A Solution for Google and the Paid Link Fight

One of the biggest debates raging in the search marketing world right now is Google's stance on paid links. Google went a step further than just talking about it, and dropped PageRank values for many sites known to sell links specifically for the purpose of passing PageRank and thus, rankings, on to the buyer's site. My solution to the paid link epidemic goes one step further; but first, here's a brief synopsis of what has actually transpired.

Google feels it is a violation of organic search engine optimization practices to pay for incoming links... but only certain kinds of links. Some webmasters do a great deal of business by simply selling outbound links off their high PageRank web pages. But there's a difference between that and say, paying for a business listing to the Yahoo! Directory. There is more value and legitimacy in a Yahoo! listing than buying a text link on a pharmaceutical site pointing to your gambling site with keyword stuffed anchor text. Yahoo! also does not accept all submissions, so there is an element of quality to their directory. There are differences in paid links.

Sounds like Google's just stepping up their algorithmic intelligence once again and defining new black hat techniques, right? Perhaps, but not without controversy. News in September spread that the once very popular Aviva Directory, among others, had suffered drastic drops in Google rankings, which ultimately would lessen the quality of the outbound links they list. Aviva was one of the more SEO-friendly directories around, which led to its popularity for webmasters. PageRank was passed on several levels deep, and the $50 fee was very reasonable for a permanent PR3 or PR4 one-way link.

Many argue that Aviva has done nothing wrong. Their business provides a service to webmasters that is transparent as well as valuable for a fair cost. But the point I have isn't to say who is right and who is wrong. It is instead to say that Google is walking a fine line with this one. There was speculation that their stance has something to do with a Federal Trade Commission staff opinion saying that, "companies engaging in word-of-mouth marketing, in which people are compensated to promote products to their peers, must disclose those relationships." This would extend to web sites presenting commercial listings of other businesses for a fee without sufficiently noting that in each case. According to Google, there are several linking options that web sites should use in these cases, or else they risk suffering the consequences like Aviva did. They include using a meta robots tag to disallow the Google crawler, using JavaScript links, and the "nofollow" attribute among others.

Whether the FTC opinion and Google's unhappiness with paid links are just a coincidence, I found it worth mentioning.

Keep in mind that Google also runs the most popular Pay Per Click advertising platform on the Internet. If webmasters are paying for links on the Internet, it is certain that Google would like to do everything it can to encourage the use of their AdWords and AdSense services over text link buying from private companies. This includes offering a paid link reporting page which is the first of its kind in the search engine world.

The drop in PageRank of many high profile sites was indeed a wake up call. However, my solution is extremely simple, goes one step farther, and one I'm sure Google has already considered:

Stop making PageRank values public altogether.

Why? Well, for starters PageRank never really gave any accurate reading as to the value of a web page. One could get a single incoming link from an irrelevant PR7 page that would transfer a very respectable PR value to their site. Another web site could have hundreds of relevant PR1 links pointing to it and have a lower PageRank value than the first page. If I'm trying to determine the "worth" of a page, the second example could easily be more helpful to a user than the first. The value of a link doesn't begin and end with the page's PR value. There are other factors. Without knowledge of PageRank, link exchanges, article reprints, and other old school and still popular methods of link building could continue fairly unaffected. New-age methods such as social media promotion, press releases, and link baiting would also not be affected. Hiding PageRank would not turn the world of webmasters and SEO upside down.

But what's more important is that PageRank plays such a massive factor in why people buy and sell links. The higher the PR, the more expensive a link is generally. Take away that value system and all of a sudden paid link participants need to re-evaluate their strategies. Sure, existing links would likely not change. Even though PR is hidden, you can bet most existing pages will hold their value for the time being. But all future link purchasing would have to be based upon a brand new system.

PageRank is a window to Google's algorithm. It's only natural that some people will try to manipulate rankings by using that data. But what purpose does PageRank serve anymore? To the casual web surfer (the vast majority of Internet users) the little green bar in their browser's toolbar (if they even bothered to install the Google Toolbar) probably evokes the same reaction that a Windows "stack dump" error would: A scratch of the head. A shrug of the shoulders. A bewildered, "huh?"

As an SEO myself, I find it pretty annoying that my competition pays for incoming links to rank their clients well. It doesn't put me out of business, as I'm a creative and resourceful online marketer. But the sheer ease of buying links for clients definitely leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. So I, for one, welcome Google's crackdown on paid links and will be an active user of their paid link reporting form. Hopefully they get rid of PageRank altogether. Its day has certainly passed.

Gaining an Edge With Web Analytics

Web analytics software is the eyes and ears to your web site visitors. Understanding the behavior of potential customers from the time they find your site, when they're surfing it, to when they leave, is essential for a number of reasons. Web development issues, cross platform compatibility, landing page success, and search engine visibility are just some of the areas analytics can shed much-needed light on.

In the mid 1990's, it created a splash when big businesses announced they were simply launching a web site. Today, many companies' web sites can function as the sole method of generating income. With the advent of blogs, discussion forums, podcasts, online stock info and more, people keep referring to web content daily, hourly, and even by the minute.

In my industry of search engine optimization, there are specific habits I need to know in order to make my web site function more efficiently. Useful information for me is:

- what search engines are referring visitors the most
- what keywords did my visitors search for
- what page are they visiting first (entry pages)
- what page are they visiting last (exit pages)
- what link is followed the most from my home page
- what's the ratio of total visitors to visitors who contact me

Advanced statistics and analytics software can tell me if say, visitors from Google are more likely to contact me than visitors from Yahoo's search engine. If this is the case, then I know by optimizing my site more for Google, I'm increasing the changes of contacts made.

Visitor information is especially useful when doing PPC campaigns. If you pay for every click on your ad, you're paying for every visit. You need to know how your site's structure works for your visitors. Are they getting confused on the entry page and leaving? If you created the PPC ad for the sole purpose of selling product A, are visitors from that ad more likely to visit sections of your site for product B for some reason?

Being able to react to your visitors' needs can have a profound effect on profit made from your web site.

Those who operate a web site blindly, that is to say those who don't know their visitors' habits, are at a disadvantage.

For more information, visit the Web Analytics Association.
To get to know your visitors better, sign up free for Google Analytics.

Buying Links for SEO

There is a debate raging over paid links as part of an SEO plan. Should it be done? Does it fall within White Hat SEO techniques? What do the search engines say about this? Is there a risk involved with buying incoming links? There are so many questions brought up with this issue, but let's cover a few of the big ones:

First off, search engines don't like the fact that webmasters can indirectly buy rankings, since obtaining good quality, relevant links theoretically helps your rankings rise. It also lowers the quality of links on the web when webmasters start linking for SEO instead of for visitors and quality. Matt Cutts has a good blog on this topic here: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/text-links-and-pagerank/

So right off the bat we know that link buying is a Black Hat SEO method because Google has said it does not condone it. Paid directory listings are different because human eyes validate these links upon submission as being relevant and useful to their core audience. Business directory listings will always have a place in the heart of search engines, but buying thousands of site-wide links strictly for SEO do not.

The risk part is definitely true. As with any Black Hat SEO method, there may be benefits in the short term, but as your methods age they will likely get picked up by new search engine algorithm updates. For example, take hidden text. Many webmasters years ago would make text the same color as the background of a page in order to stuff the page's content with repetitions of popular keywords, hoping to get a high ranking. Occassionally I will come across a site that's still using this method, but over time, the search engines weed these bad folks out.

But fear not. For those who want to throw some money at a web site and have it ranked well (and quickly), take the PPC route. Pay-per-click advertising reaches just as many people if not more (with Google content ads) than organic search engine listings. Hire a capable PPC campaign manager and you will probably see a good return on your monthly budget. Google AdWords and Yahoo! Search Marketing are the most popular services for PPC advertising.

And if you still want to buy links, do what Google says and use the 'nofollow' tag. Set up a link for direct click-throughs from potential customers, not to increase your link popularity.

Article Submissions: The SEO Fallacy

Everyone loves to submit articles for SEO purposes. It's such a great, and easy, way of getting incoming links for your web site, provided you can write something intelligently about your product or field. And even if you can't write worth a lick, many article reprint sites will do you the gracious benefit of accepting your submission.

But as one would assume, this clutters up the web quite a bit. Duplicate content, 'scraped' content, not to mention content written for the sole purpose of increasing link popularity instead of human eyes, amounts to a problem for search engines trying to present their users with useful content. So what are search engines doing about this? Easy: they're discrediting the value of your articles.

Your articles are now being relegated to Google's dreaded "Supplemental Index." If you're not familiar with that term, it's basically a database within Google's larger database where it keeps all the web pages and files it collects on the Internet. The Supplemental Index is where old, irrelevant pages go to die. Rather than banish them completely from their index, Google keeps them on hand in case a user's search query doesn't bring up enough in the regular index.

Search engines also like fresh content. A lot. Why do you think blogs, forums, RSS, and social bookmarking are so popular these days? The active participation between users and web sites, whether it's RSS feeds, blog comments, or 'diggs', just having something happen with your content weeks, months and years after creating it is one way of letting the search engines know that it's a good resource.

Articles submitted through reprint sites with suspect names like ArticleMegaBlaster sit buried deep in web sites on pages with low PageRank values. Their content never changes and search engine spiders rarely crawl them. So you have a link on that page to your web site. Big deal. It's the same thing as getting linked to from a link exchange page that's 3 categories deep and isn't indexed by Google. It's worthless. And what's worse is that this does more harm than you might expect. Search engines have a memory; a very long memory. Just as it's difficult to get re-listed by a search engine once your site has been banned, it is difficult to tell a search engine than your content is in fact very valuable once it's been copied on hundreds of poor quality web sites.

Think of article submissions the same as a news story by the Associated Press. The day it's published it's a popular read, as many places like CNN and MSN pick it up. After that for a couple weeks people may search and want to reference some information contained in that news story. But as time goes on, the news gets stale and is buried deep in the archives of web sites that reprint AP news. Any searches for that topic a year from now will result in newer stories about it, not the old article. Chances are it isn't relevant anymore, unless the story covers a major event and presents unique information about it. The same goes for your article. It will only stay relevant if others continue to link to it or feature it on their site.

If you really have something of value to write about, consider submitting it as a press release. If you have a popular blog, just print it up there and wait for people to find it. If it's worth their time, they'll use it (hopefully along with a link to your site) and do the distribution for you. If you don't have a blog of your own but think your article is interesting, ask some popular bloggers in your field to feature it on their blogs. Another option is to find out if web resources or publications in your industry accept submissions. Some web sites look for guest authors to write on a weekly or monthly basis. While most won't pay you anything, they will feature your writing and give you free exposure.

If the purpose of submitting your articles is ultimately for SEO purposes, then you must realize that SEO is an ongoing task. Continue to write about your products or services and look for ways of getting temporary exposure from each article.

Anchor Text Phrases Now Tracked by Google

If you login to your Google Webmaster Tools, then click on Statistics > Page Analysis, you'll see a list of external link anchor text. Gone are the days of trying to keep track of what keywords you've used in your link campaigns.

But I was also wondering why they couldn't list the web sites associated with the anchor text phrases. Google obviously has that data, so why not show it? I'm not trying to be negative because this is definitely a useful part of Google's Webmaster Tools and is just another reason of why they are the benchmark for online search.

Although as we all know, not all links are created equal. I could assume that my site is better optimized for the top listed phrase since more sites link to me using that anchor text than any others. But what about the quality of those pages? I have no way of knowing if my site is really optimized better for the top phrase Google lists or the 10th phrase down. The top phrase could be contained in 50 poor quality link exchanges from years ago, while the 10th phrase showed up only once in an MSN news story and another time at WebProNews.com. Hypothetical, but it's clear the order these phrases are listed in should act as only a guide for you, and nothing exact.

Ok, I'm done nitpicking.

8 Link Popularity Methods Ranked for SEO

If you haven't read my new article, there is a link to it here:

8 Link Popularity Methods Ranked for SEO in 2007.