Clicktracks for Free

Clicktracks offers up a free version of their analytics software by the name of Clicktracks Appetizer.

Sensationalism, Hoaxes, and Bogus Predictions: SEO Techniques

Internet to peak soon - the guy is full of shit with his claim, but it is an easy claim to link at.

Viagra Prank - hahaha to $5,000 a day

how many ways can an email spammer spell Viagra? - imagine that, another funny Viagra page that became a high ranking advertorial

Like humor, it is just as easy to work the ethics angle and then switch the purpose to promote what the site once claimed to hate. Even if you are creating a fake business or site that will be hated many of the people hating it will be so stupid that they link at it anyway.

penny stock scams - decent link popularity

Google is an easy target. Google China's name is no good - link link link

You can even run ads that are irrelevant or violate Google's guidelines, then claim that Google censored you as a link building trick. Just get Google in the press release and some media person will be dumb enough to pick it up.

Suing Google is, of course, easy press.

And everyone loves sex. if you link at me I win sex - long after the traffic falls the links stick, which can be leveraged in a nearly unlimited number of ways, although it helps if you can get the perfect anchor text built right into the initial marketing.

As long as you are first with the angle you take (see point #4 here) and know a few people who can help spread the message you are good to go.

New Flash Detection Script

At WMW Boston Mike Nott pointed me at FlashObject, which is a Javascript Flash detection and embed script.

It is XHTML compliant and allows you to use flash detection and is probably the best way to do SEO for a flash site. A couple old related posts:

Flowing Internal Links Popularity on External Sites

Dominic posted on DP about flowing Wikipedia PageRank internally to pages where you are mentioned.

Search wikipedia in goog for a mention of your keyword / phrase. Edit those wikipedia pages to link to the lovely wiki page that links to your page.

And, of course, if you can't get your stuff linked to then a few additional options are:

  • point Wikipedia pages to other pages that link at you

  • add links to your Wikipedia profile page (and link to your profile page by commenting on a couple high profile controvercial subjects)
  • add links with questions to talk pages for controvercial subjects.

Some people may also point Digital Point coop weight or other external links at the pages linking to them to help build up their citation value.

Do More With Less: Getting Rid of Junk

I am probably not the biggest conversion expert in the world, but after you start playing around with pixels and offers sometimes doing a few small things makes you realize how important some of them are.

One of my web only clients was making about $3,000 a month in sales when he contacted me. I did SEO and PPC for them and got them up to $12,000 a month. I tweaked some of the conversion aspects of the site and the same traffic now brings in over $40,000 a month in sales. Some sites have their link equity split up between the www version and non www versions of their sites. By consolidating that link popularity (via a 301 redirect) your net number of pages in the index goes down, but each page becomes more authoritative.

My sales letter had a couple broken links to reviews (due to a JupiterMedia analyst moving on and another site changing its URL structure).

My sales letter had a couple broken links to search results due to MSN changing their search string and Ask killing the Teoma brand.

Some sites use sequential URL names and screw up their page level link reputation when they add a new page.

Some about pages or sales letter pages place AdSense front and center, which end up killing the brand credibility of those sites. Many of these sites would also make far greater profits if they sold ads directly instead of through AdSense.

Many websites have Liveperson contact me buttons even on content pages about topics they would not want contacted about. Many many many sites have too many things competing for attention which end up killing their conversion ratios. Give me too many things to do and most likely I will do none of them.

If you flip a person to a related idea in your content make sure you label it as being relevant and explain why the related idea is relevant and useful to the site visitor.

Many sites have content areas with text but no headings or subheadings, and worse yet no links in the active content window of their site. Assume people are going to ignore your sitewide navigation if you want to build a site that converts.

If you are using pay per click marketing try to aim some of your ads at the high end of the market. Write ads for conversion instead of clicks, and perhaps sell the idea of selling a quote for large orders instead of selling an item. If you already rank in the regular search results then you can limit the incremental spend of PPC while ensuring you attract the big fish by reminding them that you service big orders.

Use analytics. Some of the terms you are focusing on may be a complete waste of time.

Your email address may also hurt your conversions. If you are selling relationships some people may prefer to email help@, name@ or support@ instead of sales@.

If you give people information via your site give them an automated follow up email. This is an area where I need to work on. I also should have an autoresponder series set up, as that would surely help me make thousands and thousands of dollars for minimal effort.

Direct transactions also likely convert at a better rate than transactions which require you to go to another site. Eventually I hope to either better integrate the payment system or move away from Paypal for some of my transactions.

What are some common errors you see on many sites that could be corrected to drastically increase their profitability?

Does Domain Extension Matter?

Some countries have certain rules which make it harder or more expensive to get a local domain than a global one. For local search queries sites which match the local domain extension or are hosted on a machine in that country may get a boost in relevancy over global domains. (ie: .uk may rank well in UK, .de may rank well in Germany)

Google can use the increased price of local hosting and/or the rules associated with gaining a local domain extension to assume that locally hosted or locally registered domains may have a greater local relevancy.

Likely due to less spamming incentive, a smaller content base, and a lesser understanding of local language many of the filters that are applied to the global search results may not be applied to some local results.

By looking at link reputation scores Google lets pages on websites vote for other pages. On the commercial web the purity of many votes may be in question. Weblogs Inc., for example, has gambling ads on over 40 of their blogs - in spite of Google being a minority owner in that network.

In a recent WMW thread someone mentioned this URL (maricopa.gov) as a .gov domain that accepts advertising links, but generally it is much harder to buy .gov or .edu links than .com or .net links.

Beyond .edu and .gov there are also other rare domains which people probably do not talk about that much which also have similar importance. In the UK .ac.uk is the equivalent of a .edu, and perhaps some .mil extensions may be trusted a bit more than the average .com, .net, .info, or .biz type domain.

The factor of trust would be three fold:

  • The standards required to get a .edu (or other rare domain extension) implies a certain level of credibility.

  • When the web started educational institutions and governmental bodies were at the core of it. Thus, with greater history, they are more likely to have more link equity. Over time webmasters of scraper sites and legitimate web pages are going to be more inclined to link at the top ranking pages, which reinforces the link popularity.
  • Generally much of the well cited college papers or governmental pages are of higher quality than the average web page due to internal requirements. On top of that they are harder to influence than most average web pages. For example, it is pretty damn hard to get a professor to link at your site or update his or her outdated links. No professor wants some random self promotional asshole (which is how they will view many people who contact them) telling them that their content is outdated or inaccurate.

When you read about Trustrank the seed set of sites were all backed by government, educational, or corporate bodies. If you don't think Google relies on third parties in this way think about how they limit what sources they accept for their local search product or for their news search.

Surely many college students are selling .edu links by now, but those are still a bit harder for the AVERAGE webmaster to find than .com links for sale.

That which is rare, hard to obtain, hard to influence, or vetted by other trusted bodies may aid in relevancy scoring.
It has been a long time since a link is a link.

Google's Recent Search Result Changes

Google has been testing adding more information near search listings, including
- search this site
- inside this site (links to other pages on that site)
- related (links to related sites)

Testing the above, inline query suggestions, including vertical results via Google Onebox, and suggesting specific verticals for the most broad query types allows Google to attack vertical search from many angles.

Suggesting the broadest databases (shopping, news, images) for broad query types allows them to prevent too many large verticals from being created unless their creators do something fundamentally innovative. Increasing minimum bids for low quality ads also filters out some of the arbitrage model.

Query suggestions as you type and inline suggestions guide searchers toward more common (and likely more meaningful) search paths which will - on average - lead searchers to more useful results. They also aggressively aggregate data in some of the larger verticals, which adds value to the top few players they trust while making it harder for new players to spring up in those markets.

By adding more information near regular search result listings (including site search, related internal links and related external links) they only have to get near the search answer without necessarily needing to precisely answer it. Get close enough and then teach people about things like related links and site search and they should be able to get the rest of the way where they want to go.

The search box has the most value per pixel second, and until some major publishers find new monetization models or ways to challenge Google it is obvious that Google is going to keep adding more and more information to their results. Google may even be the one who helps them find better ways to monetize.

Unlike the competition, Google is not afraid to keep pushing the boundaries of their results, even if in the short term those tests lead to lower earnings. Why hasn't Yahoo! done anything with their Mindset search yet?

Once an engine gets enough marketshare there is a virtual endless stream of revenue possibilities so long as they listen to their users.

The value isn't just in the network, but in how quickly and smartly it reacts to changes. Google generally is the king at that.

They lower costs across the board while making information more accessible. Clicktracks now has a free version. If companies like Britannica listen to the advice they are given then Google may have access to encyclopedias of information for free, on top of having the largest userbase.

I think Wall Street is a bit stupid for reacting to quarter to quarter results. I just don't see a way of Google losing at this point. Even if eBay partners with another large player it still does not change the fact that their value add and relevancy is decreasing with each day of non innovation at eBay.

While keeping an eye on general search Google has also refined some of the more important verticals, which allows them to more precisely answer queries for those who care so much that they want to get much closer than just nearly answering the queries. In some of those verticals they are creating new standards for what is important.

You can count on Google hitting the education market hard, from funding literacy to pointing librarians at lesson plans.

From a marketing perspective these changes all add value to legitimacy while making the marketplace and SERPs more relevant. But as Google pushes these types of features they will also create new types of spam. For example, if you can't easily rank #1 for a competitive phrase, but you can easily make Google believe your document is somehow one of the most related documents to what is ranking at #1 that might be a cheap way to garner targeted traffic. Learning how to become related will be exceptionally useful if the current results may not answer the query as well as it should.

Inline Query Refinement - the Cheap Way to Rank

Instead of going after broad terms sometimes frequently searched for slightly less broad terms will rank in the search results for the broad terms.

It is likely going to be much easier to rank in the top 2 to 3 results for a longer query than it is to rank in the top 10 for a short generic query. Bill reviewed Google's query refinement here, and on this post I noted that on under $1 I was able to rank #4 for Marlboro by ranking #1 for Marlboro Miles.

The Memex Revisited

So I was thinking more about random stuff...hey I do that a lot, but what would happen if someone made something like a tagging site, but was not constricted to the barriers of using simple language to show relationships.

What would happen if there was a site where one could not only tag stuff like delicious and select trusted sources for different ideas or groups like Yahoo! MyWeb, but also be able to connect ideas using more than just a common word tag...

ie: the system could

  • passively archive shared information supply and relationships like Google search (to use as a backfill of your experiences)

  • passively archive stuff you have seen like Google Desktop (to use as a backfill of your experiences)
  • actively archive stuff you trust or like more
  • let you annotate why something is important AND how it relates to other things that were annotation worthy (this would allow you to tag many ideas together, even if their relationship was harder to explain than what is allowed by a simple tag with a single word or two)
  • track when you first saw something, when you revisited it, and how often you visit it (with giving you the ability to select or hide this information)
  • let you track when content has been revised, showing current versions and giving you the option to quickly see what has been added, removed, or changed
  • track when an idea or document or experience superseded a past one (and give you the ability to select or hide this information)

No, this idea is not my idea, it is Vannevar Bush's idea (from the 1930's and well explained in As We May Think).

I am just wonder what is stopping someone from making a true Memex device. Is it still too cost prohibitive? Is it the lack of monetization model for quality publishers? Is it a feared death for publishing houses? Is it because we sometimes enjoy forgetting some of the things we have seen or done? How do you get past all that? And should we?

The Keyword / Brand Timeline for Companies and Ideas

Growing Irrelevant with Each Passing Day:

Easier access to information and new technologies force many companies unwilling to change to focus heavily on silencing pieces of the market which claim they are growing irrelevant. Many individuals, systems and organizations evolve slower than the market to where their purpose becomes nothing more than causing a need for their own existence. I tend to think that many lawyers are born with this train of thought in mind. Rarely has one ever contacted me without an immediate threat at hello and offer to escalate the issue, even if the issue is only caused by (and a symptom of) poor customer service to their customers. The lack of investigating the root causes of the problems, and instead offering immediate escalation, is a sign of piss poor customer service on the part of the clown lawyers who tried to scare me. Especially if it is blog related and a simple search for my name would already show that the last company that sued me got featured in the Wall Street Journal.

When Being a Market Leader is Good:

Sometimes being the leader in a market is a great thing. You can't see a person write about search without comparing them to Google. The launch of any new information product requires people to ask about how it compares to Google. Google takes hits for many of the things they do, but when push comes to shove, and stories really blow up they usually play the media and market much smarter than competing companies do.

When Being a Market Leader is Bad:

In certain markets growing in scale or being #1 means you have lost touch with your customers or you get a documentary about how you destroy your customers health. Meanwhile some of your competitors jockey for position and enjoy marketshare growth at your cost and smaller regional firms find it easier to tap into their local culture.

If you are in an industry that is found questionable by many, then being at the top means that toys about killing babies (or other bad things) may look similar to your brand. And they will likely look progressively more and more like your brand until you change your business model or eventually you threaten or sue somebody. When you finally sue or threaten the story spreads through the media and the world is reminded of things like

The design of the package of toy cigarettes--which are actually unscented incense--is intended to "evoke an unsavory association with Philip Morris," alleges the letter, a copy of which you can find below. The company also claims that a "Li'l Smokes" refill pack also infringes its Marlboro trademark. Along with leaning on Toy Lounge, Philip Morris also apparently contacted the novelty doll's manufacturer and was told that the offending products would be altered to address the tobacco company's concerns. Commendably, Philip Morris has never been shown to market its products to newborns. However, the company has previously tracked Marlboro's "market penetration" with smokers as young as 15, since the teenage years are when crucial "initial brand selections" are made, according to one internal company memo.

This is the web though, and we all get to be good dirt diggers, so after reading one story like that people dig up stories about how their company argues things like

Dead Smokers Are Good for Government Budgets

In making the threat to sue Marlboro increased the authority and mindshare of most any negative piece of information about them.

Initiatives That Focus on End Goals Without Tuning Into the Market are a Lost Cause:

Not surprisingly, these "let's clear up our brand" and "lets care about our customer" lawyer based initiatives go in waves or phases, and a lawyer claiming to represent Marlboro recently sent me a cease and desist too. Nice email subject BTW, "see attached". Assholes.

They stated that one of my pages might aid and abet identity theft because some of their customers were posting personal information on it. Sometimes I wonder if companies post that stuff themselves, and then claim identity theft or defamation.

I decided to pull the content they cared about because I after just ending my first lawsuit I don't want another. I want to spend more time learning about things that interest me, dealing with trying to create useful ideas and helping people.

The big irony is that the market for my idea was well created and well branded by them. I will discuss it in a bit though.

Keyword Markets are Just Like Companies:

Just like how companies grow and then lose touch with their customers then fade away the same thing happens with keyword markets. Keyword markets are nothing more than a reflection of our thoughts.

While the core terms may have decent volume and competition, if you really target your messages and go deeper than most competing sites you will find it easy to rank.

Where to Start:

It is hard to create a consumer generated media site or even solid traffic streams if you only focus on what other people are already doing.

If you want to focus on ranking for well established markets or brands you are probably not going to do well unless you do one or more of the following:

  • are working off an aged well trusted idea

  • are good at creating controversy, causes, or making people talk about you
  • are focused on solving problems that the market currently does not easily solve
  • are going after niche phrases
  • are focused on phrases late in the buying cycle.


Keyword Modifier Love:

If you add on modifiers, say [McDonalds health] or [McDonalds Unhealthy] then it is easier to get exposure, and the people are more receptive to the ads for other ideas when they add a specific modifier. A few good ideas to focus on would be calories, nutrition facts, fries, and nutritional information.

An Example Keyword Market:

Online markets are best create value when they solve problems that are not already easily solved.

For example, if you did basic keyword research for Marlboro, based on search volume, they push the Marlboro Miles concept rather hard. Their customers want it, need it, can't get enough of it. It makes sense since it is strongly tied into the brand and they promote it on most every pack of cigarettes.

However, if you search for that query no official site shows up in the search results, so one of the following must be true

  • they intentionally do not care to solve that issue (ie: they don't give a shit about their customers)

  • they do not know anything about online search / SEO (they are ignorant)
  • they hired an exceptionally sub standard SEO (they hired someone who is ignorant)

Imagine that, some of their most loyal customers not being served AT ALL. They don't make it easy for consumers to solve the Marlboro Miles Catalog problem.

Errors They Could Fix:

  • Create a page about the topic, or at least mention the topic on a page on their website

  • the domain they are using (smokerservice.com) sounds generic, and they are missing out on the plural versions of the domains
  • most of the domain they own that handles the Marlboro Miles Catalog stuff is all secured so you can't see any of it in the search results
  • even if they couldn't promote the catalog actively on their site and make that accessible to search engines (maybe there is some weird legal issue that stops them) it wouldn't be hard to point a few links at the smokerservice site that had Marlboro Miles Catalog in the anchor text so engines knew what to rank and people knew where to go
  • if they were too lazy to do the above they could at least find one result that answers the query and then work to point a few links at that page

By not addressing a strong offline brand points anywhere online they have pretty much created a marketplace where nothing but scraper sites, competing merchants, or customer complaints about their brand show up whenever their best customers search to continue the offline dialog started by their product packaging and branding.

Why I Got a C&D:

One of my sorta spammy sites (2nd site I ever made, and it was so bad that people bookmarked it on social sites for being so pathetic) had content that solved they query better than most other sites. A single page focused on that single query which gets hundreds of real searches every day.

Given enough time and a few links that page ranked. Given enough exposure I started getting a ton of email from their customers (which easily could have been set up to autorespond with affiliate deals and offers from various merchants which sold the same, related or competing products) but I didn't do that.

The emails I got from Marlboro customers were growing in volume and aggressively more bizzare so I then made a blog post about how bizzare they were and how I thought the people were crazy. Then hundreds of people started pouring in ON THAT PAGE leaving their names, addresses, social security numbers, and one even put in their credit card number and security code.

Many Seemingly Competitive Markets Are Not Competitive, at All:

The page i created about Marlboro Miles was so ugly that it got referenced on social bookmarking sites for being ugly. It had 0 high quality links and ranks #1 in Google, largely for the following reasons

  • it was a whole page / document focused on something most scraper sites just mentioned in a page

  • most competing sites are exceptionally spammy and do not actually solve the customers problems
  • after it started to rank well it picked up scraper links, which sorta helped reinforce its market position

Including automated scraper junk sites there are only 400 pages competing for [Marlboro Miles Catalog]

Given that many of the searchers landing on my page were customers addicted to a drug and focused on a single brand it would be an easy market to make a ton of money from if I was a bit less lazy on it.

Now that I took my pages down likely the search results will not answer the needs and wants of Marlboro's customers. I wouldn't be surprised if that customer relationship remained poor because they solved symptoms instead of problems. 100's of customers per day are finding it hard to get their questions answered.

There is a Shitload of Traffic There!

If you look at this screenshot you will see that after the #3 organic search result for Marlboro searches that Google suggests Marlboro Miles inline.

That page has 34 junky links and is ranking #4 in Google for Marlboro right now.

Article summary:

  • scaling often means becoming less efficient, more stuck in your ways, and/or less in touch with your customers

  • being a leader in a sketchy field opens you up to tons of negative plublicy
  • search makes it easy to view many of your customer's needs and wants
  • keyword markets rise and fall with offline market brands, companies, ideas, and news
  • your customers want to talk about you. if you do not participate in the market or make it easy to contact you then your customers will look elsewhere.
  • immediately offering escalation during confrontation (especially when it is without considering the root problems) is generally an ignorant business policy across the board
  • once you start trying to control who talks about you and what they say you are long on the way to irrelevancy
  • in the long run it is usually far cheaper to solve problems instead of symptoms
  • even competitive keyword markets are not that competitive if you create even somewhat decent content and focus on longer search queries

Pages