent with your business objectives."
(9) Added "Product Submit Program only: “Categories” and “Subcategories” mean the product categories you select and that we may map to your ads based on your ads themselves and/or the websites to which the ads link. We may re-categorize any incorrectly categorized ads (as determined by us) at any time."
(10) Removed "In addition to any applicable service fees, you will pay for all clicks on your ads, provided that we may bill you a minimum monthly charge of $200 per Program. Product Submit Program & Travel Submit Program only: Ads will be categorized into the appropriate category either by you or by us, provided that we reserve the right at any time to categorize or re-categorize any uncategorized or incorrectly categorized ads (as determined by us in our discretion)."
(11) Added "Travel Submit Program only: If you or the Feed Provider submit Information, ads, or any portion thereof that do not comply with our requirements (including a failure to update the applicable Information) or are otherwise unacceptable, we may continue to use existing ads and Information."

There were other changes, but these are the ones that caught my attention.

Note, not all of this is that shocking. We did cover about six-months ago one of these document changes. I wrote, Yahoo Can Legally Create or Change Your Search Ads & Bill You For It, yea - it is true.

Forum discussion at DigitalPoint Forums.

An older WebmasterWorld thread has been updated to share the time frame it took this webmaster to transfer his Google PageRank scores from old URLs to new URLs.

In summary, he set up a new URL structure (possibly a new domain, but that is not so clear). He redirected his old URLs to the new URLs. He then noticed his PageRank was gone, completely. So he got nervous. The folks in the thread suggested he relax and wait it out and ultimately, it worked out.

Here is the timeline:

• October 2nd - Site migration and 301's implemented
• October 10th - Week or so later lost all PR on new URLs (all to PR N/A)
• October 30th - Month later, PR N/A now changed to PR0
• December 29th - 3 months after 301 redirects back to original URL PR

So from start to finish, it seems like it took three months for the toolbar PageRank to transfer over.

How does this help any of you? Well, it really doesn't, outside of having something to point a client of your to. What I mean by that is that although the Toolbar PageRank didn't appear in the new URLs for three months, it likely had PageRank internally but not yet visible in the toolbar. I am sure the traffic from Google took less than three months to get to where it was.

In addition, these numbers will vary from site to site, depending on many factors. Those factors include, but are not limited to, size of the site, when the move was made, number of redirects, how popular the site was originally, if you use Sitemap files, and many more factors.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

You don't hear the word "penalty" come up much when you are talking about Google's AdWords program. I hear it all the time with Google's web search algorithm, but rarely when it comes to Google's AdWords quality score algorithm.

In a AdWords Help thread a Google representative actually used the term penalty, to describe why a person has a low quality score.

The advertiser asked why his Quality Score is so low, in which AdWordsPro Sarah replied, "the bad news is your page is probably being penalized for the redirect." She goes on to explain how the redirects are "misleading," and recommends that instead of using a redirect, he/she should create his/her "own unique content" that adds value to the affiliate product that is being promoted.

It is funny, because the last time we used the word "penalty" with AdWords was when it came with the affiliate business.

Forum discussion at AdWords Help.

Here is a recap of what happened in the search forums today, through the eyes of the Search Engine Roundtable and other search forums on the web.

Continue reading "Daily Search Forum Recap: January 5, 2009"

Sometimes I seriously wonder where some of these SEO theories come from. One that caught my eye this week was found in a Google Webmaster Help thread, asking if it can hurt your SEO efforts if you do not alphabetize your META tags.

The thread creator wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it hurts indexing sites that the meta tags have been alphabetized?

But my editor tends to alphabetize them.

This webmaster asked a valid question. Since his web editor went through the trouble of making the tags in alphabetical order, should he do the same manually? The answer is no, it doesn't help in any way.

ZydoSEO replied to the thread, in which a Googler confirmed, saying:

The meta tags can appear in any order as long as they are contained inside the <head> element. It is not a problem to alphabetize them from Google's perspective... Only possibly from your perspective since time could probably be better spent doing something other than alphabetizing HTML elements.

In any event, I thought it would be fun to share this with many of the readers here.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

Ever since Universal Search hit Google, we have been noticing flavors of video thumbnails and static images left aligned on the Google search results. A WebmasterWorld thread has discussion around this latest format and some are happy with it, while others are not.

Here is a picture of a subset of a Google search results:

You tell me, which one will catch your eye first? Likely the one with the image next to it on the right. So, this can be a great way to get your search results more exposure, and a higher click through rate, which might result in a higher conversion rate for your site. At the same time, if you are the listing above the one with the image, you are likely to see a drop in CTR, due to the result directly below. So this can help some webmasters, while hurt others.

Here is a poll on this topic, would love to see the responses:

Clearly, adding videos and images to your site, will help you gain the exposure over your competitors. The WebmasterWorld thread discusses various methods on how to get these images near your search result.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

A Google Webmaster Help points out that Google handles most date formats in US format. So if a site has a date in the format of 04/06/2007, Google will read that as April 6, 2007, but in UK format, it might be known as June 4, 2007.

Here is a screen capture of one such result:

And here is the date on the actual page:

You can see more details on this at Google Webmaster Help, where Googler, JohnMu said he will pass this information on to the right people.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help,.

Remember a few months back when Google published their internal SEO guide? Well, Michael Gray asked if Social Media links is an easy way to SEO death row.

Michael pointed out that on page twenty of the guide, under the "Good practices for promoting your website" section Google writes you should avoid:

involving your site in schemes where your content is artificially promoted to the top of these services

Michael feels we will soon see a tool in Webmaster Central named "How to report social media spam."

Of course, social media and SEO go very well together. But like anything that works well with SEO, it does get abused. The question is, is Michael right here? Do we have something to worry about?

Forum discussion at Sphinn.

A few months ago, Google opened up new interactive discussion areas to help improve Google's communication between Google and the people who use Google's products and services. In fact, the Google Webmaster Help area moved over a month ago today.

Everyone was excited to see a quicker, more efficient and more responsive area to get answers to their questions. The only issue is that many folks are posting questions and their questions are not being seen. A Google Webmaster Help post shares this issue, in short, if you post a question, you need to reply to your post, to make sure it is visible to others. It seems like a temporary bug, but even if it is, who in their right mind will post a question and then reply to their question - it just isn't a logical thing to do.

Googler, JohnMu, said "FWIW You can also just add an update to your question -- that works without having to post a reply to yourself. The team is aware of this issue and I assume it will be addressed with the next update."

They have actually posted an announcement:

Due to an issue in the forum software, some posts here may not show up for everyone until a reply has been posted. To be sure that your thread is visible, feel free to post an empty reply to your own thread.

I hope they get this fixed soon.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.

Here is a recap of what happened in the search forums today, through the eyes of the Search Engine Roundtable and other search forums on the web.

Continue reading "Daily Search Forum Recap: January 2, 2009"

In this week's recap, I wish our readers and viewers a happy, healthy and prosperous 2009. Google updated the toolbar PageRank scores, but it seems like the search results both here and internationally were updated also. Live Search is using MSNBOT-Media to crawl JavaScript files. Google got hit with wildcard domain issues. Google Alerts is trigger happy. Google shows a did you mean answer for a child day care service, leading to a porn site. Google's strict image search option shows more porn than the moderate search. Danny Sullivan slaps Microsoft on their search initiatives. Microsoft's Content Ads program is doing poorly. Google AdSense is offending overweight people. Happy 2009 everyone!

Make sure to subscribe to our video feed or subscribe directly on iTunes to be notified of these updates and download the video in the background. Here is the YouTube version of the feed (note: If YouTube shows a video not found message, just refresh the page and play it again, it is a YouTube bug):

For the original iTunes version, click here

Some Of The Topics Discussed:

• Happy '09 New Years From Search Industry: Logos from Google, Yahoo, AOL, Live, Ask & Others
• Google Confirms PageRank Update (New Years 2009)
• Major Google Search Results Changes, January 2009
• Google International Results Excessively 'Yo-Yoing'?
• Live Search Begins Crawling JavaScript with MSNBot-Media
• Google's Wildcard Subdomain Handling Issues?
• Google Alerts Sending Out False Alerts?
• Search For Child Day Care Site & Google Suggests Porn Site
• Google's Strict Image Search Less Strict Than Moderate Option
• Danny Sullivan Gives Microsoft The Hard Truth
• MSN adCenter's Content Ads Showing Horrible Click Through Rates?
• Google AdSense Now Pushing Fat Ads: Is this Offensive?

Please do subscribe via iTunes or on your favorite RSS reader. Don't forget to comment below with the right answer and good luck!

This is my last SearchBuzz RoundUp post for awhile, so enjoy it while you have a chance. This week, we rang in 2009. What happened?

Happy New Years '09
Very cool search engine logos have been posted this year. Google had a cool 2009 logo that still somewhat resembled "Google." Even Cre8site, Bruce Clay, and Baidu had cool logos.

Google's Results Run Wild
Google had a PageRank update this week, and then we saw some major changes in the SERPs. In fact, on the international side, the results are very odd to those familiar with the usual rankings.

Microsoft Crawls Through Javascript
Microsoft is taking a clue and is using the MSNBot-Media crawler to get the data behind Javascript. This is good and innovative -- and since Google has been doing it for awhile, it's about time the other search engines did the same.

Google's Wildcard Domain Bug
An interesting observation with a wildcard domain was spotted this week. I'm able to replicate it on my end too. I wish I had a site like that with all page 1 results. Just kidding. ;)

Google Alerts Accuracy Report
There have been reports of Google Alerts sending out irrelevant alerts to individuals subscribed to them. I've seen something similar but not 100% and it's related to the blogroll issue we reported earlier. Fun.

Google Is Not Kid Friendly
Don't search for child day care centers on Google. The search term for the particular search in question is so rare (and "misspelled") that Google recommends a porn site in the "Did You Mean?" column. Well, I guess I was wrong when I said that people don't primarily use Google to search for kinky stuff. Sheesh, people.

On that note, Google's "strict" image searching is not strict at all. Don't look if you don't like nude images with your breakfast.

Microsoft: Not So Good
This week, Danny Sullivan smacked Microsoft with some advice they should actually take seriously. Unfortunately for my friends in the Live Search team who really ROCK, it is evident that the higher-ups don't care. And that is sad -- and that's why Microsoft deserved everything it got from Danny.

On another note, Microsoft ContentAds are getting bad CTR. Then again, the information is now private and I'm hearing that ads are performing badly across the board.

Fat People Should Slim Down
...at least according to Google's AdSense ads. People are spotting more and more ads targeting fat people and some are finding it offensive. Are you?

Have a nice 2009 all!