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:

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!

Google is creating duplicate content on websites. I started noticing this back in 2008, when Webmaster Tools identified some pages that were “broken” on the website. The curious thing about these pages was that they were not actually accessible via the website. But they were in the source code as a part of a Javascript function and Google appeared to have kludged together some URLs based on the root domain name plus the file being called in the Javascript function.

For example, in the ASP.NET environment, pages and code behind are often called via Javascript. Those pages carry variables to the server where they are often rewritten to be “search friendly”, before being returned to the browser. In other words, “products.aspx?id=12345″ gets rewritten on the server to be “super-dooper-blue-products”. The actual “page” being called in Javascript never makes it to the browser.

In looking at GWT back in early 2008, I discovered there were hundreds of URLs causing “404″ errors. All of these URLs followed the pattern of http://root-domain/products.aspx?id=xyxyz. And when I clicked them, yep, they were broken. The reason these URLs were broken was because of the way Google created, guessed at, the proper URL construction from the information they discovered in the Javascript function. Google took the page name and parameter from the function and appended it to the root domain where the function was discovered.

However, the “actual” page that was being executed was not http://rootdomain.com/products.aspx? The real URL structure was more like, http://rootdomain.com/directory1/directory2/products.aspx? When Google executed the erroneous URL that it had created based on its assumptions, the pages were broken because Google logic did not fully understand that the products.aspx page resided in a relative path rather than an absolute path.

Functional duplicate URLs occur when pages such as products.aspx are called in Javascript and also reside in the absolute path. In cases like this, Google pulls page names and parameters from Javascript functions and appends them to the root URL to actually create a functional (although non-intentional) page. Now Google’s assumed URL construction does render an actual page that functions correctly. But that functional page is a duplicate page because, at the same time, a rewritten URL exists that renders the same content.

A few months after making this unfortunate discovery, Google informed us to stop the practice of rewriting URLs. What? In the sense that Google is now collecting “raw” data pages before a rewrite, and that a rewrite can cause duplicate content, Google says that it prefers the raw version of the URLs, the dynamic URLs, rather than rewritten ones.

That would be fine and nice if so many websites weren’t already using URL rewrites. Secondly, even though Google prefers the dynamic URLs now, Bing certainly does not. It would make better sense if Webmasters could instead include a tag in their pages such as “meta name =’discovery’ rel=’noJS’” whereby Google would not try to execute Javascript to “discover” pages that would result in the creation of duplicate content.

I just did a search for the March of Dimes this morning and saw something in the Google SERPs that I had never seen before. In addition to the normal blue title tag link and a series of site links, there was an additional search box that allows for searching for a term within the actual site listed in the search results. That’s hard to explain so here’s a picture for clarity.

At fist glance, I thought the search box was using the March of Dimes’ website search box since they have a site search box at the top left position of their home page. It looked like Google just pulled down that piece of functionality. But that’s not the case. It turns out that search box in the Google search results listing performs the following query: [search term site:sitename.com] which is using a Google search to look for a specific search term within a given domain.

I don’t think this is going to send shock waves around the world but it is an interesting way for Google to allow for the exposing of more advanced search techniques to users who would not otherwise have the savvy to execute such searches. Apparently Google is expanding their sitelinks to include more ways to get to specific parts of a website. Here is a link to the blog post about their expanded sitelinks program.

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.

Some things I just can’t make up.

I was sitting and enjoying a nice dinner tonight in Santa Clara when a somewhat geeky guy sits down next to me and begins to shovel his food like a starved man. He had a unique outfit, a European accent and the eyes of a mad scientist. He wasn’t wearing a badge. He was a Google engineer and I knew it.

When he asked me about my work I told him that I dabbled in programming but that I also did SEO consulting. We chatted a bit about C++, Java, Fortran and other mundane things before I asked him, “so, do you work for Google?”. He replied that he did, confirming my suspicions. He said he was an engineer.

I decided to have a little fun and pretend to enlist his help. “So, I want to rank #1 on Google for all queries” I said. “Can you do that for me?”

He looked at me, puzzled. But he seemed to want to give me a real answer. He said, “I can’t do that. Besides, it would crash your servers.”

“Not my servers”, I told him. “I have 2 servers and they’re really big.”

He insisted that it was a bad idea. So I gave in a little. “Ok, how about ranking #1 for most queries?” He still insisted that I wouldn’t get qualified traffic and that my servers would blow. I assured him that both of my servers were top notch.

I handed him my business card and told him that he could think about it and, if he changed his mind, I could take all the traffic from ranking #1 on “the Google”. He looked at me with an uncomfortable grin. And he said, “ok, but I really can’t do that”.

It was fairly obvious, hopefully, that I was joking. At any rate, I saw the engineer later and asked him if he was going to delete me from “the Google” for asking for his help. He assured me, “No, we won’t do that. Google is not evil, really.”

Thank goodness. I’m relieved.