Archive for the ‘SEO’ Category

Not Provided Keyword Moves to Top Referral Position

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

It has finally happened. I was reviewing traffic for a website today and noticed that the top referring keyword from Organic Search is “not provided”.

Google has been obscuring organic referral data for several weeks now. And, contrary to the initial assessment of having an impact on a “very low percentage” of users, it looks to be a quite sizable chunk of data that has evaporated into the depths of the interwebs.

Not Provided is Top Organic Keyword

Thanks Google, I will now guess how people got to my site.

Google says that they are hiding this data for privacy reasons. Right, I get it. Removing referral data for 8-15% of Google queries keeps some potentially vulnerable keywords safe from the targeting and exposure practices of marketing teams. Privacy is privacy.

Since the advancement of this keyword safety drive, I have looked for other ways to uncover the not-provided referral data. I would still like to understand the behavior of site visitors, regardless of their logged-in status. But how?

Tea leaves, of course.

Tea leaves render keywords

Use advanced tea leaves to understand organic keywords

Personally, I prefer the Special Gunpowder brand of tea. I discovered this tea while spending time in West Africa and it holds a dear place in my heart.

The Special Gunpowder tea leaves are delicately rolled up into little balls. When hot water is added, the leaves unravel to deliver an intense flavor and, if you’re lucky, the secret to your organic keyword referral data.

In the Senegalese tradition, I love 3 good rounds of carefully prepared tea. Even more, I love myself some safe Internet!

Special Gunpowder tea

Special Gunpowder Tea has a variety of uses

How Google Makes Algorithm Changes

Friday, August 26th, 2011

I thought this was an interesting look into how Google makes adjustments to their algorithm. The most interesting piece to me was the comment about how important “raters” are.

Raters are people who actually qualify changes so that the algorithm can be tweaked effectively. There are rumors that there are some 10,000 raters worldwide that help Google aggregate data and test search results, but I haven’t confirmed that number.

I recently noticed the change Google made to how they render results around misspellings. This video gives some insight into the thought processes that took place for making the change to the “did you mean” link.

Google Instant – What Changed?

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

It seems like only the most outrageous misinformation gets headlines these days. I got a real laugh when I heard that Google Instant was an “SEO killer”. Geez. But that didn’t keep the emails from coming in from concerned website owners. Google made a change and people are convinced that the standard SEO rules no longer apply.

In case you have been hiding under a rock, Google Instant refers to the update Google recently made in how they deliver search results. Several months ago, Google began “suggesting” queries as the user typed them. Google Instant took that a step further by not only suggesting queries but updating search results as the user typed.

Have you seen anything change yet? I’m curious. I haven’t. There are several companies that have tried to measure the impact of Instant on click-through rates and SEO traffic. It seems that the single consistent finding is that sites in position #9 and #10 are getting more clicks. Otherwise, nothing has changed.

Google Instant helps people clarify their queries faster. Relevant websites still show up for related queries. Those “relevant” websites likely have good quality content, have solved their accessibility issues, have keyword rich title tags and probably have a few pertinent websites linking to them. Oh, those are all SEO things. Apparently the fundamentals still apply.

Website findability is certainly evolving. People find their way to websites via many more avenues than just Google alone. But the golden rule still applies: “Content is King”. Your website has to be relevant to people or it will get ignored. Google may make many updates in the future but the changes to their search results seem to be focused more and more on ridding their index of spam. And that won’t happen in an instant.

No Follow and Internal Links

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

When the whole “page rank sculpting” thing was a hot topic and all the new, up-and-coming SEO’s were no-following all of their client’s internal links, I was suspicious. I wasn’t suspicious just because I’m paranoid. I was suspicious because of WHY the no follow attribute was created in the first place.

The no follow tag was created so that comment spam and a whole host of link-dropping activities could be minimized in terms of how those links affected search rankings. People were building scripts to comment in blog posts and those comments were full of links that passed PageRank. Google hates that kind of stuff so they pushed the no follow attribute and the world signed on.

So, the no follow attribute was created to combat spam and indicate that links to a website are not necessarily trusted.

Google likes trust.

A lot of people got wise to the fact that putting no follow tags on internal pages condensed the flow of pageRank to pages that were critical to their rankings. This was a flaw in the Google algorithm that was addressed. In the meantime, some SEOs were telling their clients to add no follow tags to their “about us” pages and “privacy” pages. For a time it worked. But to me, adding a no follow tag to an “about us” page told search engines that our about page could not be trusted.

Google likes trust.

So yesterday Matt Cutts posted a video explaining that adding no follow to internal hyperlinks was really just a bad idea. Thanks Matt. I have argued that point many times. Here’s the video:

Do Links in Javascript Pass PageRank

Saturday, April 10th, 2010

Now that’s a great title. But the gist of the question revolves around links that I have seen on high PR websites that seem to be effectively passing pageRank. These links have a “nofollow” in the HREF section of the hyperlink but also call an onclick function that potentially creates a separate URL whereby Google could crawl the link without the “nofollow” directive.

As I stated a few posts back, Google makes duplicate content for me, Google is looking inside Javascript functions to determine if there are additional URLs and content that they could crawl and add to their index. Their goal, after all, is organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. But I wonder if their quest to crawl content previously obscured by Javascript has inadvertently provided a loop hole for people who buy and sell links.

I recently encountered a hyperlink that was composed like, a href=http://www.mywebsite.com rel=”nofollow” onclick=window.open(this.href);return false;>my keyword <. As you can see, the initial hyperlink has a nofollow attribute and Google would thereby cut off pageRank flow to the destination page. However, since Google crawls simple Javascript functions such as the window.open function, will the initial "nofollow" be added to the URL which is derived from the Javascript?

I think not. But I shall test. I recently did a little work to make my vet's site accessible and their pet grooming page has yet to be crawled by Google. (See that, I just added this nice little Javascript function to the “pet grooming” link). So this is my little test. I will be looking to see if Google picks up the new grooming page and whether the link to that page from this blog shows up in GWT. Here goes….

(update April 21) – Google immediately crawled this blog post and ranked the post in SERPs. However, it DID NOT follow the JS link to the Tucker Vet’s grooming page. It looks like links in JS that are tagged with rel=nofollow are correctly read and observed by Google!