The Controversy of Mentions vs. Links and Other Controversial Ranking Issues

Many SEO types today believe the magic bullet to high rankings is links. Ranging from free for all link schemes, to blog links, to natural links to content, to anchor text controlled links.


While the authors believe that natural links from relevant pages with good anchor and surrounding text still remains a huge factor in search engine rankings, our research has shown that there are other ways in which to maximize the exposure in the SERPs for you target keyphrases. We call this “mentions”. A mention, quite simply, is a mention of your organization that does not include a link, as is further elaborated on below.

We understand this is highly controversial, and so we polled a number of prominent individuals in the field, which only underscores the controversial nature of this technique. However, we believe it works and recommend a PR campaign that focuses on mentions in addition to a traditional link building/content based campaign.

Here are the questions we asked of our experts, and their responses.

What is a mention? Let’s use Arteworks as an example. Would it be a mention of the url arteworks.biz? Or would it also include mentions such as “Arteworks”, “Arteworks SEO”, or even “Matt Foster”?

Jack Leblond:
As Google collects and compares information, I think it tries to cross reference topics and phrases. If this is true, then having a business or personal name associated with some specific content could help that business’s site rank better for those terms. But I think the "name" would have to have a strong connection to the domain/site. For example, if arteworks.biz did not contain enough mentions of “matt foster” Google would have no way of knowing it should connect that name to the site if it is read on another site.

Lani Rosales:
A mention ranges from an actual URL to a mention of the company name, but the highest value to a search engine is on an actual link to a company website with lower value assigned to a brand name in word only. From a marketing/branding perspective, the company name has a higher value as big money goes toward branding, so theoretically, McDonald's places a bigger value on the word "McDonald's" as it their brand over "http://mcdonalds.com" where capitalization and punctuation do not matter.

Authors’ Commentary: We believe that “mentions” are by definition not links. A mention is a mention of your name or organization on the Internet without a link. Any of the examples above would be a mention, as a mention can be anything. The question then becomes, do mentions help in the SERPs, and if so, what type of mentions are helpful?

Do you believe that “mentions” are a factor in search rankings, in addition to links?

Gerald Weber:
If the mention is accompanied with a link that is followed then sure. If a mention for example "Gerald Weber is a great SEO" but if there is no link to my company site then it's not going to affect my company's rankings in the SERPs.

Wesley Faulkner:
Yes, when searching for a company, Google would use all search terms and see where they rank considering at least in part the aggregated total number of the mentions on the web. Mentions found on sites with high page ranks will obviously help more than sites with a lower page rank.

Authors’ Commentary: We believe that “mentions” are factors in search rankings so long as the mention is contained in the title tag of the desired URL. It is our opinion that the mention can be without a link, and that the mention of the company or individual name is a positive factor in search rankings. A good PR campaign, therefore, would not be reliant upon the acquisition of links only, but rather mentions with attendant title tags. In other words, if your title tag or possibly even other content on your site contains the text of the mention on the third party site, then the mention should help you in the SERPs.

Do Twitter mentions “count”? If so, how is that determined? For example, Matt’s twitter is ArteWorks_SEO. Does having your twitter name the same as your company name matter? Or if his twitter name was just something like “SEOGuy”, but had a link to Arteworks on his profile, would that be sufficient? What is the effect (if any) of retweets and @ replies? Does the use of underscores in Twitter names have any effect on mentions?

Jack Leblond:
I have argued both for and against company names (rather than using the name of the person tweeting) I think it comes down to how well known your brand is. Personally, I consider in-text mentions to be like a do-follow link, a true vote of confidence. I consider lists of names, like “follow Friday” tweets, to be more like nofollow, blogroll links. Most SEOs agree that Google still follows “nofollow” links, but assigns little or no weight to the link. So, even though Twitter has set its links to no-follow, they still have some value. I do think it's too soon for Google to have tweaked the live search algorithm enough to recognize different types of tweets - yet. But I think they will eventually weight tweets differently depending on how they are written, just like they do links from different locations on a web page.

Gerald Weber:
Having the Twitter name the same as the company name is really a matter of personal choice. If you have ArteWorks_SEO for example you will be more likely to rank for the company name ArteWorks SEO. However I have a nickname @the_gman and my Twitter profile still ranks well for my name Gerald Weber. However the Twitter link in your profile is no followed so I doubt the link itself helps much when it comes to ranking factor for your site it's linking too, but it can still send some good traffic to your site so it still has value. I don't think the underscore "_" makes much difference. One thing I have noticed, generally speaking, is that Twitter profiles seem to rank pretty well in the SERPs. For example, if you Google Gerald Weber my twitter profile comes up on the first page. Also, I actually have some competition in the SERPs for Gerald Weber because there are a few other prominent Gerald Weber’s out there. So even though, as in this example, the actual Twitter link is nofollowed, it can still be used effectively as a reputation management tool.

Lani Rosales:
Despite Twitter virtually closing itself off to some search engines, in the eyes of a search engine, mentions on Twitter are valuable just as they are on a blog because they turn up as a result. For brands, it is ideal to have users' names reflect the company such as “@NameAtCompany” as it humanizes the user as well as puts a human face to a brand.

Wesley Faulkner:
Yes and no. Twitter mentions count but not all search engines crawl Twitter. It depends on what search engine you are talking about. In the case of Google @mentions and retweets are weighed higher when they come from different users. Google treats each user as a page so it is more effective if multiple users Tweet the same mention than is one user repetitively references the same content. Just like content on a blog, another user is counted as a separate page; retweets and @mentions hold greater weight as they are like a separate url. And just like a blog, a new page is considered new content.

There is an advantage to using a company's name as a handle as opposed to using the proprietor’s name. For instance, Bill Gates' retweets and @mentions wouldn't necessarily help Microsoft get a higher page rank. The only way that it would help is if the proprietor and the company name were strongly tied together. For instance if Microsoft's website was called "Microsoft: A Bill Gates Company" in the header portion of the site.

Author’s commentary:
Yes, Twitter mentions count and are perhaps the most beneficial because of the frequency of mentions occurring due to @ mentions and retweets. We also believe that @ mentions and retweet mentions carry more weight than do self mentions, as they are demonstrative of community involvement and reputation. We have also noticed that having the same Twitter name as your company name really helps, and a lot of referrals to ArteWorks SEO come from Twitter. In Matt’s case he has benefitted because the name of the company is ArteWorks SEO and his Twitter username is ArteWorks_SEO. However we think that people who have not benefitted are people whose title tags do not match the mentions. To achieve the most benefit from Twitter mentions, have your Twitter username in the title tag, or at a minimum somewhere in the content, of your website. The key to maximizing the use of mentions of your site on the web is to include commonly mentioned terms in your title tag.

About URL shorteners: do you think the use of those can count as a “mention”? In other words, does Google understand that an URL shortener is redirecting to the target site and count that as a mention?

Jack Leblond:
If the shorteners use 301's, the links are followable and identifiable. But, text surrounding the link is important.

Gerald Weber:
I do believe that Google understand this yes. Google is very intelligent. However, again the links are no followed by Twitter, but it would count as a mention regardless.

Wesley Faulkner:
Not all URL shorteners are created equal. It should not be expected that Google can resolve all URL shorteners as it does with 301 redirects. The only sure way for a URL shortener to be effective is if it has been created by the source and is ensured to have a proper ping back.

Authors’ Commentary:

We may be giving Google more credit than is due, but we think Google is pretty smart. If the url shortener utilizes a 301 redirect, we believe that the link juice is passed through the shortened url to the target page. Therefore, when utilizing URL shorteners, it is important to use one that utilizes a 301 redirect if you intend to “vote” for or pass link juice to the target site.

On another note: There has been some talk about Google incorporating clicks on the SERPs as a factor in ranking, i.e. Sites that receive more clicks on the SERPs are deemed more relevant to the query and then could move up. Do you believe this is already happening? If not, do you believe it will or should happen? If so, how do you foresee this changing the game in the way of META description tag optimization, if at all?

Jack Leblond:
I don't think the click counts, but bounce rate must. They know if you click to a page and then quickly come back to search results again. When you do this, it’s obvious the page you visited was not relevant to the query.

Gerald Weber:
I personally don't think this is being incorporated into SERPs at this time. If it were you can bet there will be people gaming and exploiting this. However, Google does include CTR as part of its "Quality Score" for their paid advertising (Adwords). Regardless of whether or not Google uses CTR as part of its ranking score, it should not encourage SEO’s to write better META descriptions as any good SEO would already be writing good META descriptions to attract clicks regardless of any algorithm change.

Wesley Faulkner:
Yes, sites that receive more clicks move up higher, but, that is a self fulfilling prophecy. Most people don't go below the fold in Google. The story changes dramatically depending on if the user is logged into Google or not. I do think Google measures raw clicks and high CTR sites with low bounce rates and uses that data to help move up more in personal searches when the user is logged into Google.

As far as the user not being logged in to Google, that's a harder question to answer. For users that are not logged in, you have to consider Google Analytics being installed on the site in question. But yes, sites that receive more clicks will move up in the search, this brings the importance of the meta tag description in line with that of a well written AdWord. If the case is that clicks matter in SERPs, then meta tagging optimization becomes important so as to encourage clicks.

Authors’ Commentary:

It does not appear that traffic is a factor in search rankings. We have seen sites with very little traffic (clicks from the SERPs) perform quite well in the rankings. META description tag optimization should not be affected by any algorithmic change to include SERP CTRs, as descriptions should already be written to encourage clicks.

About the Authors

Matt Foster is the CEO of ArteWorks SEO, a full service Internet marketing firm, who has been active in the industry since 1995. Mr. Foster can be found on Twitter @ArteWorks_SEO. ArteWorks SEO can be found at www.arteworks.biz.

Krystle Green is a project manager for ArteWorks SEO. Krystle is in charge of strategy development for new clients and research. She is an expert in blogging and social media. She can be found on twitter @krystle_green.

Contributors

Gerald Weber is the President and Founder of Search Engine Marketing Group, a leading search engine marketing and web development firm in Houston, TX. Gerald is also a contributing author for Search Engine Journal. He can be found on Twitter @the_gman.

Jack Leblond is the Director of Internet Strategy and Operations for a large Austin-based educational services company where he manages the web team, focuses on SEO, e-marketing and Social Media. Jack has been involved in Web development and SEO for over ten years as employee, business owner and now as a free-lance SEO consultant working with small/medium sized businesses that want their web sites to perform better in the search engine listings. He can be found on Twitter @JackLeblond.

Wesley Faulkner is a contributor for Conversations Matter. His experience spans multiple facets of the technology industry, from manufacturing to product development. Recently, Wesley has become a rising player in the social media scene. As a member of AMD’s social media council he assists in the development of their social media strategy and vision for the company. He can be found on Twitter @wesley83.

Lani Rosales is the New Media Director at AgentGenius.com and was recently named President of New Media Lab, both of which are headquartered in Austin, TX. She has an English degree from the University of Texas (and of course used that to become a blogger). She can be found on Twitter @LaniAR.

About The Authors:
Matt Foster is the CEO of ArteWorks SEO, a full service Internet marketing firm, who has been active in the industry since 1995. Mr. Foster can be found on Twitter @ArteWorks_SEO. ArteWorks SEO can be found at www.arteworks.biz. Krystle Green is the Director of Social Media for ArteWorks SEO. She is an expert in blogging and social media. She can be found on twitter @krystle_green.

Read more!

Response: Authority Link Building, What and How

It is amazing the mythology which abounds in the field of Internet marketing. Take for example a recent article written by a company called LinkBuilderz which was entitled "Authority Link Building! What and How". In this article, the author explains that you will be "amazed with the results" if you drop links into Wikipedia. Problem is, the author is evidently ignorant of the fact that Wikipedia links are nofollowed and therefore do not pass any PageRank or link juice. Click for full article on authority link building.

The LinkBuilderz article is yet another example of the type of misinformation which individuals are putting out there regarding search engine optimization. As the search marketing industry rapidly expands, more and more unqualified individuals and firms are jumping on the bandwagon and selling snake oil, both to the detriment of the web user's experience as well as their clients.

So called "authority" links cannot be obtained by spamming Wikipedia. My philosophy is this: the only way to obtain quality, relevant, inbound linkage is through the creation of rich content to which site owners will naturally want to link. Content can take many forms, it can be blog content, videos, product pages, reviews, audio clips, and the like. If you are creating useful content which provides value to the end user, the links will come.

The LinkBuilderz article is premised entirely upon the myth that Wikipedia spam will provide "amazing results" in the search engines. While there may be some residual value in direct link traffic from links residing within the Wikipedia domain (assuming that they are not promptly deleted by wise Wikipedia editors), there is zero value in terms of passing PageRank or "link juice". This is because external Wikipedia links contain the rel=nofollow attribute which informs Google that the link is to a third party site which is not trusted by Wikipedia. The premise that an "authority" site such as Wikipedia will pass its authority (i.e. trust) to a third party site via an external link is not only false, but the exact opposite is true. Nofollow indicates the site is not trusted! The nofollow attribute was developed specifically to combat this sort of link spam, which has historically been prevalent on blogs, forums, and yes, Wikipedia. Nofollow allows site owners to provide users with the ability to contribute content without the angst associated with link spam bleeding link juice away from the site or causing the site to inadvertently link to a "bad neighborhood".

It seems that dispelling SEO mythology is a never ending ordeal. Reputable SEO firms will never advise placing links within Wikipedia for the purpose of increasing search engine rankings. It is important for the consumer to understand that when considering various SEO firms, if it sounds too good to be true it is. If your SEO firm does not propose creating content and promoting that content as a link building strategy, you should steer clear.

Matt Foster is the CEO of ArteWorks SEO, a full service search engine optimization firm.

Read more!

Search for "Ebay" Reveals Half Naked Woman in News Results

As part of my research for an article about Google site search, I typed in the search query "ebay" this morning. I was quite surprised when the news results on the first page of the SERPs yielded a scantily clad young woman appearing to be using a Wii with the caption "I Really Should Study". This is an actual screen shot of the search results which were provided on the first page of the Google results. Is this press release marketing genius or Google catastrophe? Full article on using shock in search engine marketing.

As this result appeared under the news results, it was clearly optimized for the term "ebay" and distributed as a press release by a vendor hoping to sell a Wii to every family (or at least every father) in the country. What is surprising is that such an image could be attached to a press release without being caught by either the press release distribution agency or the publisher of the press release. While it is a known fact that alluring content sells, this appears to have stepped over the line in terms of search engine marketing for a family friendly term such as "ebay".

It is a questionable practice at best - using shock value to market a product, especially when you are trying to reach a family friendly audience. In this case, it appears to have backfired against the vendor; when I repeated the search five minutes later the listing appeared to be removed from the results - even when clicking on the extended news results. Translation: no traffic. So while for the few minutes this result appeared in the index may have resulted in a higher click through rate than would normally be expected, a more conservative approach taken by the vendor would likely have resulted in more clicks over a longer period of time.

Moral of the story: if using shock value, be sure to think about your target audience. If it is likely to be deemed offensive and inappropriate, the increased buzz surrounding the shock will likely be outweighed by a negative reaction from your consumer base or the search engines.

Read more!

Custom Search: The Death Knell of Rankings Based Search Engine Optimization

Custom search based on user browsing behavior is here. This means that search engine result pages will deliver different results to individualized users based on the past search trends and geographic location of that user. And no, you do not have to be signed into your Google account for this to happen. Clients as well as SEO firms which insist on a rankings-based metric of success are going to have to change their thinking. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee, rankings-based SEO. (Full article on custom search and geo-targeting).

Traditionally, the success of an SEO campaign has been largely based on visible search rankings for target keyphrases. I have always maintained that this is not the correct metric by which to evaluate the success of any given campaign, as all the search rankings in the world are worthless if they do not result in traffic to your website which results in conversions. While many individuals and organizations (both SEO practitioners and their clients) have steadfastly refused to accept this truism, the time is now upon us where they must accept and recognize this, or any SEO effort will be doomed to failure. But why?

Largely unnoticed to many, Google has implemented customized search engine results pages based on a user's browsing history. The user does not have to be signed into their Google account, or even have a Google account, for this to happen. This can be seen clearly on the graphic below:


This is a screenshot of the first page of results on Google for the query "search engine optimization". Take a look at the red arrow marked "A". You can see that it points to the words "sign in". This indicates that the screenshot was taken while not signed in to a Google account - these are the natural Google search results for a user who either does not have a Google account or is not signed in to one. Or are they?

If you look at the red arrow marked "B", you will see the words "Customized based on recent search activity". This indicates that the "natural" search results which are being served to the user by Google are actually based on the user's recent search history. These results are filtered even further based on the user's geographic location. How do we know this? Well, clicking on the "more details" link leads us to an explanation: "When possible, Google will customize your search results based on location and/or recent search activity."

Therefore, it is evident that search results are being served in a geo-targeted manner as well as based upon recent search behavior. Geo-targeting is extremely evident when searching for an otherwise generic term like "coffee bar". See the graphic below:


At the very top right of the graphic, you can still see the words "sign in", indicating that I am not signed into any Google account. The red arrow marked "C" shows that Google is geotargeting the results to my location of Austin, Texas. The red arrows marked "D" and "E" show localized results based on that applied filter.

Clicking on "more details" yields the following message from Google:

"The following information was used to improve your search results for coffee bar:

Location - Your approximate location has been identified as Austin metro area, US.
Based on your IP address: 68.xxx.xx.xx" (IP address removed by author).

Google explains what they are doing with search customization in their Web Search Help Center. They state there are three factors which come into play for search customization:

1. Location. If signed into a Google account, location is based on your Google account information. If not signed in to a Google account, approximate location is ascertained via your IP address.

2. Recent Searches. Google uses recent search history to further refine your results because "it provides a valuable context for understanding the meaning behind your searches". Google goes on to say that they use search history "to customize your results whenever possible, regardless of whether you're signed in or signed out [of a Google account]." (emphasis added) Google claims that recent search history is kept on a cookie on your browser for a period of 30 minutes, after which it is deleted. It also claims the cookie is deleted any time you close your browser.

3. Web History. This customization is only provided if you are signed into a Google account and have web history enabled.

It is interesting to note that because the customization cookie is browser-dependent, you can obtain different results, on the same machine and IP address by simply opening a new browser. For example, switching between IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, or another browser will reset the customization entirely.

While this may be great for the user search experience, it can prove to be a big headache for SEO clients and SEO firms wishing to observe rankings as an indicator of success. Therefore, additional metrics of the success of a search marketing strategy must be agreed upon prior to the onset of any particular project. While a detailed analysis of such factors will be saved for a later article, they would include such things as analytics, user behavior, referral traffic, and of course conversions.

Read more!

5 Tips to Avoid Becoming an SEO Victim

First it was Internet Advancement. Now, it is Visible.net. Washington State appears to be on a mission to get rid of shady SEO firms which promise more than they can deliver and give the entire industry a black eye. I personally am glad that somebody is cracking down on firms which make overreaching promises. Here are 5 tips to avoid becoming a victim of bad SEO firms.


1. Avoid firms which contact you out of the blue.

I have no specific research to back this up, but I would venture to say that 99.99% of all "cold calls" come from unscrupulous or unqualified firms, many of which cold calls are outright scams. Do not respond to unsolicited emails, phone calls, facsimiles, snail mail, or other direct marketing from a purported SEO firm. A reputable firm will rely on its reputation in the industry, client referalls, search engine rankings, and other means to attract customers to it. In other words, customers should come to the SEO firm, the SEO firm should not come to the customer.

2. Avoid firms which guarantee you a #1 ranking.

No firm owns the search engines, therefore no firm can guarantee you a #1 ranking. If this sort of representation is made, it is a huge red flag. I know what you are thinking: "If they fail to deliver, I will just get my money back." Just try getting your money back. Chances are you will never get it, or you will have a #1 ranking which gets the firm off the hook - the problem is that it is for a keyphrase that has absolutely zero qualified traffic.

This illustrates the often misplaced notion that search engine optimization is about a #1 ranking. SEO is not about that at all, as a #1 ranking is worthless if it does not drive qualified traffic to your site which results in conversions. SEO is about conversions, not ranking for irrelevant keyphrases.

3. Avoid firms which claim to have a "special relationship" with major search engines.

No SEO firm has a special relationship with Google or any other major search engine. Period. Does not require further explanation.

4. Avoid firms which sell SEO as an "out of the box" solution.

Search engine optimization is not a product, it is a service. There are many companies which are selling SEO as an out of the box, package deal. In other words, they offer SEO services at a predetermined set fee, for a predetermined set of services. One common manifestation of this is in the nature of "Choose one of our proven SEO packages."

A firm offering out of the box solutions is not performing any sort of competitive intelligence at all. Each industry is different, each client is different, and the search engine optimization solutions for each project should therefore be different. What works for one client, in one industry, may not work for another client in another industry. A firm which fails to take into account the industry landscape, client business goals, budget, and other factors when developing an SEO strategy is doing you no favor. Each client should be provided with a customized solution based on a number of factors specific to that client. If your selected SEO firm is not performing keyphrase research and competitive intelligence prior to the development and execution of a customized strategy, you should find another firm.

5. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Most people who hire an SEO firm are business owners or professionals working on behalf of a business owner. Therefore, we might expect that these potential SEO clients have some degree of business savvy about them. Unfortunately, many don't, and they buy into the "get rich quick with a #1 ranking for a few hundred dollars" line. Come on, folks. You can't compete with Amazon.com for $500.00. Think about it. Search engine optimization requires an investment on par with the goals of the project. Rome wasn't built in a day. Use your common sense when evaluating various proposals from potential SEO firms. Like the baby in the picture above, be skeptical of offers which sound too good to be true.

Read more!

Is Rand Fishkin a Superhero?

In order to ascertain whether or not Rand Fishkin, the CEO of SEOMoz, is a superhero, we must first define the term and then put him to the test. Let's do it and see what happens.

Variously referred to on the web as "the Wizard of Moz", "Darth Fishkin", "Werewolf Fishkin", "Mastermind", the "Romantic SEO", and many other appellations, his best known pseudonym is perhaps "randfish". With all these names given to the mysterious Randfish, we can't help but wonder if he is a superhero.

Dictionary.com defines a superhero as "a figure...endowed with superhuman powers and usually portrayed as fighting evil or crime." Urbandictionary.com takes it a step further and adds the caveat "and looks good in tights."

So let's analyze this piece by piece.

Question: Is Rand Fishkin endowed with superhuman powers?

Answer: Yes.

Analysis: Only someone endowed with superhuman powers can influence Google's SERPs with the drop of a single link. For example, Rand wrote an article posted yesterday entitled "SEO Company Search Results - An Embarrassment to Google and the Other Engines" in which Rand ranted about the way that certain companies appear to be using unscrupulous techniques to rank for the term "SEO Company". He also provided the names of companies which he thought should rank for that term and provided an anchor text link to those firms with anchor text "SEO Company". As of today, a mere 24 hours later, two of the companies have suddenly appeared in the first few pages of the Google SERPs for this term. There are only two explanations for this. First, key personnel at Google read his article, agreed, and manually changed the SERPs to reflect his opinion. The alternate explanation is that the dropping of a single link in his post was sufficient to substantially alter the SERPs for this term. Regardless of which of the two scenarios played out it is self evident that only a person endowed with super human powers could have such an effect.

Question: Does Rand Fishkin fight evil?

Answer: Yes.

Analysis: As head of SEOMoz, Rand has taken a leadership role along with several other SEO firms (including ours) in the fight against Jason Gambert's attempt to trademark the term "SEO". While the rest of the world stands idly by and watches, Rand and a handful of other firms have taken up this fight for the common good. SEOMoz in fact was the first firm to discover this dastardly deed and make it known to the world. This is not an inexpensive fight, nor is it one which only benefits those who are fighting it. Rand has proven himself a leader in the world of SEO by standing up and defending everyone's right to use the term "SEO".

Further, he is not afraid to name names when he sees something amiss. Rand calls a spade a spade and does not care whether or not other people whine and groan about it. One case in point is in his article mentioned above. He names companies which he believes are using tactics which are not up to the industry standard, and goes on to define those tactics and expose them to the world. He emphasizes the transient nature of such tactics and points out that in the long haul companies using such tactics will suffer. He makes it clear that the noble goal of SEO should be the long term success of the target sites, and that chasing the latest loophole in the ranking algorithms is risky and not economically viable in the long run. While a number of people comment on his post saying things like "if it works it works" and that SEO is a "game", Rand holds his ground and does not compromise his lofty premise that search engine rankings, and indeed all SEO efforts, should be based on the provision of quality, useful content and links, of such a nature that will benefit the users of the web as well as the sites in question. Anyone who disagrees with that is certainly not someone who I would admire - the pursuit of selfish, short term financial gain at the expense of the long term success of a client as well as at the expense of creating a quality web experience is about as ignoble goal as is imaginable.

Rand explains his philosophy further in a comment reply below the post:

"I completely disagree with this logic that Google has weaknesses and we know how to use them. My thinking goes entirely the other way - Google and all the othe engines have ideals to which their algorithms aspire. If we pursue the "weaknesses" we will eventually lose - fighting against teams of some of the planets smartest people with some of the planets best resources (Google Web Spam, et. al) seems like a terrible idea and a poor way to generate ROI for our customers.

Instead, we should be focusing on what, in a perfect world, the engines would want to count, and building sites, content and links that embody that ideal. With this kind of strategy in place, you won't fall out of the results just because Google updates their algorithm or gets better at their job."

Very well said.

Of course Jill Whalen of HighRankings has to weigh in on the subject, in her predictable philosophy of "if it gets you to rank well in the search engines then it must be what Google wants". First off, Jill, Google doesn't "want" spammy links or bogus content. Because it works at the moment in getting a site to rank is far from saying that is the sort of thing for which Google strives to rank sites.

Jill then can be seen ranting about Rand's "outing" of companies engaging in questionable practices. Of course Rand stands up to her too, saying:

"Jill - I disagree on this point and I think I will for the future. Outing manipulative practices (or ANY practices for that matter) that put a page at the top of the rankings is part of our job. Disclosing tactics that work (and sharing my opinion about whether they should or not) is something I'll continue to do in the future, and I don't feel particularly bad for anyone who's getting "outed." If you don't want people finding out about your tactics, don't rank #1 for competitive phrases. It's always going to make you a target. I've never liked the "thieves code of honor" - it implies that as SEOs, we're thieves and that's the last thing any of us should want."

Wow! Now if that isn't standing up for a noble cause, I do not know what is? Now, to be clear, am I calling Jill Whalen evil? Of course not. But I do believe that she is wrong to take a position in support of practices which do not benefit the long term good of either SEO clients or web users.

Question: Does Rand Fishkin look good in tights?

Answer: Yet to be determined.

Analysis: At time of writing, I cannot find a picture of Rand Fishkin in tights using a Google image search. This is the last hurdle Rand must overcome to achieve superhero status. Perhaps he would be good enough to send us a picture of him in tights, and we could have the ladies vote on the matter?

Only then will the world truly know for certain whether or not Rand Fishkin is a super hero.

Read more!

ArteWorks SEO to Join in Fight Against Trademarking Term "SEO"

It seems there is a character who thinks he can trademark the term "SEO". ArteWorks SEO is joining the trademark litigation, and it going to be fun laying the smack down on this nobody.

This character, who nobody has ever heard of before, has a name. His name is Jason Gambert. One look at his pathetic website, which I absolutely refuse to link to here, is clearly demonstrative of the absolute pitiful amount of knowledge of SEO this guy has. Take a look at his title tag, which by the way is the only indexable piece of content on the site. It's horrible. Why is there no indexable content on his site? Because it is a Flash site. And this guy claims to be an "SEO".

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has already denied his application at least three times. In his current application, he makes the claim that "SEO" is his rightful trademark and stands for "systems efficient optimization", which is a "process" (as opposed to a service) for the manipulation of keywords and keyphrases, and is not an Internet marketing service. Of course, Gambert contradicts his own application in statements he has made on his personal blog and elsewhere, appealing to the SEO community for support of his application, so that a standardized set of "SEO best practices" can be developed for the benefit of all mankind.

Now wait a minute, Gambert. I thought you said SEO had nothing to do with search engine optimization? Why, then, are you in your personal blog saying that your goal is to create a set of SEO standards? And, by the way, who are you? If anyone is going to be setting SEO standards, it will certainly not be you, a person of whom nobody has ever heard, with no professional reputation, not a single verifiable client (have you ever actually done any SEO for a paying client), and obviously zero SEO knowledge.

Utter hogwash.

The good folks at SEOMoz have already filed their Notice of Opposition with the USPTO, and ArteWorks SEO is in the process of filing its response. The SEOMoz response aptly notes that Gambert's application proposes to trademark the term "SEO" for any and all "computer related services". He claims the first use of the term "SEO" was by him and occured on or about February 14, 2007.

SEOMoz's pleading sheds further light on the arguments against the granting of this preposterous application. It notes that the term "SEO" has been used since the 1990's, and in fact that SEOMoz has been using it since 2003, a good 4 years prior to Gambert's alleged "first use". SEOMoz further elucidates the fact that it appears Gambert has falsified information and engaged in deception regarding his use of the term, including a cooked up logo or icon in which he claims he coined the term "SEO", but which is obviously nothing more than a "phony specimen" which has never been used in commerce and was concocted for the sole purpose of supporting his trademark application.

The SEOMoz Notice of Opposition continues, citing additional problems with the application, providing additional evidence that the term "SEO" has been widely and generically used in the field of SEO (oh wait, am I allowed to say that?), and goes on to describe SEO as a service (not a process as Gambert claims) which is an "essential marketing strategy". SEOMoz lends additional credence to their argument that it is a marketing and not a technological service by elucidating the otherwise-obvious-to-everyone-on-the-planet-but-Gambert fact that SEO is typically paid for out of an organization's marketing budget rather than its technology budget.

What it all boils down to is this - Gambert is trying to make a quick buck by leveraging the right to use the term SEO to only himself and those who he, in his sole discretion, believes meet the standards for SEO "best practices".

As leaders in the SEO industry, ArteWorks SEO is thrilled to join in the fight against this guy. See you in court, my friend.

Read more!

Matt Foster's Interview at SMX

Read more!