One of the reasons I was so motivated to change the tagline of this site recently was because the new site design contained the site's logo as a background image. The logo link was a regular static link, but it had no anchor text, only a link title to describe the link. If you do not look at the source code, the link title attribute can seem like an image alt tag when you scroll over it, but to a search engine they do not look that same. A link title is not weighted anywhere near as aggressively as an image alt tag is.
The old link title on the header link for this site was search engine optimization book. While this site ranks #6 and #8 for that query in Google, neither of the ranking pages are the homepage (the tools page and sales letter rank). That shows that Google currently places negligible, if any, weight on link titles.
I have ranked other sites for more competitive queries based exclusively on internal links (without thousands of links from other sites, like those pointing at the SEO Book home page).
Does the image alt text carry more weight? In a word, yes. Here is now I proved that to myself through yet another site error. :)
One of my hobby sites has a fairly flat file structure, and some of the internal pages are somewhat linkworthy. The site was not marketed aggressively and the only sitewide link to the homepage was the logo, which I forgot to put an image alt tag on. Google ranked 2 pages on the site well for the core keyword, but neither of those pages were the homepage. I noticed the lacking image alt tag, fixed it, and within a week my homepage was outranking the other pages.
If the only link to your homepage is a logo check the source code to verify you are using descriptive image alt text.
Would this be considered a paid link? Where is the line drawn?
Nice business model too. Are those arrows pointing at the ads legit? How about the request to support our sponsors?
Get a few hundred million in VC funding, buy some old domains. Fill the domain with user generated content. Place a thin layer of link schemes and please click ads on the top. Web 3.0...Wow. Exciting times.
The SearchGuild domain auction at Sedo just ended. $8,655 for a known brand, an old trusted site with references from sites like Wired.com, and 28,000+ inbound links. Even without getting the content that is still cheap. Some of my leading affiliates make that per year just from recommending my book, let alone all their other affiliate income from recommending other products and services.
If you had to try to build those same links Search Guild has in today's market they could cost $100,000 and/or a couple years to build. Even after the site changes ownership, most of the inbound links will stick too. In fact, if you move a domain to a new URL and ask people to redirect the links, over 90% of them will not.
Just like a strong domain name offers defensible traffic, so do those old links pointing at an old trusted site. If I had not already bought, ran, and closed Threadwatch, I might have considered buying SearchGuild, but I already have too many SEO sites to spend another $8,000 on a domain name that I would then have to develop. I hope they do something cool with it.
"During the Christmas season, certain online search engine costs increased significantly over the prior year, and as such we made the decision not to pursue the resulting high cost order volume."
I have been getting many questions about how to play the flower market recently, so I figured a blog post or industry review might be in order. This may be useful or it may not, but the good intent is there. Common recurring problems I see with people asking me how to play the market:
You probably need unique content: Many people have been screwed by Google's improving duplicate content filters. They say they were screwed, but realistically why would Google want to index 100 of the same boring empty merchant feeds? They don't. Take a peak at their search quality spam guidelines or remote quality raters. The key? Is there any reason a person would want to use the affiliate site over the main merchant site?
Some of these same people complained about their SEOs getting them screwed, but realistically they were screwed by their own greed, laziness and lack of desire to invest profits into making something useful. If an SEO is working hard to bring traffic into someone else's empty affiliate feed site they typically fit in one or more of the follow groups
bad at SEO
more honest than most people are (why not just build a similar affiliate site yourself)
wet behind the ears in the field of business or SEO
eventually are going to get squeezed by algorithmic improvements if they don't start using content remixing, linkbaiting, or using other more advanced SEO techniques
Want to rank for Flowers? The key to flowers is local or type of flowers. Don't create a global flower site unless you have some money to invest into it. When you look at the link popularity of your sites why try to spread it out over everything in the world? If you have a legit value added brand this may work, but if the site is a me too affiliate feed you have to compete with the thousands of other players doing the same thing.
Don't want to pour adequate resources into marketing: If your site is brand new and you have no link popularity you are going to need to spend cash in many ways to do well in the SERPs. There is too much money in markets like online flowers, mortgages, and travel. You need to come up with something creative or useful or spend some cash.
Want to rank for too many phrases: Some realize how much better the longer phrases convert and want to rank for a wide variety of them. You can probably rank for a couple different phrase sets, but if you are starting off with little to no money don't go for the competitive ones.
Review of top players in the online flower market: Why do they rank?
Don't just look at who ranks for the single word flowers, also look at flower delivery, send flowers, etc. Check the age of the competing sites. Do link analysis on their backlink profiles.
Also look for non commercial sites that may be willing to sell you underpriced ads. When you buy ads point them at your most relevant page.
Problems with some of the major flower sites:
Many of the major flower sites could use a conversion expert. If you sign up as an affiliate of a flower site and are not associated with a local floral company you may only get around half the commission you could be getting. Some of them also offer shoddy input fields that cut off people trying to customize their orders.
Tips on how to play the flower market:
create ultimate resource sites for some of the important holidays associated with selling flowers
buy older site that rank but do not make much profit - think laterally with this
smart link buying - occasionally I see vertical price comparison search engines like Bizrate dipping toes in water, but not too many of the major flower sites are
avoid PPC bidding wars on competitive terms near holidays
plan your link building for holidays (internal and external linkage profiles) many months in advance of any vital holiday
In the past many Google penalties were blatantly obvious. You either got traffic or you did not. But as time has passed penalties are getting blurrier, meaning your site can be penalized and still get traffic from Google. Some traffic reductions are due to competitive market forces, some are due to algorithm changes, some are due to automated filters, and some are due to penalties. If you are new to the market (and in some cases, even if you are experienced) it is hard to know which problems, if any, are holding back your ranking potential.
A friend just told me about how his Google traffic went way up after he spoke with a Google engineer, but he didn't want to talk about it publicly. I wonder how many other people are just like him, but don't speak about it or don't know they are penalized? And then I think back to the ban of the official AdSense blog, Brian Clark's PageRank hit, and Sugar Rae's ranking woes, and have come to the conclusion that spam fighting has become more of a shoot first and ask questions later game. They do not make a lot of mistakes, but when your site is just a number, it hurts pretty bad.
From a marketer perspective this shoot first shift is an important one which requires a few things of online publishers hoping to keep their businesses profitable:
Track your traffic using analytics tools, such that you know if/when something goes wrong, can prove it with hard stats, and can research it more specifically.
Publish at least 2 or 3 sites in different markets to give yourself additional data points on whether the issue is site specific or not.
Use public relations and viral link marketing where you once used link buys. If you are still renting links try to make them covert, and offset them with many natural links.
If possible package your offering as a service, so that you can justify charging recurring, and/or create an affiliate program. These make your income less reliant on search engines.
While on the link buying panel at WebmasterWorld's Pubcon a few people were pushing that you might need to consider how Google will view your current link buys 5 years down the road, and that they may hurt you then for what you do now. Upon hearing that I said something like "less than 5 years ago I bought spammy links and if I did not I probably wouldn't be speaking here right now". That got a cheer from the crowd. Who wants to be worried about what Google thinks or does 5 years from now? That is no way to innovate or take marketshare from current market leaders.
Reviewing Result Quality
When engineers view your site they don't just look at "if you have a few spammy links" but they try to consider the quality of user experience and the ratio of clean links to dirty links. If your site is good and ranks for years then you are going to get many natural links that dwarf any spammy links that were part of your site launch.
Building a Real Business
If your business model is entirely reliant on Google 5 years from now, your user experience is sub-par, and you haven't built up any brand equity after ranking for 5 years then there was not much effort put into building a legitimate business, and it deserves to fail. But the sites that rank get self reinforcing exposure. If SEO is part of your brand building and site building strategy you simply can not sit around waiting for the rankings to come in.
Inferior Sites Ranking #1
It is easy to lack objectivity when talking of the quality of your site, but in some fields I compete in, many of the top ranked competing sites are ran by people buying a slew of spammy links and pointing them at their (quite obviously) English second language sites. Because they rank, those sites get some number of self reinforcing links. If I did nothing but create great content they would still outrank my site. You have to buy marketshare in one way or another (public relations, AdWords, link buying) if you are trying to gain marketshare and your market is competitive.
Who Buys Links & Uses Push Marketing to Buy Marketshare?
That does not mean that I am an advocate of bad user experience or poor quality content, but if you care about SEO and have a new site in an old market, user experience and content quality are not enough unless you do some push marketing at launch.
AOL sent out millions of spammy CDs to market their service.
IAC buys a ton of links and aggressively cross links their sites.
Microsoft has got in trouble for launching new products by bundling them with their old products and steals traffic by sending seobook.om traffic to their live search product.
Monster.com owns a ton of thin lead generation sites.
eBay pays affiliates to spam Google.
One of Google's large ad distribution partners tried setting up a deal with me to rank their ads in Google's search results using aggressive black hat spammy techniques, in which I declined to participate in.
We Don't Write the Algorithms (or Hand Edit Search Results)
As an SEO you simply give the engines what they want. Looking at what they rank and how they market their sites gives you better insights for how to rank than blindly trusting the tips they give you to prevent you from ranking and suggesting you buy their ads. All of the web portals you know and love use push marketing to build their businesses. Why shouldn't you?
The Wikipedia ranks for a lot of competitive keywords because they are cited everywhere while acquiring the back links to be envious of. They also keep most of their link juice by linking to their internal pages and placing no-follows on external links.
I found out recently that they rank for competitive key phrases on Google such as:
Loan - #1 and 2
Mortgage - #3
Insurance - #4 and #5
The chart below is from the RankPulse list of top websites ranking in the top ten results for their 1,000 keywords sample database.
But when I added high traffic classifiers to the phrases above, Wikipedia’s rankings dropped significantly.
Insurance Quotes – Not found in top 1000 Google results
Mortgage Rates – Not found in top 1000 Google results
Loan Consolidation - #36
My explanations for the results are:
Although Wikipedia ranks well for competitive phrases, they don’t belong to the associated topical communities. They rank primarily on site authority.
While they have enough content to rank for said terms, they don't have pages targeting those terms. In many cases the relevant content for the phrase is compressed as part of a broader related page.
Their title tags target core keywords and lacks modifiers needed to rank well for popular terms that Wikipedia did not dedicate unique pages to.
By fixing the above issues, they may very well rank for the remaining 11 keywords.
Philipp Lessen recently asked me to guest post on Blogoscoped about the state of the world of SEO in 2007. I talked about recent events, editorial considerations, industry consolidation, and all sorts of other goodies.
I also did a mini interview with Web Pro News at the Blog World Expo. I pulled my wonderful wife into the interview, and she was kinda shy. :) Today is her birthday so we are about to go out soon.