Beanstalk's SEO News Blog

Beanstalk's Daryl Quenet (Director Of Optimization Services) published his latest article today. Titled, "An Introduction To SEO" it covers the general theory behind the SEO basics.

While in this article we don't get into too many specific tactics (don't worry - there are some) it covers nicely the ideas behind the tactics. And as we've discussed in our blog previously - understanding the "why" helps you keep up and understand the "how".

You can read the article on the Beanstalk site here. Enjoy!

Labels: daryl quenet, seo article

Last Monday we reported that Google was in a state of flux. There was some minor stabalization late last week (i.e. there was still some up-and-downs but things were mainly quiet) and now we're seeing an odd bag of results.

As we're located up in the "Great White North" (an ironic name given that Beanstalk is in Victoria, BC and we had all of 5 flakes of snow this winter) we're used to putting &gl=us (standing for: Geographic Location = US) after a search query to mimic US results. Well that isn't working today and we're getting different results out of Canada with our own geographic specifiers, our US specifier and results from logging into our California servers. Normally a search with &gl=us and a search off our California servers will yield the same results - but not today.

I've also checked the same phrase with a client in Seattle who's seeing a totally different set of results and Boston is seeing the same at in California.

And so the flux continues ...

Ahhhh that days of the Google dance when once every 4 to 6 weeks there'd be a major shake-down and then stability for another month. Of course, if you got kicked in the butt in an update back then you had to wait out the month before you could expect to see any adjustments so there are pros and cons to both environments.

I've only had the opportunity to do a cursory analysis of this update. it appears (non-conclusively) to be related primarily to links. Site with large link growth aren't being credited with those new links and sites with fewer links that are older are seeing a boost. This is always the case but we're seeing it to a much larger degree on some of the datacenters. And in the end, the truth will likely lie somewhere in between. Again, this is based only on a preliminary analysis and should not be considered conclusive in the least.

Good luck you you all during the update. (unless you're competing with our clients ;)

Labels: google update

As part of our ongoing series on optimization, Jim Hedger published part 4 in the series - content optimization. It's a lengthy read (with a topic such as content optimization, how could it be otherwise).

This article is released in conjunction with a special on Webcology (a Webmaster Radio show hosted by Jim and myself). Be sure to tune in on Thursday at 2PM EST to listen to some great interviews to go along with the article. If you've reading this too late to catch the show don't worry - you can download the podcast free of charge on the Webcology page here.

Jim Hedger, aside from being a great friend to me and the entire SEO community, is an SEO consultant for Metamend Web Marketing also out of Victoria, BC, Canada.

Labels: jim hedger, metamend, seo article, webmaster radio, webpronews

Just thought I'd give all our readers a head's up that Google is showing VERY mixed and ever-changing results at the moment. This is expected on Fridays and over the weekends but here we have it on a Monday. This first came to my attention when a client of ours was seeing their site on the first page of Google and I saw them on page 2. I then logged into our server in California and saw a totally different result and out of Texas it was different yet again.

So be alert and aware, Google is on the move. What you see today may have very little bearing on what you see tomorrow. :)

And good luck to you all.

Labels: google update

The fine folks over at SaveTheInternet.com are at it again. Thanks to Rep. Ed Markey the Net Neutrality issue is back on the table. For those of you who don't know the net neutrality issue, you can ignore this unless you have a website or an Internet connection.

I'm not going to get into a lesson on net neutrality - it's a huge topic that's been better covered by others. Here are some links to important information on it:

• Wikipedia
• Google
• Webmaster Radio

If you agree that net neutrality is an important issue and show be the law (read: if your website and/or Internet access are important to you) then please sign the petition on the SaveTheInternet.com site here.

Labels: google, net neutrality, savetheinternet, webmaster radio, wikipedia

We have a client. Alright, we have more than one but there's one client specifically that I'll be writing about here - let's call him Bruce. Bruce decided one day to purchase a Featured Listing on Business.com. Now, by itself this isn't a bad idea. In fact, in many cases it might even be a good one - but not for poor Bruce.

We noticed that overnight Bruce's Yahoo! results tanked going from page one to ... well ... let's just say "not page one". We also noticed that the cache size of the page suddenly jumped to 89k. As an FYI, the page is NOT 89k and Google has it cached at a mere 16k. So we knew something was wrong but it took a few days before I decided to actually click on the Yahoo! result for the site.

The address bar flickered just a little too much and I tried again. Looking closely you could watch it go from the Yahoo! search address to the Yahoo! tracking URL to a business.com redirection address to the client's URL with ?trackcode=bizcom tacked onto the end. About the same time all this happened (the site dropped in the results for most but not all phrases) the client also noticed an increase in the cost of their ad spend. So Business.com was profiting off of actions that hurt my client's overall ROI and Yahoo! was a participant though I'd yet to figure out whether this was a genuine glitch or a revenue generation scheme that just didn't work out.

The best information I've found on this issue thus far is on SERoundtable.com in their post at http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/002604.html.

A call to business.com did seem to get some results (i.e. "they'll work on getting the site removed") but I'll keep you posted as to how that works out.

So take this as a warning. If you're enjoying solid Yahoo! results and the traffic they provide - avoid a business.com listing like the plague.

Labels: business.com, yahoo

With rumors of a layoff spree in the not-too-distant future, it appears that the future is really here at Yahoo! Reinforcing the "noone is safe" aspect of what we've been told by Yahoo!, VP of Marketing Todd Daum is rumored to have been laid off earlier today. I first head of this layoff over at ValleyWag.com. They're also providing some links to other related reading so worth the read. You can read the news here.

The total number of Yahoo! employees laid off today is slightly higher than predicted at 1,100 bringing the total number of employees there down to about 13,200. There's a good writeup of the scale of the layoffs and surrounding environment on the News.com site here.

Labels: yahoo

I received an email the other day from someone who needed help. Now, this happens on a daily basis in regards to sites we see that aren't ranking well ("they could sure use our help") but every now and then I see something I just have to get my hands into.

The issue started when the gentleman received an email from Google. The email informed him that he had malware on his site and that he was potentially infecting his visitors. This not-coincidentally matched pretty well to the timing of his site losing all it's PageRank and rankings. He wasn't sure what to do and then I got an email.

The gentleman forwarded me the email (I'll be honest - I didn't even know Google sent those). It included the page in question and a method for requesting reconsideration (basically, go into webmaster tools an request re-inclusion).

So why do I mention all this? Well, I've personally never seen it and I assume many of you are in a similar situation. I'm helping this gentleman free of charge in exchange to the right to document it (without names) here on our blog.

As of today I have scanned through the site, removed all the offending code (it was on a LOT more than one page), uploaded the clean files and submitted the re-inclusion request. I'll be monitoring the site carefully and documenting the changes.

As it stands today, the site has all it's pages still in the index (site:www.domain.com) and a search for a phrase from a page that wasn't affected produces the domain as a result. A search for a phrase from the affected pages does include the affected page however it appears VERY low in the results of hat once was a strong site.

I'll post updates in the blog as the development progresses. I'm personally very interested in tracking the timelines involved with this type of re-inclusion request.

Labels: google

The latest article to come out of the Beanstalk workshop was just published today. The most recent article has an odd spin, it's for our would-be competitors.

The article, titled "Starting An SEO Company" describes some of the considerations a would-be SEO needs to make when deciding whether to launch an SEO company. The angle it takes is basically how to grow your business when you're starting from zero (I'm not an MBA so it's not an actually business lesson).

I hope you enjoy it. You can find it here.

Labels: seo article

The most recent article in the series of ten was published today by Ross Dunn of StepForth Web Marketing. I've been impressed by many of the articles Ross has written on the topic which is precisely why we invited him to write this section of the ten part series. And after reading it, it was only reinforced that we made the right call.

While we personally use different tools and techniques I love Ross' hand's on approach. It's a definitely must read for the novice or expert.

But enough preamble, you can read the article on our site here.

And here are the links to the resources listed in the article:

Articles:

• Is Your Website Search Engine Friendly? Your Personal Checklist
• The 10 Minute Search Engine Optimization
  
• 15 Shades of Spam

Other:

• SEO Tutorials

Labels: competition analysis, ross dunn, seo article, stepforth

Well the fine folks over at Google have come up with a response to Friday's bid by Microsoft for Yahoo! Now, believe me - I understand that business is business and that Google has to respond with a negative spin against their competitors but the blog post and press release they put out made me smirk more than think. The official line, put forth by David Drummond, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer for Google, was:

"So Microsoft's hostile bid for Yahoo! raises troubling questions. This is about more than simply a financial transaction, one company taking over another. It's about preserving the underlying principles of the Internet: openness and innovation."

Ummmmm, OK - you've got to be kidding me. Now I mean no offense to Google - love them to bits and use them daily but seriously, the two properties search market share combined still only account for slightly over half of Google's so exactly what is the threat to competition? Google will still have the overwhelming majority of search so really - they can decide how much innovation goes into it. And please - openness !!! When I get my weekly email updating me on the algorithm or when the numbers get put out on searches/day even - THEN that argument might stand. :) He then writes:

"Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies -- and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets.

Could the acquisition of Yahoo! allow Microsoft -- despite its legacy of serious legal and regulatory offenses -- to extend unfair practices from browsers and operating systems to the Internet? In addition, Microsoft plus Yahoo! equals an overwhelming share of instant messaging and web email accounts. And between them, the two companies operate the two most heavily trafficked portals on the Internet. Could a combination of the two take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors' email, IM, and web-based services? Policymakers around the world need to ask these questions -- and consumers deserve satisfying answers."

Ouch.

Now, they raise decent points regarding the past practices of Microsoft but again - what competition? If anything the deal will raise the bar on competition in the industry - but Google knows that. Whenever Google's doing something or buying someone everyone makes a big to-do about it. Well now the shoe is on the other foot and Google gets their chance to point the finger.

In the end the likelihood of Google getting their way and the deal being blocked is low. Heck, the fact that Google's against it probably has some FTC people thinking it's a pretty good thing and heck - it might be good for Google as well. Let's consider this - who is the master of search? (hint - it's Google).

People will choose MSN/Live because it's easy (part of their browser, etc.) people will chose Yahoo! because it's part of other services they use or because it's not Google. Well the former will see their services changed dramatically when Microsoft takes over and the later won't like being part of Microsoft any more than Google and so they'll either give up and go to Google or, the company that I view as the true likely winner in this - Ask (come on - give them a chance :)

Of course only time will tell but I'm looking forward to the journey. This is going to be a very VERY interesting story to follow.

Labels: ask, google, market share, microsoft, msn, yahoo

In a move that oddly seemed to surprise many, Microsoft made an unsolicited bid for Yahoo! today. How much? - only $44.6 billion dollars. This would pay investors $31/share - a 62% premium over the previous day's close.

Steve Ballmer is confident that this is the right move for Microsoft. He's also confident that it's the right move for Yahoo! But is he right?

Based on the discussed layoff of a thousand employees from Yahoo! (as well as their current financial slump) combined with Microsoft's huge wallet, inability to get any solid foothold on the search market and control of the desktop and OS makes this an interesting notion. And it comes an an ironic time ...

A couple days ago I completed a survey for SEOmoz (you can too at http://www.seomoz.org/seo-survey) and one of the questions was, "how (if anyone) can challenge Google". My response was Microsoft based on 2 things; their control of the desktop and their ability to simply purchase Yahoo! which they pitched for last year. And it appears that it just *might* happen.

The combined exposure of these two engines would be roughly 33%, still only slightly past half of Google's and there are other considerations. Yahoo! has a large hold on a variety of other properties that Microsoft would obviously leverage to increase their exposure and work to further monetize. Sites such as Flickr, MyBlogLog, etc. (these are my two favorites so that's why they're the ones listed :)

The down side, many people use Yahoo! as "the Google alternative". If Yahoo! is combined with Microsoft it loses the appeal of being an alternative and becomes a cog in a bigger machine. Will users who've been loyal to Yahoo! leave? Also in my questions list: which algorithm will they lean towards? Will they keep all the Yahoo! properties or spin them off. What will happen to Yahoo!'s staff? (not that they have a ton of security right now anyways)

I have a different take than a lot of people I suppose, I like it and hope it goes through. As much as I like Google and appreciate their excellence - I'd like to see at least some kind of quasi-competition for search dominance. Heck, with a third of the market share when combined maybe I'll here something other than (I don't care about anyone else - I just want to rank on Google) from clients. ;) If the deal goes through then my job gets a bit more interesting and to me, that's a good thing. :)

Now I'm not an economist, nor can I predict the future. I've given a quick summary here of what it a HUGE issue and could change the search landscape dramatically. I highly recommend reading up on this further and keeping up with it as it progresses. To get you started, here are some great resources on the story thus far:

• CNN on the bid
• PC World writes about web users' concerns over the deal
• CNET provides a great walk through on why Microsoft made the bid public this time rather than privately as they did last time (very interesting to learn a little bit about the tactics behind the offers and what we can expect to come)
  

And as a final note, I find it very funny that this deal is going to be reviewed by the anti-trust folks. How's THAT for a waste of the tax payers dollars? Two companies merging so they can together be half of what the leader is. This is building competition not eliminating it. But it'll probably cost a few million dollars for them to sort that out and come to the same conclusion. ;)

Labels: google, microsoft, yahoo

Many people have likely noticed over the past while that the Overture keyword tools is extremely unreliable. Setting aside the numbers it provides (equal to or better than other options to be sure) one can rarely even connect to it.

Well we've found a quasi-successful workaround. For some reason (perhaps coincidence) it seems to work better in IE then Firefox. That's not the workaround however. What we did find works more times than trying to connect directly to http://inventory.overture.com/ is to access it through Google's cache of the page. Unfortunately this is far from reliable but appears to connect more times than a direct access attempt.

You can access the cache at http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:inventory.overture.com/. Note: it's still not reliable - just better. :)

Labels: keyword suggestion