slimster.net

I thought this was one of the biggest cases of amnesia in Google’s short history. Just six years ago, I was at a SES conference and had a discussion with Matt Cutts involving long querystrings and Google’s ability to crawl dynamic content. Essentially, he recommended that I reduce the number of query sting variables to two or less. And he was correct.

When I took drastic measures to narrow down the query string variables on Apartmentguide.com (by using some crazy xml import based on local page variables) our indexed page count sky-rocketed. Within 2 months our rankings climbed to the top of SERPs and our traffic went from 60k/month to 500k/month. Within a year, our traffic rose to nearly 1 million/month.

Just last week, however, Google’s webmaster Blog made the following statements:

Myth: “Dynamic URLs cannot be crawled.”
Fact: We can crawl dynamic URLs and interpret the different parameters.

As well as:

Myth: “Dynamic URLs are okay if you use fewer than three parameters.”
Fact: There is no limit on the number of parameters, but a good rule of thumb would be to keep your URLs short (this applies to all URLs, whether static or dynamic).

It may be true today that dynamic urls can be crawled when they are choc full of variables, but that has not always been the case. Calling it a “myth” is a little strange. Mod_Rewrite and Isapi Rewrite weren’t invented for nothing. And there definitely was a time when pages with long query string parameters were simply ignored by all search engines.

I think it is great that Google has overcome these obstacles to reading content. But because they made these gains does not make history a myth. Before you know it, they might claim that it is a myth that Google can’t read Flash content.

There, I said it. You can say it too. Have yourself a giggle.

Now that the Internets have evolved to a state where my mother sends me Youtube videos and the average webmaster understands that links are good, I have actually heard other people talk about link juice. And most of the time it is like listening to someone talk about pigs, pork spending and lipstick.

Since non-SEO people are at least talking about linking and link juice, the unfortunate focus has been on acquisition. The tendency is to hoard, possess and keep it all for themselves without giving back. Because “giving back” is often mistaken as “losing link juice”. As an example, I recently heard someone suggest that they link to a related group of websites but they wanted to secretly put “no follow” tags on the links to keep their site from losing link juice. That’s kinda like saying, “hey, thanks for the good time, I’ll call ya”.

Oh, man.

I once wrote a blog post about whether Google would monitor prostitution in regards to buying and selling links, so I might as well be consistent. Giving and getting links naturally is a lot like free love. Actually, it’s more like having multiple partners, but with some discretion. It’s a two-way street, an openness to sharing. You link to sites that you like. And sites that like you link to you.

Essentially, if you have a good looking site with a great personality you tend to get lots of links. If your site is on the ugly side and not very compelling, well, you will likely not get much link action and might be tempted to buy some. Of course, in Googleland, buying links is against their terms and regarded much like buying love in the real world. And if you link to (pass link juice to) every single site you come across you just get a bad reputation and Google won’t love you.

Often, the road to success starts with giving. Pay someone a compliment, say something nice, link to someone without expectation. Reciprocal linking is really not the best route anyway. But if you participate in your greater community, you will make friends who will link to you. And if you come across a site you admire, share with others by linking to them. Don’t hoard.

….oddly enough, I just saw a post from Aaron Wall where he calls this hoarding of link juice an “SEO black hole“.

I made a really long post about this last week and my Internets went down and my post was lost. Recreating that post is already making me ache so this will likely be considerably shorter.

Back in a previous post, I brought up the fact that Google was rewarding off-topic link bait as if it were legitimate content and that has caused poor, low quality websites to get a higher ranking. My argument was that being silly or provocative ALONE should not have a positive effect on search engines toward the ranking of your site. Apparently Google is going to take a deeper look at how they reward, or punish, ‘deceptive’ link bait.

Just to clarify, I really love the tools that Marketleap offers and it was easy for me to link to them because they add value. Rex Swain has an awesome http header reader that I use, so he deserves quality links. However, people who make fun of FT 2.0 clowns or make ingratiating, off-top videos that have nothing to do with their website, should not get a Google bump as a result.

Think about it, everyone has been to a garage and seen the calendars with the women in bikinis. Well, if you grew up in Tennessee you have. At any rate, a picture of Tricia Helfer sitting on a Chevy Nova will not make a better car, although it will look much nicer. If Consumer Reports were to give the Chevy Nova a higher performance rating based on the attractiveness of Ms. Helfer, then one would certainly question the quality of the Consumer Reports rating system. In the same respect, Google should not reward websites for off-topic gimmicks that merely make someone look.

Maybe they’re catching on.

Last night was the second time that I spoke at the Atlanta Web Entrepreneurs Meeting and I thought it went quite well. The room was full, the questions were thoughtful and it was a real honor and pleasure to be on a panel with Alli Fabella and Stephen Martin. Mike Schinkel did a great job of organizing the event.

I went ahead and put together some good resource links that were mentioned but not included in the presentations.

Beginner’s guide to SEO from SEOmoz
Free Keyword research tool from SEObook - Also, the book is well worth the $75.
Free HTTP header reader (for testing 301 redirects)
Google Webmaster Tools
Google Local
Yahoo Local

After attending SMX in Santa Clara, I realized that I went to the wrong event. Not that I didn’t learn a few things, but it should have been called “SMX Basic” as there is an “SMX Advanced” later in the year and I very seriously doubt I can make it to both events. Most of the sessions I attended were a bit on the basic side.

The most thought provoking and insightful of all sessions, as always, were the ones with Todd Freisen and Greg Boser. Both have mastered the black art of SEO spam, but they also know very well how to use their powers for good and they know where to draw the line. They are somewhat like kingpens of the SEO underworld. And they’re not messy.

Friesen has a tendency to lay out some sarcasm and I had a giggle when he gave kudos to MSN for finally coming up with something cutting edge with their new video search. But his funniest remark came when Stephan Spencer responded to an attendee’s comment and said, “but don’t take our word for it, test it yourself.” Todd Freisen leaned into the mike and said, “Dude, they paid to take our word for it - that’s why they’re here!” Thanks Todd. He probably was only half-way kidding.

I have nothing against Spencer and really dig his SEO title tag plugin for Wordpress, but that was a goofy comment. Most people don’t have the time, patience or resources to test all SEO strategies before implementing best practices. Plus, I had seen him “running” through the convention hall earlier in the day. Who runs at a Search Engine Strategies conference? Goofy. And his 16 year old daughter was also on a panel about the Google Generation. Enough already.

Yes, there was a panel about “Generation Google” that didn’t tempt me in the least. Why? I was already in a panel with Neil Patel, a 21 year old Social Media spammer. I believe his quintessential comment was, “Yeah, just keep on spamming.” Thanks Neil. But I have a legit business to run. I know Social Media is here to stay but even Rand Fishkin used the term “value spam” a few years ago so I have a hard time breaking that association with him and many of the Social Media elite.

At any rate, I understand the Google Generation session was like listening to teenagers talk about search marketing. Except these teenagers were the children or siblings of established Search Marketers/panelists. Like, totally cool, and, like, wow.

Yesterday I went to my father in law’s birthday party and he brought up the fact that the web is now corrupted by “you people” - the SEOs. And he’s right. I have always practiced the ‘white hat’ variety of SEO even though some toads have accused me otherwise. But there is a mess out there right now and as long as Google allows stupid, “value spam” to pass as relevant, the problem will only get worse.