As a professional website developer from way back, I’ve used my position as an “internet professional” to promote certain products. One that comes to mind is in search where my partners and I pointed a lot of our clients, friends and family to Google.  At the time Google was revolutionary in its approach to determining relevancy. Instead of relying on the words on the page Google looked outside to see who was linking to that page. Enter Google’s greatest PR achievement: PageRank.

It wasn’t until 4 years later that I started learning about search engine optimization and by then Google had claimed about half the worldwide searches. Many of the early players had been purchased or folded and there were really only 3 SEs worth counting in the US: Google, Yahoo and MSN.

One of Google’s other PR achievements is adoption of the phrase “do no evil”. Unfortunately it is clear that Google no longer holds to that tenant.

In the course of educating others about search and pointing them to Google I have helped make Google a stronger company. And now I feel dirty and used.

Somewhere in the middle of all that Google lost their way and took me with them. For some reason it is now wrong to purchase links. And it is right to “nofollow” links. Somehow it is wrong to sell links unless I purchase them through Google, attempting to outbid my competition to get top placement above the other search results. And most important, it is wrong to discuss what I’m doing with my sites or the sites of competitors or sites I just find interesting because I may point something out that Google doesn’t like and get those sites in trouble.

Google is the Big Bad. They’ve become the internet police and the authority for ethics online. They’ve been using FUD tactics to create an atmosphere of fear and suspicion within my industry - an industry I love with some of the best and brightest people you’ll find anywhere.

Infighting has broken out. Respected individuals and companies that 6 months ago would have been happy to work together (and at no charge in many cases!) are drawing lines in the sand. Conversations are becoming secretive and muted.

I think the problem is that we’re all so invested in Google we’re not sure what to do. Many of us want to go along with whatever Google says or does because it is easier. Some of us may be paralyzed with doubt. A lot of us know that what Google has been up to is wrong but don’t know what to do.

I intend to continue to talk about websites. I intend to develop less reliance on Google. I intend to point people to Google alternatives more often. And I am changing my default search engine today. And the default search engine of my family members.

My contribution is a small one, I know. Google probably won’t notice.

But just as I had a role in building Google up maybe I can bring them down enough for them to see the light and go back to being a force for good. Maybe I can convince them that while they provide a valuable service they shouldn’t be correcting their errors  through other people’s work (nofollow) and money (paid links). Maybe I can make a difference.

If you will do these things too.

Make pages for users, not for search engines.

- Google Webmaster Guidelines Basic Principles

Posted in SEOs, SEO

4 Comments »

SEO’s are known for their great debates. Does this tactic work? Is this how the algo works? Is this how things should work or is there a better way?

Normally this is healthy and eventually resolves into better education for everyone. Occasionally things blow up and a flame-war begins.

Right now the debate is between high-profile SEOs and their perception of Google’s anti-paid-link FUD tactics. It starts with Rand noticing some likely paid links and asking questions about them while pointing out that the issue isn’t going away. In the comments, Donna says that outing those sites is bad form.

I think the problem is bigger than the ethics of possibly outing websites that may be selling links without nofollows.

The problem is fear.

Webmasters should be able to discuss the merits of websites - and their tactics - freely and openly without fear of reprisal. This is an open discussion amongst peers. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Google might slap these sites down.

Rand is afraid to link to the sites in question because his site might get penalized for “endorsing” their tactics. Donna is afraid that even naming the sites will get them penalized.

Is Google the de facto police online now? They are one of the biggest companies online with huge influence. Should all webmasters being checking in with Google to see what is considered “evil” today? Or is Google pushing well past it’s bounds?

I’ve made my position clear. What do you think?

Posted in SEOs, SEO

3 Comments »

There’s an interesting thread at SEO Refugee where the question of “Blackhat SEO” comes up. What is blackhat SEO and how can it affect your website?

Technically blackhat SEO is doing anything outside of the webmaster guidelines with the intent of manipulating the search engine rankings.

Blackhat SEO tends to bring in results faster than the normal “organic” process of whitehat SEO. It investigates exploits in the search engine algorithms to make a site perform better than average.

I think it is important to note that blackhat techniques are not illegal. Nor unethical. It’s just a short-term solution and there are appropriate uses for blackhat techniques. By short-term, I mean that a site using blackhat techniques will eventually get caught and when that happens the domain will be banned by the search engines.

A problem comes up when defining blackhat because a lot of blackhat techniques have legitimate uses. The problem is the search engines have difficulty detecting blackhat intent on a casual basis. And intent is the real indicator of whether a website is up to no good - and subject to ban - or not.

Common blackhat techniques include:

Hidden text and/or links - Or almost hidden. Use of CSS and matching colors shows the websites a site stuffed with links and content typical viewer won’t see.

Sneaky redirects - Use of javascript, meta refresh and other redirects where the viewer is supposed to arrive on one page but is instead redirected to another sales/ad ridden page.

Scraping - Generating original content based on targeted keywords takes real time and work. Blackhats usually want to keep this to a minimum so automated scripts pull content from existing websites. Advanced scripts scramble the content to make it appear unique.

Link spamming - Using automated scripts to plug links on blogs, forums and guestbooks. This isn’t as effective as it used to be because of the “nofollow” attribute and is the main reason behind Google’s nofollow solution.

Cloaking - Similar to hidden text but implemented in a completely different manner. Cloaking involves watching for the IP addresses of the search engines and displaying different content to them than to a normal viewer.

Keyword stuffing - An old school technique where the keyword density of a page is inflated. Doesn’t really work anymore especially in the meta keywords tag which is all but ignored by modern search engines.

Link farms - Building several sites that link together to artificially increase link popularity of a website.

Hijacking - Copying existing websites to rank for their content.

Referer log spamming - Pinging the website logfile in hopes the webmaster will track that URL back to the spam site.

Buying expired domains - To capitalize off their previous success.

Most blackhat websites don’t provide any real value to the visitor and that is why the search engines seek them out and purge them from their index. But as mentioned earlier there are appropriate uses for blackhat techniques.

Consider a real estate listing in a hot market. Taking the time to get that listing ranking at a level that is of value to the real estate agent just isn’t cost-effective. Using blackhat techniques that may get the site popular within weeks instead of months makes sense. But of course the site will eventually get caught and banned.

Blackhat is fine for short-term projects but should not be employed for a website geared for lasting value or long-term search engine success.

Posted in SEOs, Website Designers, Promotion, Industry News, SEO

7 Comments »

Smart website owners understand their website is a “work in progress” and never truly complete. The ideal website is updated regularly, if not constantly. But scope creep and other problems may cause the website to become unwieldy and appear disorganized to the average visitor. At some point the decision for a redesign is made.

When I offer a professional website review I ask the following questions:

Does this page or feature help the brand or hurt it? How?

Brand management can be tough. Just by asking this question fluff gets cut and important content gets pushed forward. This also reduces scope creep.

Is this page for: Vendors, Internal Employees, Potential Customers, Existing Customers, Search Engines, Other?

If I can’t tell who the page is for it needs to be reworked or cut. Every page should be clear in its intention and deliberate in presentation.

Can anything be cut? Should anything be added?

Content should be specific and comprehensive, not filler.

Sometimes pages are added to websites because competitors have similar pages. These pages tend to be short. While server resources are nearly infinite for an average site viewer patience is not. Get rid of these pages.

How is the site structure? How will the search engines view it?

The most important pages should be listed in places of prominence (above the fold and/or at the top of the navigation). This is a usability issue but also clues you in to how the search engines will crawl the site and how the PR/linkjuice will flow. The most important pages should be one click away at all times. Important pages include anything in the sales cycle like “products” and “contact”.

There are some links you want to down-play or deemphasize like “about” or “management team” type pages. While these feed the ego and should be included people will look for them if they are interested. These pages distract from the sales cycle and sometimes turn viewers off - if your profile is listed above the products it is clear where your priorities are. Links to legal pages like “privacy” don’t need to be in the header at all - these should be tucked away in the footer if they are really needed.

All links should be HTML, not hidden in JavaScript.

You may consider adding “nofollows” to pages that are essential but don’t help your search engine efforts like legal disclaimers.

Is anything broken?

Mainly this is links, especially navigation. Old sites may have dead links pointing out. This also applies to broken scripts and script errors appearing on pages.

I consider inconsistent design and navigation “broken”. It confuses the viewer and sometimes hurts the brand.

Should any pages be merged or moved?

Some websites offer more than one contact page - a general one and one for sales, support or press. If someone does a search for [contact yourcompanyname] which page should appear in the results? Other times a page will be included under the wrong subheading. Navigation should be intuitive. Large sites should include a search feature to help.

The main consideration for website redesigns should be enforcing the sales cycle, making presentation clear and including everything necessary without anything extra that distracts. If you do this a lot of the problems will clear themselves up and even your SEO efforts will be improved.

Posted in Website Designers, SEOs, Business Owners, Reviews, SEO, Web Design

No Comments »

I’m ready to move on from this issue but I wanted to point out some of the discussion about Google’s “hide your paid links” policy. First up is Michael Gray’s Paid Link PowerPoint Presentation from SES San Jose which is not just informative but also fun. After the panel WebProNews caught Michael and Rand Fishkin to discuss more about the issue and some of the confusion around it.

That movie is 18 minutes long and worth the watch as it covers immediate impressions from the conference.

I made another post about Google’s policy and what you should do about it at SEOmoz. And started a couple conversations at Sphinn. Read those comments as they have great insight.

I’d like to see Todd Malicoat weigh in on his blog as his points at the conference were so good. And I’d like to see you weigh in too. Join some of the conversations going on or write up your own blog post. This issue gets pretty scary if Google learns it can control how webmasters build and promote their sites.

Posted in Website Designers, SEOs, Sales and Marketing, Business Owners, Promotion, Marketing, SEO, Industry News, Web Design

No Comments »