Radovan

It’s that time again…Google’s monthly list is out, and compared to last month, it is much tamer.

There are some notable topics worth mentioning, though. And you may want to listen up if your site was affected by the recent Penguin update.
Backlinks

Google made changes to its backlinking spam signals.

Better application of inorganic backlinks signals. [launch codename “improv-fix”, project codename “Page Quality”] We have algorithms in place designed to detect a variety of link schemes, a common spam technique. This change ensures we’re using those signals appropriately in the rest of our ranking.

What are link schemes? Take a look at Google’s definition:

If you feel you were downgraded due to “shoddy” links, remove them as soon as possible and you may see improvement.

Pay CLOSE attention to this statement: “The sites that link to you can provide context about the subject matter of your site, and can indicate its quality and popularity.”

Consider every site that links to yours as an extension of your website. If the sites are unfavorable, it will reflect poorly on your website. Google looks to the sites that link to you to receive information about your site.
Penguin Updates

Google made more changes to Penguin, adding that minor tweaks improved the signals.

Improvements to Penguin. [launch codename “twref2”, project codename “Page Quality”] This month we rolled out a couple minor tweaks to improve signals and refresh the data used by the penguin algorithm.

This update (a.k.a. Penguin 1.1) most likely occurred around May 25 as reported by Matt Cutts on Twitter, although he referenced more of a refresh rather than an update. Cutts also mentioned Penguin tweaks at the SMX Advanced conference.

Penguin will continue to target webspam in many forms, especially as it relates to linking. Make sure your site is not involved in any of the following activities so you are prepared for future updates:

Blog networks – Once Build My Rank went down in flames, people started taking notice that Google was serious about penalizing sites publishing content solely for links. While Google cannot enter your head and decide whether your content was created for links, it can examine the site containing your link to make its decision.

Here are some criteria to determine if the sites linking to you are a problem:

Does the site contain content spanning many topics? If the site includes article topics discussing everything from fashion trends to Pennsylvania lemon laws, consider it a spammy site.
Does the site contain content with many exact match keyword links?
Does the content lack value and readability?
Are ads pervading the page and outshining the content?
Does the site have any malware or spam programs?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, your links are suspect. Furthermore, if you used blog commenting in the past with exact match keywords, Penguin may come and get you if you are not careful.

Relevancy and quality are important factors in determining whether a link is spammy. The site should have a specific purpose, be free of excessive ads, and include relevant content that is not present solely for linking purposes.
Title Changes

Google has taken the liberty to shorten your web page titles as it sees fit. The new updates improve this feature:

Trigger alt title when HTML title is truncated. [launch codename “tomwaits”, project codename “Snippets”] We have algorithms designed to present the best possible result titles. This change will show a more succinct title for results where the current title is so long that it gets truncated. We’ll only do this when the new, shorter title is just as accurate as the old one.

Efficiency improvements in alternative title generation. [launch codename “TopOfTheRock”, project codename “Snippets”] With this change we’ve improved the efficiency of title generation systems, leading to significant savings in cpu usage and a more focused set of titles actually shown in search results.

Better demotion of boilerplate anchors in alternate title generation. [launch codename “otisredding”, project codename “Snippets”] When presenting titles in search results, we want to avoid boilerplate copy that doesn’t describe the page accurately, such as “Go Back.”

If you don’t want Google messing with your titles, keep them short and to the point.

Some other May updates…
Freshness got a boost with improved detection methods to identify searchers expecting fresh content.
Improved news results ranking
Better identification of the Google+ pages displayed in the right-hand panel.
Enhancements made to Google’s detection of hacked pages. The search engine will now dig deeper into a website to detect hacking incidents.

That about sums up the important Google changes for May.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to share them below. Until next month…

Are you a fan of the hit ABC shows Bachelor, Bachelorette, or Bachelor Pad? If so, you’re more than likely aware of Steve Carbone, AKA Reality Steve, the popular blogger who provides exclusive details and spoilers about the shows and their contestants.

Despite his fame among his fans, the production companies behind these shows do not share the same feelings. In December, NZK Productions filed a lawsuit against Carbone claiming that he had exchanged money for information from contestants of last season’s Bachelor. After a 7 month legal battle, both sides were able to reach a settlement this month.

“I think my readers know, I think the contestants of this show, and I certainly know, that what I do brings attention to their show,” recalled Carbone when we spoke with him recently, “so I don’t know why they would go after the guy who has spoiled their seasons for the last 3 years.”

The root of the lawsuit was that Carbone was offering money to contestants in exchange for information. Although he denied this claim from the beginning, Carbone did admit that he offered 3 contestants money for information but said he was rejected.

“They came after me thinking that that’s how I get my information – that I’m telling these people to breach their contracts, which wasn’t the case,” he said.

As he explained, since the middle of the season was a little dry, he was hoping to add to it. Other publications such as US Weekly pay to get their exclusive stories, and since RealitySteve.com was profitable, he decided to make an attempt at it.

“I shouldn’t have offered anybody money for information,” said Carbone. “I learned my lesson – shouldn’t have done it.”

Carbone told us that, since he knew what he did wasn’t legally wrong, he felt he could have won. However, his mounting legal bills led him to settle.

“The bottom line was it was gonna cost way to much money in the end,” he said. “There was no guarantee that I would’ve ever gotten all my legal fees back, and I just couldn’t take that chance.”

His fans came through with some financial help, after blogger Matthew Chan suggested that Carbone incorporate a donation button on his site. Chan also set up a petition on Change.org explaining how Reality Steve was being wrongfully accused.

Carbone told us that he very thankful for both Chan’s kindness and the support of his fans throughout the ordeal. Although he still has a hefty bill to pay, he’s grateful that they came through for him on both the financial side and the encouragement side.

As for the settlement, Carbone was hesitant to settle at first because he didn’t want to have to give up his civil liberties. The terms that he did agree to though only prevent him from initiating contact with the cast, crew, and other employees of the Bachelor regarding issues of the series.

“I’m still gonna be able to do what I do, and I was happy with their latest settlement,” he said.

He went on to say that readers should expect the same content they always have, which, of course, means more spoilers and juicy details. Although some people have suggested that the current Bachelorette season has been impacted by the lawsuit, Carbone disagrees. According to him, he’s not 100% sure on the ending yet and that’s why he hasn’t revealed it. But, he said, as soon as he is certain, he’ll publish it.

It seems that Google’s decision to replace its star rating system with Zagat scores for local search results isn’t a huge hit with some businesses.

Do you like Google’s new approach to local business ratings? Let us know in the comments.

Last month, Google revealed what appears to be the primary reason it acquired Zagat, when it announced Google+ Local, effectively replacing Google Places with Google+ infused local results and Zagat scores.

“Each place you see in Google+ Local will now be scored using Zagat’s 30-point scale, which tells you all about the various aspects of a place so you can make the best decisions,” Google explained, when Google+ Local was announced. “For example, a restaurant that has great food but not great decor might be 4 stars, but with Zagat you’d see a 26 in Food and an 8 in Decor, and know that it might not be the best place for date night.”

Some businesses claim to be losing traffic because Google replaced its ratings system with Zagat’s scoring system. Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable points to an interesting thread in the Google Product Forums.

There, Dr. Rodney McKay writes, “I know for a fact that I am not the only one that feels this way as I have talked to others who have also experienced the same problem. Everything about Google+ seems to be fine if not better than Google Places except for the removal of the stars. Ever since they removed the star ratings, my actions or clicks went from 30 – 60 or more a day to 0 – 5. I am still on the first page of Google for relevant search terms and in most cases I am also the first listing, I am also receiving the same amount of impressions as before, but the absence of the stars has caused an obvious hit on my Google Business Listing effectiveness. Injunction with that, I have seen a drastic decline in business. Is there not a way to compromise and use the Zagat reviews as well as the stars?”

Some have suggested that Zagat scores are more suited to restaurants, and aren’t so great for other kinds of businesses. There’s no question that Zagat has historically been restaurant-focused. Even now, if you go to Zagat.com, it’s all about restaurants. The welcome message says:

ZAGAT.com, the world’s original provider of user-generated content, provides trusted and accurate restaurant ratings and curated restaurant reviews for thousands of top restaurants worldwide. Our robust restaurant search and rich free features help diners easily find the best restaurant for every occasion, every time – from New York to Los Angeles, London to Tokyo, Paris to Beijing and everywhere in between; from the most elegant restaurants for fine dining to casual, inexpensive spots for family meals, you’ll find it all on ZAGAT.com.

Yet Google has thrust the Zagat system across the much broader local business search space. I don’t see why the system couldn’t actually help some businesses, as Zagat is a pretty well known restaurant guide. However, it might be less helpful in other industries. Currently, you can search for shoe stores, for example, and still get the new scoring system, rather than the starred reviews:

As we see in the case of the shoe store above, Google shows the overall. That way it doesn’t have to show the “food” element.

“When we don’t have enough user ratings on different aspects, we will just show an overall score,” Google explains. “An overall score is comparable to a score in the primary aspect for a location, like food for restaurants.”

Perhaps the system will get better in time for more than just restaurants, as it’s used more.

The new system is definitely much broader than the previous star system, given its larger scale. 17 out of 30 doesn’t sound incredibly great but if you look at the scale, 16-20 represents “good to very good”. 0- 30 is pretty wide range to cover the four individual ratings Google goes by:

3 Excellent
2 Very Good
1 Good
0 Poor to Fair

Google takes the average, and multiplies it by ten to come up with averaged scores.

One person comment on Schwartz’s article, “People understand star ratings. Any kind of visual rating (progress bars, stars, thumbs-ups) just works. They don’t understand numbers. And when higher ratings are in red… it’s even worse. Numbers in red usually mean danger. Anything in red means danger unless it’s properly used to grab attention and visibly labeled as a call to action. It’s freaking common sense.”

It would be interesting to know the local SEO effects of Googe’s move to the Zagat system. Survey results released this week indicate that many of the top ranking factors are directly related to reviews. Here are how a few of them ranked, according to that (out of the top 90):

7. Quantity of Native Google Places Reviews (w/text) (REVIEWS)
18. Product/Service Keywords in Reviews (REVIEWS)
24. Quantity of Third-Party Traditional Reviews (REVIEWS)
26. Location Keywords in Reviews (REVIEWS)
31. Velocity of Native Google Places Reviews (REVIEWS)
34. Quantity of Reviews by Authority Reviewers (e.g.Yelp Elite, Multiple Places Reviewers, etc) (REVIEWS)
46. High Numerical Ratings by Authority Reviewers (e.g.Yelp Elite, Multiple Places Reviewers, etc) (REVIEWS)
49. Overall Velocity of Reviews (Native + Third-Party) (REVIEWS)
50. Quantity of Third-Party Unstructured Reviews (REVIEWS)
52. Quantity of Native Google Places Ratings (no text) (REVIEWS)
53. High Numerical Ratings of Place by Google Users (e.g. 4-5) (REVIEWS)
62. Velocity of Third-Party Reviews (REVIEWS)
69. High Numerical Third-Party Ratings (e.g. 4-5) (REVIEWS)
74. Positive Sentiment in Reviews (REVIEWS)

Of course, these are all based on survey responses from before Google announced Google+ Local.

 

Google has announced that it’s rolling out Google+ Local, which it bills as “a simple way to discover and share local information”.

Google is finally revealing just what it’s going to do with it’s Zagat acquisition, as Google+ Local features Zagat scores, as well as recommendations from Google+ connections. “Since Zagat joined the Google family last fall, our teams have been working together to improve the way you find great local information,” says Director of Product Management, Avni Shah. “Zagat has offered high-quality reviews, based on user-written submissions and surveys, of tens of thousands of places for more than three decades. All of Zagat’s accurate scores and summaries are now highlighted on Google+ local pages. ”

Google+ Local is also integrated into search, Google Maps and mobile (Android…iOS is on the way). Inside Google+, it has its own tab. When you use that tab, you can search for specific places or browse non-specific ones. When you click on a place, you’ll go to a local Google+ page with photos, Zagat scores, summaries, reviews from friends and other info, like hours of operation, address, etc. Google will show you the same info if your’e using Search or Maps, it says.

Here’s what it looks like on Google+:

Maps:

Google+ Local on mobile:

“Each place you see in Google+ Local will now be scored using Zagat’s 30-point scale, which tells you all about the various aspects of a place so you can make the best decisions,” says Shah. “For example, a restaurant that has great food but not great decor might be 4 stars, but with Zagat you’d see a 26 in Food and an 8 in Decor, and know that it might not be the best place for date night.”

Users can share their opinions and photos of places, of course, which will help feed the personalization of your friends’ results.

Here are a few videos about Google+ Local:

For Businesses

Business owners will be able to continue managing their local listings the same way, using Google Places for Business. Businesses can still verify their basic listing data, make updates, and respond to reviews. If you use AdWords Express, Google says your ads will operate as normal, and will automatically redirect customers to the destination you selected, or your current listing.

Businesses will have to get used to a new layout and design for their listings.

“All your basic business information is still available,” notes Jen Fitzpatrick, VP Engineering. “And by streamlining the layout and putting more focus on photos and reviews, we hope to help you highlight what makes your business truly unique.”

“With these updates, we’re connecting the millions of people on Google+ to local businesses around the world,” adds Fitzpatrick. “With one listing, your business can now be found across Google search, maps, mobile and Google+, and your customers can easily recommend your business to their friends, or tell the world about it with a review.”

Google posted the following to its Google+ Your Business Page:
Google+ Your Business” width=”50″ />

Google+ Your Business 21 minutes ago
Posted by +Vanessa Schneider

Manage a Google Places page? That listing just got a simpler, cleaner look with the introduction of Google+ Local, a new way to discover businesses across Google.

With Google+ Local, customers can now easily recommend your business to their friends, or tell the world about it with a review. We’ve added +Zagat reviews and updated our scoring system to their 30-point scale, allowing customers to better share what makes your business unique. Google+ Local is integrated into Search, Maps, mobile and as a new tab in Google+ (just look for “Local” along the left to get started). We are rolling out today, so if you don’t see it now, you’ll see it soon.

Read more about what this means for you as a business owner over on the Google and Your Business Blog (http://goo.gl/bVi9Q), or check out our quick guide to what’s new (http://goo.gl/p1dni).

Have feedback to share? Use the “Send feedback” link under the Google+ gear icon
52 11
Powered by socialditto

Google says this is just a first step, that we’ll see more updates in the upcoming months, and that it will soon make it easier to manage listings on Google and take full advantage of the social features of Google+ pages, such as Hangouts, and sharing photos/videos/posts.

Google has already given a handful of businesses access to such functionality. Check out The Meatball Shop for an example

Google’s Matt Cutts gave a keynote “You and A” presentation at SMX Advanced this week, and mentioned that Google is considering offering a tool that would let webmasters disavow certain links.

Would you find such a tool useful? Let us know in the comments.

Matt McGee at SMX sister site Search Engine Land liveblogged the conversation. Here’s his quote of Cutts, which was in response to a question about negative SEO:

The story of this year has been more transparency, but we’re also trying to be better about enforcing our quality guidelines. People have asked questions about negative SEO for a long time. Our guidelines used to say it’s nearly impossible to do that, but there have been cases where that’s happened, so we changed the wording on that part of our guidelines.

Some have suggested that Google could disavow links. Even though we put in a lot of protection against negative SEO, there’s been so much talk about that that we’re talking about being able to enable that, maybe in a month or two or three.

We recently wrote about Google’s wording change regarding negative SEO, which seemed to be an admission from the company that this practice is indeed possible. These words from Cutts seem to be further confirmation.

Rand Fishkin, CEO of SEOmoz, recently issued a challenge to people to show that if you have a strong enough reputation and link profile, you can’t be hurt by negative SEO. That seemed to go pretty well, but not everyone has the reputation of SEOmoz, even if they don’t necessarily have a bad one. Such a tool from Google could go a long way in helping combat negative SEO practices.

As far as people suggesting that Google could disavow links, Search Engine Land editor Barry Schwartz actually had a pretty good article talking about this last month. “The concept is simple,” he wrote. “You go to your link report in Google Webmaster Tools and have an action button that says ‘don’t trust this link’ or something like it. Google will then take that as a signal to not use that link as part of their link graph and ranking algorithm.”

“What I can’t understand is why hasn’t Google released it yet,” he wrote. “It is a great way for Google to do mass spam reporting by webmasters and SEOs without calling it spam reporting. You will have all these webmasters rush after a penalty to call out which links they feel are hurting them. Google can take that data to back up their algorithms to on links they already know are spam but also find new links that they might not have caught.”

He went on to make the point that Google would find more spam this way.

Once Google launches this tool, assuming that it actually does, it will be very interesting to see how the rankings shake out. It should be an indication of just how important links actually are these days.

As you may know, Google has sent out a ton of Webmaster Tools warnings this year, and such a tool would help users take quick “manual action” on links rather than spend a ton of time sending link removal requests to other sites. It might even prevent some lawsuits (and the death of the web as we know it).

According to Cutts, however, not many of the warnings were actually about links.

Testing, testing, and more testing is the mantra of many Internet entrepreneurs. If you have already set clear goals detailing what you want visitors to do while on your site, Google Analytics has introduced a method to test different landing pages to determine which converts best. Depending on the role your website plays in your business strategy, goals can include a visitor making a purchase, downloading a whitepaper, watching a video, signing up for a newsletter, or navigating to a specific URL. Content Experiments in Google Analytics allows you to present different variations of a landing page to different visitors and track metrics for each to determine which leads to the highest percentage of conversions.

This approach is different from A/B and multivariate methods of testing. Rather than two variations of a page available in an A/B test, or combinations of components on a single page, Content Experiments offers up to five unique pages each from a separate URL. With Content Experiments, Google Analytics allows you to compare how different versions of a landing page perform using a random sample of your visitors. You can also control what percentage of your visitors are included in the experiment and what type of goal you would like to test. Google made the announcement on June 1st and will be rolling it out gradually to users over the coming weeks.

SETTING UP AN EXPERIMENT

Once the feature is available in your Analytics account, you will find it in the Standard Reporting tab, under the Content menu. When you open Content Experiments in the Content menu, you will see a list of your experiments after you have created at least one – otherwise you will be taken to a setup wizard overview page. To create a new experiment from this page, click Create Experiment – the setup wizard opens and asks you to complete four steps. First, you need to choose which pages will be part of your experiment by pasting the appropriate URL in either the Original Page or one of the Variation boxes. This will display a thumbnail image of the page so that you can be sure you have chosen correctly. In the second step, you will be asked to set the options for your experiment. This means choosing a goal you want to test for and the percentage of visitors that you would like to include in your experiment. The third step involves adding a piece of tracking code to the original page of your experiment set. Google Analytics gives you two options. Either you can copy and paste the code onto the appropriate page yourself, your you can have the code and instructions emailed to someone you are going to have do it for you.

Once this step has been completed, Google Analytics will test and confirm that the code is installed properly. The final step is to review your configuration and start your experiment. The Content Experiment setup wizard will automatically save the information you enter during the setup process, so you can return to complete your experiment set up at any time by opening the experiment list and clicking on the experiment you would like to continue building.

After you have setup at least one experiment, the Experiment List will act as the hub of information showing you which experiments are running and notifications about those experiments, start and end dates, and whether an experiment has produced a winning page. Clicking on an experiment in your list will bring you the the Experiment Report. This is where you can view detailed information about your experiment and metrics on how the individual pages are performing. You are also able to stop the experiment, change the visitor percentage, and disable particular pages from this report.

Content Experiments offers you a great way to test different versions of your web pages based on the conversion of a specific goal. By creating alternate landing pages, you can test headlines and headers, images and icons, text, calls to action, and page layout. The goals you can use in your experiments are somewhat limited in this first release. They include URL destinations and events including ecommerce conversions. Visit duration and pages per visit thresholds are not supported in this version, but more options are promised in the near future. Google Analytics makes several recommendations to act as guidelines to successful testing. They include testing only a few elements, using high-volume pages, making bold changes, and to do follow up testing.

SEO CONCERNS

While testing provides an excellent way to improve your visitors experience on your site and to increase conversions, it does present some potential SEO concerns which Google addresses. The first is cloaking. Cloaking involves presenting a search bot a different version of a web page than you show your visitor with the intention of deceiving the search engine to affect the page’s rank, and can cause your site to be sanctioned by Google. Creating different versions of landing pages that aren’t always shown to visitors has the potential to be abused as a cloaking device. Google spells out their guidelines for how to deal with this in the following statement in their help section:

To ensure that your experiments are not construed as cloaking, we suggest following the general guidelines:
Your variation pages should maintain the spirit of the content on your original pages. Those variations shouldn’t change the meaning of or your visitor’s general perception of that original content.
Keep your source code updated. An experiment ends when Content Experiments has collected sufficient data, and you should then update the source code on your test pages to reflect that winning combination soon afterwards.

We reserve the right to take action on any site that violates Google’s Webmaster Guidelines, or if we feel that visitors are being deceived or abused. For example, if a site’s original page is loaded with keywords that don’t relate to the combinations being shown to visitors, we may remove that site from our index.

Depending on the changes you experiment with on your variation pages, duplicate content issues may also arise. To be sure that duplicate content on your variation pages does not negatively impact your site’s ranking, Google suggests using the rel=”canonical” link attribute on these pages. This will signal to search engine bots that the variation pages are essentially the same and the original page should be indexed instead. If you will be leaving the variation pages on your site after the experiment has ended either to accommodate visitors who have bookmarked them or if you plan to use them for future experiments, it is recommended that you use a server-side redirect to point them to your original URL.

By incorporating a testing module directly into the Analytics interface, Google offers you an easy way to increase goal conversion and create a better experience for visitors to your website just a click away from viewing other metrics and reports so you can measure, test and optimize under one roof. They claim this is a step towards moving most of Google Website Optimizer functionality into Google Analytics. To learn more about Content Experiments, watch this video from the Google Analytics youtube channel:

Source: http://site-reference.com/articles/introducing-website-testing-in-google-analytics/

Ranking your website.

Music to your ears, no? We’re all painfully aware that the search engine algorithm updates show no signs of stopping. If anything, SEO will only get harder. It’s tougher to rank now than at any point in the history of the Internet, and many small-time webmasters have speculated that there may come an era in which large companies with deep pockets will be the only ones who can compete.

I’m a writer by trade, but I’ve been known to dabble a little in the webmaster world myself. However, I’ve stayed away from building my niche concepts out into full-fledged websites because frankly, I was really put off by the shifty SEO tactics that many Internet marketers employed in order to rank.

The Research

Let me level with you here. I used to write for a few of those aforesaid shifty marketers. People who wanted keyword-stuffed articles dripping with spam-ready links at every line break. People who planned to spin my carefully crafted content into dozens of unreadable articles and then blast that spammy content all over the Web. Of course, when I was new to the online writing scene, I just wrote what I was told. I had no way of knowing how my clients would use my content or why I had to adhere to such weird guidelines. I just wrote.

As I learned more about the ‘net, I realized that I was playing a (minute) part in polluting the Web. It’s funny; as soon as the algorithm changes started making serious headway, those kinds of clients scattered like roaches. Luckily for me, I had stopped writing for those bozos long before that happened.

The Hypothesis

So I started thinking. If great content is the name of the game and SEO is supposedly getting harder, then one could logically deduce that a crackerjack writer with a working knowledge of SEO could easily rank a site.

Agreed? Great.

Based on this theory, I decided to conduct a little science experiment of my own.

The Experiment

I’d like to think that I’m up-to-date on the dos and don’ts of webmastering these days, so I stuck to the Site Reference plan and constructed my site accordingly. Here’s what I did, step by step:
First and possibly most importantly, I picked a topic that I’m passionate about. It’s a niche that I’m already a part of, so it’s one for which I could produce endless content – and it probably helped that I’m always up on my niche’s newest trends and news.
I chose a short, brandable domain name that’s not an exact match keyword. It’s a word that is related to my niche, however, and it’s easy for users to remember and type directly into their browser address bar.
I made sure that my domain name was aged. Now, this is a hotly-debated issue; one that many SEOs have strong views about. All the fuss can be traced back to an old Google patent that went a little something like this:

The debate has stemmed from Google’s wording in the patent, and for that reason, it’s been discussed to death for years on many of the top SEO blogs. For instance, here’s a little snippet from a Whiteboard Friday video made by Rand Fishkin over at SEOmoz:

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but what I ascertained from this passage is that domain age only matters a teensy smidge, but the backlink profile and authority (or lack thereof) that a site may have had in it’s past life matters a heck of a lot more. In my site’s case, both were good – not stellar, but good enough to serve as a great foundation for a new site. The moral of this bullet point? If you decide to go with an aged domain for your new site, do your homework before you buy. Check the domain’s old backlinks and general community standing in order to get a feel for how your site will be received by the search engines.
I selected a slick template that’s as easy to navigate as it is on the eyes.
I spent the extra money on a nice logo and header.
I planned my site’s navigation ahead of time. I used logical categorization, and I put myself in the user’s shoes when I thought the site out. I used broad categories for the biggest subjects in my niche, and then I made lists of post ideas that would fall within each of those categories so I would have a balanced array of subjects that I knew visitors would expect to see when they arrived at my site.
I sat down and spent a lot of time writing well thought out and carefully researched posts. We’re not talking about stuff you could get from spending top dollar at The Content Authority. No – I mean each and every post is a feature-worthy piece. Pictures, screenshots, deep research, the whole ball of wax.

After my base content was added, I decided to do a bit of keyword research. I chose long tail keywords that I felt users would search for, and I plugged them into Google’s free keyword tool. Most marketers direct people to go for the keywords that have lots of local exact match searches – as in 1000 or more at a minimum. I decided to go against the grain, so I picked a handful of long-tail strings that each had less than 100.

Why? My reasoning is that ranking for each of these keywords will be much easier, and lots of posts with bits of traffic trickling in will eventually add up to gobs of traffic if I can exercise patience and consistently add more great content.

For the keyword posts, I kept it simple. After all, the point of this experiment is not to get bogged down in metrics. I didn’t use any fancy software. Just my trusty Google Keyword Tool cross-referenced with a peek at the top ten sites in the SERPs for the keyword phrases I chose.

Now, can a little old writer rank a site with no link blasts, no forum marketing, and no crazy SEO data? Well, the site is too new to say for sure – but I have a hunch I’m on the right track. The preliminary findings are (for me) pretty exciting.

The Results

As I’ve already mentioned, the site is still very new. It’s only been around for a little over two weeks now, but the domain name very old. Once I started adding the content, Google indexed my site almost immediately. Then, when I wrote my first keyword article as a test, I used the long-tail keyword very sparingly. I placed it in the URL, the title, in one of my headings, and once in the text. I didn’t bother with anything else – I just wrote a great article with lots of good information.

I was flabbergasted when I checked the SERPs two days later. I was expecting to find my article buried pages-deep – if it was even ranking at all for my chosen keyword string.

But there it was. Lucky number 14 – right there on page two.

Here’s the kicker: I paused while writing this article to check my ranking for that keyword once more. Hold onto your keyboards, everyone. My article is now on page one – and it’s number three on the list.

The Next Steps

This experiment of mine is nothing you can’t replicate yourself. I’ve laid out everything I did, start to finish. There are still things that I can do to improve my site, however. First, I can perform an SEO audit to clean up my site. This is a bit on the technical end, but it will be well worth the trouble.

I should also submit a sitemap to Google. And before I hear about it in the comments, trust me, it’s on the “to-do immediately” list. I plan to keep adding content and building it out, eventually ranking for keywords with greater and greater search volume as my website’s brand begins to gain trust in Google’s eyes.

This experiment went better than I could have ever hoped. My site has miles to go, but I think I’m off to a running start.

I’d like to hear from you now. Tell me about how you’re ranking.

Have you experienced similar results with your newer sites? Are you planning any mad science experiments of your own post-Penguin?

Source: http://site-reference.com/articles/how-to-rank-your-site-notes-from-a-science-experiment/ 

With all the talk about Google being a monopoly, the company is probably glad (at least partially) to see Apple make some search-related announcements during its WWDC keynote, which could help the argument in Google’s favor (even if hurting its market share).

Should Google be worried about Apple’s announcements? Tell us what you think.

For one, Apple’s web browser, Safari, is getting Chrome-like search functionality, while also adding Baidu as a search option. In fact, Apple is cozying up to China a great deal, as Google’s relationship with the country has grown anything but cozy.

Last year, Apple made a huge impression on society with Siri. Now, they’ve made some improvements to it. With iOS 6, Apple’s forthcoming operating system due out this fall, Siri will likely take a significant chunk of search market share for things like sports, restaurants and movies, even while Google is improving itself in both sports and local search.

And did we mention Siri is coming to the iPad?

“Ask Siri about sports scores and stats, where to eat, what movies to see — even ask to make Facebook posts,” Apple says on its website. “Siri understands more languages and works in more countries. So you can get more things done in more places around the world. And most exciting of all, with Siri on the new iPad, on more devices, too.”

On sports, Apple says, “Siri knows baseball, basketball, football, soccer, and hockey. Ask Siri for game schedules, scores from the current season’s games, or up-to-the minute scores from live games. Tell Siri to show you player stats and compare them against other players’ stats. Siri tracks team records, too, so you’ll always know how well your team is doing (or not doing). Siri is even smart enough to know whether you’re asking about the New York Giants or the San Francisco Giants, based on where you are.”

On movies, Apple says, “Siri can help you find the latest flicks by location or showtimes. Can’t decide? Ask Siri to show you a movie trailer or a Rotten Tomatoes review. Siri is also quite the film buff: Find out when a film premiered, who directed it, and what awards it won. Or ask Siri which movies your favorite actors star in, so you won’t miss any of their past or future blockbusters.”

Finally, on restaurants, Apple says, “With Siri you now have a personal restaurant concierge. Ask to find restaurants by cuisine, price, location, outdoor seating, or a combination of choices. Siri will show you a restaurant’s photos, Yelp stars, price range, and reviews. When you find a place you like, ask Siri to make a reservation through the OpenTable app.”

How many iOS users will be turning to Siri before Google for a lot of this stuff? Apple says it has sold 365 million iOS devices sold as of March.

With new Facebook integration mentioned above, Siri is only giving users more reasons to use it. The more people use it, the more they’ll likely use it for more things. Speaking of using it for more things, iOS 6 users will also be able to ask Siri to open apps. Apple is even working with car manufacturers on integrating Siri into voice control systems, with voice command buttons on steering wheels. I wonder if Google’s self-driving cars will come with voice search.

As expected, Apple dumped Google Maps with the new operating system, as it has stepped up its game in the online search space. As Drew Bowling wrote in a previous WPN article, “The new iOS mapping service will come with a host of features that have become commonplace with geo-location services, such as real-time traffic updates and any upcoming traffic delays on your route. Beyond the standard array of features, Apple added 100 million different Yelp listings for businesses as well as a slick turn-bu-turn navigation not unlike what MapQuest has been offering with its direction service. The biggest Oooh-and-Aaah feature with Apple’s new Maps feature is by far the 3D renderings that are fully navigable and offer up insanely detailed pictures (dangerously detailed, some would say).”

Apple says, “iOS 6 includes an all new Maps app with vector-based map elements that make graphics and text smooth, and panning, tilting and zooming incredibly fluid. New turn-by-turn navigation guides you to your destination with spoken directions, and the amazing Flyover feature has photo-realistic interactive 3D views. Real-time traffic information keeps you updated on how long it will take to get to your destination and offers alternate time-saving routes if traffic conditions change significantly. Additionally, local search includes information for over 100 million businesses with info cards that offer Yelp ratings, reviews, available deals and photos.”

A new report from the Wall Street Journal says, “Developers, about 5,000 of which paid $1,599 for tickets [to WWDC], said they were excited to try many of the new mobile software features—particularly the new mapping application. The service, which Apple has been developing for years, has a mode for viewing areas in three-dimensions, along with a local search service and turn-by-turn driving directions for in-car use.”

That same report has a statement from Google saying the company has been “working on maps for years” and is “looking forward to continuing to build the perfect map for our users in the months and years ahead.”

Google, of course, has some interesting new things happening with its own maps.

It just so happens that Apple’s maps come primarily from a provider that has been in the business for years too – TomTom. The company issued the following statement:

TomTom has signed a global agreement with Apple for maps and related information. No further details of the agreement will be provided.

Yelp, one of the companies that has often voiced complaint regarding Google’s competitive business practices, listed the following Yelp integrations on its blog:

In addition to using Yelp listings when providing local business recommendations, Siri now has even more Yelp content.
When searching in Apple’s “Maps” both the Info and Reviews tabs will point you to millions of Yelp listings — and if you click on a specific review, you’ll be taken directly to that review for that business on Yelp.
Yelpers around the world will start getting Siri access thanks to Apple’s language updates.
Finally, Yelp is already integrated in navigation systems for BMW, Lexus & Mercedes. Now, you can get point to point directions & recommendations with those manufacturers, as well as dozens more with Siri & Yelp

Source: http://www.webpronews.com/apple-announcements-not-helping-the-google-is-a-monopoly-argument-2012-06