Posted by randfish
I'm not always a fan of Guy Kawasaki's work, but really enjoyed his post on the OPEN Forum - A Dozen Don'ts for Entrepreneurs. I thought I'd take a stab at replicating it with some of my biggest warnings for those in our field.
For the list below, the word "clients" is interchangeable with "marketing manager" or "executive team" for in-house SEOs.
Your turn - any "don'ts" you'd recommend to fellow SEOs?
p.s. If you haven't read the whole Malcolm Gladwell vs. Chris Anderson with Seth Godin weighing in thing, it's pretty worthwhile :-)
Posted by RobOusbey
We all like links from big sites right?Posted by randfish
My good friend, Aaron Kahlow, posed an interesting question during the Online Marketing Summit yesterday afternoon in Portland, OR. Aaron asked:
If a client came to you with $1 million to invest in a single Internet marketing channel, which one would you choose?
Obviously, the question is a bit ridiculous (given that there's no additional detail provided), but it's designed to elicit an "off-the-cuff" response to a challenging scenario. The answer, of course, is "it depends" - and therein lies the rub. On what does it depend? Well... That's what I hope to answer with this blog post. My goal is not to solve the issue for an individual campaign, but from a very strategic level - asking questions like "where is the company today and where does it want to get to?" then applying those answers to the selection of marketing opportunities. Let's start by defining the macro-level channels themselves, then examine how we'd reach the right conclusions.
Internet Marketing ChannelsSome of these may overlap - for example, viral content campaigns may simply be a means to an end of better search engine optimization - but as they can all be separate entities, engaged in for their own purposes, I've made them distinct.
Primary Variables to Use in the Selection ProcessAlthough other factors should certainly play into the decision making, these three elements are excellent for narrowing down the options:
These are based on my personal opinions (though, based on conversations, they appear to reflect the experiences of many web marketers and internal marketing departments).
I suspect there will be lots of contention about these, particularly from marketers who specialize in non-tier 1 activities. I do think that over time, activities like social media marketing and viral may move to tier 1, but as yet, I believe that companies haven't seen the same consistency or trackability in ROI from these as Tier 1 channels. The eMarketer research I showed this weekend certainly suggests that these newer investments may have a chance to prove themselves fairly quickly.
Formulas for Choosing the Right ChannelOnce again, I'm using my own opinions and experiences, but you can use this same format to help with your own decisions, even if the ordering is somewhat different:
And of course, last, but not least, there's the strengths of your organization to consider. If you have amazing talent in these fields, that might sway you to lean more towards particular activities as shown below:
That wraps up my brief, high level summation of this tough question, and hopefully it can help some marketers and marketing departments to find the right paths for their organizations/clients.
I'd, of course, love to hear your feedback and ideas as well.
p.s. OMS Seattle is tomorrow, and I'll be speaking there in the afternoon - hope to see some of you there!
Posted by MikeK@DanconiaMedia
This post was originally in YOUmoz, and was promoted to the main blog because it provides great value and interest to our community. The author's views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of SEOmoz, Inc.
It's been said here before: Press releases are much less powerful than they used to be for SEO purposes. While churning out news releases and submitting them to free sites may not do much, the medium can actually be more powerful than ever if used right. Convincing a single reporter or high-profile blogger to pick up your news is infinitely more beneficial than posting worthless releases all over the place and Digg'ing and StumbleUpon'ing them with your multiple accounts.
I have a somewhat unique perspective about news releases. Not too long ago, I worked full-time as a newspaper reporter, and my inbox was regularly inundated with press releases. Some of them caught my attention and were turned into lengthy stories. Others, however, failed to captivate me or my peers and, as a result, went nowhere.
Here are some tips on how to craft your releases in a way that increases the odds of them getting noticed by the media:
Get to the point. Make it clear from the get-go what your release is about. Don't try to be cute. I used to get releases all the time from PR people who buried the news or tried to get creative with their writing. Sometimes, I couldn't for the life of me figure out what some releases were even about. If you're looking for a creative outlet, press release writing is not the avenue. Try writing a short story.
At least pretend you're objective. Obviously, you have a vested interest in what you're writing about, but it's still important to craft your releases like down-the-middle news stories. Avoid unnecessary adjectives; most adjectives are unneeded. You don't want your release to read like an advertisement. Pick out the newsiest element and concentrate on that.
Speak English. I see releases all the time that are stuffed with industry jargon that most people do not understand. Don't assume that what you're writing about is a familiar subject for the people who'll read your release. Dumb it down. Assume your release will be read by the densest guy in the room.
Send it out manually. Instead of just dumping your releases into submission sites and hoping someone important notices, email it yourself to media outlets and bloggers you think might be interested in it. If you're publicizing a new product, send your release to newspapers in the company's area. If you can, find out which reporters cover the relevant beat and send it to them directly; that usually only takes a phone call.
Have good timing. If you're looking for coverage, sending your release out on Election Day or after hours on a Friday is goofy. Those are good times to release bad news you're obligated to report – any White House spokesman will tell you that – but it'll do you no good unless your story is wildly sensational. News outlets are typically more desperate for copy during the summer months and around holidays.
Act like a human. Interactivevoices' post about getting a link from CNN.com – the only PR10 news site – illustrated this perfectly. There's no harm in picking up the phone and calling reporters directly to see if they're interested in your story. For all you know, the only thing preventing your news from being published is an over-finicky spam filter.
Don't beg. When I was working as a reporter, I didn't realize why some sources were so hellbent on me including links in my stories. Now I know. If your link is relevant to the story, the reporter will probably include it. If not, you're still getting good publicity.
Of course, all of this will only help if you actually have something worthwhile to say. If you think there's nothing interesting to say about your enterprise, you're probably wrong. You just need to think long and hard to figure out what it is.Posted by randfish
(Intro: This post continues a series of personal growth focused entries. It doesn't have much direct, applicable SEO value, so feel free to skip if that's what you're seeking)
I've learned more in the last 9 months than at any previous time in my life - about myself, about this company and about the worlds of venture capital, entrepreneurship and startups. And, in the spirit of transparency (one of our guiding principles and an ideal I haven't been maintaining as well as I could of late), I want to share, to talk about where SEOmoz is today and why we've decided to explore additional capital opportunities. In fact, I feel compelled - because even if only 100 people, or 10 or just 1 learn something here they can apply to themselves, it will be worthwhile.
Segments in this Post:
Let's start back in August of 2007. SEOmoz was tiny - 8 people growing a business out of a 1,000 sq. ft. office in Seattle's University District (man, do I miss that place) and two people who believed it was going to be much, much bigger - Kelly from Curious Office and Michelle from Ignition. It's only in retrospect that I can really appreciate their foresight, because when they invested $1.1 million in the company that November, I was an SEO geek who wanted to use that funding to solve an SEO problem. My dream was to better understand the web's link graph and how the engines could use that to rank sites & pages. I should have been thinking about the problems faced by those wanting to do SEO and how a scalable, technology solution could be used to help them - like what Vanessa Fox did when she built Webmaster Tools inside Google (more on that later).
Our first round of capital raising was very unique, and for that reason, may be less applicable than other advice on the topic. Nevertheless, I'll try to share that experience and the macro and micro-economic factors that impacted it.
Investment Data via NVCA Press Alert
You can see that not only was 2007 the most active year for venture capital investment, but that Q4 of 2007 was a particularly high spike. It's probably not surprising that SEOmoz took its funding in this type of environment - possibly the best time to raise money from an entrepreneur's perspective since 2000. Why? Because when deal flow is very high, terms tend to be more entrepreneur friendly. Ours certainly were.
It's uncommon (though not unheard of) for a firm like Ignition Partners, with over a billion dollars under management, to put so little capital into a company. Between Ignition & Curious, the amount raised was $1.1 million, less than half the size of their next smallest public investment (Crunchbase has a list here, though SEOmoz's funding amount is inaccurately reported as $1.25 million, and the participants inaccurately listed as 1 - and Ignition does do some smaller deals that aren't listed). Quantity wasn't the only outlier - our valuation, the terms themselves (things like vesting, board structure, preferences, etc.) were very good and the deal closed quickly. Today's funding environment could be a very different story. As you can see from the charts above, the floor fell out in the VC markets last October, and although May 2009 may have been a step forward, entrepreneurs who seek capital today shouldn't expect seed or series A rounds to look the way they did in November of 2007.
SEOmoz was also helped in this deal by an important factor I think every startup should consider - WE DIDN'T NEED THE MONEY. We were already profitable and growing, already had a brand name in the industry and had attracted interest from multiple investors. I think that every entrepreneur who's considering startup-dom should think about establishing those goals before they go for institutional capital - a profitable, growing company with a product that's on the market and a brand name that's well known makes you:
This psychology is so powerful that I can't imagine doing it any other way. If I wanted to build a travel portal to take on Kayak.com, I'd start a great travel site (maybe even just a really interesting blog), build up some brand recognition, use advertising or low-cost premium features to drive revenue and only after those numbers made for a compelling story, approach investors. I'd use that same formula even for a capital intensive business - start with cool ideas, great writing and valuable resources, become a hub for your industry, show web traffic and positive interest, then go fundraise.
We started as a consulting business - in fact, SEOmoz is on a .org TLD because when I started the site, there wasn't even a business behind it (even the name "moz" comes from the ethos of open sharing pioneered by folks like DMOZ & the Mozilla foundation). Gillian and I were running a website design & development shop and learning SEO because our customers needed it and we had no other choice. Eventually SEOmoz got so big and popular as a blog that it made sense to conduct business under that name, and a few years later, we realized consulting wasn't the right way for us to scale this incredible community around us. Those decisions - made much more by accident than grand vision - gave us the credibility and the story that made investors excited.
And yeah, it didn't hurt that Q4 of 2007 was probably the best time to raise money in the last 8 years.
How Outside Capital HelpedTaking the outside investment proved to be an excellent decision, and, to be honest, even in today's market, I'd still consider raising money if I were in the same position again. Outside capital made me a better entrepreneur, focused our company more seriously on the things we needed to do and made us more accountable and metrics-driven. Some companies feel that pressure internally and can build those processes without external help. We needed that external pressure and it's been remarkable. I'll try to detail some of the big ways investment has helped us:
There are probably a dozen more ways that venture capital investment has helped SEOmoz, and I'm certain that many of them will be immeasurable and possibly even invisible. All of this isn't to say that VC doesn't have it's downsides - there are a few, and it pays to be aware of them:
As you can tell from my opinions above and my previous advice to myself, I'm a big proponent in spite of these potential detractors.
2007-2009 GrowthThis company looks very different than it did just 2 years ago, and I've been lax in sharing the kinds of numbers and data about the business that was once a signature of my blogging (see 2006 and 2007 financials, for example). While there's a lot that I'm obligated not to share, I'm going to go right up to that line - not just because I think it will make this story more interesting, but because it's part of our guiding principles.
Full-Time EmployeesIt's tough to build this chart, because the number of full-time folks fluctuates even inside a single year, but I've done my best to approximate the annual averages.
PRO MembersPRO membership has really taken off in the last 6 months - and while we doubled membership from 2007-2008, we were able to do that in just the first 6 months in 2009.
RevenueSadly, while I can't share exact numbers, this chart does give an accurate concept of where we are. 2009 is shaping up to be a very exciting year. Although I also can't show margin numbers, I will say that from Nov. 2007 to Nov. 2008, SEOmoz burned capital (approx. 3/4 of the investment we took). Starting in Dec. 2008 and continuing each month through to June 2009, we've been profitable and rebuilt a respectable cash reserve (of course, if you ask Sarah, we still need to sweat every penny of it).
Visits to the SEOmoz.org Website
Traffic is growing nicely as well, though what this chart doesn't show is that 2009 has been virtually devoid of the types of "linkbait" that were a hallmark of the site in 2007 (and much of 2008). We've found that while those efforts can produce great traffic boosts and link growth, we need to focus on conversion rate optimization and the PRO membership product before we return to viral content generation.
A (Not-So) Short Story that Led to a DecisionLast October, just after we launched Linkscape, SEOmoz started fielding between 2-4 calls per month from venture capital firms seeking to place investment. These are exciting, flattering and fun calls to get, and in those initial conversations, the focus makes for an ego-padding chat. It's pretty easy to see why these investors were so interested - no, not because SEOmoz itself is all that awesome (they didn't even know much about us when they called) - it's because of the potential market for SEO:
Via eMarketer's Search Spending Swells Worldwide & Online Marketing Effectiveness
SEO is at or near the top for four different categories:
VCs love this stuff, and they love it even more when the market as a whole appears to be big and growing:
_
Data Source: SEMPO State of the Market Surveys
A predicted spend of just over $2 billion on SEO in 2009 suggests that SEO may finally be earning some respect, just as the growth in PPC spend slows its acceleration rate. Richard Zwicky's SEM analytics company, Enquisite, is an example of this market shift commanding respect. Enquisite's raised over $11 million in venture capital in the last few years (including a series B round of $8 million in February) . His favorite mantra is the disconnect I wrote about last october:
PPC: 88% of all SEM spend VS. SEO: 11% of all SEM spend
PPC: 10% of all search clicks VS. SEO: 90% of all search clicks
Markets don't stay this inefficient for long.
No wonder investors have jumped at opportunities like those Richard presented with Enquisite and others like Conductor ($10 million raised in April), Marin Software ($13 million raised in April), Optify ($2.75 million raised in Oct. '08) and Yield Software ($6 million raised in June '08). And no wonder they were calling up SEOmoz, hoping to learn more about us and see if there was an investment opportunity.
Despite these inquiries, our board meetings in October & November were very operational and tactical. We were at the tail end of turning around from cash flow negative to positive, and there were some high stress moments, capped off by a working "product" meeting in early December. At that roundtable, I presented some concepts for SEOmoz's future product direction and got shot down. And thank goodness I did.
The problem with entrepreneurs like me is that our creativity, emotional attachments to technology and love of product "coolness" can sometimes get in the way of making things that real people find really usable & useful. When that happens, it's even more essential to be surrounded by smart, secure people who feel up to the challenge of challenging you.
After the meeting ended, I spent a lot of time thinking strategically about where we needed to go. That thinking ended up in dozens of notepad pages, and I've shared a few below:
My goal was to get to the core of the "SEO Problem" with a software product, and luckily, I didn't have to go that road alone. Adam Feldstein, a longtime friend of mine, joined SEOmoz in January and we spent an entire week together in the mozplex's meeting room, diagramming a product evolution we've come to call "Turbomoz" internally (much as we did when Linkscape was called "Carhole").
Adam and I presented a walkthrough of our new plan in early April to a packed room, including the SEOmoz board and several internal folks. The feedback was terrific - they loved not only the product itself, but the simplicity, the design, the intuition behind it and the potential to reach a lot more of the market than just the intermediate-to-expert level SEOs that make up the majority of our members today. An early version of "Turbomoz" is set to release in late September.
A few weeks later, I headed to Boston, where I got to spend a lot of time with a great friend and mentor, Dharmesh Shah, the founder of Hubspot and blogger at OnStartups. Dharmesh and I talked a lot about our two companies - how they're growing, what the economic downturn has impacted, where we see opportunities and what makes a startup successful. It was a tremendous learning experience, and something I can't recommend enough to others. If you're currently running a business and can find someone with a similar model who's willing to exchange information and ideas, do it. Being a CEO can be a very lonely job - even close friends and family won't be able to empathize in the same way another CEO can. Many cities even have startup support groups (although they're not usually called that, exactly).
My visits with Dharmesh inspired me to be more self analytical and more self critical. If there are things in the business that aren't working, places where opportunity isn't being executed upon, and chances to make a difference, I owe it not only to myself, but to our investors and, most importantly, to my employees to make the change. As the late King of Pop said, "start with the man in the mirror."
Just a couple weeks later, I landed in San Francisco. If you haven't read the back-and-forth between Silicon Valley vs. Seattle VC/entrepreneur/tech startup, check out Glenn Kelman (Redfin's CEO) comparing the two, Michael Arrington responding & Glenn firing back. There's a grain of truth to the staments they make:
Sure Seattle is beautiful (Kelman talks about lakes and outdoor stuff a lot in his post). And if you want to have a balanced, healthy lifestyle, that’s a great place to do it. If you don’t think you have what it takes to make it in Silicon Valley, maybe Seattle or other mini-tech hubs is the place for you. But the best of the best come to Silicon Valley to see if they’re as good as the legends that came before them. It’s a competitive advantage to be here. And if you aren’t willing to take advantage of every possible advantage to make your crazy startup idea work, perhaps you shouldn’t be an entrepreneur.
The "valley culture" of depriving oneself of everything else except work really does exist, and it's easy to become both enamored and afraid of it very quickly. But I also agree with Glenn that:
So even though all of us in Seattle would probably concede that Silicon Valley is generally better for startups than anywhere else, that doesn’t mean that we have to agree with Michael that Silicon Valley is always better, or better in every way. For starters, people in Seattle have helped me in an open-hearted, small-town way that I might not have found in the Valley.
And where Michael and I really disagree is on whether it is good some times to be away from all the me-too Valley companies trying to make money on Internet ads, even though he complains about them every day on TechCrunch.
I was very lucky to get some of that same "open-hearted, small-town" help, even in the Valley. A few years ago, Michael Eisenberg introduced me to Nirav Tolia, a former EIR with Benchmark, and the two of us have become fast friends. Nirav's just completed a test release of a great startup - Fanbase (should be launching formally in a few months) - and has introduced me to a number of terrific entrepreneurs, nearly all of whom have great interest in SEO. At dinner one night, a fellow CEO (Thomas Layton of Metaweb), crystalized the question that had been weighing on my mind for the last 8 months - should SEOmoz take another round of funding?
Here, word for word (to the best of my memory), is what Thomas said to me:
Let's make this easy. I'll give you three things, you prioritize them, and I'll tell you whether you should take the money.
I don't actually remember which one I picked on the spot... I think I struggled a bit to be confident in my response, and that's because honestly, I hadn't been asking myself that question, even though it's something every CEO/founder should inherently know. A few days later, though, the answer was clear - #3. I want SEOmoz to be all that it can be. I believe in SEO. I believe in the people here. And I believe that with the right help - and another dose of all the positive things our first round brought us - we can achieve even more remarkable things.
Thus, we're exploring the VC path, talking to those folks who've been calling and thinking a bit more seriously about a series B. It's not something we're definitely pursuing, and plenty of circumstances could change our minds about whether it's the right option. As the media is quick to remind us, valuations and deal terms are not great right now, and with SEOmoz in such a strong position, we can afford to be patient, be picky and choose the right partner.
What I've Learned About MyselfIn the spirit of this post, and of SEOmoz's guiding principles, I'd like to open the comments to questions and offer to answer anything I reasonably can in a post next week. You can also feel free to email me if you have private questions. One quick thing I'll say is that for those seeking VC, three resources have been of great help to me - OnStartups, VentureHacks and Hacker News.
I sincerely hope this blog post has brought you value and helped bring a little more transparency to a world that's rarely seen outside of Sand Hill Road meeting rooms.
Posted by Danny Dover
Update: Google representatives responded to complaints of the Google News delay with the following explanation:If you have any other story sources that you think are worth sharing, feel free to post them in the comments. This post is very much a work in progress. As always, feel free to e-mail me or send me a private message if you have any suggestions on how I can make my posts more useful. If that's not your style, feel free to contact me on Twitter (DannyDover) Thanks!
Posted by great scott!
This week, Rand is joined by one of our in-house data geniuses, Ben Hendrickson, to talk more about some of our recently released correlation data to support guidelines for SEO best practices.SEOmoz Whiteboard Friday - Correlation, Causation & SEO from Scott Willoughby on Vimeo.
Posted by Sam Niccolls
(NOTE FROM RAND: Please welcome Sam Niccolls, SEOmoz's newest addition to the consulting team - we hope you all like him as much as we do!)Posted by jennita
Is it just me, or is it getting on hot in here? Well it IS summer time again, and this year there are some interesting (both national and global) summer online marketing conferences happening. Some of the mozzers will be attending and/or speaking and I thought this was a great time to let everyone know where we'll be, and in some cases, where we'd like to be!Posted by great scott!
It's that time again and we're happy to announce the 2009 SEOmoz PRO Training Series: Tips, Tricks & Tactics seminar is now on sale. Last year, we sold out within hours. This year - with a line-up including Todd Malicoat, David Mihm and Vanessa Fox - tickets will go even quicker.
The PRO Training Series: Tips, Tricks & Tactics seminar isn't a conference. There won't be any sales pitches or waffle - just clear, actionable advice on the latest tips, tricks and tactics that advanced SEOs are using.And after a hard day's work, you'll get to network with the speakers and other attendees. We strictly limit the number of places to 220, so this is an incredible opportunity to network with leaders in the search marketing field and peers from across the industry.
The Details:Where: Seattle, WA
When: August 24th and 25th
How Much: $899 ($599 for PRO Members)
You want killer, actionable content? We've got it! 15 awesome modules covering every facet of organic online marketing:
As you can see, we've cherry-picked some of the best SEOs in the business to deliver two days jam-packed with priceless hints and secrets to elevate your SEO game.
Rave Reviews About Last Year's SeminarAn excellent high level seminar with substantial advanced tactics. Having attended numerous SEO conferences, this had a much greater ROI.
-Greg Patterson, President, Mojo Juice Inc.
Chock full of detailed strategies, theories and practical explanations of very advanced search optimization methodologies. It was worth every penny (and more, but don't tell Rand I said so!).
-Marty Martin, Director of Web Strategies, Leisure Publishing Co.
Better than any other SEO conference I've attended and the price was less.
-Mike Perez, President, High Ranking Websites, Inc.
There are only 220 seats available this year and in 2008, we practically sold out in just 72 hours so don’t miss out – Sign Up Now.
But wait! There’s more! Due to the amazing success of our training seminars, we’ll be holding a second event on October 19th and 20th in London, UK, in partnership with the folks from Distilled. Moz colleague and Rand's slidedeck archnemesis, Will Critchlow, has helped craft an incredible lineup of speakers and sessions (and they're fighting a re-match of their infamous Presentation Face-Off from SMX London). If you are based in the UK or Europe (or anywhere else around the world, and simply have a penchant for airplane food), don’t miss out on our "Across the Bloody Pond" Edition of the PRO Training Series.Remember: these seminars sell out every year so reserve your seat to the Seattle or London edition of the 2009 PRO Training Series: Tips, Tricks & Tactics while they're still available!
When you register for either seminar you'll get a special offer to Pre-Order the DVD version of the SEOmoz PRO Training Series: Tips, Tricks & Tools at a ridiculously low attendees-only price. Watch for your offer during checkout.
Can't make it to either seminar? We still love you. Even though you won't get all of the awesome networking, parties and opportunities to ask the experts your specific questions, we'll still let you Pre-Order the DVD version at an incredible early bird price! For just $249 ($149 for PRO Members), that's 50% off the retail price, you'll reserve your copy of the DVD edition of the PRO Training Series: Tips, Tricks & Tools at the lowest possible price and guarantee the earliest delivery as soon as it's available (early November estimate)
Posted by randfish
I've gotten a lot of email recently from folks asking what they can do to get involved in the world of search marketing and SEO. Tonight, Mystery Guest and I attended the Seattle Job Social event and had a really interesting experience talking to people about SEOmoz, the positions we're hiring for (SysAdmins of the Northwest, please email us!) and the field of search engine marketing. The same issue came up again and again - how do I break into that market?
I want to be very honest with this post (and with all my posts), so I'll say first that I have only my singular experience to rely on. I haven't done lots of job seeking in the field (in fact, the last resume I have is from the 1990s, when I was too young to consume alcohol). However, I can share those skills that have proven valuable to me over time:
I would be presumptuous to suggest that these traits will serve everyone well or that they are the "best" abilities to have. In fact, a huge missing component that I wish I could write on that list is the ability to code in a few languages. I think I'll always be a weaker SEO because of that, but I also know that the time it would take to plug it up is time I don't have (and I'm lucky to be surrounded by a team of 9 guys and JLo to help me out when programming issues arise).
Your turn! I would love to hear the traits that have helped you best in your own careers.
Posted by Lucy Langdon
The aim of this post is to describe a few of the ways SEO agencies (or, in some instances, in-house SEO's looking for more budget from the boss) can use SEOmoz to pitch and close SEO projects.Posted by Danny Dover
Update: June 23rd 2009 - The comments on this post have been fantastic. Be sure to read them to learn a lot. I also reworded some points to make them more clear. (Damn language is always getting in the way of my words! :-p ) Specifically, the 25 footer links is not a hard limit, it is merely a number for context. You can read more below.These SEO best practices will help provide a tested foundation to be used for crafting a solid search engine optimized website.
If you have any other best practices that you think are worth sharing, feel free to post them in the comments. This post is very much a work in progress. As always, feel free to e-mail me or send me a private message if you have any suggestions on how I can make my posts more useful. If that's not your style, feel free to contact me on Twitter (DannyDover) Thanks!
P.S. From Rand: I made a presentation on some of this data recently for Hubspot's Inbound Marketing University, so I thought I'd embed the slideshow below for those interested. If you'd like to see the full presentation, you can register here (I think).
#6 IMU: Advanced SEO Tactics: On Beyond Keyword Research (GF401)
I also wanted to add that these policies are from a meeting the SEOmoz team held to determine what we'd recommend as best practices for Q+A, blogging, on our own site (which I know is sorely lacking - we need more dev hours!) and to consulting clients. Danny took great notes and composed this post to help share that publicly.
Posted by great scott!
This week's Whiteboard Friday addresses everybody's new favorite topic: Google's "new" treatment of nofollow and how it creates a massive reservoire of lost link juice. Everybody under the sun has written about this (SEOmoz included) in the last couple of weeks, so we decided to do a little roundtable (squareboard?) pow-wow on how best to deal with the problem.SEOmoz Whiteboard Friday - How Do We Plug the Nofollow Leak? from Scott Willoughby on Vimeo.
Posted by rebecca
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
The best coworkers a girl could ever ask for
Posted by randfish
There are some very different schools of thought out there regarding 404 error code pages. Some SEOs recommend:
I'm generally in this last group. I think there are times when it pays dividends to let a URL 404, both for accessibility and search engine reasons. I also don't think it's intuitive or semantically accurate to 301 every 404 page on the site - it certainly pays to build great custom 404s (good piece with examples on that here), but to simply have your homepage appear when a URL is mistyped or a link breaks doesn't send the right message to users or search engines.
When faced with 404s, my thinking is that unless the page:
A) Receives important links to it from external sources (Google Webmaster Tools is great for this)
B) Is receiving a substantive quantity of visitor traffic
and/or C) Has an obvious URL that visitors/links intended to reach
It's OK to let it 404.
Recently, though, Lindsay and I were faced with a tough call on a consulting project. The client has a site that receives a ton of search queries, many of which map to their category and subcategory level pages (which are more landing pages than search query pages, but also serve to address the search keywords). The client also has a number of search pages that have no content (either because they're for mis-typed, nonsense or mis-spelled searches or because they simply don't have content for those terms). Some of these pages earn links, some get a moderate amount of traffic and up until recently, they've essentially existed as error pages that resolve with a 200 code.
What to do?
Our conundrum contained a few critical elements. We don't want the search engines wasting bandwidth crawling and indexing junk pages (especially since the site is monstrous and needs that crawl/index power to flow to the right sections). We also don't want users to have a bad experience and while the error pages effectively communicate the right message (there's no results for this query), semantically the pages should really 404. Finally, of course, we don't want to waste any of that precious link juice that's flowing to some of them.
The solution turned out to be a compromise - we'd 404 the pages, but keep track of those that earned links and any substantive level of traffic and try to build better experiences for those pages (sometimes a 301 to a sub-category page, sometimes to a results listing and sometimes we'll actually add content to those pages and make them resolve). We hope that this lets us have our cake and eat it, too.
We'd love to hear your thoughts around 404s and SEO in general, as well as on this specific scenario (and others like it). 1000s of SEOs are smarter than 2 :-)
Posted by randfish
Many years ago, when I first started in the search marketing industry, several instances of the debate around "themed links" flared up, cooled off and reared their head again. Nowadays, it makes infrequent, though periodic appearances in the thinking, recommendations and forums of the SEO world, and I thought it would be wise to revist the issue, lay out the discussion points and get folks talking about their experiences, tests and intuition.
The basic tenant of the themed links debate revolves around the theory that search engines run calculations to identify "neighborhoods" of topically-related content, and then consider links from sites/pages on these topics to be more important or valuable than those from unrelated neighborhoods. Here's a visual take:
While personally, I've seen little evidence that an algorithm like this exists at Google, Yahoo! or MSN/Live (haven't honestly done enough Bing investigation to feel confident making statements around their practices), I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.
Do Links from On-Topic Neighborhoods Provide More/Less Link Value?(polls) _Let's open this up in the comments - do you think themed links matter? Can you do well without them? Is there reverse-theming (where links from outside your neighborhood or from diverse neighboorhoods provide more benefit)?
p.s. For more on the origins of this theory, see Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment by Jon Kleinberg (warning PDF) and notes on the HITS algorithm lecture from the Math Explorer's Club at Cornell University.
Posted by Nick Gerner
Last night we rolled out our latest Linkscape index update (we call it "index13" internally). From a data perspective we've got a few things wrapped in here that might interest you guys:Posted by jennita
Posted by randfish
The blog post - PageRank Sculpting - from the head Google's Web Spam team is a critical read for SEOs worldwide:
So what happens when you have a page with “ten PageRank points” and ten outgoing links, and five of those links are nofollowed? Let’s leave aside the decay factor to focus on the core part of the question. Originally, the five links without nofollow would have flowed two points of PageRank each (in essence, the nofollowed links didn’t count toward the denominator when dividing PageRank by the outdegree of the page). More than a year ago, Google changed how the PageRank flows so that the five links without nofollow would flow one point of PageRank each.
It's valuable to recall the illustration I put up on Google's initial announcement of this change:
This change in Google's treatment of nofollow links comes with some very interesting additional advice/clarification:
Q: Okay, but doesn’t this encourage me to link out less? Should I turn off comments on my blog?
A: I wouldn’t recommend closing comments in an attempt to “hoard” your PageRank. In the same way that Google trusts sites less when they link to spammy sites or bad neighborhoods, parts of our system encourage links to good sites.
Many in the SEO field have long suspected that linking out to good places can provide a positive benefit, but I'm afraid that's going to be very hard to quantify and therefore difficult to justify. In all honesty, I believe we're going to see SEOs and websites revert to what I'll call "old-school" PageRank sculpting - the kind prevalent prior to the existence of nofollow.
From now on, if you wish to sculpt PageRank, you'll want to use one of the following classic PR sculpting methodologies:
Tragically, while this action won't hurt spammers or those seeking to manipulate Google, it will seriously harm many thousands of sites that have employed nofollow internally as it was long considered a best practice (and messaged as such to the SEO community by the same source as this reversal). I suspect it will be several years and many re-designs before a lot of sites are able to clean up this solution-turned-problem.
I'm saddened to say that given this change, we, as SEOs, are going to have to also recommend the best practice that comments (in all forms of UGC) no longer accept links. While Google has said that linking out to "good places" provides some value, that merely suggests that webmasters and site owners should select good resources editorially and link to them with live, followed links. Comments that contain links, unfortunately, will actively detract from a site's ability to get pages indexed (as they'll pull away link juice from the places that need it). It's likely that a plug-in for Wordpress that sends comment links out through uncrawlable Javascript or uses iFrames will emerge in the very near future.
This is a disappointing move from Google on many fronts:
While I'm personally frustrated, I'm also thankful to Google for publicly messaging this in an honest, open way. I hope that in the future, we'll get this notification in a more timely fashion. SEO consultants and in-house analysts are going to have their work cut out for them over the next few months.
BTW - Although Google has almost certainly messaged this honestly, we've got some tests running to make sure this is the case (with both the nofollow and the iframe/javascript solutions). Results will be posted here once our tests have been confirmed. We're also going to be making changes to how Linkscape's mozRank scoring system, modeled around similar intuition as PageRank, will treat nofollowed links in future indices.
p.s. Danny Sullivan's comment on Matt's blog post is also an essential read (and re-iterates many of the points above). A few valuable excerpts:
With this change, I can still get the $4 if I simply don’t allow comments. Or I show comments, but I use an iframe, so that the comment actually reside on a different page. In either case, I’m encouraged to reduce the number of links rather than let them be on the page period, nofollow regardless. If I’m worried my page won’t seem “natural” enough to Google without them, maybe I allow 5 comments through and lock them down after that.
Rather than clarify things, I feel like this is what your post is going to do -- cause people to consciously reduce the number of links they allow on their pages. We’re going to see an increase in iframe usage or other techniques to reduce links and flow more PageRank to the remaining links, for those who really worry/believe in such things.
It's been a long time since we had such a fundamental shift in SEO best practices (maybe the canonical URL tag, though it's effectiveness has been questioned and this PR sculpting reversal isn't likely to inspire confidence).