A nifty little viral site for the new Transformers game coming out soon uses Google Street View.  You type in your postcode and you can see two tranformers fight it out on your street!  Yeh!

Check out the site here: http://www.transformersonyourstreet.com

Transformers & Google Street View was originally published on Fused Nation. This is the RSS feed.

You know that completely normal thing that you’ve been doing on a professional business level for years?  Well, you’ve been doing it wrong.  Fortunately for you, I have a fairly short and easy to read blog post that lists a number of reasons why you should be doing it differently – and conveniently, most of the reasons relate to the new product or services I’m selling, a new process I’ve developed to try and look cool, or possibly refer to popular culture in some unique, but probably tenuous manner.

1.  “Something” is like fish

You never see fish cry, do you?  Why do you think that is?  A valuable lesson in both business and in life for us all, I think you’ll agree.

2.  A famous philosopher once said…

“A man must tread carefully for he knows not who’s footsteps he follows and whose shall follow his” – powerful words that remind us that whatever we do – always cover our tracks!  You never know who will be following you – they might have a knife or a gun or a bazooka or a tank or a rabid dog!  And I don’t know why a rabid dog is worse than a tank, but it is.  It’s almost like a zombie dog and zombies are scary.  Although given the choice, I’d rather have a tank in a fight than a zombie.  Strangely though, fighting a zombie IN a tank would be the worst possible scenario.  The bazooka would be all but useless and I’d be concerned that firing the gun would cause some kind of ricochet.

3.  Nurses don’t obsess about links, so why do you?

If Florence Nightingale doesn’t give a second thought about links as she goes about her business, why do you?  Argument.  Won.

4.   Something about ethics

…

5.   Insert current jargon reference

“Something” will help protect you against (delete as appropriate) – negative SEO, bad neighbourhoods, link networks, black hat SEOs, grey hat SEOs, asshat SEOs, scraper sites, MFA sites, link removal requests, unnatural link profiles, Google bowling, Google bombing, Google Panda, Google Penguin, Google Koala, Google Bearded Dragon, Google Mongoose, Google Zombies, Matt Cutts, Matt’s cat, Matt’s Youtube channel and Pinterest Meme Spamification (PMS…*snigger* – I think we should adopt this phrase!).

6.  Time to name drop

We don’t really believe that linking out to “authority” sites has any significant impact on the success of the article, but we do it anyway.  So this is the point where you write a little bit about the links you bought on SEL , the guest post you wrote on SEL or your time spent pitching your company, speaking at a conference.

7.  Unzip, let it hang out and compare it to others

Remember that time you did that thing for so many years that you became an expert?  Great!  This is a great opportunity for you to reinforce your credentials, because even though you are targeting this article at your contemporaries, you really hope that you’ll make such a good impression that they’ll send lots of business your way.  Because marketing to your competitors is much more sensible than marketing to your customers.  Hey, it’s fine – you’re an SEO – it’s all about being number 1, right?

Make sure your blog post has this statement somewhere:  “I wouldn’t use a SEO service that doesn’t do…” – PPC, social media, link building, marketing, coding, design, telemarketing, DIY, World of Warcraft, knitting, juggling.  Be sure to pick the area that you are strongest in – that way people will think that this is important see you as the best.  Even though you’ve probably written an article with so much jargon that only other SEOs will read it.  And know.  They’ll know.

8.  Bonus tip!!

If you are guest posting on another site, then absolutely DO keyword link to your own niche product or service in an article centred around that niche product or service.  There’s no way that anyone – SEOs, real people or Google – will ever construe that is being self-serving.  Credibility +1.  Sure you say, Google Penguin taught us that lesson, right?  Yeh, that’s new and now you know…

———————————–

This blog post template is available for sale at the low, low price of £500 per use.  Solve all of your SEO blogging needs in one easy step by purchasing this template reusing it for every fucking blog post you ever fucking do.  Ever.

As an added bonus, read my article on SEO agency website copywriting sins.

Why all SEOs should something something was originally published on Fused Nation. This is the RSS feed.

I posted on WMW earlier about this so I thought it was worth reposting here.  Just a quick overview of recovering a Panda hit site.

It’s early days still, but it looks like my April 2011 hit site has made a full recovery. It was a hobby site, so didn’t really pay much attention until recently, but decided to take a swing at fixing it at the start of January.

I just checked the top 50 keywords for 2010 – resulting in 300k visits / 1.2 million. 40/50 are back in the top 30 on Google.com, of which 30 are top 10 – aka pre-Panda rankings (some improved).

So here’s what I did;

Overview

There were two sites involved;

• Site 1 – 10 years old, high traffic (150-250k per month), poor design, blog (200 pages) / forum combo (40k pages), forum reasonably active, some thin content on the blog.
• Site 2 – 3 years old, same subject area, 17k per month, custom WP theme (looks pretty good), 50 or so posts

Both hit on April 2011 with 80% traffic loss, etc.

Tested the ad ratio theory earlier last year on the second site – didn’t make the slightest bit of difference. It’s all about the content (although I should point out that although the sites run 3 Adsense blocks, they were never too “in your face”).

The Plan

Decided to forget about Panda for a bit and think more from a business point of view. I came to the conclusion;

• Merge the sites – easier to maintain and realistically there was no point having two (other than the original plan to rank for similar phrases, which wasn’t that well thought out!).
• Ditch the forums – they weren’t Panda hit (takeaway = Panda is folder specific, or at least can be), but tough to maintain and no real return.
• Redesign the main site – it was static HTML pages. Shifted it to a custom WP site.
• Embrace social media – setup Twitter accounts and Facebook page for the site and integrated social share buttons on the site. More of an alterative solution to Google than a Panda remedy.
• Improve ad positioning, etc.

Implementation

• End of Dec – transfered content to new WP install. Decided on a case by case basis which articles to remove or rewrite. Ended up removing about 10 articles (out of 200) and rewriting a handful more (a couple were merged together.
• 301′d ALL old URLs to new versions. Even for stuff that was removed (or old cases of duplication, but there wasn’t much of that). Site had just been hacked a couple of weeks previous (changed host as a result) – also 301′d the subfolder of spammy links that was installed (WMT showed 30k+ inbound links to those pages from spammy sites).
• Removed forums – 301′d all forum URLs to site homepage.
• Added content from site 2 and 301′d all URLs. Implemented site address changed via WMT.
• January – tested various changes to the site to improve ad CTR, time on site and social shares.
• Social shares – bigger buttons at the end of posts worked better.
• Adsense – well blended ad below the post performs well – revenue at 40% of what it was pre-Panda, but with much less traffic.
• Stickyness – tested positioning for related posts, popular posts, random article snippets, etc. Dropped bounce rate by 15% and increase time on site by 30%.
• Google+ – created authorship for my posts. Kicked in a week ago.

That’s the core changes implemented – the rest was really down to developing a content strategy for the site, which has been going well. Since launch I’ve added regular content each week and been active on Twitter.

Some notes & observations

• There’s been some speculation about how to manage old content – I 301′d everything to an appropriate page. Seemed to be just fine.
• Not particularly convinced bounce rate or time on site is a factor.
• There were some fluctuations in rankings throughout January – old rankings returning and then dropping. Think this might have been minor Google fluxes, etc but could potentially be down to the scale of 301 redirects being factored.
• There were a LOT of visits from Googleplex a few days before the Google+ authorship kicked in. wink
• The Panda refresh mid-January didn’t have any impact on the site – although much of the old content (40k+ pages) was still in the index. Down to 2.5k today, but that’s still a bit high.
• Had a floating social share bar on the left hand side of the site. Removed it at end of Jan – no impact on the amount of social shares.
• Site 2 only became “unverified” in WMT in the past week (meaning the rankings transfered to the new site). I can’t comment on whether or not this impacted the recovery of site 1 though, but the rankings did improve with the recovery.
• I don’t think removing the forum had any impact on this at all – it was just a business decision.
• While social shares have increased during the 2 months the new site has been live, I don’t think these have any particular impact on Panda.

If pressed to theorise, I’d say the combination of some thin content (which was ranking well) and poor design let the site down. Looking at the site then and you wouldn’t think much of it. But now, it looks clean, some guest authors on board, there’s regular content being produced and growing social profiles.

It’s a weird test though – did lots of different things (mass 301′s, authorship, merged sites, cleaned up content, redesigned sites, more active social presence) so it’s difficult to pin down what the solution was, but if you take a step back from looking at Panda in those terms, then realistically all those things make good business sense too.

The interesting one is the authorship kicking in a week before Panda recovery. I’m absolutely not saying their connected – it’s just coincidental timing. But if I was a search engine that developed a qualitative aspect to my ranking algorithm, I might want to counterbalance that with positive signals of quality (WMT, authorship, social, etc).

Panda Recovery – What I Did was originally published on Fused Nation. This is the RSS feed.

Ah, all those years of a free ride on the GoogleBus finally coming to an end are they?  The big G finally stuck it to the SEO world last year with the rollout of the much talked about Panda update – a move which has resulted in much discussion in the industry.  And by discussion, I of course mean outrage and wild speculation, with theories ranging from URL structure changes to ad to content ratio (not to be confused with the recent “above the fold” update, although this is most like part of the same, larger process) being considered as factors.

So what’s the score here?  Is it game over for SEO, or just a game-changer?  This article takes a peek at Google Panda and offers some speculation on the logic behind it and some insights into how to depandify your site.

Let’s start with what we know

SER is a good place to start if you’re looking for some credible information on what’s happened with Panda – Barry has done a great job on reporting the facts, updates and discussions on the subject.  Check out the Panda category.  Here’s an overview of the updates so far:

• Panda 3.2 on January 2012 17/18th <—this is probably the last Panda update
• Panda 3.1 on November 18th
• Panda 2.5.3 on October 19/20th
• Panda 2.5.2 on October 13th
• Panda 2.5.1 on October 9th
• Panda 2.5 on September 28th
• Panda 2.4 in August
• Panda 2.3 on around July 22nd
• Panda 2.2 on June 18th or so
• Panda 2.1 on May 9th or so
• Panda 2.0 on April 11th or so <— this was the first international rollout
• Panda 1.0 on February 24th 2011

Google confirmed this week that they have improved how Panda integrates with their overall ranking system, which basically will mean we probably won’t see any major Panda updates again.

Shortly after this first iteration of Panda, Matt Cutts and Amit Singhal were interviewed by Wired and the resulting article was just about the only information any has from Google on the subject.  The takeaways from the article were a number of self help questions for webmasters;

• Would you be comfortable giving this site your credit card?
• Would you be comfortable giving medicine prescribed by this site to your kids?
• Do you consider this site to be authoritative?
• Would it be okay if this was in a magazine?
• Does this site have excessive ads?

Search Quality Rating Guidelines

But, the article did make mention of quality raters, Google’s team of external minions who review search results and provide feedback to the almighty one.  Back in October, a manual for raters was leaked. Not sure if the document still is available, but it was an interesting read.

What I took from this more than anything was how Google is training their raters to categorise documents (web pages).  How many of you (I’m assuming mostly SEO’s will be reading this) have thought about content largely in the context of original vs duplicate?  Quite a few I imagine – that’s how I approached the subject for a long time (albeit to varying degrees at both sides of the coin).  But looking at the guidelines, it seems Google has set out, probably for a long time, to categorise web pages based in the context of the search query (which makes sense).  These terms are used:

• Vital – is this result vital to the search query?
• Useful – helpful for most users.
• Relevant – helpful for many or some users.
• Slightly relevant – not very helpful for most users, but somewhat related to the query.
• Off-topic or useless – helpful for very few or no users.

A lot of people assumed that these ratings (despite Google saying they don’t have a direct impact on rankings) are a means for the average Joe Bloggs quality rater to randomly slap their site with a penalty.  They aren’t.  Think bigger.  Think automated.  Think like Google.

Google is all about the automation of search – which is not only one of their core business values, but a reality of the market, given the logistics involved.  So having random people, randomly rank random websites is never going to work.  But they aren’t rating websites, are they?  They are rating search results.  But what use is this, other than for some internal quality control exercise?

Machine Learning

One approach to machine learning, is clustering.  Wikipedia defines it as:

Cluster analysis or clustering is the assignment of a set of observations into subsets (called clusters) so that observations in the same cluster are similar in some sense.

Makes no sense to you?  In marketing speak, this would be akin to defining customer personas for your market.  I.e. “John Smith – 30-45 – AB1 professional – likes golf, theatre and pies”.  And no, this doesn’t mean Google is assigning your website to a specific persona or cluster.  What I believe is happening with the Panda updates, and something Google is getting gradually better at, is Google is using the data from the quality raters to determine a profile / persona / cluster of different search queries and using that data to map out what each query should look like.  Panda (I theorise) is simply the addition of this data into the algorithm to varying degrees.

For example, the average top 10 for these queries “should” contain;

• Cluster 1 (brand query – “Virgin”) – 1 vital result (the brand), 6 useful results (brand pages or references), 3 relevant results (lesser known references to brand)
• Cluster 2 (service query – “SEO Services”) – 0 vital results, 10 useful results (SEO providers)
• Cluster 3 (information – “IT careers”) – 0 vital results, 5 useful results (IT recruiters), 5 relevant results (career advice)

Now, what does Google do if (for example), their data shows that results for a brand query actually has only 1 vital result but 9 slightly relevant results (in an extreme, fictional example)?  Time to take a look at those sites.

Think about it.  How many sites with pretty poor content are propelled to the top of competitive terms entirely due to SEO magic?  Google needs to counterbalance this and Panda could be the mechanism by which this is accomplished.

How many sites have content ranking for terms via bland articles?  I.e. ranking for a service term when you don’t actually offer the service (but you want the traffic to drive to ad clicks, related services, etc)?  We’ve all done it – shot for money terms to pull in the mass traffic.

Time to rethink your content strategy

Content?  I thought Panda was about design, trust, ad to copy ratio, etc?

Well, it’s likely that this is a misconception based on a variety of theories that have floated around.  Some of these factors can be included into an automated algorithm, but not them all.

Panda is about relevance.  Not how relevant YOU think your website is for any particular theory, but how relevant RATERS think it is, and how GOOGLE filters this perception into the larger algorithm.

A practical example;

I have a hobby site (10 years old) that was hit by Panda (the first international roll out).  Only the root content was hit – not the discussion forum subdirectory.  Didn’t touch it until January 2012 (yeh, I slack).  It’s only been 5 weeks and the rankings have almost fully recovered.

The process I followed was the same as everyone else;

• Sort out the design (it was hideous).
• Ditched the crap content (10% of the articles were thin SEO copy).
• Ditched the forum and all 40,000 URLs (yes, I removed the part of the site that wasn’t affected by Panda – I’m so rock and roll!  It was a business decision…).
• Integrated ads better (didn’t think of this as a Panda solution – just messed around with positioning and format until I was happy with how it looked).
• Began adding more content (the site hadn’t been updated since 2006).
• 301 all redundant URLs to a close match page or the homepage if there was none.

The results;

• Content keyword rankings (i.e. not the homepage stuff), recovered within days (I believe the new content was ranked initially without Panda penalty added), then dropped, before recovering well.
• Certain keywords still not ranking.  They are service related keywords (i.e. like “free WordPress themes”), but my ranking page was just an article on “why not to use free WordPress themes” – i.e. “slightly relevant”.  Ranked for a few days, dropped again, came back again (Google is still picking up 301 so I think it’s just being recalculated – possibly reviewed to see if it’s still the same content that was pandised), and finally dropped back out again.
• Homepage keywords are beginning to rank top 10 again.  4th actually – was 5th-10th for 6-7 years.

My takeaway from this is that a percentage of my content was low relevance (it was rubbish) and it appeared in enough search results (for high enough volume of terms) for enough quality raters to mark it as low relevance that Google applied the Panda filter on that portion of the site.  My redesign (URL changes and 301′s) circumvented the filter temporarily, but there’s no getting away from it – same content that caused the filter = you’re still in the doghouse.

My next step is to revise the low relevance pages that aren’t ranking and start offering content on them that I think more accurately matches the queries they used to rank for.  I fully believe the site and page retains its former ranking weight – so rethinking the content strategy will essentially unlock this unused potential.

So don’t abandon your pandised sites just yet!

Not following?

Think about the process like this;

1. Google sends out a set of keywords to raters to do their thing.
2. Google uses the data to create clusters / templates of different types of search results.
3. Google applies the Panda filter to downgrade those who are using SEO magic to shoot above their weight.

When you make changes to your site to a certain degree – perhaps significant content or structure changes – it’s enough to trigger an evaluation where your site gets to go back to quality raters and re-sit the relevance exam.  If you pass, you’re in, if not, then it’s back to the drawing board.

There could be varying flavours of this;

• Your content sucked and still sucks.
• Part of your content sucked and you haven’t removed or improved it yet.
• Your content was OK, but your design sucked and the low paid student types didn’t take the time to read your content properly.
• Your content is good (well written) but still low relevance for the target query.

On the subject of design…

Raters are low paid student types and their attention to detail isn’t quite that of the Borg that have been assimilated by the ‘plex.  This isn’t good.  What’s the problem here?  The geeks in the quality control department at Google have looked at the data and say that (for example) 10% of the documents marked as “relevant”, are in fact “useful”.

How did this happen?   Both groups use the same set of guidelines.  The only difference is that one lot is just a bunch of random people and the other lot is a group of internally trained search geeks.  But, we can’t go live with this much dirty data, so let’s look into it further.  Let’s check the comments from the raters.

What do you think the top reasons were for people rating the content of websites lower than it should be? I would guess…

• I don’t feel comfortable giving this site my credit card details.
• I wouldn’t be comfortable giving medicine prescribed by this site to my kids.
• I don’t consider this site to be authoritative.
• I wouldn’t read this article if it was in a magazine.
• This site has excessive ads.

Just because Google says one of their engineers compiled this master list of questions, doesn’t mean he didn’t get it from feedback sent via the quality raters!  The SEOmoz whiteboard Friday article from June has a really great explanation of how this process works;

The sites that people like more, they put in one group. The sites that people like less, they put in another group. Then they look at tons of metrics. All these different metrics, numbers, signals, all sorts of search signals that many SEOs suspect come from user and usage data metrics, which Google has not historically used as heavily. But they think that they use those in a machine learning process to essentially separate the wheat from the chaff. Find the ones that people like more and the ones that people like less. Downgrade the ones they like less. Upgrade the ones they like more. Bingo, you have the Panda update.

However, I don’t believe it’s simply a case that Google is differentiating between good and bad sites in those very black and white terms (there are loads of reasons why – it would be a huge misuse of their monopoly for example and would probably land them in trouble) – it’s a very subjective concept which I don’t believe Google has either the right or the ability to judge.

Their own search results however, are a different story.  Google entirely has the right to judge what is relevant and what isn’t for any given query – that is their end product, after all.

Gradually diminishing updates

If you think about how this process is working – Google is gradually refining how results should be categorised.  They have the template, they just need to tweak their algorithm to perfect it.  That’s why we’ve seen a lot of updates this year – data goes back to the raters and they mark it accordingly.  Then it comes back to Google who have to essentially a) fix their mistakes and b) reinclude any sites that were filtered – updates are just data refreshes with perhaps minor algo tweaks thrown in.

Each update is essentially the result of a few weeks or months rating work to perfect the process until it moves to the point that the error margins are low enough to reassess on an ongoing basis – which is roughly where we are now.  It probably won’t mean quicker turnaround for sites in terms of recovery, but it will probably mean it might happen on a keyword by keyword basis rather than a site wide or folder wide basis as it is just now.

Of course, there are elements of the feedback from quality raters that Google can effectively automate in some way – for example the above the fold algorithm update.

That is unless you want to put your tin foil hat on and believe that there is no actual above the fold algorithm!  Perhaps Google just had a set of results they knew they were going to blitz in the next update (because raters commented that they were too ad heavy)?  Maybe they just decided to go live with that change and simply call it an “above the fold” update, when in fact it was just a data push and a bit of PR spin to encourage people to clean up their sites?  I guess we’ll never really know, but the effect is the same – somehow, either via automated means or via human intervention, Google is moving to a far more qualitative approach to serving search results.

SEO has become (and for many has always been) about returning relevant results for your targeted search terms.  Not just copy that chats about your targeted search term.  Not just an ecom that looks OK and offers the same basic services as your competitors.  But content as a product – content that will set you apart from your competitors – content that deserves to be number one.

That’s the real difference between what constitutes “content” and “thin content”.  The latter is probably what caused your Panda penalty in the first place.

Panda recovery – what to do?

Almost as loaded a question as “how do I build a successful website?”.  I’ll outline the basic process I followed – it may or may not work for you, but at least some options worth exporing.

1. Be realistic about the quality of the content you want to rank for specific terms.  Seriously, check out the competition – is there anything they are doing that you aren’t?  I assume that my site will fall under some kind of qualitative review – even if it doesn’t, then it’s still a good approach to take.
   1. And try to think about this in the context of the clusternig concept I discussed above.  While you might have a “fairly relevant” piece of content, does that level relevance have a place in searches for the term it used to rank for?  In real terms, this might mean your 300 word article on using Google Adwords will never rank for “Google Adwords”, regardless of the SEO techniques you use.  Think bigger.  Think better.
2. Don’t abandon previously strong pages.  A lot of people have been removing old content as part of a Panda solution (including me).  I don’t think this is necessary.  What is necessary is bringing this content up to a reasonable quality – if you can’t do that, then ditch it.  But if you can, then do so and you could reasonably expect to retrieve old rankings.
3. Does your design suck?  It’s surprisingly common.  Take the time to design a good looking site that works for your visitors.  Even if my wild theory of quality raters and machine learning is completely off, real people still visit your site – what more can you be doing to improve their experience?
4. On the subject of conversions…how can you improve them?  Are you using In-Page Analytics to see where people are ending up on your site?  Do you have a solid call to action on all of your pages?  What about additional marketing channels – social, e-campaigns, user generated content?  What actions do you want people to be taking?  Are you providing enough information for your customers?  What stage of their decision making journey do they arrive on your site at?  What feedback have you had from your existing customers?  Can you provide testimonials on your site?
5. Go social. Build up your network and take the burden off your reliance on SEO.  Use social as a metric to measure your performance in terms of the new design.  Google Analytics tracks social actions – are these increasing?  Why not?  If you don’t have at least some content that is social worthy (in that people actively share it), then why do you think it deserves to rank for competitive terms?
6. Be real.  Not in the 80′s sense!  How does your site appear to first time visitors?  Are your products up to date?  Has your blog been posted to recently?  Is your Twitter feed active?  Have you updated your copyright year?  Does your site appear stale and dated, or modern and vibrant?  First impressions are key – here’s some things I did to my blog;
   1. Recent posts widget (always good to have)
   2. Popular posts widget (chances are a lot of people want to read these)
   3. Random posts (in the footer – keeps the page fresh)
   4. Related posts (after the article – increases the time on site)
   5. Large social buttons (convert to action much better than small ones)
   6. Regular tweeting & feed widget (the appearance of dates gives the impression of freshness)
   7. Regular & guest posting (lots of reasons to come back)
   8. Engage with Twitter followers (shows activity and results in more readers, guest authors and retweets)
   9. These aren’t Panda recovery tools – it’s just good content marketing.
7. Research, review and plan.  What’s the next phase of your business?  How can you target more customers?  How can you engage more customers?  How can you sell more to existing customers?  The nature of SEO means that sometimes it’s easy to become lazy with other areas of business (if SEO is bringing in big traffic levels at a low cost) – time to revise your strategy on that front.

Getting over the technical barrier that is Panda will be relatively easy.  Convincing Google that your site once again deserves to be number one will be decidely more difficult.  Regardless of what the truth about Panda is, the main change for the SEO world is that the industry has finally begun to shift from a process that targets the algorithm to a process that needs to target the end user.  Many people have been doing this successfully for a long time now, and I know many are happy the market is evolving this way.  The question is can you adapt to these changes?

Of course you can – adaptation is what SEOs do best!  Well, adaption and link whoring.

The Panda Challenge

Panda Blues getting you down?  Worry not!  For the next couple of weeks, I’ll open this post up to a Panda Q&A.  If you’d like to put your Panda hit site forward for review and don’t mind discussing it publicly, I (and anyone else who’d like to chime in) would be happy to offer up some specific advice on how to recover.

Post your details and some background below and we’ll take it from there.

Also, if anyone has any comments on the stuff I’ve talked about on this article, I’d love to hear them.  Most of this is just theoretical based on some superficial research with limited resources – by no means am I suggesting this is a definitive overview of what Panda actually is – no one knows that.  But, SEO tends to be lots of theory which each individual contextualises in their own mind in order to develop strategy – this is the approach I’ve taken here – a solid theory that leads to a sensible strategy.  Make of it what you will!

Scott

Google Panda Getting You(r rankings) Down? was originally published on Fused Nation. This is the RSS feed.

We do like our jargon, don’t we?  I thought the marketing game was bad for excessive overuse of jargon, but damn, the SEO industry gives the marketing world a run for its money, ranging from completely obscure terms to attaching our own meanings to a range of otherwise innocuous phrases.  Here’s my run down of the phrases that have annoyed me this year (in no particular order):

Authority

In the context of “an authoritive site”.  There was a point when people would refer to authority sites and mean the likes of the BBC, DMOZ (back in the day), Yahoo and other mainstream web properties.  Now it really just refers to “any site that doesn’t have hidden text on it”.

I’m really not sure what people think “authority” means, but the term is batted around so often (usually as part of a “why did Google penalise my site – I’m an authority in my niche” type posts) that it has lost all meaning.  Think it through – will anyone outside the SEO industry have any clue what you are talking about when you refer to authoritative sites (because, let’s face it, you really mean “high PR” sites but are just too embarrassed to mention PageRank).

Ethical SEO

I raised this one years ago – it’s still with us.  Why won’t it just die?  Ethics have absolutely nothing to do with SEO – we’re not powering websites with baby tears and puppy dog tails…

Again, another BS term that has no meaning outside the SEO world.

Panda

Just.  Fuck.  Off.

I really hate Google for 2011.  The Panda updates have really sparked up a wealth of paranoid theories, particularly amongst those who have just got into SEO in the past 4 or 5 years or so.  Those going back longer than that remember more frequent (and brutal) updates so 2011 is really just business as usual.

Now we have a host of SEOs – wait, no – scratch that – not even just SEOs – anyone in the digital industry who thinks they know a bit about SEO – anyone with a vague knowledge about SEO has decided to regurgitate the speculation posted on forums and blogs as “advice”.  It has gotten to the point that people are taking vague offhand statements from Google employees and turning them into SEO advice.  I read a news article (yes, on a proper industry news site) where the writer actually suggested that going through a website and correcting spelling errors would be (part of) a solution to combat the Panda update.  PUUUUUUUUKE!

Matt Cutts says

Poor Matt.  Probably the best and the worst thing to happen to the SEO industry.  I get the distinct impression that he is regularly torn between his normal geeky nature to do things properly and internal corporate chains that keep him from doing so.  I think his biggest mistake was making the effort with the SEO world early on (but in retrospect that was an entirely profitable exercise for Google), but unable, politically, to be as transparent as we want him to be (and he probably would like to be as well).

The guy can’t catch a break really.  Ever minor statement he makes is analysed, quoted and misquoted with abandon.   The worst of it – and the reason it really irritates me – is that the quotes tend to be thrown into a discussion as a definitive answer to whatever vague question was asked.  They’re not the definitive answer – they may be useful titbits of information from time to time, but in no way definitive.  Even if Matt was able and willing to provide clear information, it’s still just tech advice coming from a company with a commercial interest in YOU doing things in a certain way.   Their way.  And that shouldn’t be what your entire business strategy gravitates around.

Google +

It sucks.  SUCKS.  Nothing to do with this post, but though I’d just throw it in there.  Google did search reasonably well, and Adwords / Adsense were a good idea at the time, but since then…

(I really hate Adsense.  It could be done so much better for everyone involved….don’t get me started…)

Thin Content

Forgot to add this one earlier.  Most of us know what thin content is, but there seems to be an odd confusion in the industry as to whether or not your content is actually “thin” or not.  The problem stems from the SEO perception that the content they churn out en mass is even halfway as good as professionally written copy.  It isn’t.  And I’m not just talking about the old school, keyword density era which gave us such hits as:

Come to Bob’s big red widget shop for the best big red widgets in town.  We have such a wide selection of big red widgets, you won’t need to go anywhere else for your big red widgets.

I think the perception is that because you’ve taken the time to write more than 50 words before moving onto the next page that your content isn’t “thin”.  Let’s put into context.  There was a time where many web designers would just skip the whole “let’s get a proper graphic designer to design this” part of the process and go ahead and design it themselves.  Guess what SEOs have been doing with copy?

“Thin content” is a vague term.  It means any rubbish content.  That can mean 10 words of rubbish or an entire essay.  I’ve been guilty of this in the past, and I’m sure many other SEOs have too.  It can also refer to duplicate, semi duplicate or repurposed content.  The only real question you need to ask yourself is, “would this page still be ranking highly if it wasn’t for my l33t SEO skillz?”.  If not, then there’s a good chance your content sucks.

So, anything you’d like to add to the list?

Scott

The Most Overused SEO Phrases of 2011 was originally published on Fused Nation. This is the RSS feed.

Do you think at any point, the good people at the ‘plex considered that the simplicity of Google was the main reason so many people use it (and subsequent reason why so many G products don’t really get off the ground)?  And by “integrating” all these products and prioritising the much hyped (and spectacularly crap) Google+, they will in fact begin to push people away to competing search engines.  Which, IMO, is no bad thing (for everyone but Google).

For those not entirely in the loop of Google’s frantic attempt at world domination, here’s the short version.  Search dominance.  Created crap ad program.  Shafted the competition (affiliates).  Bought out a bunch of companies.  Shafted the competition in more markets.  Kept quiet about the fact that they were harvesting data from all their free products.  Laughed while Bing poured money down the drain trying to compete.  Sucker punched the webmaster community who had been providing aforementioned free data for all those years.  Cried when Facebook wouldn’t share their toys.  Currently pouring money away trying to compete in the social media market.  Clearly not seeing the comparisons between Bing trying to compete in search and Google trying to compete in social.  Now trying to leverage mammoth traffic levels to hook people into sharing their personal data like they did to webmasters (before shafting them).

Did I miss anything?

You’ll never be Facebook

People like Facebook (pardon the pun).  I mean, real people. Not companies or marketing professionals who have had the carrot dangled in front of their mouths, salivating at the prospect of even an imperceptible boost to the holy grail of Google rankings.  You know how Google has played their cards quite close to their chest for all these years – no transparency when it comes to rankings and penalties – webmaster community climbing over each other to try and appease the mighty Google.

In many ways, the webmaster community were both the reason for Google’s success and a victim of it.  Perhaps that’s why Google thinks these early adopters will help kick off their social media domination.

But I don’t think things will work out that way.  Look at how Facebook started out – students – groups of friends – a network that built up naturally.  Now look at how Google+ started out – businesses & marketing professionals – SEOs (who make a living from gaming Google), many of whom have fairly negative opinions of Google.  That’s a somewhat “poisoned” starting group of users – how will that ever grow organically like Facebook did?  It may become something big, but I don’t think it’ll ever become the social network Facebook is.

How much spam did other social media channels have within months of launch?

There are already loads of “buy Google plus one” services out there, but I guess those were previously established networks geared up for Digg, Facebook and Twitter spamming – so a G+ service offering isn’t that hard to do.  But there are still quite a lot of people shooting at G+ for such a new product and although Google have faced that particular issue for years with their search product, will it be too much for a social network to handle?

People can deal with poor quality search results – in fact, most normal (non SEO geeks) are none the wiser.  People tend to notice when spam makes their way into their social circle.  I haven’t used G+ much except for a bit of a play around when it was launched – I wasn’t overly enthusiastic about it so I didn’t stick with it.  But I do see loads of people on Twitter complain about it because their business orientated social circle is suddenly poisoned with spam and irrelevant crap like photos of kittens and random jokes.

And there’s the stumbling block for Google.  They’ve taken a step forward on the basis that business users will drive their product to the next stage, but the reality is that it isn’t a particularly good social network for business users and it’s a pale competitor to Facebook for regular users.  That’s the flaw in the strategy.  Look at new navigation bar – I use search (I have a toolbar for that).  I used maps (I have an app for that).  I use Youtube (I have an app for that).  I use Adwords, Adsense and Analytics (those haven’t even made it to the primary – or secondary navigation).

The whole move reeks of geek logic applied to business.  Bland designs and high ambitions with no real substance.

The All-New Google Desperation Bar was originally published on Fused Nation. This is the RSS feed.

Google are reporting today an update to their freshness algo – the part of the ranking algorithm that handles new content insertion into SERPs.  This will affect a whopping 35% of search queries – Google’s Panda update only impacted 12%.  This is big!

In some situations this isn’t a bad thing – searching for an event was always badly handled by Google who have historically favoured older content over new which means last year’s events would commonly turn up at the top of the results.  So this change can be good in that respect, as with a number of other possible searches such as news results – searching for “cricketers fixing scam” results in a load of new pages – most of which were published in the past 24 hours (and not just embedded news results).  Good times!

But the post from the Google blog always mentions product reviews as a potential target for this fresh tweak!  This is a big one.  News and events are easy – very time based pieces of content.  But how does a search engine differentiate between different types of static content such as a product review?  Importantly, how does it tell the difference between a product review and a bog standard static page?  Rich snippet markup perhaps may be a good source here, but not every website has adopted this approach.  This reeks of an update that is going to have a lot of causalities!

How would you react?

SEO has always been quite a mid to long term strategy (well, back in the day you could rank overnight for any term quite easily, but things have slowed down since then) – only small pockets of the industry can have fun with instant rankings – news optimisation, blogsearch, PPC, etc.   But if Google is rolling out a new jazzy instant rank algorithm, how much of a red rag to a bull is that for the SEO community?

Seriously, how much of the industry will shift from creating good content to churning out low quality “fresh” content in whatever form that may entail – rubbish comments, reviews, slight editorial changes, republishing reviews, etc  – all to maintain “temporary” rankings over a longer period of time?  Strangely, I think this change will benefit the more technically minded “black hat” community (I used the term loosely, but you know who I mean) who can autogenerate “fresh” content in much larger scales, compared to the content generation community.

From the Google Blog:

Frequent updates. There are also searches for information that changes often, but isn’t really a hot topic or a recurring event. For example, if you’re researching the [best slr cameras], or you’re in the market for a new car and want [subaru impreza reviews], you probably want the most up to date information.

Well, yes and no.  I want the best, most informative reviews and those aren’t necessarily the most recent ones.  In cases they will be, but is Google good enough to work out which is which?  Or am I going to get the most recent reviews regardless?  This could really hurt review sites that have taken a lot of time to push users to write decent reviews.

The Panda update really riled a lot of SEOs – many of whom spent a lot of time following Google’s guidelines reasonably well (OK a lot pushed the boat out, but not all the way into spam territory).  Are we looking at a scenario where those who are legitimately making an effort to produce a decent web business lose out and those who like to game the system have more tools in their arsenal to do so?

Perhaps not, although it’s fun to wear the conspiracy theory hat for a while!

Perhaps this is a logical progression from the Panda updates which, in one way or another, did force a purge of borderline low quality sites from the index?  Maybe Panda was a prelude to a bigger quality / freshness push in which this is the next stage?  Could Google have even attempted this a year ago pre-Panda or was there too much SEO-heavy content (and you know what I mean by that!) to drown out the reputable content sources?  Caffeine implements the infrastructure, Panda flushes the system and (insert freshilicious name) brings us closer to pure real time search that is has the potential to be fairly spam free?

Maybe Google is certain that they have it right this time – or maybe it’s going to go tits up and really annoy a lot of SEOs (and frankly annoying the one group of people who have the skills and knowledge to poison your core product is kinda stupid)?  What do you think?  Should be interesting all the same – will be keeping an eye on analytics over the next few days!

Related articles

• Google Panda Update Rolls Out Worldwide (fusednation.com)
• Google Rich Snippets Tool (fusednation.com)
• Announcing: The Complete Google Algo History (seomoz.org)

Google updating “freshness algo” was originally published on Fused Nation. This is the RSS feed.

In quite a nice move by Foursquare, the company is now including popular events on the website, as discussed on their blog.  I like this step – it’s a clever move and actually quite a challenging one for them.

Managing events like this has always been difficult and no one has really got it right.  The issue when managing data on that scale is it that is a big job with many facets – date, location, type of event.  Date is easy to do.  Location is tougher but if you are talking about doing it on a national scale then with the right technical setup it can be simple (given the scope of the project) – just a matter of buying the venue data and feeding it into your system.

Events are tougher.  No one really does it – largely because there’s no money in it and you have to expend resources gathering data from multiple sources.  Even at a town level this can be tricky – how many cinemas, theatres, sports stadia, pubs, clubs or whatever are there and how many different types of events may they hold in the next 12 months?  The numbers quickly spiral out of control.  Foursquare are managing this situation by partnering with vertical information providers (ESPN, SongKick, MovieTickets.com) – a sensible approach (in the UK it used to be the case that you’d need to go to each individual cinema and pay them to be provided with movie times data – not certain, but I think the print media still do that…).

Events are a natural evolution of Foursquare and I’m sure many of their users will embrace the new features as they have with the rest of the site’s bells and whistles.  But more than that, the company is displaying a characteristic almost unheard of in the social media / dotcom start up world…flirting with a business model that might actually be viable from the start!

Events are great.  I like doing stuff.  You like doing stuff.  We like doing stuff.  I occasionally like organising stuff.  Having a cost effective local tool to promote my stuff is nice.  Real nice.

It’s almost like near virtual classifieds prospect – a few quid (or bucks if you’re across the pond) to promote your gig / fundraising activity / play / demonstration / brand launch / etc.  Quite well targeted events for a reasonably price?  That would be pretty cool and probably a good, sustainable revenue stream for the company.

Foursquare are limiting events to those provided by their partners right now, but plan to include user generated events at some point in the future.  Whether or not they are paid or free is unknown.

I read some survey results this week that noted only 5% of the respondents (UK small business owners) knew what Foursquare is.  It’s one to watch, that’s what it is and has the potential to be a more potent social marketing tool for businesses in certain verticals than Twitter or Facebook.

Foursquare Now Listing Events was originally published on Fused Nation. This is the RSS feed.

Bingdude (Duane Forrester) offers some good tips on link building and what it means for your rankings in Bing.  It’s an interesting move by Bing, most likely led by Duane (who is a SEO himself, or at least was).

The article itself is good, but doesn’t really tell those in the business anything they didn’t already know.  But that’s kind of the point.  For years Google has dominated the search market and that has been influenced in no small way by the SEO community focusing on Google rankings.  During the early years of SEO, business adoption of SEO was low and general knowledge about Google wasn’t huge outside academic and tech communities.

The SEO take up on Google optimisation led to the SEO take up of Adsense, Adwords, Gmail, Analytics and so on.  That’s a solid market of early adopters that Google has been feeding off for many years now – and frankly not offering that much in return (Adsense revenues aren’t great and the program hasn’t really changed much over the years).

In recent years, Bing has dumped loads of cash into developing it’s search wing and has made some good moves – and I think making a move for the SEO industry is the latest feather in their cap.  Check out the raves about Bingdude over on Webmasterworld (keeping in mind Googleguy has remained faceless and anonymous for many years).  A minor coup for Bing but I think a start on the right road.

You see, Google’s model for growth has basically been get the information by offering stuff for free and then monetise the information.  Competitors have tried to compete on this basis over the years but realistically, Google has too far a head start for another competitor to take a decent share of the search market (Bing has made some efforts, but still limited market share).  But, tackling the problem in the same way Google grew is in fact a good strategy for any business and that seems like the route Bing is taking now;

• Webmaster center for webmasters to grab info about their sites (now includes Yahoo! data).
• Active and open blog about SEO – grabs the SEO interest and realistically – they’re not giving anything away.  It’s stuff pro SEOs already know.  BUT – it engages everyone else – bloggers, newbie SEOs, business owners – awesome content!

Taking the market, one demographic at a time is a solid long term approach and I think it will be good for the market.  Search aside (I do like using Google), the industry needs some competitors for Adsense at least – and certainly a more transparency and communication between search engines and website owners, because frankly that is an area that Google’s academic background and business naivety has let them down.  Perhaps Bing or someone else can pick up the slack on that front?

Scott

Is Bing Beating Google At Their Own Game? was originally published on Fused Nation. This is the RSS feed.

I’ll get my clichés, redundant fact-stating and standard SEO discussion comments out of the way before we start properly. It’s a minefield out there. There are loads of snake oil salesmen. You’ve been burnt before. There’s no regulation in the SEO industry. SEO is easy – anyone can do it. SEO services are a rip off. But SEO ABC doesn’t rank for keyword XYZ. You want a SEO with industry experience. You want a SEO that has web development experience. You want a SEO with marketing experience. You want a SEO with social media experience. You want a specialist link builder. You want guaranteed results. Oh yeh, and you don’t want to pay too much…

…frankly Mr Hypothetical Client, you’re hard work – indeed, it’s a wonder any SEO is willing to take you on!

It’s not your fault really. We SEOs regularly shoot ourselves in the foot (usually while aiming at our competitor’s feet with one eye closed). I mean, you go to pretty much any SEO agency or freelancer website or blog and you won’t have to look far to find some crass, snide dig at other SEOs in a vain attempt to position whatever variation on the same strategy works and what doesn’t.

Case and point – any mention of “white hat” and “black hat”, anywhere in your website copy (golden oldie here, but check it out – SEO agency copywriting sins). Seriously, are there any clients out there that a) know the difference or b) actually care? Most SEOs don’t! In fact, in many ways any mention of headwear of any fashion tends to be a sign of SEO immaturity – essentially a vague attempt by one camp or another to justify a particular set of SEO techniques (which really boil down to figuring out your own risk v reward v resources ratio and absolutely nothing to do with “ethics” whatsoever). I still see SEO agencies putting up job adverts for “white hat” SEOs…I mean, seriously…

So, what are we dealing with here?

Well, on the client side there could be a huge range of issues;

• Paid too much for SEO previously so unwilling to pay as much again.
• Disenchanted with the potential of SEO.
• Perhaps knows a little about SEO. DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!
• Maybe has limited resources.
• Potentially has unrealistic needs and wants.
• May have an over-reliance on SEO.
• Could just be they want SEO but don’t really need it or know why they want it.

On the flip side, the SEO industry gives birth to such a variety of bastard children that there should be a Jerry Springer special at some point so we can figure who’s to blame for this mess. It’s Google. Google’s to blame. So our SEO options can tick one or more of these boxes;

• Web designer that learned a little bit about SEO and decided to start offering SEO services because that’s what everyone wants.
• Up and coming SEO – spent a few years as an account manager and decided to take a swing at technical SEO.
• Web design agency that offers SEO – either take a swing at it themselves or outsource.
• A proper SEO agency – usually relying on a few individuals to do their tech SEO stuff.
• Full service marketing agencies – again may do their SEO stuff in house or outsource.
• Newbies that have optimised a few small websites and think that’s all there is to SEO.
• Limited service “SEOs” – just keyword research + meta tags, or just link building.
• Freelancer that’s been about for a while – probably charges a fair bit (probably too much).
• SEO superstars – pro bloggers, speakers, etc. Charge a premium.

Basically, a bunch of different people doing essentially the same thing. That is, the same thing for YOUR website – not for ANY website. I should explain…

Websites. Are. Unique. Duh!

I know people like to think there’s a solid underlying strategy to the SEO process. In some ways there is. In other, more real ways, there isn’t. Well, not in the way you’re thinking about anyway.

The SEO process, when reduced to the bare minimum, is simple. Content and links basically. Easy stuff and every SEO knows at least this much (you hope…), but each individual SEO will have their own opinion on how to balance these two elements and this leads conflict and inevitable confusion.

For example, one SEO may be a fan of the content approach where you introduce some killer content to your website, which will result in loads of natural inbound links and therefore rankings aplenty. Good times! However, his link obsessed counterpart might not like this approach. There’s a degree of lack of control in using the content strategy, so a more solid link building campaign can be a better to get results in many cases.

So which do you hire? Well in most cases going for a SEO that can do all of that stuff would be best – generally the folks who stick to a specific set of techniques may be a little naive when it comes to other areas of SEO (they stick with what they know works), although that’s probably an unfair generalisation – I’m not suggesting SEOs are one trick ponies, as most are fairly versatile.

You do need to pick someone who is an appropriate fit for your business though. That SEO superstar may cost more than he or she is worth for your small business website. Also, you may want to consider what areas of SEO you want to address. If you want a content strategy, then why not hire a professional writer instead of SEO? If you want links then why not hire a PR or marketing person? Define your needs and try to match up those needs with potential deliverables.

How do I make that decision?

It isn’t easy, but there are a bunch of simple questions you can ask yourself to help you work out your options.

How big is my website?

1. Less than a hundred pages – you don’t need to be paying loads for SEO work. Someone with similar small site experience will be fine. At this level, even a superficial knowledge of SEO and websites can get you by.
2. Mid-sized – less than 50k pages – you should be looking at a SEO with a good few years experience with optimising CMSs. There’s lots more to SEO at this level and it becomes less of a worry that your SEO is wrong about something and more of a worry about what they just don’t know.
3. Large – 50k+ pages – find a pro – someone who has worked with big sites before. It’s a whole new ballgame at that level and quite a lot of SEO providers out there can’t handle a job of that size.

How much do I have to spend each year?

1. A little – money is tight. Then think newbie freelancers or small agencies. Good value for money – when you get into the realms of big brand stuff, providers start charging a premium. May have to shop around to get a decent provider though.
2. Loads – we’re huge! Then bigger agency, reputable individual or hire someone full time. Generally you get what you pay for. For an individual that’s a reflection of experience – for agencies it may be inflated prices because of their brand.

What other stuff do I need?

There are arguments for and against going with full serviced agencies over specialist agencies. My personal preference is the former rather than the latter – there’s no element of SEO that can’t be done well by a full serviced agency. Granted there may be more SEO types in a specialist agency, but in my experience there are fewer than you might think. Just because an agency boasts 200 employees, doesn’t mean they’re all SEOs. Chances are they’re mostly sales / accountant management / pretend “vertical specialists” / etc.

If you get any chat about specialist agencies being more experienced than full service agencies, take it with a pinch of salt. There are some excellent specialist SEO agencies out there (Distilled, Hobo Web, etc) and a few up and coming agencies that are equally good. However there are loads that just don’t have half a clue between them…so don’t be caught in the hard sell.

When will I see results?

Don’t be a d**k. Did you not read my “Websites. Are. Unique. Duh!” section? You can believe whatever plucked-out-of-thin-air timescales you’re told, or accept the fact that no one really knows. Stuff we do know;

• Can take from around 1 minute to 1 month for search engines reindex your website (so at least that long if you’re making changes to the site).
• Factoring in links can take longer – search engines need same amount of time to index other sites and calculate changes (mostly done on the fly these days).
• Can take anywhere from days to weeks for you to receive your SEO work (via report or physical changes implemented).
• If your website is underperforming, then some good SEO work should result in better rankings quite quickly. If you are performing well in a competitive market and want to improve further, then progress can be slower.

How much does SEO cost?

More than nothing and less than the profit businesses generally get from SEO work. And no, price isn’t a reflection of quality.

What deliverables do I need?

Most SEOs should be able to offer your some kind of ranking reports and an idea of what links they’ve managed to get for you. Some agencies will bump up the costs of reporting to account for some fancy bespoke reporting system they’ve knocked together. Realistically though, how interested are you? Is there anyone in your organisation that is going to do anything with the information other than look at the ranking figures and make sure they’re going in the right direction? Plenty of cheap rank checkers you can buy to do that. No need to be oversold on reporting you don’t need.

How competitive is my market?

Most people have an idea how competitive their own market is online. If in doubt, search for main keyword and see how many competing sites there are. Less than 8 million results is reasonably uncompetitive, although it depends on the market as some are more SEO heavy than others. Expect to pay more and need a more experienced SEO the more competitive your market is.

———————-

The basic rule of thumb here is to try your best at quantifying your needs so you don’t end up paying for too much or too little. As I said earlier, you don’t need to go with the big agency if you only have a small website and similarly, you shouldn’t trust your million page website with that newbie just because he’s cheap.

I can trust my SEO, right?

NO! There’s a good chance he may steal your children! But even if he doesn’t do that (hardly ever happens these days – there’s no money in it…), you need to manage your SEO like any other service provider. Sure, they’re the experts (or should be), but it’s still your business and you have the final word on what happens to your website. As I said before, ethics doesn’t come into play in SEO, but quality does and you need to be the one that defines that standard.

For example, there are many different ways of optimising Page title tags. Some SEOs will prefer a “Keyword, Keyword, Keyword” approach – others a “Welcome to my Keyword Business” approach. Which do you prefer? In many cases your Page title is the first piece of text people read when finding your site online (it’s the link text used in search results).

Similarly, would you be happy if your copy was re-written by your SEO to something that didn’t read quite as well, but had keywords in it? I’m not saying you can’t have the best of both worlds – just that some SEO providers may not be able to provide the eloquent optimised copy that you need.

I’ve seen all manner of rubbish done to client websites in the name of SEO – providers adding loads of embedded links to their own (questionable) websites or loading up client websites with affiliate links. These guys are at the bottom of the barrel – most SEOs are pretty honest and should provide you with some kind of log of changes to your site.

Final word…

You can’t beat personal recommendations from similar businesses. If your mate’s brother optimised his small business website with success, then chances are he’ll be good for you too. However, that doesn’t mean he’ll be a good choice for your sister’s ecommerce website.

———-

Scott – Follow me on Twitter

Choosing Your SEO Provider – The Endless Contradiction was originally published on Fused Nation. This is the RSS feed.