A while ago I posted about a web based Dan Thies video on links.

Dan recently released another free link video. Well worth a listen.

Nothing new here, just mentioning the LocalRank patent from long ago. Claus Schmidt published a great article about LocalRank a couple years o.

The more interconnectivity there are amongst the top results the more algorithmic weight you could place on interconnectivity. Many search queries are not as competitive as they seem at first glance, because in some industries there are few industry hubs, so many of the high PageRank sites have little interconnectivity. If 10 to 20 of the top 200 results link at your site and only 2-3 link at most of the other top results it should not take much (if any) additional general authority to outrank competing sites.

Also keep in mind that pages which rank #50 for your main query may rank #2 or #3 for related queries, so links from top ranked and mid ranked related resources can be great in providing indirect value (ie ranking boosts) AND direct value (ie traffic). Some algorithms like these might make SEO harder if you use outdated techniques, but if you use current techniques it makes SEO easier because you do not have to deal with trying to get as many links if you are focused on getting the right links.

LocalRank sorta ties in with the concepts presented in Hilltop (brief overview of Hilltop here).

Keep in mind that if a site has enough authority it can rank well without needing much LocalRank, but getting links from related resources makes it easier for you to rank without needing to bulk up on building up tons and tons of PageRank.

I doubt Hilltop was implemented exactly as described in that paper (especially since I have many affiliated sites ranking next to each other in search results). Other biasing algorithms, like , likely allow Google to topically bias or personalize search results while perhaps still making it rather hard to manipulate them when compared with algoirthims such as Hilltop.

I updated the page with Google Toolbar buttons for Internet Explorer, including a new botton for Google Trends.

I also listed the extensions I use on Firefox and posted a few handy Firefox bookmark toolbar links that you can drop to your Firefox bookmarks toolbar.

Recommending doing things like using the Google Toolbar assumes that you are not mass spamming on that computer or a computer that shares the same router / IP address.

Google extends their lead in the keyword research market by adding a new tool called Google Trends. It operates similar to the Google keyword research tool, but offers trends that goes back for years, and even overlaps news related to keyword search spikes, like Google Finance does. Many of the links they provide are to cheesy press releases, so that might present another marketing opportunity.

The tool also shows top cities, regions, and languages that queries occurred in. They also allow you to set timeframes and the market location.
It also allows you to compare phrases.

The only downsides to Google Trends are that it only works for broad terms and does not give exact numbers.

I added a link to Google trends on my keyword research tool.

With SEO and content development it is all a game of margins.

If you come up with killer ideas or buy a site with rocking link popularity you can leverage that, knowing that if you add content it will rank better because it is part of the powerful trusted site. Another way to do well is just to create niche sites that:

• target flawed search queries; or,

• target language ignored by the legitimate players in your market; or,
• target buyers late in the buying cycle

Either way you go (big or small) an important criteria with the content you create is how well it stands the test of time.
If the content is time sensitive is there still a viable profitable business case for the content after it has aged? Is it niched down enough that there is no competition and likely won't be much competition for a long time?

Is it profitable enough to be worth updating frequently? How frequently? How are you measuring profit? Dollars that page earns? Link citations and/ or media exposure that page earns which make you and your site more authoritative? Does it have the depth necessary to gain self reinforcing links?

A cost many people fail to evaluate is the cost of keeping something current. When you write each page are you writing in a manner that will require updating? Is the content so link rich that fixing broken links will take hours a month to fix it?

Evergreen content (like an interview) is great because it keeps bringing in green without you needing to reinvest into updating the content. I don't know a lot about normatives and narratives, but if you keep your content focused and/or narrative it is much easier to keep it current than if you create content and profitable than if it needs constant updating.

Also worth noting that opportunity cost and the value of your attention are costs that should not be ignored when expanding your publishing empire. Compare your earnings on secondary channels to how well your best channels do and focus your effort based upon how much you enjoy doing something and how profitable it is.