Author: Alan

Word on the forums seems to suggest an update affecting quite a lot of sites around the 21st and 22nd of August. Although the forums are relatively quiet (it is summer and I’m sure a lot of people are on holiday) there were spikes of traffic on both the 20th and the 21st where people were obviously talking about something.

But was it an update?

I’ve checked a few sites and some seem to have really increased whilst others have just hit an absolute average (Analytics shows a near enough straight line of traffic). Although traffic has seemed to fluctuate, there has not been a massive change in rankings. Yes there’s the usual fluctuation but nothing that would make me worried.

There’s quite a few ideas going round the web now as to what Google may have done to cause such a spike in conversation. But until we find out more of the effects of this update we’ll just have to wait and see.

Blog Post by: Greg McVey

 

First of all, The Fold, is what’s immediately viewable on your screen once you’ve performed your internet search (Googled something). If you have to scroll down to view past the paid for content and Google’s own maps service, what does it say about Google’s attitude towards the SEO industry?

We’re all working hard to stay within Google’s strict guidelines, and now it looks like soon enough organic listings will be third in line in results displayed on the SERPs. This cam about because of a new feature Google have implemented. Which means when you run certain searches on Google, what you see straight away is:

> A Carousel. The only purpose this seems to have, is to promote you to refine your search. Each image on the carousel is tied to a different Google search so if you search Hotels (in the example image) each image at the top will have a different search attached to it. Such as “Boutique hotels”, “5 Star Hotels” etc.

> Google Ads. In the bottom left of our example image you can see the bottom left is dominated by Google’s Adwords. A larger than average box ensures that it takes up all the space it can.

> Google Maps. Although we set up Google Maps originally, we have no say whether or not our maps will be chosen with no real way to optimise them. This, again, relies solely on Google.

See the example image for the search “hotels” below:

 

So what do you think about this new first page Dominance by Google? Is this a deliberate attempt to discourage the SEO Industry? Or is this just simply Google trying to improve search results for us?

Blog Post by: Greg McVey

It’s been touted for a long while that Google takes Social Signals into account for it’s rankings. With that in mind, would Google’s own Social Network be a better platform to have your content shared on that other networks?

The response was prompted mainly by the fact that Moz had published a couple of studies that showed a massive correlation between the numbers of Google +1s and rankings. The more +1s something had, the higher it ranked.

But Matt Cutts was quick to point out that correlation doesn’t imply causality, deeming this the politest way to debunk the myth. He also added, more in reference to Moz’s study of Facebook Likes, that if you create compelling and great content, naturally people are going to take it and share it and link to it.

Implying that it isn’t due to the likes and +1s that the content ranks, it’s down to the actual content itself. It just happens to attract links organically. He also stated:

“But that doesn’t mean that Google is using those signals in our ranking, rather than chasing +1s of content, your time is much better spent making great content.”

So what do you believe? The cold, hard facts of Moz. Or the genial face of Matt Cutts?

Blog Post by: Greg McVey

A post I read recently discussed what you need to evaluate when you get a manual penalty from Google. Some people generally get as many link reports that they can and then scythe through them hoping to cull anything that looks a bit out of the ordinary.

But the post I read was talking about just analysing the links from within Webmaster tools itself. However there are other examples which have shown that just analysing the links in Webmaster tools isn’t enough. Matt Cutts, head of the webspam team at Google, has addressed and recognised this by releasing a statement as follows:

It’s certainly the case that we endeavor to show examples from the set of links returned by Webmaster Tools, and likewise we prefer to assess reconsideration requests on that basis of those links. However, if there’s a really good example link that illustrates a problem, we do leave enough room to share that link, especially because it can help point the webmaster in a better direction to diagnose and fix issues.

So it shows that although Google do try, that is all they can do. Try. So if you’re ever on the receiving end of a manual penalty, then don’t rely solely on Webmaster tools to recuperate. Use other link analysis software and make sure to examine as many links as possible to try and find what is hurting your site.

The short answer is yes. As Matt Cutts goes on to explain below:

Today Google pays homage to Erwin Schrödinger on his 125th birthday. See the Doodle below:

 

The principle itself is quite complicated to understand but I’ll do my best to explain it. You start off with three items; a cat, a glass phial containing a lethal poison and small piece of radioactive material. These three items are put into a box with the glass phial set to detect radioactivity, and If the phial does detect radioactivity (which it surely will) then the glass will shatter, releasing the poison and killing the cat.

At this moment I’d like to explain that this is a thought experiment. No cats were harmed in the construction of this blog post.

As there is an air of inevitability about the poor cats demise you can then apply the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (you’ll have to take me at my word for that) to state that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Alive because not enough time has passed for the phial to smash, and dead because the cat is inevitably doomed.

It’s meant to pose the question of when does quantum superposition (cat both alive and dead) end and when does reality kick in to determine the outcome of the cat’s fate i.e. peering into the box.

Interesting no doubt but how does this apply to SEO? Sit tight and I’ll tell you, we’ll just be making a few simple swaps.

Instead of a cat you have blog post you’ve written. Instead of a box you have someone else’s blog/email address. The radioactive material is instead you requesting to publish a blog, and the glass phial is the blog owner who will smash/publish a post when it detects a request and a blog post.

So, you find the blog you wish to publish on (the box) and put in your blog post (the cat), the author (the glass phial) and your request for the author to publish it (radioactive material).

So as it stands it is inevitable that your blog post will get published on the authors blog. But when you put them in the box together the author still needs to detect the request which will then trigger him to publish your article. So at the same time, again applying the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, your blog post is simultaneously published and unpublished. The same as the cat being alive and dead.

The only way to then stop the quantum superposition of this is to then “peer in the box” by checking the blog.

Simple really. I think?

Blog Post by: Greg McVey

It was recently confirmed that Google have changed the webmaster guidelines when it comes to link schemes. The main rule they have concentrated on is the keyword rich anchor text within press releases and the links should include the nofollow attribute. Similar to that of paid advertisements, this ensures that paid links do not pass on any value to search engines.

The precise line in the updated link schemes guidelines is:

“Links with optimized anchor text in articles or press releases distributed on other sites.”

I researched more about this and have found a Google Hangout video by John Mueller who is the head webmaster trends analyst, it is clear that Google are turning to press releases as advertisements hence the change in link scheme. Press releases will still drive a lot of traffic to your website but take note of these new guidelines and instead of linking with your keyword use brand name, url or generic anchor text as these will still carry the follow attribute, therefore passing on PageRank.

Another interesting point is that in the past Matt Cutts has publicly came out and said that links within articles and press releases do not pass link juice, when many people who work in the SEO world know that it is not true in the slightest!

It seems to me that Google are taking a more direct approach about paid advertising and link schemes but also to the overuse of paid links within articles. Take a look at the Google Hangout video with John Mueller and let us know what you think.

[embedplusvideo height=”356″ width=”584″ editlink=”http://bit.ly/18MXfpn” standard=”http://www.youtube.com/v/z6p7vO04Vsc?fs=1″ vars=”ytid=z6p7vO04Vsc&width=584&height=356&start=&stop=&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=” id=”ep6174″ /]

 

Blog Post by Jordan Whitehead