Google Targets Two European Link Networks Yesterday Morning

Over the weekend, Google has sent out mass link penalty notifications throughout Europe for those sites partaking in specific link networks with the goal of manipulating their rankings in Google. Google’s Johannes Mehlem posted on Twitter that Google has “taken action on one European…

Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.

HubPages Acquires Squidoo: Content Migration To Begin Within A Few Weeks

Seth Godin, the founder and owner of Squidoo, announced the social content platform, has been acquired by HubPages. Squidoo was founded back in 2005, where users can create “lenses” of topics and content. Back in 2007, we did a Q&A with the founder and then in 2011 Panda hit, which…

Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.

The Ultimate “Back to School” Sale – Save with SMX East Early Bird Rates

Enroll in SMX East and your search marketing campaigns are certain to make the grade. The SMX East program covers the 3 “S”s – SEO, SEM, social media marketing – ensuring you drive more traffic, conversions and sales from your internet marketing efforts. Focused on paid advertising? We’ll help you…

Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.

Generating better content ideas

buzzsumoMillions of web content get published every day – from blog posts, videos, podcasts, image-based up to interactive content.

Standing out in the content game (in any industry) will obviously become tougher to be consistently accomplished, considering that there could be thousands of newly published content in your space each day (which will possibly grow even further in the coming years).

The post Generating better content ideas appeared first on Kaiserthesage.

What is ‘best practice’?

James Bach, a friend of mine and scourge of fuzzy thinking in the software testing community, once said that the minimal requirement for a best practice is twofold.  First, it must be demonstrably better than any alternative practices. And second, it must actually be practiced by some set of people.

A lot of ‘best practices’ fall at both hurdles. Someone asserts their quality, but provides no proof beyond a few anecdotes. To be demonstrably better, a practice must have been tested against the alternatives, shown to deliver results that are measurably superior in some way.

And as for being practiced… Too many ‘best practices’ are defined in abstract by some consultancy, or extrapolated from a single success into assumed generality. Look at the teams which now claim to be following them, and you find a huge range of variation.

People are doing widely different things, yet giving them the same label. How does that help us identify what we should do? This is ‘best practice’ as magic incantation – chant the right words while you do whatever you like – rather than as actionable advice.

It’s not the variation that’s bad.

Variation arises because we all operate in different contexts. Our organisational goals and cultures are different. Our teams have different capabilities. We target different markets. We sell different products. Of course we will need to manage ourselves differently, do our projects differently, design our sites differently.

Good practices arise when we fit what we do to our context. We think about what is going on around us and respond in an appropriate way.

But to call out one of those practices as ‘best’ is meaningless.

And to bundle up the whole set of disparate practices and label them as ‘best’ is rarely helpful. You end up with something so vague, so generic, that it gives little practical guidance on how to act.

So we’re left with ‘best practice’ as a sales tool, as a way for some group of self-proclaimed experts (be it a consultancy, or an industry body, or a professional association) to create work for itself. Let’s face it, that’s what an awful lot of best practice is about.

But why do we buy it? Why do practitioners pay out for the certifications, the process definitions, the books and other paraphernalia of ‘best practice’?  Why do organisations accrue so many of them?

I guess it’s partly laziness. It’s easier to filter CVs based on certifications than to try to interview people to understand what real skills they have, easier to use a standard process than to try to craft a fresh approach for each project.

(Or at least, it’s easier initially.  Things get harder when people lack the skills they need, or when projects use approaches that are ill-matched to the problems they’re addressing. But that’s later.  ‘Best practice’ makes it easier for us right now – it helps us defer pain.  We like doing that.)

But I think the real reason ‘best practice’ has such a hold on us is herding.

We live in a pretty uncertain world. We’re still working out how to make things work, what’s possible with the technologies that keep coming at us, how customers will respond to those technologies, and so on.  So there’s a big chance we’ll get things wrong.  We need to protect ourselves from failure.

True “best practice” would provide such protection.  It would tell us how to proceed so as to maximise our chances of success – how to assess our context, how to identify practices that will work in this context, how to execute those practices.

But often we haven’t yet learned what that best practice is. So we resort to ‘herd practice’.

Herding is a proven protection mechanism.  Animals group together in large herds because there’s safety in numbers.  Perhaps the herd can scare off predators.  Perhaps it can confuse them, make it difficult for them to pick off any one animal.

At the very least, the herd provides targets. There’s a strong chance that the predator will grab someone other than me.

And the predators we’re defending against?  Our bosses.  Senior executives. If we’re in an agency or consultancy, our clients.  

No matter how badly we do, if we can suggest that thousands of other professionals would have done exactly the same in our situation, then we’re safe. No one can blame us for the failure. We were just unlucky.

Of course, we can’t admit to using ‘herd practice’. That’s not what those predators want to hear. So we’ve reframed it as ‘best practice’.

But that’s not because it’s demonstrably better than anything else. It’s because we don’t know what will really work.

Google Updates Review Policy Help Files and Review Flagging Form

This could very well be old news. I have no idea when these two things changed but Google has made a substantial update to both their local review policies and the “flag and fix inappropriate reviews” help pages. The new “flag as inappropriate” form has more fields and is also more generic and it appears that it […]

Google Acquires Patent on Speeding up SSL on Networks

On August 6th, Google announced that https was becoming a ranking signal for Google Search. I’m not completely sure of the implications of a discovery I made earlier today yet, but I noticed at the USPTO assignment database that Google had been assigned a patent from AT&T in June, which was officially recorded on August […]

The post Google Acquires Patent on Speeding up SSL on Networks appeared first on SEO by the Sea.

Loah Qwality Add Werds Clix Four U

Google recently announced they were doing away with exact match AdWords ad targeting this September. They will force all match types to have close variant keyword matching enabled. This means you get misspelled searches, plural versus singular overlap, and an undoing of your tight organization.

In some cases the user intent is different between singular and plural versions of a keyword. A singular version search might be looking to buy a single widget, whereas a plural search might be a user wanting to compare different options in the marketplace. In some cases people are looking for different product classes depending on word form:

For example, if you sell spectacles, the difference between users searching on ‘glass’ vs. ‘glasses’ might mean you are getting users seeing your ad interested in a building material, rather than an aid to reading.

Where segmenting improved the user experience, boosted conversion rates, made management easier, and improved margins – those benefits are now off the table.

CPC isn’t the primary issue. Profit margins are what matter. Once you lose the ability to segment you lose the ability to manage your margins. And this auctioneer is known to bid in their own auctions, have random large price spikes, and not give refunds when they are wrong.

An offline analogy for this loss of segmentation … you go to a gas station to get a bottle of water. After grabbing your water and handing the cashier a $20, they give you $3.27 back along with a six pack you didn’t want and didn’t ask for.

Why does a person misspell a keyword? Some common reasons include:

  • they are new to the market & don’t know it well
  • they are distracted
  • they are using a mobile device or something which makes it hard to input their search query (and those same input issues make it harder to perform other conversion-oriented actions)
  • their primary language is a different language
  • they are looking for something else

In any of those cases, the typical average value of the expressed intent is usually going to be less than a person who correctly spelled the keyword.

Even if spelling errors were intentional and cultural, the ability to segment that and cater the landing page to match disappears. Or if the spelling error was a cue to send people to an introductory page earlier in the conversion funnel, that option is no more.

In many accounts the loss of the granular control won’t cause too big of a difference. But some advertiser accounts in competitive markets will become less profitable and more expensive to manage:

No one who’s in the know has more than about 5-10 total keywords in any one adgroup because they’re using broad match modified, which eliminated the need for “excessive keyword lists” a long time ago. Now you’re going to have to spend your time creating excessive negative keyword lists with possibly millions upon millions of variations so you can still show up for exactly what you want and nothing else.

You might not know which end of the spectrum your account is on until disaster strikes:

I added negatives to my list for 3 months before finally giving up opting out of close variants. What they viewed as a close variant was not even in the ballpark of what I sell. There have been petitions before that have gotten Google to reverse bad decisions in the past. We need to make that happen again.

Brad Geddes has held many AdWords seminars for Google. What does he think of this news?

In this particular account, close variations have much lower conversion rates and much higher CPAs than their actual match type.

Variation match isn’t always bad, there are times it can be good to use variation match. However, there was choice.

Loss of control is never good. Mobile control was lost with Enhanced Campaigns, and now you’re losing control over your match types. This will further erode your ability to control costs and conversions within AdWords.

A monopoly restricting choice to enhance their own bottom line. It isn’t the first time they’ve done that, and it won’t be the last.

Have an enhanced weekend!

Categories: