Search Engine Optimization

SEO, Email Marketing, and Ethics: Part II

Yesterday I discussed some of the issues that plague email marketing, in terms of what is "ethical" or "unethical", and how some tactics are perceived both inside the industry and outside of it.

Although the term "spam" is most often associated (negatively) with email marketing, it's just as prevalent in search engine optimization (SEO). In one form or another, people have been spamming the search engines for almost as long as SEO has been in existence! Common spam techniques past and present include: Spammed domain names (www.spam-spam-spamspam-spam.com); spammed meta tags ("spam keyword spam keyword spam spam keyword); spammed text ("we offer spam, spam, spam, spam and spam"); doorway pages (spam site 1, spam site 2, spam site 3... spam site 3,742...); hidden text (if this background was black, you wouldn't see all the hidden spamspamspamspamspam!); and link farms ("here's a list of 831 totally unrelated and worthless websites we've linked to!"). The one thing they all have in common is that all of them exist solely to try to fool the search engines into giving top ranking to a website that might otherwise go unnoticed.

However, although many of those techniques are annoying, are they necessarily unethical? Granted, search engines punish you for them these days, and most visitors aren't thrilled by them either, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "wrong". There is nothing technically unethical about buying a spammed domain name, provided the site actually offers that product or service. Spammed meta tags became so common that most spiders don't even read tags anymore, and after all they don't affect the visual appearance of a website. Spammed text content probably does more harm than good, because with a large number of quality sites available, most web surfers aren't going to waste their time digging through poorly written, obviously spammed content to find what they want. Hidden text doesn't hurt the visitor because by definition, most will never even know it exists. Link farms? Worthless, in a way, but harmless basically. Three pages of links you don't care about doesn't really harm the rest of the site. One could even argue the same for doorway pages: Who cares if multiple versions of a website exist, as long as they really do offer the product or service?

The problems arose because some of these sites did NOT really offer the products or services, or did not offer good quality compared to others. However, they choked those worthier sites out of the top rankings by employing every trick in the book to grab 7 of the top 10 placements on any given search engine. Search engines did not appreciate being exploited, and web surfers howled. The spam techniques were considered unethical at that point, because they were actively working against the stated purpose of the search engines (to provide useful and relevant search results) and the stated desire of web surfers (again, useful and relevant search results).

Enter the infamous "re-indexing", where search engines not only shake up their search results, but frequently tweak their ranking algorithms as well, in their ongoing effort to keep one step ahead of (or behind?) the exploits. Spammed meta tags were one of the first to go, along with spammed text content and spammed domain names. Hidden text was next on the block. Link farms are currently receiving the same treatment. Far from being beneficial, these tactics will now, at best, do nothing to help your site, and at worst can get your website(s) blacklisted.

However, many techniques still exist that exploit various aspects of search engine technology, one of the best-known being cloaking. Whether or not it is unethical can be difficult to say, although from the point of view of the search engine, it breaks their rules, and hence MUST be considered unethical. For the user, as long as they get relevant and useful results, that's a harder call to make. SEO professionals, by definition, try to get the best possible rankings for their clients, and the more they get, the better. Therefore, it could be argued that there's nothing unethical about just doing their jobs.

In my opinion, stated repeatedly in this blog, the best policy is to stick as close to the search engine guidelines as possible, and to offer a quality website. Don't break the rules, and don't encourage others to do so. The guidelines are in place for very sound reasons in most cases, and they have a great deal to do with site relevance and usability. Obviously, the soundest approach is to make sure that your website is, in fact, relevant and user-friendly! Otherwise, all the rankings in the world will not help you sell your product or sign up clients for your service. Your site needs to be informative, easy to navigate, and provide a good way for the visitor to contact you.

In SEO terms, the most ethical way to approach it is to make sure that the site you are sending visitors to is actually worthy of the rankings that you are attempting to gain. If you have to resort to tricks and subterfuge for ranking, then the odds are that the site itself doesn't deserve them. Instead, consider adding some quality text content to the site, trying to get some relevant backlinks, and cleaning up the meta tags so that they have some actual relevance. There are plenty of ways to help a site gain rankings that can only benefit the visitor and the business owner, so there can be no ethics questions involved!

SEO, Email Marketing, and Ethics: Part I

A topic which surfaces periodically in the industry newsletters is the question of "ethical marketing", particularly related to email marketing or search engine optimization (SEO). Some people say that there are "black hat" SEO techniques, the "bad" techniques done by "bad" people, some say that anything which is done to a site to try to raise ranking is bad, others feel that anything goes in the rankings wars. Similarly, there are some who believe only "spam" (bulk) email is wrong, some who believe ALL email advertising is wrong, and some who feel that they can and should do anything they want via email.

As an internet marketing professional, I can't agree with the purists who feel that no marketing should be done via email. I also cannot agree that websites should not be thought of as marketing tools and manipulated accordingly. On the other hand, I soundly denounce those who feel that internet marketing is a free-for-all.

In this article, we'll discuss email marketing. Is it a legitimate marketing technique, the root of all internet evil, or somewhere in between? Is there any way for legitimate email marketing to continue, but shut down the spammers?

"GOOD" EMAIL VS. "BAD" EMAIL

Good and bad are subjective terms, and it's not really possible to lay down clear boundaries of what is good or bad for marketing purposes. However, I think that all parties could agree that it is "bad" marketing if the end effect is to annoy a lot of people to the point of doing damage to the advertising client. Spam email annoys people. A LOT. If a marketer repeatedly sends out spam email blasts for a particular client, then people who hate spam will associate it with that company. This, then, is "bad" marketing, by almost any standards. You've annoyed millions of people, your client has gotten a bad name, and nobody wins.

Spam is also "bad" marketing because it harms the marketing community, and their clients, as a whole. The technique is so hated that it has launched an entire new industry devoted to stamping it out. This has led to spam filters, anti-spam software, anti-spam legislation, and endless complaints to ISP's to get websites shut down. If it really is annoying and totally unsolicited email, that's one thing, but innocent victims often get caught in the net. Many legitimate emails get blocked by overzealous spam filters, and many email campaigns generated through validated opt in lists generate complaints or threats under new laws. Spammers could care less as long as some of their email gets through, but those of us who play by the rules are finding that legitimate advertising options are being taken away, through no fault of our own.

Validated opt in, or permission-based, email wears the white hat in this battle, but it too has some problems. For starters, some people get signed up on opt-in lists by other people, as a joke or for more malicious reasons. They are understandably angry at receiving unwanted email. Other problems arise if legitimate subscribers opt out of a list, and continue to receive email for weeks or even months.

For ethical, "good" email marketing, good list management is absolutely essential! All opt in subscribers should be verified by sending a confirmation email. Opt outs should be honored as promptly as possible. The list should not be over used, to the point where legitimate email becomes spam by sheer volume. If you have an opt-in list for your customers, don't sell that information unless you want to risk losing a customer. Never release any of their information without their consent.

If you're a business owner who is considering an email marketing campaign, think seriously before you go with a bulk email marketer. The prices might look attractive, but the fallout could be deadly. Odds are, most of your email won't even reach its intended target, since it will be filtered out first. That which does will probably be deleted without being read -- if you're lucky. If you're not, they could complain to your hosting service and get your website shut down. Your company's good name will suffer.

The more people try to block spam, the smarter the spammers become. The only way to put an end to spam email on a permanent basis is to make sure that no one can make any money doing it. Don't pay someone to run bulk email campaigns, and don't purchase anything through spam offers. If it doesn't pay, they'll stop playing. One final thing: If you receive an email which offers something illegal, then report that company IMMEDIATELY. Examples include promising prescription drugs without any kind of doctor validation, or promising to repair someone's damaged credit.

Google and Yahoo Face Off

Yahoo! and Google have had a love/hate relationship for most of their respective history. Yahoo! was the undisputed leader among search engines for a long time, boasting the most search traffic. Their claim to fame was their human-edited database, comprised of sites that had been personally reviewed by an editor to make sure they fit the requirements, and were worthy of listing. Even if you paid a fee, listing was by no means guaranteed; I had more than one site rejected during Yahoo!'s glory days, forcing me to go back and re-work the site. The advantages to the searcher were obvious: Each site had, at some point, passed through a personal review to determine its value and relevance, so the results lacked the horrible spamming that plagued the automated search engines at that time.

On the other side of the fence was Google, the consummate automated search engine, an upstart start-up that began in someone's garage. From a small personal project, Google grew into a hugely popular search engine, featuring a database that anyone and everyone could get listed in, free of charge. On the downside, this meant that a lot of total garbage was getting listed. On the other hand, many small businesses could not or would not pay Yahoo!'s listing fee, so Google offered a more democratic and less commercial set of results.

Came the time when Yahoo! and Google forged an uneasy partnership. Yahoo! used Google for their "secondary search results", meaning that after all the Yahoo! sites were listed, they'd put up Google sites. Sometimes you'd see them (Yahoo! only had 43 sites that matched your search), sometimes you wouldn't (Yahoo! had 43,000 sites that matched your search!).

A couple of years ago, the internet underwent a sea change. Google climbed to the top of the heap, unseating longtime king Yahoo! from dominating the search engines. Yahoo!, bowing to the current reality, forged a new deal with Google. Now Google's results would be listed first and foremost, and Yahoo!'s own paid results would be the secondary listings, requiring a switch to a different set of search results entirely. If Yahoo! and Google both had a site listed, the Yahoo! description and category would be appended to the Google listing. Since Google also owned the primary listings on AOL and CNN, it was coming close to taking over the world.

In the last 4 months, that has all changed again. Yahoo! broke off their relationship with Google, purchased a number of other search engines (including Inktomi), and used their technology and databases to create their very own Yahoo! spider. This spider now provides primary search results for Yahoo!, Directory listings are still in a separate directory, and Google is out of the picture entirely. Google is poised to go public at long last, an IPO dangling on the horizon, and talks about new and innovative search strategies they are pursuing to keep their hold on the market. Yahoo! counters with similar talk. MSN threw their hat into the ring, and will be debuting their own spider later this year, along with new features.

The latest major shift resulted in more lost ground for Google. CNN will no longer use Google search results, and will use Yahoo!'s new spider results instead. How much of an impact this will have in the bigger scheme of things is uncertain, but neither search engine giant wants to lose any ground at this point. With their IPO looming, Google would obviously prefer not to show any loss of territory or dominance which could affect stock prices.

It seems inevitable that a final, epic battle of the search engines will be waged, and only one search engine can emerge the victor. Will Yahoo! regain their triumphant hold on #1? Will Google reclaim their recent dominance? Will MSN be the spoiler, who sneaks in the back door while the other two are busy destroying each other?

At least for now the end cannot be predicted. The only truly positive thing, from the search engine consumer's standpoint, is that the rivalries have spurred all the engines into making revolutionary and innovative changes to search engine technology and strategies, offering ever-more possibilities for the internet user, and vastly broadening the capabilities of search.

Flash and SEO

One of the longest-standing issues between web designers and search engine marketers has been the question of Flash. Flash, an animation program from Macromedia, can be very versatile and exciting in the hands of a good programmer. Flash can be used to animate banners, create movies, or create an entire website. When done well, in an appropriate industry, a Flash site can really get a great response from its visitors.

Marketers, however, hate them, and with good reason. We search engine marketers don't have the luxury of looking at a site for aesthetic appeal; we are forced to look at it from the inside out, with the eye of a computer program wtih absolutely no appreciation for artistry. In order for a site to perform well across the broadest possible range of search engines, it needs to supply the kind of information that excites computer programs. This information includes text, text, and more text. With maybe a little extra text thrown in, just for good measure.

So the problem is, you've just spent several thousand dollars on your Flash site, it's beautiful, your test group raves over it, and your marketer tells you it's useless. Can't rank. Waste of money. Flash is a graphical programming language, and while the visitor sees exciting pictures that usually incorporate plenty of text content, the search engine sees a call to a Flash file, and that's about it. Flash sites, historically, rank poorly if at all.

Recently it was discovered that Google was finding a way to rank some Flash sites, apparently reading the actual program files and picking out text words (see our post on "Flash Websites, Internet Marketing, and Conversions"), giving hope to Flash programmers that their hard work would finally gain some recognition on the internet.

Now there's even more good news: Macromedia has announced that they have an entire division which is devoting itself to coming up with an SEO-friendly version of Flash. If they succeed, it will be a godsend to marketers and designers alike, and business owners won't be caught in the middle of the war anymore. It promises a new era of cooperation between Flash and the search engines.

Let's hope that they succeed, because there are no losers in that scenario!

Marketing Sherpa Weblog Survey

Marketing Sherpa is conducting a contest for the best blogs in various categories. The SharpNET weblog is one of only 6 in the category of "Blogs for online marketing". Out of more than 50 blogs originally nominated, only 29 made the cut to be in the contest. If you like our SharpNET blog, and you feel it's been informative to you, feel free to give us a vote! It's also a good chance to check out some of the other blogs out there, not just for internet marketing but also for small business marketing, business to business, public relations, and other marketing topics. The blogs all take slightly different approaches and have different specialties. If you've got the time to check a few out, it's not only fun but very informative as well (and of course if you should choose to give our blog a good review, we'd be very grateful). I have bookmarked a couple of the other blogs for my personal reference, in those areas that I don't feel very informed about.

There is a wealth of information available online for almost any specialty, and good weblogs are one of the newest and most convenient ways to get up-to-date information. A blog that is updated regularly will reflect the current trends and tides of the business world, and provide helpful, inside information on how to deal with some of the changes that are taking place.

Therefore I'd also like to encourage anyone out there who has a specialty area of their own to create their own blog! It's easy, it's fun, and it's a great way to share information. There are a number of free blogs available, as well as paid services that offer more options. If you could invest an hour or two a week into creating an online resource for your specialty, there will be people who will appreciate your efforts!

TIPS ON CREATING A USEFUL BLOG:

1. Keep to the point. If you're creating a blog for your business, discuss things relevant to your business and your company.

2. Decide what "voice" to use. Do you want to be friendly? Professional? Analytical? This will depend on who your target audience is. If your target audience is stay-at-home moms who do crafting and scrapbooks, your tone should probably be very warm and friendly, spoken in first person and using your own voice. On the other hand, a blog on industry trends aimed at engineers should be impersonal, analytical, and up-to-the-minute.

3. To advertise or not to advertise, that is the question. Where to advertise is another question. Personally, I find ads placed in the text body of newsletters and blogs to be very annoying. If you're going to do banner advertising, consider placing it off to the side so that your readers can get through your entire post uninterrupted.

4. Listen to your readers. Blog readers will make comments on the blog and will frequently send you email. You'd be well-advised to pay heed to their words -- often you can get some good advice and feedback, to keep your blog as useful and up-to-date as possible!

Viruses, Worms, and Bad Decisions

The good news is, they have caught the author of the Sasser worm. The bad news is, that internet worm successfully crippled several large international organizations, and hundreds or thousands of smaller companies and banks and personal computers. This wasn't one of the email worms that savvy computer users can easily avoid; Sasser snuck in through backdoors of computers without adequate firewalls, or with no firewalls at all, and spread like wildfire.

More good news: They believe the suspect may be the one who authored all 28 variants of the Netsky virus. I get on average about 100 versions of Netsky every day in my email (all blocked by anti-virus software). Having that virus shut down will be a personal blessing, and with any luck, the infected computers will slowly get cleaned up, and that one will disappear into the sunset.

The bad news is, shutting down one 18-year-old computer whiz from Germany will not solve the problem. As software and security grows ever more advanced, so do the authors of the worms, viruses, and Trojans that plague us on the internet. Many of these authors are in their teens or barely out of them, and one thing heard almost universally is, "I didn't think it would do this much damage." Almost all of them insist that they didn't mean to harm anyone. Maybe they really didn't. People do a lot of things they shouldn't out of a sense of curiosity. "I wonder if I could write one of those worms," the computer whiz thinks, and decides to try it, feeling pride and excitement when it works -- which changes to horror as it spreads across the world and shuts down major corporations, and suddenly they're looking at a Federal jail sentence. I can actually believe in this scenario. I could see myself at age 18 thinking it was kind of fun and dangerous, a cool challenge, and never in a million years imagining how out of hand it could get (I would never have gotten to the point of actually launching it, though, fearing repercussions on even a minor scale).

So what can we do to protect ourselves, at home and at work? The advice remains the same: Install anti-virus software and keep it updated; install a good firewall; keep your internet security settings high; keep your Windows updated; avoid questionable websites; don't open email attachments from anybody you don't know; scan your computer regularly with anti-virus, anti-Trojan, and anti-spyware software, in case something got past your barriers. The Netsky virus is carried via email, with a standard set of subject lines, and is easily blocked with anti-virus software. The Sasser worm was stopped by patches from both Symantec and Microsoft. None of my computers have been infected by these common threats.

The warning: Take the threat seriously. Stop thinking that you can avoid computer trouble by simply not opening email from unknown senders. The viruses, worms and Trojans get more sophisticated every day, in response to the ever-increasing efforts to block them. Taking routine precautions won't stop everything, but not taking them could be a nightmare.

There's a deeper level which is perhaps more philosophical, but here's the dilemma: How can we channel the creativity and intelligence of these worm authors in a more positive direction? With their obvious skills, they are probably capable of creating great software programs that could be useful and innovative. They'd be great in tech support. They'd be great internet detectives, helping track down other authors of harmful internet bugs. They'd be great for product testing, to identify these potential weaknesses and plug the holes before the product ever goes on the market. How do we convince them that putting their talents to good use will ultimately be more fun than testing a computer worm that wreaks havoc across international borders in a matter of hours, maybe costing them years of freedom?

18-year-old Sven Jaschan is almost certainly facing jail time. I wonder if he thinks it was worth it.

Google Ranking For New Sites: Is There A Delay?

There has been much discussion in recent months about an interesting phenomenon that seems to show up with new websites on Google: They will get indexed, get good rankings for their keywords for a month or so, and then completely disappear for awhile. After about 3 months, rankings for many seem to start a gradual climb up the mountain.

Obviously, there has been much speculation about whether or not new sites are receiving "special" treatment on Google, or if these fluctuations are just part of the normal shifts that take place on re-indexing. Since Google has made many major shifts to their ranking algorithm during the past few months, it was difficult to really gather statistics on the behavior of new listings.

At this point, it seems fairly certain that Google does, in fact, give a different type of treatment to new site listings. Many different reasons have been suggested, but no one knows for certain. Many webmasters believe that it is another attempt on Google's part to discourage spam: Affiliate domains, doorway pages, and template sites have long been popular ways of getting a lot of traffic and getting it quickly. However, if they will drop from Google for a period of months and then have to "prove" themselves, then it may no longer be cost-effective to spam Google that way.

This is certainly one possibility, and it makes sense to some degree; however, it also penalizes legitimate new sites. This seems a high price to pay for trying to slow down spam, and goes against Google's stated intentions of providing equal opportunity for all legitimate websites that meet their requirements. I think it's possible that we may be seeing nothing more than a new site being rewarded for offering fresh content. After a few spider crawls, if the content does not change, then rankings will adjust appropriately. It's well-known that Google does reward sites for routine updates and fresh content. Many newer sites do not make these types of routine updates, and therefore will need to compensate by building the same types of valuable backlinks, and higher page ranks, that every other site needs.

So, is there anything special that webmasters or marketers should do for new sites, to try to ensure strong Google rankings? In my opinion, the same rules apply that we have stated numerous times in this blog: Your best bet is always to design an informative website, with good navigation and a lot of useful information for the visitor. Write good solid content with a reasonable number of keywords. Pursue sound, legitimate marketing practices such as relevant backlinks, and consider doing some email or some PPC if you want to give your site an early boost in popularity. You won't rise to the top of Google immediately and stay there, but you WILL get the rankings you need if you can just be a little patient -- and you'll get good rankings in other places too. After all, Google does not rule the world!

Second-guessing Google has become practically an industry in itself. In this case, it's fun to speculate, but in the end it really doesn't change anything from a practical standpoint.

Flash Websites, Internet Marketing, and Conversions

The question of whether or not to use Flash as part or all of your website has led to some extremely heated debates between web designers, internet marketers, and market analysts.

Let's look at the positives:

1. Flash pages are a great way to show the skill and versatility of a graphic artist/web designer. Flash is not a simple program to learn or to use. The skilled Flash programmer combines creativity with solid programming skills and artistic talent. Some of it can be learned, some is innate. Almost anyone can eventually manage to produce an "acceptable" Flash design; a high-level Flash programmer is a different breed. If you've got those skills, it's worth showing them off.

2. Flash can make some really fun and impressive graphic effects. There's no question that some Flash pages are really impressive. A well-designed Flash page not only demonstrates the skill of the programmer, but can also entrance the visitor.

3. Flash can add fun interactive aspects to a website. A Flash game on your site can coax a visitor into staying longer on your site and recommending it to their friends.

All that being true, you'd think that internet marketers would love Flash, but the opposite is true. Let's examine the downside to Flash on the internet:

1. Most search engine spiders can't read Flash. The impact of this really cannot be overstated. The visitor to the site might be seeing images and reading text, but to most spiders, it's a big blank space. Historically, Flash sites rank poorly, if at all. What good is it to have a site that's fun for visitors, if you can't get any visitors?

2. Flash can take a long time to load. The majority of Americans are now online, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have broadband connections. For those on dial-up, a Flash page can be tortuously long to download. Most of them simply won't bother. Even with broadband, some Flash sites are a long download -- and statistics show that most web surfers are very impatient.

3. Many people behind firewalls cannot view Flash sites. Major corporations, many government agencies, and many firms that are just nervous in this virus-rampant internet era, forbid downloading ANY programs onto their employees' computers, even well-known "safe" programs such as Flash. This means that if a Flash player is not already installed on their computers, they can't see the site/page at all. You've just eliminated a percentage of potential customers before they even had a chance to consider you.

4. Flash sites are not necessarily user-friendly. Especially on e-commerce sites, visitors have shown a strong preference for "complete" navigation -- meaning that you can jump to pretty much any page on the site from any other page. Flash is not set up this way, and frequently necessitates using the "back" button on the browser, preventing a potential customer from easily jumping back and forth between 2 or more pages they are interested in. This may be one of the reasons why, in a study done by Marketing Sherpa last autumn (http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2524), roughly 80% of consumers voted for non-Flash sites over Flash sites. There were some very strong anti-Flash sentiments expressed, and they spanned the spectrum of ages, genders, and careers.

At SharpNET Solutions, we understand that you're put a lot of time and money into your Flash site, and it doesn't go over very well to be told that it is useless for marketing. It's a tough pill to swallow! And the truth is, we do recognize that Flash can be a very effective tool for certain sites, in certain industries. For example, a graphic artist's portfolio site should ALWAYS include Flash, if they can do it well. A website for a gallery, or an artist, can make extremely good use of Flash, and it fits well with the general "feel" desired for such sites.

However, bear in mind that not everyone can or will spend time on your Flash site, no matter how beautiful, exciting, or effective it might be, and it also won't rank on the search engines. At the very least, have a static page that the search engines can read and rank, and ALWAYS give your visitors the option of skipping a Flash intro. Ideally, you should offer your entire website in static form, with complete information and navigation, and the option to click a link to view selected Flash movies or presentations. This preserves the hard work you've done while allowing access to your site to the widest range of visitors.

Note: Google has claimed for some time to be able to read Flash, but there was very little evidence of it in their search results. If you go to Google now and type in "help filetype:swf", you will see search results that appear to be actual pieces of Flash code. This is a giant step forward, but just reading code does not by any means ensure that your site will rank for your keywords. In fact, it just might open up a whole new division of SEO: Optimizing Flash code for Google rankings. "Spider-friendly" Flash code is not necessarily a straightforward proposition! It remains to be seen if the other spiders will follow suit, and whether or not the potential for ranking is great enough to warrant such extra efforts on the part of marketers and designers.