Translate:
Latest SEO Articles: Speaking At:
    Speaking at SMX London 2013
Follow Us:
Follow beanstalkseo on Twitter
Hear Us On:
Webmaster Radio
Blog Partner Of:
WebProNews Blog Partner
Helping Out:
Carbon balanced.
Archives
  • RSS

    XMLRSS

    Beanstalk's SEO News Blog

    At Beanstalk Search Engine Optimization we know that knowledge is power. That's the reason we started this SEO blog. 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 SEO news contained within this blog useful.


    November 17, 2011

    Understanding the Adwords auction process

    As online advertising continues to be a more prominent source of revenue for both big and small businesses the importance of Google’s Adwords advertising program has also increased, emerging as the premiere method of advertising on the internet. Despite this rise in useage, many businesses still lack a thorough understanding of exactly how the Adwords process works, which is to say, they are likely spending a significant amount of advertising money on something they do not completely understand. No wonder then that many campaigns are not nearly as successful as they could and should be.

    Yesterday, Wordstream released a Google Adwords specific infographic in which the Adwords auction process is explained for potential clients in an easy to follow presentation. The infographic illustrates precisely how Google determines which ads will be shown and how much money the ads will cost (click image for full printable version).


    While the infographic is relatively easy to follow and understand, a simple explanation of Adwords can be defined as follows: The Adwords auction process is structured so that all bidders can win; an Adwords bidder need only pay the minimum amount required to beat out the person below them.

    When you use Adwords, your ad will appear along the very top or along the right hand side of the organic Google search engine results. The rank of your ad is directly related to your traffic and your traffic is related to a number of relevant factors:

    Quality Score – Rating that search engines assign to each keyword chosen by an advertiser
    Click Through Rate (or CTR) – Percentage which expresses how many people are seeing your ad and then clicking it
    Bid Price – the price per keyword an advertiser is willing to spend to gain a click
    Ad Relevance – Relevance of the text in an ad in relation to keyword

    Also in direct relation to the factors shown above is the landing page. It makes very little sense to go through the time necessary to set up an Adwords account and attain and drive traffic that ultimately takes a user through to a page that is not relevant to the ad they’ve just clicked on – you’ve wasted their time, and worse, you’ve wasted a part of your budget. The landing page is often the ‘Achilles Heel’ of many Adwords campaigns – a sensible course of action would be to have these pages built around the following criteria:

    - Easy to navigate
    - Load quickly
    - Keyword enriched content relevant to the searched word

    Landing page relevance factors heavily into Quality Score; quality score affects cost per click (CPC) as well as eligibility in the keyword auction process.

    Each step of the Google Adwords auction process informs the the next step required to build and maintain a successful Adwords campaign. If you are an advertiser considering using Adwords to expand revenue, get up to speed and ensure you have a thorough understanding of how the entire process works before you spend any time or money on a campaign. Understanding the auction process is the first step towards success.

    SEO news blog post by @ 3:36 pm


     

    November 10, 2011

    Google+ plus company profiles, plus company page, plus site link?

    Pleasing plus is presently proving to be a problem with the plethora of possibilities. Confused by all the Plus linking options suddenly available? Here’s a round-up of what it looks like right now.

    1. Create a Google+ page for the company.
    2. Create employee G+ pages.
    3. Add your employee G+ pages to the company.
    4. Add a link or badge from your website to the G+ page for the company.
    5. Add rel=author links between content on your site and your employee pages.
    6. Add +1 options to the homepage and content/product pages.

    Here’s a very busy illustration of the process:

    URLs and Code Pages
    Create Google+ Pages
    Link your website to the Company G+ page
    Add rel=author links between your content pages and the employee G+ pages.
    Make sure your site’s landing page, content (blog), and product pages have +1 buttons.

    I’d put your content/blog posts on your website first, and then follow up with a share to the G+ profile page of the employee/author responsible for the content.

    That’s the whole process for G+ interaction between a website, staff pages, and the company page. Doing this properly will tell Google your content is legitimate and maximize the potential ranking signals for your site as it pertains to Google Plus.

    Last step is getting folks to follow your Google+ page, hit the +1 buttons, and interact with your Google Plus postings/profile. We’ll have some ideas for this and followers other social networks as the excitement over recent Panda updates quells and we have more time to get back to addressing followers/traffic. Don’t forget that past articles (of which we’ve had a few) may still apply or at least offer some ideas.

    Hope everyone has a good long weekend!

    SEO news blog post by @ 3:22 pm


     

    October 24, 2011

    Google Searches Minus the Plus Operator

    Anyone who has used Google for any length of time is probably familiar with using the "+" operator in search queries in order to refine their results. This "+" older operator has been around for many years and is widely used by many searchers. It seems that overnight, Google has decided to remove this functionality from search queries.

    Google Plus Operator

    In a recent response to a post in the Google Webmasters Forum, Google employee Kelly F. stated the following in regards to the removal of the "+" operator:

    Hi everyone,
    We’ve made the ways you can tell Google exactly what you want more consistent by expanding the functionality of the quotation marks operator. In addition to using this operator to search for an exact phrase, you can now add quotation marks around a single word to tell Google to match that word precisely. So, if in the past you would have searched for [magazine +latina], you should now search for [magazine "latina"].

    We’re constantly making changes to Google Search – adding new features, tweaking the look and feel, running experiments, -all to get you the information you need as quickly and as easily as possible. This recent change is another step toward simplifying the search experience to get you to the info you want. Cheers, Kelly.

    The new process she outlined will work for most in most cases, but it does seem to make for more cumbersome searches. I personally can understand that Google needs to remove this in the wake of their Google + Social Media platform for obvious reasons, but as a frequent user of this operator that has been in place for the past 15 years I will be difficult to get used to a less intuitive process; regardless if it has the same functionality as the old way of performing the search.

    There was an interesting postscript from Danny Sullivan:

    I can’t believe Google has done this. I use the + command all the time, especially in an age when more and more, Google constantly reshapes a search based on what it guesses a searcher wants, rather than what they entered.

    The functionality is still there, which is a relief. But having to do a search like this:

    mars +landings +failures

    now like this:

    mars "landings" "failures"

    is more complicated. It also goes against 15 years of how search engines have operated, where quotes are used to find exact phrases. Now all those references across the web have become outdated, for no apparent reason other than maybe Google picked a name for its social network that wasn’t searchable.

    I think Danny Sullivan "sums" it up the change very well by saying:

    Imagine people learned how to symbolize addition by using the + symbol, then 150 years later, one of the big calculator makers declared that the + symbol would now be replaced by using the " symbol. That’s what Google has effectively done, no big blog post, no notice, just yanked the command search engines have used for over a decade. And probably because it named its social network Google+ — making it hard to find.

    I think this is an instance where the Google marketers and staff should have realized how the implementation of Google + was going affect search results. It also shows a lack of far-sightedness on their part to not speculate how the coining of the Google + brandname was going to cause problems for searchers. Removing this operator that has been around much longer than Google with no press release shows a profound lack of respect for the subscribers of the Google service.

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:59 am

    Categories: Google
    Tags: , ,

     

    October 13, 2011

    A Google Engineer who sees the outsider perspective?

    I know that as a stubborn old nerd I can be pretty hard to win over, and as much as this Google Engineer claims to have accidentally leaked his rant, I read this as intentionally made public from the get-go just by the way it was written to ‘everyone’ in a few spots. I could be wrong, but I’m not reading this as a leak, just as a rant.

    Ranting google employee

    The full post is, amazingly enough over on Google+ as a public post (although the original author has pointlessly deleted it). I shouldn’t say it’s really amazing that the post is still public, people duped it instantly so there’s no point in trying to remove it now.

    Make no mistake, there’s a few good points from Steve Yegge; I find some of the observations to be true but mostly from an outsider standpoint which is shocking because it was written by a fellow with almost 6 years of experience in the company. Google does have platforms, they do use them, and they do share them. True there’s always been an obvious panic towards security that’s effected accessibility, but then Google’s track record probably wouldn’t be as amazing with a more casual approach to giving outsiders access to core tech.

    Amazingly of all the points made, the one that echos most with my opinion is that Google is becoming arrogant and almost needs two versions of projects like Google’s Chrome browser. One version that runs super secure, fast, compatible, and sleek, with no frills or compromises. The other needs to be as bloated as FireFox/Opera, and it’d run like a buggy mess of poorly considered features that are starkly incompatible with themselves. To quote Steve on arrogance and Chrome development:

    “You know how people are always saying Google is arrogant? I’m a Googler, so I get as irritated as you do when people say that. We’re not arrogant, by and large. We’re, like, 99% Arrogance-Free. I did start this post — if you’ll reach back into distant memory — by describing Google as “doing everything right”. We do mean well, and for the most part when people say we’re arrogant it’s because we didn’t hire them, or they’re unhappy with our policies, or something along those lines. They’re inferring arrogance because it makes them feel better.

    But when we take the stance that we know how to design the perfect product for everyone, and believe you me, I hear that a lot, then we’re being fools. You can attribute it to arrogance, or naivete, or whatever — it doesn’t matter in the end, because it’s foolishness. There IS no perfect product for everyone.

    And so we wind up with a browser that doesn’t let you set the default font size. Talk about an affront to Accessibility. I mean, as I get older I’m actually going blind. For real. I’ve been nearsighted all my life, and once you hit 40 years old you stop being able to see things up close. So font selection becomes this life-or-death thing: it can lock you out of the product completely. But the Chrome team is flat-out arrogant here: they want to build a zero-configuration product, and they’re quite brazen about it, and F*** You if you’re blind or deaf or whatever. Hit Ctrl-+ on every single page visit for the rest of your life.”

    As Steve deleted the original post he put up a good bit on why it’s bad to have such things in public:

    “Please realize, though, that even now, after six years, I know astoundingly little about Google. It’s a huge company and they do tons of stuff, and I work off in a little corner of the company (both technically and geographically) that gives me very little insight into anything else going on there. So my opinions, even though they may seem well-formed and accurate, really are just a bunch of opinions from someone who’s nowhere near the center of the action — so I wouldn’t read too much into anything I said.”

    I really couldn’t agree more. If this had come from someone working with Google’s engineers on something such as the GO language it would have been a different story, but Steve’s admittance of the scope of his role is very honest and worth considering as you read his rant.

    TL;DR – Google guy rants about Google’s strategies from an outsider’s perspective and calls out some of the lingering issues with Google’s dev teams/arrogance. Everyone would like to see Google bend more and give more, though nobody can seem to qualify themselves to say if it’s really the wisest strategy.

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:07 am


     

    October 12, 2011

    Panda 2.5 Weather Report: To Panic or Not to Panic?

    As most were involved actively with SEO are aware, an update to the Google Panda Algorithm was implemented on September 28th and again on October 5th. This appears to be part of ongoing revisions to the Panda algorithm that continue to cause wild fluctuations in many websites rankings. Confirmed on September 30th, Google’s new Panda 2.5 arrived. It is still unclear if Panda 2.5 had been reversed or updated.

    DaniWeb, who has taken extreme measures to recover from the previous Panda updates, states that the site was hit hard again by this latest iteration of Panda. DaniWeb stated that traffic to the site dropped by as much as 50% on October 5th, which was the release of a previous update to the algorithm.

    Search Metrics has stated that 10 of 30 sites being hit saw an 80-90% recovery in visibility, but also stated that many others saw little to no improvement at all.

    In a post from Search Engine Watch, Simon Heseltine wrote a post asking "Was the Google Panda 2.5 Panic Warranted?" I have to respond with an emphatic, “yes.” Google continues to erode confidence in property by continually pulling the rug out from under its multitude of users. Many sites have still not recovered from the original Panda update at the beginning of the year, despite following all the best SEO and content practices and completing site overhauls.

    As is usual with major updates to the Google Algorithm, there is much speculation over the full scope or impact of the update. This time is no different. With conflicting reports from Search Metrics and sites like DaniWeb it is difficult to know who is correct. The more likely reality is that they are both right. Even though there appears to be an abundance of information discussing tactics for recovering from Panda and despite the valiant efforts of site owners to recover, many continue to be hit hard, while others seem to weather the updates quite well.

    More transparency from Google could help to quell the debates and to restore a measure of confidence in the search-engine giant. Releasing timely information regarding algorithm updates would save an enormous amount of frustration for their users. It is exceedingly difficult to apply a bandage if you cannot see where you are hemorrhaging from. Google is even getting pressure from Danny Sullivan to be more transparent with the Panda updates. This may or may not have prompted Matt Cutts to release a "weather report" regarding Panda:

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:56 am


     

    October 11, 2011

    What word to use for anchor text?

    As a well connected SEO I digest a lot of publications from the web and I try to limit my opinion to factual results either from real world feedback or by controlled tests. Google is constantly evolving and improving itself to render the best search results possible, or at least better search results than the competition.

    Considering where Google was with regards to just hardware in 1999, things certainly keep changing:

    Evolution of Google - First server

    On Monday SEO Moz published a small test they did to gauge the importance of keywords in the anchor text of links. The test is discussed in detail over on SEO Moz but the result was rather straight forward.

    In a nutshell they took 3 new sites, randomly equivalent, and tried to build some controlled links to the sites using three different approaches:

    1. Build links with just ‘click here’ text
    2. Build links with the same main keyword phrase
    3. Build links with random components of the main keyword phrase

    Obviously the test is a bit broken, because if you don’t have existing keyword relevance for a phrase, you should build relevance with keywords in the anchors. When Google is sorting out who will be ranked #1 for a site dealing with candies, the site linked to with relevant keywords should always rank higher than a site with links like “click here” or “this site” which aren’t relevant. The only exception would be in a situation where the links seem excessive or ‘spammy’ and may result in Google not considering any of the similar links for relevance.

    Outside of a clean test environment we know the best results would be a blend of all three types, with a bit of brand linking mixed in to avoid losing focus on brand keywords. A well established site with a healthy user base will constantly be establishing brand due to all the time on site and click-through traffic for that brand.

    ie. If I search for “Sears” and click on the first link only to find it’s a competitor, I’d hit back and find the right link to click. In most cases Google’s watching/learning from the process, so brand links aren’t going to be a necessity after a site is quite popular, and the % of brand links wouldn’t need to be much at all.

    Kudos to SEOMoz for publishing some of their SEO test info regardless of how experimental it was. We’re constantly putting Google’s updates to the test and it’s often very hard to publish the results in such a clinical fashion for all to see. We will always make an attempt to blog on the topics we’re testing but it’s still on the to-do list to publish more of the data.

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:56 am


     

    October 7, 2011

    All I’m Going To Say Is …

    Alright, no it’s not.  For those of you who are watching your PageRank using one of the myriad of tools available (SEO Quake, Search Status, etc.) you may have noticed that the bar is grey.  Google has not discontinued PageRank, they’ve just moved it’s reference URL and most tools have yet to adapt.  You can expect updates soon from most of them I’m sure.

    This issue was first spotted by (go figure) Dave Naylor.

    So rest easy, we’ll all have a little green bar to continue to stare at. :)

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:14 am

    Categories: Google
    Tags: , ,

     

    September 30, 2011

    Google Screwed Up

    When Google+ reared its neonatal head from the nether regions of mother Google, everyone danced around like a new dad on 18 cups of coffee.  There was excitement, wonder, curiosity and just a little bit of fear for what was to come.  And, just as every new father predicts their child will be a physicist or world-class athlete, the opinions on the future of Google+ began to fly all over the web.   Anyone with a respected author profile (or not) gave their predictions for the future, and was promptly smacked down by scores of commenters.  For every post outlining the reasons Google+ was a Twitter killer, there were three more predicting the demise of Facebook.  In hindsight, it all seems rather amusing.

    It has been just three months since the plus was added on to the Google, and yet only recently have we begun to figure out the purpose behind it.  In the October 2011 issue of Wired magazine, Google VP of Product Bradley Horowitz shines a 1000 watt floodlight on the grand purpose of Google+.  He says “…every single Google property acted like a separate company.  Due to the way we grew, through various acquisitions and the fierce independence of each division within Google, each product sort of veered off in its own direction.  But Google+ is Google itself.”  The devil himself probably heard every reader exclaim ‘oooohh NOW I get it…’.  Google+ IS Google, not the other way around.

    The plus really does mean ‘in addition to’.  Google+ is intended as the new umbrella brand to all the other Google properties, and it wasn’t until someone actually put that into words that we all got it.  Which begs the question:  why didn’t we see that before?  Whose fault is it that web users and experts didn’t understand the gravity of the plus?

    In the humble opinion of this wide-eyed writer, Google screwed up.  They supposedly have some of the brightest minds in the world running the treadmill for them, yet the marketing plan for the plus was vastly understated and misunderstood.  Now to be fair, maybe they didn’t know this was the plan and through the evolution of usage the plus evolved into something bigger with more potential than originally planned.  Or maybe they screwed up.

    Of course the other side of the coin is that we, the users, saw the plus with blinders on.  Were we so used to pegging our social, professional  and personal online activities into separate holes that we didn’t consider everything could be under one brand?  Maybe that notion was a little too scary to consider.  Or Google screwed up.

    Why does it matter?  Because if Google+ is their brand, then they have a mountain of work to do in the area of marketing and re-organization.  As Horowitz said in his Wired interview, all the Google properties acted separately past a certain point.  It doesn’t take an MBA to figure out that is probably the reason most products failed.  Now they will bring everything together under the plus and fortify the artillery.  Stay tuned, the next year is going to be exceedingly interesting when it comes to the plus.  If they don’t screw up again.

    SEO news blog post by @ 1:17 pm

    Categories: Google+
    Tags: ,

     

    September 27, 2011

    Google’s Sweet 13

    Today is Google’s 13th Birthday! Woo! Lucky number 13 for those who are superstitious, and the day a boy becomes a man if you’re Jewish.

    Custom designed Google birthday cake logo with 13 candles from Ryan Morben @ Beanstalk

    For Google it’s just the official date they picked to mark the start of the company. As with most things that were born many times in concept and then in execution, the actual birthday of Google was debated:

    • Google began in Jan/1996 as a research project by Larry Page and Sergey Brin
    • Page and Brin originally nicknamed their new search engine BackRub
    • The final name, Google, originated from a misspelling of the word googol
    • Originally, Google ran under the Stanford University website, with the domain google.stanford.edu
    • The domain name for Google was registered on September 15, 1997
    • The company was incorporated on September 4, 1998

    So why the official birthday is the 27th is a bit of a head-scratcher, and why some wanted Sept 14th as the official date, when the 15th was the date of registration, is another mystery.

    Over the years there’s been a number of Google logos to celebrate the aging of service:

    Google's 4th Birthday 4th Birthday – 2002
    Google's 5th Birthday 5th Birthday – 2003
    Google's 6th Birthday 6th Birthday – 2004
    Google's 7th Birthday 7th Birthday – 2005
    Google's 8th Birthday 8th Birthday – 2006
    Google's 9th Birthday 9th Birthday – 2007
    Google's 10th Birthday 10th Birthday – 2008
    Google's 11th Birthday 11th Birthday – 2009
    Google's 12th Birthday 12th Birthday – 2010
    Google's 13th Birthday 13th Birthday – 2011

    I was really enjoying the theme, and I don’t even get the 12th?

    Yep it’s a slow news day for search engine related activity, but Dave’s over at the Expo so when he gets back expect some fresh topics and more focused in-depth content.

    Update: Apparently Google’s mysterious selection of the 27th was actually a PR move to merge the date with a new larger index in a competitive move against Yahoo! You can read more about the official Google coporate history right here.

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:34 am


     

    September 20, 2011

    Google+ is now Public (No invites needed)

    I *was* working on another story when I saw this on the Google search page:

    Google opens Google+ to uninvited users

    We had talked about sneaky ways to get into Google+ in previous posts like this one:


    Google+ Free For All

    However this time Google actually wants users to flood on in without any invites, they are ready for it now, and none of your friends will have a problem signing up.

    Heck now that no invite is needed, and no sneaking required, perhaps we’ll get more of those elite types that won’t accept anyone doing them a favor and wouldn’t signup to the Google+ system before?

    That’s it, not a long post, but if someone gets a lead on how we can edit the “utm_source” to get credit for referrals, please do drop us a line? :)

    SEO news blog post by @ 12:19 pm


     

    « Newer PostsOlder Posts »
    Level Triple-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
    Copyright© 2004-2013
    Beanstalk Search Engine Optimization, Inc.
    All rights reserved.