If all your title tags and meta-descriptions include how you’re ‘SEO friendly!’ and all that fluff, and your main means of promotion seems to be spammy footer tags in WordPress themes released under Creative Commons (meaning that someone’s not supposed to remove them), you probably pass about as much link value as [...]]]> Another comment on ‘directories:’

If all your title tags and meta-descriptions include how you’re ‘SEO friendly!’ and all that fluff, and your main means of promotion seems to be spammy footer tags in WordPress themes released under Creative Commons (meaning that someone’s not supposed to remove them), you probably pass about as much link value as my cat does (The PageRank over Fluff Protocol is not yet implemented).

But then, I am a known crankypants.

I think keyword research is important. A lot of it is verifying the obvious, [...]]]> Like it or not, search engine optimization still starts at the page level. Without belittling the importance of quality site architecture and design, the first thing most people will think of when you say ‘SEO’ will be keyword research and content optimization.

I think keyword research is important. A lot of it is verifying the obvious, but sometimes you can find some hidden gems to target if you take some effort and get creative.

However, creativity and effectiveness is limited by your source choice. Different tools offer different advantages. Without going into a recommendation of ‘pick THIS one,’ here are factors I tend to consider when choosing a tool:

1. What’s the data source? — some tools pull from meta search engines, some from ISP data, some from just their own source. Some have many data streams.
2. Does that data source have the potential to represent your target audience? — you can have a ton of data, but, say I’m targeting US Hispanics. A data pull from Yahoo Spain isn’t going to be representative for me, as it’ll use Castillian Spanish and represent the interests of Spaniards, not Spanish speakers from Latin America living in the US!
3. What’s it cost? — Hey, we’ve all had gigs where the budget for pretty much anything, including our own salaries and benefits, was equal to bupka. Sure, the Google and Overture tools have intense limitations, but the price is right.

I think a lot of elementary level SEOs don’t look at where the database for any given tool is sourced from, which means they’re missing an important decision factor in keyword selection. Looking at sources, and not just numbers and proportions, is one of the things an SEO can do to truly consult on content optimization. Anyone can parrot terms from a tool — a monkey who didn’t take its Ritalin can do that.

Content converts. Putting enough effort and creativity in at the front end gets you the data you need in analytics to make continued informed judgements in the long-term, and actually build traffic from a solid base.

Question #2 prompted a snort of derision from [...]]]> While traveling to Sea-Tac Airport today with the wonderful Ms. Christy Arneson-Jones, I started reading my free copy of Website Magazine. In their feature, “Five Steps to Outsourcing Search Marketing,” they recommend educating oneself. They included a handy quick quiz to determine what one might know right now.

Question #2 prompted a snort of derision from yours truly. Here it is:

2) Describe the word canonical.

Now, that ought to be easy. Google’s Webmaster Help Center describes it as a ‘preferred domain.’ Matt Cutts did a blog post where he defines it.

Apparently, not easy enough for Website Magazine. Their answer?

2) Refers to the non-www version of a domain (website) indexed as a duplicate of the www version.

Well, no. No it doesn’t. If you haven’t set your preferred domain through your sitemap or via a webmaster toolset, that can in fact happen. But that’s not a description of the word canonical. That’s a symptom of a failure to understand the concept of canonical.

Some webmasters prefer using their non-www as the canonical domain. And that’s just fine with a search engine.

It’s a good thing I got the magazine free. If I’d paid, I’d want a refund for just this one item. I haven’t been able to bring myself to read any more.

Me: Yeah, let’s define evil, shall we?

Google is pure Web 2.0 in the sense of how they collect and [...]]]> The Wired interview with Google’s Eric Schmidt just confirms what I keep telling everyone who harps on the ‘Don’t be Evil!’ thing — ie, “But Google is GOOD! They have ‘Don’t Be Evil’ as a corporate motto!”

Me: Yeah, let’s define evil, shall we?

Google is pure Web 2.0 in the sense of how they collect and use data — user behavior helps to define their filtering mechanisms. What makes them scary and potentially evil is how freaking much data they can collect.

From that Wired article:

What does it take to improve the quality of ads on Google?

More computers, basically, and better algorithms. And more information about you. The more personal information you’re willing to give us – and you have to choose to give it to us – the more we can target. The standard example is: When you say “hot dog,” are you referring to the food, or is your dog hot? So the more personalized the information, the better the targeting. We also have done extensive engineering work with Google Analytics to understand why people click on ads. That way we can actually look at the purchase and go back and see what buyers did to get there. That is the holy grail in advertising, because advertisers don’t advertise just to advertise, they actually advertise to sell something.

When logged in to Google, data collection is nearly automatic. You can opt out of personalized search, but my money’s on 99.9% of people having no clue how to do so.

And being logged into Google isn’t exactly a case of ‘you must log in relative to search.’ Logged into Gmail today? Webmaster Tools? Any one of their 7 billion little services? Your search history is being ganked, even if you’re using the search box on your browser. (Unless you’ve hacked your FireFox, of course.)

I think some of the people who have traditionally defended Google’s information collection and use may back off a little bit now that they bought DoubleClick. The viva-Linux-we-love-Google crowd have traditionally despised anything that relates to DoubleClick, and would call them evil without even thinking about it. I don’t know that I know anyone in that crowd who would sing a merry song about ‘But Google will clean them up and make them good, like bunnies and kittens with little pink noses!’

And if it turns out I do, I will probably kick them very, very hard before I make them their very own tinfoil hat to match my own. I’m sure glad metallics are fashionable this season.

Consider: