Beanstalk on Google+ Beanstalk on Facebook Beanstalk on Twitter Beanstalk on LinkedIn Beanstalk on Pinterest
Published On:
SEO articles and blog published on ...
Hear Us On:
Webmaster Radio
Blog Partner Of:
WebProNews Blog Partner
Helping Out:
Carbon balanced.


Beanstalk's Internet Marketing Blog

At Beanstalk Search Engine Optimization we know that knowledge is power. That's the reason we started this Internet marketing blog back in 2005. We know that the better informed our visitors are, the better the decisions they will make for their websites and their online businesses. We hope you enjoy your stay and find the news, tips and ideas contained within this blog useful.

October 30, 2007

A Great Product – At A Great Price (Free :)

As someone who’s used and tested a click fraud detection and tracking system called PPC Assurance I received an email earlier from their CEO with a special offer. The offer was for a free trial of their full system which was just completed. Rather than summarize I’ll just copy-and-paste the email information. But first, you may want to read a bit about PPC Assurance to get an idea about what it is. We’ve got a short write-up on our PPC Engines page.

But what’s the offer? Here’s what I got in my email:

We’re offering you a FREE TRIAL of our full PPC Assurance reporting service until December 14, provided you sign-up by November 2. Once the trial is over, you’ll also get the discounted price we’re offering for future months!

The faster you sign up, the faster you’ll get your PPC campaigns audited and your money back for any bad clicks! If you choose to cancel, email us before December 14, and we won’t bill you on December 1. It’s that simple.

Sign up today, for your FREE Trial on PPC Assurance at (resource removed), sign in, sign-up, and you’re off!

On the payment information page (specifically the credit card entry screen) enter the coupon code “ENQ-1102″. The purchase process will only accept that code or an empty coupon box.

This tool is highly recommended for anyone running a PPC campaign. From the day I first got a look at it in San Jose when I was sitting on a panel with Richard Zwicky I was impressed, I have since recommended it to clients and will extend that recommendation on to you. And let’s face facts, … the price is right. :)

SEO news blog post by @ 4:24 pm




Here We Go Again …

Well is was an enjoyable 12 hours but the folks over at Google are up to it again and the visible PageRank (that green bar) is on the move once again. This latest round appears to be an effort to correct some of the wrongs (basically, to give PageRank back to those that shouldn’t have lost it). This leaves me with a big question, if we didn’t see any change in the rankings and the site’s aren’t selling links then who cares?

While I don’t put stock in what the green bar tells me, it is of course interesting to monitor what’s going on (and of course to consider what must be happening at the text link brokers). Bought a PR7? Might be a PR3 but is it worth the same $30/mth you were paying? ;)

So all I can really recommend to our valued visitors is to do the same as I am (and this is coming from a guy who’s site went from a 6 to a 4) … relax, drink some Chai tea and check your rankings. They probably weren’t affected and so in the end … who cares? :)

And so from there I’m going to meander onto a new topic and one that’s a lot more interesting – branding vs. marketing vs. advertising. Sometimes it can be very difficult to tell the different between one and the other and so I was happy to see that Neil Patel (apparently as funny as he is smart) posted a GREAT post to illustrate the difference. You can read it on his blog here.

SEO news blog post by @ 12:59 pm




October 29, 2007

But … It Was My Brother !!!

Today I feel sorry for my kids. Every parent reading this will remember those times when they heard a loud BANG and assumed incorrectly who had done it. TELI !!!

“But it wasn’t me !!!”

A couple days later the milk’s spilled all over the place. KAEMON !!!

“But it wasn’t me !!!”

Well now I know how they feel.

I got into work this morning, launched my browser. When Firefox loads it starts with 4 tabs, one for each of the major engines and a second datacenter for Google – all with our primary phrase preset for easy reference. All looked right in the world. Then I went to our blog. It took a second to realize that the little green bar had changed. What was once a 6 was now a 4.

Hmmmm. This sometimes happens when the PR of the last page I was at holds so let’s go to the homepage. OK, now the homepage in a new window. OK, let’s try a different browser altogether. OK, now it’s time to stop – You’re a PR4.

What could I have done “wrong”? I don’t sell links. I had couple paid links but I got rid of any that weren’t producing some decent traffic ages ago so really I was using text links to buy traffic. Surely Google of all people can’t have a problem with that. I did have a few outbound links from our left nav on our homepage but they weren’t paid for – they just pointed to resources such as You know, resources I really did feel worth passing a vote for. Meanwhile there are sites I can see up against me that I can confirm buy links (and some that sell them) that actually attained increases in toolbar PageRank (though we still beat them in the SERPs so … :) So why do I lose toolbar PageRank and my brother doesn’t?

Well, for anyone who read my now ironic though well-timed blog rant from last week on PageRank you’ll know that while I might be obsessed with search engines and I might be obsessed with Google, I care a lot more about where a site appears in the SERPs than I do about a little green bar.

A lot of sites have been blasted in the last couple rounds of PageRank updates. Here are some blogs and forums where you can go for discussion on this topic:

A simple search on Google’s Blog Search Engine (should I rel=”nofollow” that just to be cheeky? – you’ll notice …. I didn’t ;) for “pagerank update” will provide you many more hours of reading.

Good luck to you all as this continues. Maybe in the end my wishes will come true – the green bar will go away and we’ll all be stuck building links for relevancy and judging our results by our rankings. For some reason the Beatle’s “Imagine” is running through my head. :)

And Google, just so you know – I wasn’t selling links … it was my brother.

SEO news blog post by @ 3:25 pm




October 24, 2007

The PageRank Debate Continues Over At Sphinn

Yesterday I published a rant about PageRank. The post picked up some steam and was well read on Sphinn. And then there was Halfdeck. For those of you who read my subsequent post you’ll know that Halfdeck is a Sphinner who whole-heartedly disagrees with my stand on the issue of PageRank.

After he read my reply he posted again as did Jill Whalen. As I don’t allow comments in the Beanstalk blog (this is simply because I don’t have time to moderate them) I’ll post their replies here as well as mine to their comments. Their comments will be in blockquotes:


PageRank is indeed very important to Google still. It’s unfortunate that toolbar PageRank has nothing to do with actual PageRank though. I think that’s why debates such as this one will continue to occur.

I have great respect for Jill as does the majority of the SEO community but I still have to disagree. PageRank is a factor, certainly more important than some but it is not, as Halfdeck notes, the equivalent to SEO that gravity is to human life.


“At the time of this posting there are PageRank 3′s beating out PageRank 7′s.”

That is one of the weakest arguments against PageRank ever invented.

There are also sites that have no keywords in the title outranking sites with keywords in the TITLE element. So from that let’s conclude that keywords in the TITLE doesn’t matter.

I would say that titles are a factor among many. My response to your comment was based on your assertion that PageRank was to SEO what gravity is to humans. I said in my initial post that PageRank has weight, just not as much weight as it’s getting credit for and certainly not what we’re chasing after.;=off≷=us&q;=seo&btnG;=Search

keyword: [SEO] TITLE: “Search engine optimization”
Spanish Wikipedia TITLE: “Posicionamiento en buscadores – Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre”;=en&safe;=off≷=us&q;=ice+cream&btnG;=Search

keyword: [ice cream] TITLE: “Häagen-Dazs®” TITLE: “MyOrganization: Home page”

So its official then. Keywords in TITLE doesn’t matter.

That’s right. PageRank is the gravity after all, do titles even matter?

Actually I view titles as more important than PageRank. About equal from an SEO standpoint but more important in that a clickable title will get, well, clicked on more in the SERPs. But IT’S STILL JUST A FACTOR AMONG MANY!!!

I think this is perhaps what’s being overlooked from my initial post. At no point did I say that PageRank was irrelevant. What I said is the the average person tends to give it too much importance (comparing it to gravity for example). It is a factor and it does carry weight but there are other factors and a low PageRank site can beat out higher PageRank sites if they “win” in the other factors.

“Really? Then why does Wikipedia (PR7 page) rank #1 and SEOMoz (PR7 page) rank #10 for “seo”?”

As I wrote somewhere else, the phenomenon of wikipedia ranking for just about anything and everything under the sun, in my opinion, is largely due to high link trust (most inbounds to Wikipedia are editorial, unpaid for, unreciprocated, many from trustworthy sources), sheer link power (just about every page has high TBPR due to millions of backlinks), relevant on-page content, laser-targetted anchor text on 99% of all backlinks, and internal, contextual anchor text.

“What? I have no idea what this means. A site with a PageRank 2 can have 100,000 pages in the index if the owners or contributers are very very busy people.”

There, you just exposed your lack of understanding about PageRank.

A TBPR 2 site can create 100,000 pages of content, but you will not see 100,000 in the MAIN INDEX. They will sink into the supplemental bin. That should be common knowledge by now.

Admittedly you caught me here. I didn’t catch the word “main” in the initial post HOWEVER I would argue that it’s not PageRank that’s doing it, it’s trust. Unfortunately we could go on that debate for the next week-and-a-half and not come to a conclusion as it would be your opinion against mine and unless someone from over at Google wants to step in and let us know ;) it will just be one person against another.

Read the blog links at the top of this page if you want to go beyond repeating what’s been said 1,000 of times already:

“Well I suppose that’s it then. I suppose it’s time to call up Rand Fishkin, Danny Sullivan, Neil Patel, Jill Whalen and all the other SEO’s who contributed to SEOmoz’s “Google Search Engine Ranking Factors” list and let them know that their work was for naught.”


I recommend you reading Dan Thies recent posts. Or read Rand Fishkin’s

Where he lists “PageRank or link weight or link power” as one of the top 4 ranking factors. If you’re the type of SEO to base your opinion on “expert” opinion, there you have it.

I’d seen Rand’s previously but thanks for the other links. Rand is combining all the factors of link weighting into something called PageRank. If we reflect back to the beginning (my initial post)it might be a good time to split my reply in two. This is because there really are two conversations going on, one based on the intial article and one based on what the topic has become.

The initial argument based on the first post:

My intial arguement was based on people who email us/call us asking and obsessing about PageRank (why theirs isn’t higher, what we’ll do to increase it, etc.) This is obviously a discussion about toolbar PageRank. I don’t think any of us has had to deal with questions about why a site’s PageRank isn’t higher where they weren’t referring to the toolbar PageRank. It would be funny if we did though. “I know the green bar shows my PageRank is a 4 but I know it’s really a 5. I don’t care what the toolbar shows, what will it take to get a PR 7?”

What the argument has become:
The argument has now become how much PageRank influences results, and we’re not talking about toolbar PageRank. One thing I would like to know is if you’re counting PageRank as something other than what the toolbar shows when updates are happening (i.e. when there’s isn’t internal updating going on affecting results based on factors we can’t see) or if you’re actually referring to the toolbar PageRank when it’s accurate (i.e. right after an update).

If you’re referring to the toolbar PageRank (when accurate) then I am going to continue to disagree with you and will continue to maintain that PageRank is nothing more than a factor among others. That said, from some of the links and examples
you’ve given it appears you may be referring to PageRank as something more than in which case this conversation has gone off on a major tangent. As shoudl be clear from my initial post, I am referring to the visually displayed PageRank that appears in the toolbar when the toolbar is updated.

“At the time of this posting there are PageRank 3′s beating out PageRank 7′s.”

One last thing.

Internal PageRank is a floating number, not a number between 0-10. Matt Cutts has confirmed that in several posts. PageRank is a probability metric, or a number that describes chance: 0~100%, or a number between 0-1.

If your website was the only website that existed on the web, then the chance of someone landing on your website is 100% or 1.

If there were only two pages on the web, linking to each other, the chance of you landing on one of those pages is 50%, or .5.

The sum of all PageRanks of all webpages add up to 1. Therefore, the internal PageRanks of a page is really really tiny, something like .000000000000002000195010.

Of course Google can modify that for ease of computation, but we are still dealing with alot of digits.

So what is TBPR? Some believe that they are exponents of an unknown base.

base^TBPR = internal PageRank.

For example:

10^0 = 1
10^1 = 10
10^2 = 100
10^3 = 1000
10^4 = 10000
10^5 = 100000
10^6 = 1000000
10^7 = 10000000
10^8 = 100000000
10^9 = 1000000000
10^10 = 10000000000

We don’t know the base. We don’t know the actual PageRank. We only see the exponent (0-10). Obviously, that’s just theory. But it does help you see there’s a big difference between TBPR and internal PageRank.

A good illustration. But this discussion started with clients obsession about PageRank. By necessity this has to be the toolbar PageRank. You’re example is good and I’m certainly not going to get into a technical debate when I’m willing to say that you’re theories are easily as good as mine on the exact internal calculations HOWEVER this discussion isn’t about how it’s calculated, it’s about it’s value. I don’t care if I have a PageRank 11 out of 10, it where my site appears in the SERPs that I care about and, as you point out above, titles also count. I would assert that so does content, so does internal linking, so does the physical structure of the site, so does the anchor text of incoming links, so does the trusted nature of the sites linking to you, so does …

PageRank is not gravity, be it toolbar PageRank or internal PageRank. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s a factor – more important than some, less important than others.

If you truely understood that, you would never talk about a “PageRank 3″ URL outranking anything, because:

1) There’s no such thing as a PageRank 3 page
2) You are clearly implying you know the PageRank of a page displaying TBPRX – you don’t.

See notes above and first post. This started as a post about the toolbar PageRank !!!

SEO news blog post by @ 11:44 am




October 23, 2007

PageRank Isn’t The Question – But Here’s Some

Earlier today I published a post titled “PageRank Isn’t The Questions; Page Rank Is“. I got posted on Sphinn and ended up causing a bit of an issue with the user Halfdeck. His comments were too difficult to respond to in the chat area of Sphinn and so I will reply here. Below you will find his comments and my replies:

“So we’ll focus on the real business and it’s very clear that what we’re really after is rankings, not PageRank. Once upon a time PageRank had a strong influence on rankings – that is not the case anymore.”

This article is out of date. If it was written last year maybe it would have held some validity.

Last year I would have written that PageRank had more value. I don’t quite get what you’re saying as PageRank has, if anything, been declining in importance over time but to me it sounds as though you’re saying that if I had said it was losing value last year I would have been right but to say it this year is inaccurate. PageRank certainly hasn’t increased in importance over the past year.

While I agree that business owners would do better to think in terms of marketing, traffic, and brand awareness instead of bulk buying high TBPR links with keyword stuffed anchor text, PageRank is and will always be to Google what gravity is to you and me.

Then explain this:;=off≷=us&q;=seo&btnG;=Search

At the time of this posting there are PageRank 3′s beating out PageRank 7′s.

If one reads the entire post they’ll note that I do say PageRank is a factor, just one of hundreds not “the factor” as it once was and certainly not so important as to stand out as much as it does.

Authority, or high total domain PageRank (e.g. Wikipedia, with a slew of TBPR 5 deep pages), by itself may not reward you with any ranking boost, despite popular myth that authority is a dominant ranking factor.

Really? Then why does Wikipedia (PR7 page) rank #1 and SEOMoz (PR7 page) rank #10 for “seo”?

But who would argue against the fact that a site that has 100,000 pages in the main index doesn’t have a huge advantage over a site with 10 pages in the main index, simply because that’s 100,000 pages of real estate with internal anchor text that you can use to nail highly competitive rankings?

Deep index penetration is one of the most efficient, powerful SEO tactics. And what is the gatekeeper that keeps unpopular sites from getting 100,000 pages in the main index?


What? I have no idea what this means. A site with a PageRank 2 can have 100,000 pages in the index if the owners or contributers are very very busy people. Generally a site isn’t going to get to 100,000 pages until it’s been around for a long time and by then, it likely has lots of links which will undoubtedly lead to a higher PageRank. I think you put the cart in front of the horse on that one.

Should you chase after PageRank? No. But if you are trying to make the case that gravity – which you aren’t conscious of – has no effect on your life then you’re making an indefensible claim. Sure, you don’t need to think about gravity to be able to drive a car to work. But without gravity, how will you manage to climb into your car?

Well I suppose that’s it then. I suppose it’s time to call up Rand Fishkin, Danny Sullivan, Neil Patel, Jill Whalen and all the other SEO’s who contributed to SEOmoz’s “Google Search Engine Ranking Factors” list and let them know that their work was for naught. PageRank is the gravity that holds sites in the rangs (despite that fact that over all the top SEO’s they averaged it at 2.4 out of 5 importance).

BTW, Toolbar PageRank (TBPR) is NOT PageRank.

And here we agree. As I wrote, the lack of updating of Google’s toolbar PageRank is causing many of the questions from people who have been doing link building recently but haven’t noticed any increase in ages.

You bring up a good point I failed to include which was a note:

Google is constantly updating their internal PageRank, they only push it to the toolbar periodically but internally they’re using up-to-date values constantly.

“If you had a thermometer that never moved”

Yes bwelford, but the green bar does move. If it doesn’t move for certain pages, you can either assume that the toolbar isn’t being updated as it should be or you can assume that the page isn’t important enough to have an up-to-date green bar. As you might have noticed, popular sites tend to have their toolbar updates before anyone else.

Haven’t noticed much of that anywhere with the exception of some sites losing PageRank a couple weeks back and that was about it. Maybe you have a different toolbar than the rest of us. ;)

As much tongue-in-cheek as I may have put across in this post I would sincerely like to thank Halfdesk for the feedback. He forced me to clarify and to include points previously missed. And also important to note, SEO – while based on math – is not an exact science and won’t be until someone over at Google answers my emails and finally gives me the algo. ;) It’s the exchange of ideas that keeps us all learning and while I may disagree, Halfdeck brings up some decent arguments that I’m glad were brought up so my readers can remember to analyze this debate for themselves.

I didn’t become and SEO by copying others, I learned by reading, testing, and judging what others said and then using my own brain to figure out what made sense. I recommend the same for others.

SEO news blog post by @ 10:48 pm




PageRank Isn’t The Question; Page Rank Is.

I’m going to write this post in hopes that the influx of people who seem to be calling us lately asking about PageRank will read it. I’m not convinced that this is the case however it’s worth a try. A trend I’ve noticed as an SEO is that questions tend to come in waves. Today everybody wants to know (or there’s mass confusion on) links and PageRank (or more specifically, why they don’t have a higher PageRank). And so this post is born. If nothing else, it’ll offer me a link to point those people to down the road rather than explaining AGAIN why their website doesn’t have a higher PageRank and why this isn’t really the question they should be asking themselves.

So let’s start from the beginning, why are we all chasing rankings (and since rankings predate PageRank – this is the beginning)? We chase rankings so that we can get traffic. Why do we want traffic? So we can get business. So let’s take a look at what the questions we should be asking ourselves are regarding PageRank, the factors being – business, traffic, rankings and PageRank. Lets see if we can figure out which of the factors are unimportant knowing that the end goal is business. In this equation we will make the logical assumption that if you increase the relevant traffic to your website, you’ll increase your business. Thus, for our purposes here: traffic = business.

  1. If you have a high PageRank but low rankings will you have an increase in traffic/business?
  2. If you have a low PageRank but high rankings will you have an increase in traffic/business?

If you answered yes to number one then perhaps you need to visit more SEO blogs and forums to get a better understanding of how Internet Marketing works. If you answered yes to number two but no to number one you get the point – PageRank is irrelevant.

Now, there will be a couple of you out there who will have read some statistics regarding people using a high PageRank as a yardstick to measuring the authority or trustability of a website. Putting things in perspective however we can all agree that this is a small percentage of the population (do you?) and if this trust is what you’re looking for you’ll find it much easier and cheaper (time is money) to attain by adding HackerSafe to your site and getting the roughly 14% conversion increase you can get by going that route.

So we’ll focus on the real business and it’s very clear that what we’re really after is rankings, not PageRank. Once upon a time PageRank had a strong influence on rankings – that is not the case anymore. It is certainly a factor, one among a hundred. Certainly not something worth all the hoop-la.

But thus far I don’t think I’ve really answered the question I’ve set out to – so let’s do that now. Really there are two common questions I seem to get asked frequently about PageRank and they are:

Why isn’t my PageRank higher?
The answer here depends on the site of course however the most common reasons are:

  • The links you’re building are horrible – sorry but it’s true. If you come to me with an acne treatment site with a low PageRank and ask why, please make sure you haven’t done mass recip link building with low PageRank car insurance sites (or worse), or
  • Google’s lack of PageRank updating is the “problem”. I’ve seen a number or sites that actually have some good link building tactics in place but have a low PageRank. When I ask when the link building started I’ll generally get the reply that it’s been in the last 6 months or so. While there have been some hiccups in the PageRank displayed in the tool bar we haven’t seen a real update since April. These are generally the funniest people to deal with and here’s why. The conversation usually takes the following turn:
    “Oh, that’s why my PageRank is still a 2 (or 1 or whatever). I was wondering as I’m sitting at #2 for my phrase.” Which occasionally makes me want to forget I’m speaking with a prospective client and cry out “THEN WHO CARES WHAT YOUR PAGERANK IS !!??!!

Which is really what this blog post (or is it a blog rant?) is about. The second question I get asked a lot is:

So what are you going to do to increase my PageRank?
The truth of the matter is, nothing. I’m not specifically interested in your PageRank. If you look at our guarantee page you won’t see a “We guarantee to get you a PageRank of x over 6 months.” We run ranking reports, not PageRank reports.

Now, we have to do a lot of link building and our primary focus is to get good relevant links so in the end, the PageRank of the sites we work on will go up however that’s not really the point. PageRank doesn’t pay the bills (unless you’re selling links). Your page’s rank – now that does. :)

So thank you all for listening to my rant. I do hope that it has answered some questions and please accept my thanks … you’ve been a good counselor. ;)

And Matt (Cutts) if you’re reading this PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just help us get rid of the bloody green bar. paid links wouldn’t be a problem for you anymore (or certainly less of one) and I wouldn’t have to answer these questions anymore and could just be left to focus on relevancy. :)

SEO news blog post by @ 1:18 pm




October 22, 2007


If you’re a regular visitor to our blog you may have noticed the additional of the Sphinn button to our blog and article pages. Sphinn, for those of you who may be unaware, is a social bookmarking site created by SE-guru Danny Sullivan for SEO’s and Internet Marketers. If you haven’t been there yet, head over there and set yourself up an account. It’s a great site for finding out what’s going on and what’s being published related to SEO today.

And while you’re there …

Feel free to visit me at You can watch what I’ve been submitting, Sphinning, or become a friend and keep updated on what I’m doing on Sphinn (I visit it daily).

Sphinn is a GREAT resource for keeping up-to-date on SEO and is highly recommended to all Beanstalk’s blog readers. You can visit it at and join here.

SEO news blog post by @ 2:30 pm




October 19, 2007

The Dark Arts Of SEO

The latest article by Beanstalk came out today. Titled, “The Dark Art Of SEO” it covers all the advanced black-hat SEO tactics we use including cloaking, blog comment spamming, paid links, FFA spamming for competitor sites and more.

And do I have your attention yet? ;)

Alright, in reality the article covers some of the hidden and often forgotten areas of SEO. Those parts hidden in the dark and rarely accessed. The tactics discussed will take time and patiences and probably money but will give you a huge advantage over your competitors provided that you already have the basics in place.

You’ll find the article here. Nothing like a little light reading over the weekend. ;)

SEO news blog post by @ 5:54 pm




Screwed Up Day

It took a while for me to notice (about 5 or 6 minutes after getting in this morning) but Google’s SERPs are screwed up. It’s not the regular sort of screwed up I’ve referred to before where rankings are messy and the algorithm is “broken”. No, this time what I’m seeing just makes absolutely no sense.

My default homepage is the Google set of search results for seo services. Normally I see our site at #1 followed (or occasionally replaced) by WeBuildPages, Network Solutions and the usual suspects of the 51 million-or-so pages that show up. Today the rankings in the top 10 are about the same. A little bit of shuffling but nothing surprising – however the total number of pages dropped down to 3,270,000. Now Google datacenter (Note: link removed as it no longer works) shows 32 million pages which is a bit better but Yahoo! is showing 44 million. Isn’t Google the largest index?

Admittedly, I don’t think this is going to last for too long but it’s an odd update indeed that leads to such results. This is not the only phrase we’ve seen this for either. There are a wide array of phrases that are showing serious drops in the number of indexed pages on If I see anything come of this, I’ll be sure to post more info here however at this time I haven’t seem any top ranking sites booted due to this drop.

Now, speaking of odd things – below you’ll find a picture of Danny Sullivan. For those of you who don’t know – Danny is the godfather of SEO. I know, I once had a dream I was a black hat SEO and woke up with a horses head dancing around my monitor as the screensaver.

Needless to say, most SEO’s look up to Danny (with the exception of Doug Heil of course). And then we see a picture like this:

Oh Danny Danny Danny … I had so much respect for you. ;) Now I’ve gotta have more as it take kahunas to wear THAT in public. ;) Hope the folks at BOTW bought you a drink or two or ten for that (or maybe it was a drink or two or ten BEFORE that ;)


To top off an odd day, I’m not sure what to make of GOOG. Yesterday I wrote that if the stock went up today I’d give a free link to my bud rumplepup as I got a link when I made him wrong so it only seemed fair. Well yesterday GOOG closed at $639.62 and it closed at $644.72 today so by that count I was wrong however my advice was to sell the stock first thing in the morning. Well, the stock opened at $654.56 and went down from there. So I was wrong on one count and right on another. What to do? What to do?

Oh to heck with it, he’s my buddy so I’ll go with being wrong. :) So rumplepup, here’s a link to your skin care products (link removed – site no longer exists) site. While it doesn’t have a lot to do with SEO (with the exception of the fact that Robert Garcia (rumplepup) is a good SEO himself) I’m happy to link to the site. He’s a good guy and note, he has the HackerSafe logo. It’s a good thing to add to your site as well, great for conversions (even on our site and we don’t sell anything through ecommerce).

We have a review of HackerSafe complete with videos, etc. here. Might as well make the free link a worthwhile example for our visitors. :)

And on that note, have a great weekend all !!!

SEO news blog post by @ 3:01 pm




October 18, 2007

Own GOOG Stock? Sell.

It was a dark dark day for Google today. They had the misfortune of having to announce to the world that in Q3 of 2007 they only were able to attain increases of 57% compared to Q3 of 2006 which results in, wait for it, a measly 9% increase over Q2 of this year. This dismal display by Google is sure to result is some serious drops in their stock values.

Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) tried to make light of the situation with the following:

“We are very pleased with the impressive growth we experienced across our business. Our core search advertising business experienced continued momentum driven by growth in monetization and traffic, and we are creating a wider and deeper ads system through our focus on innovation, bringing more ad formats to our advertisers. Our efforts to offer more products and services in international markets as well as effectively grow our technology infrastructure and add to our deep talent base during the quarter helped to deliver growth by enabling Google to reach more users around the world.”

What he should have said was:

“I’m sorry to all the shareholders of Google stock (including Sergey and Larry). I don’t know how the company could be suffering like this under my benevolent rule. I mean, 9% over a whole 3 months! You all must be asking yourselves what we’ve been doing. I got so caught up in acquisitions and adding in new revenue streams that I totally forgot to micro-manage and make sure our shareholders would be happy. I understand why we’re going to get the spanking we will by shareholders who forget that we’re heading into Q4 – the most lucrative quarter. Sergey, Larry and all of you who own shares, I’m sorry – I’m going to go home and cry now.”

It has always driven me nuts that Google shares drop when they only show single digit increases. Drives me nuts? Well I suppose that’s the wrong emotion. Makes me laugh is probably more accurate. Only Google could lose when posting gains like that. :) We’ll see how tomorrow goes. Who knows, maybe investors have gotten smarter than they were a couple years ago.

Now, moving on from my tongue-in-cheek analysis of the basics of the Q3 results, here’s a summary of the Q3 2007 report:

  • Google revenues were $4.23 billion
  • Google sites generated $2.73 billion (65% of total revenue)
  • Partner sites generated $1.45 billion (34% of total revenue)
  • Revenue from outside the US totalled $2.03 billion (48% of total revenue)
  • Google paid $1.22 billion to acquire traffic (the majority was to AdSense partners)
  • Operating expenses hit $1.25 billion
  • Net income was $1.07 billion
  • Google has cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities totaling – wait for it – wait for it – $13.1 billion. (holy cr@p !!!)

So watch the stock reports tomorrow and sell early. As you can see – Google is in bad shape and the day will prove it. And if I’m wrong and the stock goes up tomorrow – I’ll pass on a free link to my bud rumblepup. When I made him wrong I got a link so it only seems fair that if I’m wrong, he should get one. :)

SEO news blog post by @ 3:40 pm




« Newer PostsOlder Posts »
Level Triple-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Copyright© 2004-2014
Beanstalk Search Engine Optimization, Inc.
All rights reserved.