Search Engine Optimization

Inktomi's Announcement and Yahoo's New Inclusion Program

Inktomi subscribers today received an email foreshadowing things to come on Yahoo!. The email states that Yahoo! has transitioned to a new search technology and will soon be launching a new inclusion program. Inktomi customers will get a free trial period of listings, ending on April 15. After that day, they will have the option of joining Yahoo!'s program, for continued listing.

Information conspicuously lacking includes any details about how the new Yahoo! system will work, and how much it will cost. There is no information on the Yahoo! site at this time, nor in the brief news article I saw this morning.

From my perspective, it is to be hoped that Yahoo! does not choose to follow the lead of other search engines like LookSmart, and transition to a pure PPC approach. Pay Per Click is simply not feasible financially for many websites and webmasters, and threatens to turn many search engines into the exclusive domain of bigger businesses. This would be a great loss to small businesses and to internet consumers alike. I would be comfortable with Yahoo! returning to their old directory model, with human editors reviewing all sites, although it would be nice if there continued to be some form of free listings.

Search engine shakeups! Yahoo, Google, and Inktomi

I posted about a month ago that Yahoo! had divorced Google and was now showing results that appeared to match Inktomi results. Nobody else in my office was getting the same set of search results at that time. I continued to get the "revised" results for a week, and then was seeing the same thing as everyone else.

Although this was a bit frustrating, it's not actually that uncommon. As any search engine professional knows, new search algorithms and indexing schemes are frequently debuted on just a few servers in their early phases, probably for testing and refining. I had hopes that what I was seeing would appear for the general public before too long, a hope that seemed bolstered a couple of weeks later when one of our clients called to ask me why he was seeing different Yahoo! web search results than anyone else in his office (he liked the new results better, and was hoping everyone else would see them). He too saw the different results for a few days, and then was discouraged to see the old results reappear.

The change has now apparently become official. Users worldwide are now reporting that their Yahoo! web search results no longer match Google, but instead seem to tally closely with Inktomi listings (mine do too). It would seem that Yahoo! has confirmed all of the rumors and formally made a split from using Google results, and Inktomi is stepping up. The results seen on Yahoo! closely match those on HotBot and MSN web pages, both known to use Inktomi on a primary or secondary level.

Google has just completed yet another change to their ranking algorithm, to be rolled out over the next few days. Yet another step at refining the massive overhaul from last November (the "Florida update"), the latest change seems to follow the hot trend in search engine indexing: Site popularity. Google seems to be taking a hard look at backlinks, rewarding sites for relevant, popular links from sites with high Alexa ranking, while disregarding or even penalizing link farms. This was a widely anticipated move, and falls smoothly in line with Google's policy of attempting to offer their users the most valid, useful and relevant search results possible out of the staggering number of pages that populate the web today. Various new looks for Google's home page and search results are starting to appear at random times and places, a pretty good sign that more changes on all levels can be expected over the next few weeks or months.

So what does this all mean, in practical terms? For most webmasters, Yahoo's new search results are a blessing, particularly in light of all the Google shakeups over the past few months, along with the high probability of continuing instability in the near future. The Inktomi database seems to follow a relatively straightforward indexing scheme, both user-friendly and SEO-friendly. Searchers, confused by the daily or even hourly changes that has plagued Yahoo! web search, will likely also appreciate the increased stability. Although Inktomi is as prone as any other automated spider to being exploited, their results do seem relatively spam-free, so users should be pleased with the quality of the search results that they find.

For Google fans, it means yet another phase of growth toward what will hopefully be a more streamlined and less spammed database. Google will also probably attempt to establish itself in new contexts wherever possible, to compensate for losing the Yahoo listings. Google will most likely remain a very popular search engine for many web surfers, who appreciate the ease of use and the broad range of search results. Google is working to make themselves even more versatile and friendly (with the exception of their blogger service, which is very unpopular in some circles for using Atom instead of RSS), to hold their audience. I'll be curious to see what Google looks like in about 6 months!

SEO tip for the week: Stick to the basics! These changes illustrate the need to practice sound SEO. The only sure thing right now is that things will keep changing. SEO tricks and strategies come and go, but there are underlying constants that always remain, the very basics of web site optimization. Don't be dazzled by the latest "tricks", which might not be such a treat in the long run. Practice conservative SEO, and you'll probably weather the storms!

The Latest Google Update and Cloaking Software

Cloaking software is one of the last bastions for those who are attempting to "trick" the search engines. The basic premise is simple: If a search engine views a site, they get an optimized version of the page, and if a normal user views the site, they see something else.

It shouldn't surprise anyone in the internet industry to hear that many search engines, with Google heading the pack, frown upon cloaking software. Google has repeatedly stated that their goal is to send searchers to a quality website. Obviously they aren't going to be thrilled by any system which means that the site a visitor reaches isn't the same as what Google's spiders read. It should be noted that most web surfers aren't too thrilled by the practice either!

In the latest of a series of sweeping changes to their ranking algorithm, Google targeted cloaking software in their latest algorithm update, known as the "Austin update". Less obvious than November's Florida update for many webmasters, Austin nonetheless produced some nasty shocks for people who were still attempting to use exploits for good search engine ranking.

Most cloaking software works because they know all of the IP addresses of all of the search engines. Therefore, the software is programmed to automatically respond differently to those addresses. Google threw a monkey wrench in the works by changing the IP addresses of almost every single data center, worldwide. Therefore, the cloaking software, pre-programmed for the old addresses, is useless.

It's probably only a matter of time before the next trick surfaces, including updated cloaking software with the new IP addresses coded in. However, speaking as someone who not only does business on the web but also uses it extensively for personal purposes, I am totally in favor of shutting down these tricks and exploits. I want my search results to be useful, and I don't appreciate seeing one thing in the Google cache and something else entirely on the website when I visit.

So, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will repeat what I've said many times in this blog already: Design sites that are friendly to users AND search engines! You can have the greatest site in the world, but if people can't find it, you won't succeed. Conversely, it does no good to send traffic to your site if no one can or will buy from it. The best SEO designs a user-friendly site that meets the standard search engine guidelines. Do this, and you can't go wrong. Our ranking reports prove it!

Web Design DON'T List: A Case Study

I see a lot of websites during the course of any given day. Frequently, I am called upon to do a site review and analysis for someone, so I've gotten into the habit of perusing sites with a fairly critical eye in terms of design, layout, content, and overall usability. Some sites are great, some are appalling, but most fall somewhere in the middle. Site design is critical for successful internet marketing, because all the great marketing in the world won't help you if your website doesn't get the job done. If your site cannot convert visitors to sales, then your marketing dollars are wasted.

This morning, I visited an SEO website, in the line of routine research. When I visit a web design or SEO site, I expect certain things. Specifically, I expect the site to embody all of the qualities that are being promised to the customers. The site should be clean, easy to read, load properly, and have all the navigation working. If it's a marketing site, I expect to see optimization along current internet guidelines, and I expect attention to detail.

I realize that I'm probably extremely nit-picky when looking at sites that offer similar services to ours! However, even making allowances, this site did not measure up. I felt the design overlooked some key points which should be second-nature for an SEO site, and it had not been properly proofed and checked. I'm not naming names, because this isn't about trying to make someone look bad. The point is, no one is immune to site design issues! I felt that I could do a review on this site to illustrate some of the points I raised earlier, giving specific examples of problems I encountered.

This, then, is a recipe for internet sales trouble, based on an actual case study:

1. Tiny fonts that are light in color. The content was difficult to read at best, and absolutely impossible in some cases. The navigation blended so well into the background that I'm still not certain what pages the site really has! No casual visitor will care enough to work that hard, especially in a competitive market. Rule of thumb: Create your site using Internet Explorer default settings, for the most commonly used screen resolution (still 800 x 600). You are designing for the average person, not the techie. Most of them leave the default settings on their computers, and plenty of them have vision problems!

2. Feature boxes that don't link to the pages they summarize. On the right side of the page, I found the box which summarized the information I wanted. I had to go to the left side of the page and down, through the virtually-invisible navigation, to link to the page I wanted. Very frustrating. Rule of thumb: If you're discussing something on your site, link it! Make it very easy for your visitor to find what they want, and they'll love you!

3. Unclear navigation. Many of the links had similar names, and were just vague enough that it took me three tries to get to the page I had wanted the first time. If I was a casual web surfer, I would have stopped after the first one and gone somewhere else. Rule of thumb: Links should be well-labeled and very obvious, both in placement and in meaning. Help them find what they need.

4. Incomplete information. I did finally find the marketing packages. Two had pricing, the third did not. It wasn't completely clear just what was included in the packages offered. I work in this industry. If I can't understand what the offer is, there's no way an average visitor can. Rule of thumb: Make it as easy as possible for people to buy from you... prices, descriptions, and a link to purchase immediately online. Don't talk down, but never assume people have any specialized knowledge.

5. No proofing. Among other typos, "optimization" was misspelled, as was "professional". Some of the links do not work. This gives a very bad impression. If they can't be bothered to pay attention to detail on their own site, how can I trust them with mine? Rule of thumb: First impressions count for as much on the internet as they do in real life meetings. Your site represents you and your business. Make sure that it says the right things! And from a search engine standpoint, dead links are a death blow.

Although this was a case study for an SEO site, these mistakes are very common across the board. If you want your website to generate business, you have to make it user-friendly. If people cannot read what you have to offer, they cannot buy it. If they cannot find the product/service page that they need, they cannot buy that product or service. If they cannot find pricing or descriptions, they will not buy from you. If they find information that is incorrect, they will not trust you, and will not want to buy from you.

Most internet surfers are pretty impatient. A site like this one won't keep the average visitor's attention long enough to read the logo.

Your website is your voice in the internet world. It's that crucial first impression, it's your sales pitch, it's your brochure and it's your commercial. In many cases, it is your only sales representative! Make sure that it represents you in a flattering light, is helpful and courteous, and answers all of your customer's questions. You'd fire a sales rep that gave a bad impression of your company. Your website is no less important!

Content vs. Back Links

One of the most heated topics of debate in the internet forums is how to adjust to the latest ranking algorithm shake-ups by Google et al. The main arena of conflict today is: Site content vs. back links.

It's a valuable discussion, and one that's been going on back-burner for quite a long time, but since the Florida update (the sweeping Google overhaul last November) and the more recent Austin update (one which appeared to target a lot of free-hosted sites), the discussions have increased in intensity and urgency. Site owners, webmasters and SEO's are all trying to figure out the best way to capitalize on the current ranking algorithm, to claim those coveted top slots.

The problem I'm seeing now is that the intensity of the discussion has led to some pretty extreme views, with some people evidently claiming that site content is basically dead, and all you care about for SEO is back linking. Although others tempered their views, the reigning opinion is that back links are king of the SEO world.

That way lies madness, in my humble opinion, and I've stated that in previous posts. However, the most current discussion forum prompted me to revisit the subject so that I could state my views clearly and succinctly, and give my professional opinion on why this is a dangerous trend in SEO thinking.

WHY BACK LINKS ARE NOT KING OF THE SEO WORLD:

1. You don't sell products or pass information to search engine spiders. SEO is very important for business success, but it should NEVER be placed before the customer. Most customers ignore the links pages, for the simple reason that they really don't care. Customers do NOT ignore site content. This is your bread and butter. Never forget it.

2. The value of back links has been grossly overstated. Back links are one of many SEO tools to help a site's performance on search engines which factor site popularity, such as Google. However, the ranking algorithms are a lot more sophisticated than some people care to believe. Many things are taken into account, and text content is absolutely still counted in the highest levels of importance. I've seen sites that were rich in relevant back links that still performed poorly, and sites with few or no back links which have performed very well indeed, including weathering the Google updates. If you insist on concentrating on just one SEO aspect, you're missing the big picture.

3. Back links have been grossly misused, rendering them extremely vulnerable in the next algorithm updates. Updates to the Google ranking algorithm have consistently attempted to punish those who performed SEO "exploits". A few years ago, hidden text was a key trick, and that will now get you thrown off the search engines entirely. Spammed meta tags were next to go, and recently it appears that spam content has taken a hard hit. There is a widespread understanding that it is only a matter of time before the link farms are up for review, which makes sense from any angle: They have been exploited by SEO's, and most don't offer a useful (or even used) consumer resource. Expect to see them devalued soon, and devalued hard.

So am I saying that you shouldn't go for good, relevant back links? Not at all. I think that they are a great weapon in the SEO arsenal, as long as you don't deify them. Site content may not be the "hip" thing, and it may seem pretty boring, but you should never, ever underestimate its importance to your website.