Leslie Rhode created a new seo blog, and a new Mastering PageRank video. His OptiLink was one of the first SEO tools I bought and one of the few I ever found useful, although the advancing algorithms are making link analysis harder than it was a short time ago.
Mirago's Context Stream:
new AdSense competitor spotted.
Spammy Directory Links:
Have still seen them working decent in Google, although I am sure that will eventually change.
About 3 months ago a friend launched a brand spanking new site on an expensive topic which already ranks in the top 30 for a well known short query. The site ranked there before being listed in DMOZ.
Other than a Yahoo! Directory link only a few links from on topic sites or sites that would be well trusted by an algorithm such as TrustRank.
Most of the links popularity comes from general directories. The site also has sitewide outbound links to a couple industry hub resources. Most other sites in the field are not well topically connected and are powered by fake hubs and the like.
Their search service now comes with a new search suggestion / keyword research tool. Similar to how Snap works, except instead of showing queries which start with your term it shows querries which contain your term. from TW
Since search sites themselves have no product other than the contents of other sites how do you launch a search site? How would you market a new search engine?
One idea I have thinking about is giving people the perception of user feedback. Since many search engines have editors (like Yahoo!) or employ remote quality raters (like Google) this data can be used to train the algorithms. You also could collect information from random surfers and use that as feedback, although Direct Hit proved that relying too heavily on that data is a flawed idea. The direct information from surfers may have a greater purpose though.
What if you did not necissarily use that data that much, but gave people the idea that you valued their opinions. You could maket the search service as your search. Tell the people that by searching and rating sites they personally were responsible for making the web a better place. If people believed it was true then to them it would be. If they could spread the idea far enough (telling many of their friends about how great it is) then maybe the search service could steal enough market share to sell enough ads to be able to afford the right people and algorithms to make the search the most relevant.
Of course the service would need to be fairly decent off the start as well, but it might be a decent idea. How would YOU market a search engine?
[03:07] random person: hello
[03:08] me: ?
[03:08] random person: how u?
[03:09] me: bot or person?
[03:09] random person: person
[03:09] random person: u?
[03:09] me: bot
[03:09] random person: :)
[03:09] random person: work?
[03:10] me: ?
[03:10] random person: do u work
[03:10] me: all bots do
[03:10] random person: no i mean do you have a job
[03:11] me: yes
[03:11] me: arbitrary question really right
[03:11] me: i mean if you didnt know that then why message me
[03:11] random person: just wondered if you had ever been involved in network marketing
[03:12] me: i market on the largest networks
[03:12] me: google, yahoo, msn, ebay, etc etc etc
[03:13] random person: doin well?
[03:13] me: again. arbitrary question
[03:13] me: well enough
[03:14] me: what do you do to where you IM random people
[03:15] random person: i dont im random people you are on my contact list and have been for a while
[03:15] me: hehehe
[03:15] me: well ur not on mine and I have been up for a long time
[03:15] me: my URL http://www.seobook.com
[03:16] random person: ill check it out
[03:18] random person: my URL'S [multi level marketing useless spam shit]
and so our conversation abruptly ended. I am sure it will pick up again in a few months.
In 1997, I wrote the "Do Websites Have Increasing Returns?" column, discussing the relative value of big and small websites. I predicted that small sites would generate 75% of the Web's total value because they can be more targeted than big sites. ...
Most current discussions of the long tail underestimate the non-hits and assume that each point on the curve has the same value. But on the Web, being small means that you can better target your content and thus provide higher value per unit than more generic services.
Jakob also mentions a few of his hits and misses and points out some of his Alertbox articles which he feels deserve far more traffic than they get.
I have a bit of a hard time balancing self worth and ego, but it is interesting to think that hundreds of thousands of people could read your not well received work and still view it as deserving of more attention.
It seems to me that whether a person calls something usability, long tail, conversion marketing, SEO, story telling, brand building, or whatever, the end goal is to create enough value to extract profits while serving customers needs.
Usually most of the tips and information can be generic in nature (ex: track results or increase usability) - or deeply specific using some random vocabulary set (ex: Use location based keyword modifiers and bid for third position on Overture for expensive terms. Daypart your bid prices or ad display times to match the optimal point on the profit elasticity curve.) - because most of these terms and ideas are geared toward creating websites or systems which specifically target the needs of a small group of people. It is easy to fill the needs and desires of a small group of people.
It also makes me wonder if I should broaden or shift some of my interests (and more importantly, the way I market them) to a label other than SEO.
When in the UK I asked a ton of questions about demographics, law enforcement, power generation, social services, transportation, and the like. I find it fascinating to watch how some systems scale. It will be amazing if / when people figure out something that can beat out AdWords. MSN's new product may offer more data, but it may be confusing and just a bit ahead of its time.
The Federal Aviation Administration are investing in a new search engine being developed at the University of Buffalo to do some of their more sensitive detective work. ...
For example, the engine might find an association between John Smith, who belongs to an association that sponsors radical right-wing discussions, and company B. Company B owns a subsidiary that is the same organization that sponsors the discussions. The search engine would find the link automatically.
For those who spin all the ethics stuff, do you think Google knew of the problem and was lying when they said it was no big deal? If so, is it ethical for them to tell blatent lies? If not, how is it that SEOs know more about their search engine than they do and they generally disocunt the whole concept of SEO?
Yahoo! Q Challenge: whats up with a $5,000 prize - that surely is not much payout for the value they could create with that contest. I might need to create a similar marketing program for myself. hehehe
There is a website that qualifies you and prints out your ordained ministor certification in under a minute. A person today tried to justify me giving away my business model to them because they spent the minute to print one out.
Not that it is huge news for the average SEO, but when SEO Inc was removed from Google the story got so much negative coverage and the SEO Inc PR department botched the issue that it was just a really bad thing for them.
Another great example of how you reacting to something being more important than what actually happens.
Right now I am not getting SEO Inc to show up for their site name and the like, but their home page was cached in Google 2 days ago and is showing up under Search Engine Marketing Firm.