I often see many .edu and .gov sites in Google's SERPs and think their representation is to a disproportionate level. And there is a business case for doing that too.

Google's Matt Cutts has argued that .edu and .gov links do not carry any more weight other than their raw PageRank scores being higher, but if they trust those resources enough to display them disproportionately more in the search results, then wouldn't they also be likely to trust how those resources voted for other pages more as well? I have a PageRank 7 site that doesn't rank anywhere near as well as you would expect given its PageRank. I also have a couple PageRank 5 sites that rank for a ton of searches and are getting thousands of visits a day. One of them has less than 30 pages too. What do the PageRank 5 sites have that the PageRank 7 site lacks? Tons of .edu and librarian type links.

Lets imagine that my experiences as a searcher and as a search marketer are totally biased, irrelevant, and too small of a sample to be accurate. Here is what we know that Google does for certain with PageRank and links:

• shows outdated and rarely updated PageRank scores

• only shows a sample of backlink data
• scrubs out many of the most authoritative backlinks to a site when showing you a small sample of the backlink data
• does not let you use multiple advanced operators in your search if one of the advance operators is the link function (link:site.com)

So just about everything they show you about PageRank or links is an obfuscated half truth. Why would we expect their words to be any more factually correct than these algorithmic half truths they share?

Here is what else we know Google does...

Google has a Librarian's newsletter, to help teach librarians how search works, and how to trust good resources (ie: who they should be linking at). Help improve our relevancy by linking at quality sites. That was the first two issues of their newsletter, and perhaps its main goal?

WebmasterWorld recently posted a thread announcing that Google is offering SEO training to federal government employees.

Imagine Google training one section of the web about how SEO works, and then not providing the same training to other webmasters. That effect alone will add a bias toward .GOV sites, and goes to show the bias they have toward governmental websites (whether or not they admit it exists).

When researching with a friend last night I came across a .GOV link scheme that made my jaw drop twice. Once in envy when I saw how effective and viral it was, and again when I realized how easily I could duplicate the marketing method. But I better rush off quickly with that one while the opportunity is still there, before Google teaches them how to link!

As much as the governmental training is about making governmental content accessible, it is also likely about making government agencies more aware of SEO, such that it is harder for people like me to bilk high quality .GOV links.

Looks like this. Doah!

What is the most agressive thing you have seen an affiliate do to push your stuff? If they are soley focused on conversion they may damage your brand more than they help you make sales. How far do you let them go before you warn them or delete their accounts?

Most sales consist of a series of micro sales. Most people do not just go to a website and buy right away.

We learn to trust brands, companies, people, and websites. Network marketplaces offer user feedback which act as currency. If you are on eBay and are about to buy an expensive product you are probably going to look through some of the other feedback the merchant has.

The web as a whole also offers many layers of feedback. If people search for your brand what do they find? When people search for SEO Book most of the feedback (except for the occasional BrantRant) is positive in nature. When people ask about your brand in a forum do you get ripped to shreds or does your site usually stand up ok?

I recently had an SEO executive tell me I was an idiot for saying I ranked well for SEO Book, and then he used Overture to show that term draws no traffic.

In search terms keywords are all important and with the keyword book on SEO "seo book" receives 322 searches per month in 1st position you will receive an estimate, for argument sack 10% CTR, meaning 32 clicks to your website.

If one of those 32 convert you have value.

Unbeknown to that SEO professional, most people looking for SEO related stuff use Google, and his traffic estimates for my site for my well branded term are off by at least a factor of a 100.

But the point of my post is not to try to talk up this site. This site is complete rubbish to over 99% of the people on the web. To them it has less than no value. But (hopefully) not to you. And thanks for reading it!

The feedback I have gained from readers in that other 0.001% have helped me to

• offer a better product

• increase brand awareness
• sell more
• meet great people
• come across other amazing opportunities

Brand related search queries and consumer feedback come at the end of the trust cycle though. First you must gain attention, awareness, and credibility. Each time someone takes the time to read something you write or revisits your site you have made another mini sale. A bit more mind-share. Maybe they link to your site. Maybe they come back for another read. Maybe they tell a friend about it. Maybe they mention your site on a forum or say good things if someone flames you, etc.

If I could give my book away free without being 99% certain that people would think it is worthless based on its price I probably would. It would give me a ton more mind-share (that could be leveraged into currency in other ways), but it would give me access to a brutal group of customers:

Actually it's kinda sad in a way. I've given away almost a hundred copies of the SEO Tutor© optimization book to newbies and intermediates alike and with a few exceptions, the message is always the same, "I don't want to do any real work; I just want to get rich fast."

That is not to say that I think I (or SEO Tutor) have low product quality, just that feedback is exceptionally valuable, and pricing at free might prevent you from getting the feedback you need while adding a ton of noise to the feedback you do get.

Most value based systems are arbitrary in nature. Money is a means to barter, but not a finite resource. Stocks are just pieces of paper, as are baseball cards, and books, etc. Diamonds are just stupid rocks. But most established value systems (moral, financial, etc.) have value because people have pushed them long and hard.

Why was slavery legitimate in the US long after most of the advanced world considered it repulsive if we are the land of the free? Someone pushed and sold that story. Why must we have a war on drugs? Why must you be afraid of terrorists? and sugar? Someone is selling those stories.

Value based systems (and thus the perception of value) typically take a long time to build. To get people to value what you are doing you have to over-invest for a while with the hopes that the value will come back, but retail only has value if you have exposure and people are buying.

Many of the people who read my ebook and say "I need help with SEO and your book did nothing for me" have a one page sales-letter site that says "buy now or forever screw off". They limit the types of sales they can make, and the speed with which they can gain mind-share or learn from feedback.

Each feedback route or potential audience presents another opportunity to gain mind-share. For example, if you are multilingual and typically write in one language also post your thoughts in another. If you have a news site then try to get in Google news. If you have an informal news site maybe call it a blog to make it easier for other bloggers to identify with your work and link at you.

If a site does not give people reasons to come back and does not give people many reasons / ways to show trust then the odds of the project becoming a long-term success are much lower. If no humans show that they trust your site then why should search engines?

Let's pretend you are walking the streets of Amsterdam at 1:12 AM and someone comes up to you and whispers

coke charlie, coke charlie, got what you need

then the next guy walking past you says

sniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

There is no rapport building there. Buy now or forever screw off.

Compare that to a local mischief guide (perhaps a topical authority?), who might start a dialog with something like:

Are looking for a drink or a smoke? The coffeeshops just closed, but there are still a few bars are open a few blocks up. If you need papers they sell those right up the street. If you need a smoke I sell some ______ right here.

Which one of those people would you be more willing to trust?

I am not advocating drug use, but if you assumed that 99% of everything on the web is shady (coke charlie got what you need) then you would be viewing content the way a search engineer does.

9 times out of 10 (with the other 1 in 10 being their own content, or content from partner businesses) they want to rank the least shadiest offers, and hope the other ones wind up buying ads, which they can plaster all over the web, to help spread their value based system.

coke charlie, etc. ;)

In the last post I pointed out one example of how more links could actually be a bad thing.

While I have been touring Europe with Werty and Radiohead Greg Boser started blogging again. He posted about how a Gokart site started ranking for Amish furniture in Google.

Greg stated:

I don’t think most webmasters truly understand the impact (both negative and positive) pre-existing links can have on a project.

He then stated:

Regardless of who is responsible, the end result is the same. The gokart site gets hosed. Google has determined both domains point to a single site, and that has caused the anchor text of the two separate domains to be combined. Now that really wouldn’t be so bad if you still were able to rank for the phrase combinations from each individual domain. I know if I sold gokarts and mini bikes, I wouldn’t mind the occasional email asking why I show up for amish furniture as long as I ranked well for my core phrases.

But that’s not typically what happens. When you inherit a bunch of off-topic anchor text, more often than not you just end up ranking for a bunch stupid phrases that no one actually searches for.

Greg also did a follow up titled My Naïveté which solidifies his position, and then posted how to protect your domain from competitive sabotage.

Most of my friends use a meta description tag on their home page.

Not Werty though... When you go to Amsterdam with a friend, and some have called you a garden variety fag, it doesn't help your case to have a snippet like this.

From Rock En Seine

Friends don't let friends do crazy things like go without using a meta description on their home page.

From Rock En Seine