Search Engine Marketing Blog: piloSEO

A Concerted Nuking of Scientology

There is currently a concerted attack against Scientology being waged by Anonymous. Their attack features a variety of techniques but the technique that I am most interested in is the Googlebomb. Danny Sullivan wrote about this over at Search Engine Land and it raised quite a bit of discussion there and at Sphinn. The main focus of the discussion is whether this is a true Googlebomb or not. IMO whether it is or is not a true Google bomb is less important than the fact that pointing a bunch of anchor text focused links to a site still pushes that site up to the top of Google (and only Google). For all the talk about multiple ranking factors in their algorithm it appears that Google still considers links the most important ranking factor.

Googlebomb?

First let’s discuss what a Googlebomb is. Matt Cutts spoke up in the Google Webmaster Blog explaining what a Googlebomb is and that Google has fixed the issue, claiming they will no longer work. According to that post,“Technically, a “Googlebomb” (sometimes called a “linkbomb” since they’re not specific to Google) refers to a prank where people attempt to cause someone else’s site to rank for an obscure or meaningless query.” So in essence if enough pages link to a specific page using the same anchor text that page will rank at the top for that phrase. The most famous Googlebomb is the “Miserable Failure” bomb that brought up the Whitehouse.gov page number one in the SERP’s. Yahoo was affected by Googlebombs in the past but it appears they have been able to fix the problem.

The “Dangerous Cult” and “Scientology” Bomb

The most recent Googlebomb is related to Scientology and it is a two pronged bombing. Not only are the bombers linking a negative keyword phrase to the Scientology site they are also linking the term Scientology to an anti-Scientology site. Specifically, they are linking the anchor text “Dangerous Cult” to scientology.org and they are linking the anchor text “Scientology” to xenu.net.

Here two examples of this tactic that I have seen on multiple sites

The purpose behind this is to not only push Scientology to the top of Google for the term “Dangerous Cult” but also to push Xenu.net to the top for “Scientology”. Despite Matt Cutt’s announcement that Googlebombing no longer works this bomb seems to having the intended consequences.

“Dangerous Cult” in Google

“Scientology” in Google

Apparently Yahoo was able to fix the flaw in their algorithm that allowed “linkbombing” to affect their SERP’s. When you run these queries in Yahoo it does not seem to have any impact there.

“Dangerous Cult” in Yahoo

“Scientology” in Yahoo

Not a true Googlebomb but a Googlebomb nonetheless

As Danny Sullivan discussed this is not a true Googlebomb because at least part of the targeted phrases appear on both sites. While cult does not appear on the Scientology site the term dangerous does. And the Xenu site has many references to Scientology throughout the site. Whether this is a true Googlebomb or not is irrelevant to this discussion though. The fact is that a concertated effort to rank a site for unflattering terms is still possible in Google. Apparently they have not been able to fix the flaw in their algorithm while Yahoo did. I still think Google provides the best results among all of the major Search Engines but this seems to once again provide information showing that no matter how many factors Google analyzes in their algorithm links trump them all. No matter what they say to contrary.

Popularity: 29% [?]

I am pretty sure everyone in the U.S. is aware that the Super Bowl is the most important football game of the season as well as the most important day for advertisers. The number of viewers is astounding and many are as interested (or more interested) in the commercials as the game. Instead of flipping the channels when a commercial comes on many viewers actually pay more attention. They want to see all of the crazy/funny/interesting commercials and talk about them the next day.

The next day they will see countless news stories about the commercials on TV, online, and in the newspaper. For the right to this captive audience the companies buying advertising slots during the Super Bowl will pay a pretty penny. This year it will cost $3 Million for a 30-second commercial. With that kind of money one would think that advertisers would try to make the most of the situation but far too many end their marketing efforts with the commercial.

Advertisers are getting better but are not quite there yet

Traditional advertisers have been slow to include search marketing into their overall marketing plan but some are getting better. As more and more people become more connected search is becoming more important and the savvy advertisers are leveraging search marketing to extend the message to the Internet. For the fourth consecutive year Reprise Media will conducting the Search Marketing Scorecard which will measure how well all the Super Bowl advertisers are using search to capture user attention during the game. A team of employees will watch the commercials and check the major search engines to determine how well the advertisers online presence is syncing with their Super Bowl ads. Along with a detailed report that will be released and discussed at OMMA this year Reprise will be live twittering as they judge the online integration with their television ad.

Follow the Search Marketing Scorecard

Smart companies have realized the importance of search marketing. In years past search marketing was overlooked. More and more advertisers are realizing the importance of incorporating search into their overall marketing plan but many still have a long way to go. If you are interested in following this years Search Marketing Scorecard you can follow in real time through Twitter, view the next day scorecard analysis on Feb 4, and the final analysis at the Reprise Media Search Marketing Scorecard presentation on Feb.22 at OMMA.

Popularity: 20% [?]

Some sites will not perform well no matter what you do

Over at Wiep.net there is a great post offering advice on how to build links for crappy sites. In the end the crux of the post was that building links for a crappy site is going to be a worthless endeavor. Sure you can get some links but if the site is garbage the links will also be garbage. At the end of the day these links will provide no value to the crappy site and it will end up where it belongs, at the end of the Google results. Wiep mentions that some crappy sites can actually benefit from a full service SEO package (and he is 100% correct) but there are some sites out there that will be crappy forever and in the end these sites should be avoided by all SEO’s.

A Big Bag of money does not make a good client

Just because someone offers you a ton of money to optimize a website does not mean they are a viable client. The overall message from the Wiep post is that someone offering you a bunch of money to build links does not mean that they are a viable candidate for link building services. They may need full service SEO. But there are some sites out there that are not viable candidates for full service SEO. Many SEO’s are willing to take on any client with the resources to pay them and in many cases they are setting themselves up for failure. This can have a negative effect on their reputation. It is important for SEO’s to properly analyze potential clients just like it is important for businesses to properly analyze potential SEO’s.

SEO is a Valuable Service

Quality SEO’s can help small businesses compete with the big dogs. Many struggling SEO’s feel like they need clients and any client will do. The fact of the matter is that SEO’s need to choose wisely. It is better to turn down a few bad clients and struggle for a while than to accept some poor clients initially only to hurt your reputation and lose the opportunity for long term success. Businesses should think long and hard before hiring an SEO and SEO’s should think long and hard before taking on a client that has no chance of succeeding.

Popularity: 23% [?]

I will be the first to admit that while I do have some experience in Web Analytics I could probably learn a lot more. I have the basics down and understand how to apply what I find at a very basic level. I would really like to learn about more advanced methods for analyzing the data and utilizing it to improve my SEO efforts. That’s why I am interested in a new social networking site for Analytics professionals, AnalyticsLife.

AnalyticsLife is a social networking site dedicated to Web Analytics discussion, blogs, events, jobs, etc. I just joined and I will be keeping an eye on how it develops. I would really like to see it evolve into a place that gets into the gritty details of analyzing web analytics and how to apply that information to improve how users interact with websites. If you have not had a chance please take a look at the site and hopefully it can gain some steam and bring more detailed and advanced analytics methods to the forefront. BTW, this is my profile there if you want to stop by and say hi.

Popularity: 24% [?]

Why Must we Continue to Perpetuate the Page Rank Myth

I guess I should not be surprised after all of these years but I still get a chuckle out of all of the Page Rank update talk when changes are being seen. I mean, back in the day there was some reason to get excited or dejected when the green pixels grew or shrunk. But nowadays it is a virtually meaningless metric. Sure it kinda shows how many links a site has (or had a few months ag0) but in terms of how important it is in terms of SERPs it is not worth a second thought. Most SEO people claim to know and understand this but when an update begins it becomes the most discussed topic in all of the SEO forums, blogs, and social communities.

I understand that higher Page Rank is important to those who are not involved in search marketing (and it gives even search marketing people a little ego boost when it goes up) but the fact of the matter is it does not hold any real importance when it comes to rankings and traffic. When SEO’s talk down Page Rank throughout the year and than complain or gloat about it when an update happens we send mixed messages and the misinformation continues to spread.

I vow to stay consistent and not change my stance that Page Rank is unimportant EVEN WHEN THEIR IS AN UPDATE. Will anyone join me?

Popularity: 26% [?]