Strongwords SEO Blog

Add to my resume and experience: filed reconsideration request and/or other appeal to Google.

I have had a clean record with Google for many years now, survived dances, updates, Panda attacks and (other than technical issues) avoided penalties and problems with the big G, watching traffic grow or at least remain stable for a wide variety of sites I manage. Until now. This week I was hit with a problem, i.e. the Penguin update and I discovered that I may have been the victim of negative SEO.

The Penguin update and my appeal to Google
This week the Penguin update happened, the first update that has ever had a seriously negative effect on sites I manage. And all the sites affected are sites I own. For the record, the Penguin update is meant to weed out web spam. Cool story, bro G. many of us who own affiliate sites and review sites would like to differ. I had a review site drop from 40 visits a day to 0. I had affiliate sites lose anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of their traffic. None of these sites uses spammy tactics but offers a unique user experience that pre-Penguin Google was just fine with.

My favourite site on the web, beerclassifieds.com lost about 40% of its traffic. It dropped rankings for top keywords from 1st to 4th, from 2nd to 7th and more like that. Enough to seriously affect income, not enough to be a true penalty or whack.

So Google offers a form to appeal the Penguin update (You can also sign a petition asking Google to roll it back. I did, for whatever it’s worth.) The form asks you to point out a SERP that has less than ideal results. Below is the appeal I wrote, and I think my complaint is legitimate. (let me reiterate: seriously, a Yahoo Directory page??)

Penguin feedback
This query ["beer antiques" was the one I chose but there were others] is one of several queries related to this site for which this site’s rankings have fallen. I realize that I am coming from the perspective of self-interest. And yet… The listings on google.com are all much less helpful than my site. My site offers helpful information on antique valuations, advice about where to buy, a look at historical context for many collectibles and antiques and it lists actual antiques from (yes, my affiliation with) eBay. (The listings on my site, though, are sorted and sortable and organized based on what people look for in this marketplace, and I believe I have created a very unique, worthwhile user experience with this site.)

The sites ranked above me include (among others) a Yahoo directory page (seriously?), a horrible user experience like this: [site name removed] and a mall in Denver! ([site name removed]) I update my site frequently, engage with social media and otherwise seek to make this a very lively site unlike others that suddenly outrank me now. I have seen other search results where youtube pages and other unhelpful resources also rank above sites of mine that are more relevant to the user’s query (e.g. “paintball sniper rifles.” People are not looking for videos, they are shopping, period). I believe these are all “non-ideal” search results. For my part, I will go back to work and make my sites even better than they already are, but I honestly believe this update needs tweaking. Thank you for listening.

Reconsideration request and negative SEO
I actually filed a reconsideration request last night. I have always prided myself on being strictly white hat. My site cheapfobs.com has a somewhat unfortunately spammy-sounding domain name but it offers comprehensive programming instructions for many, many makes and models of vehicles and it actually lives up to its name of offering the lowest prices online for keyless entry remotes thanks to eBay.

I think my Penguin complaints might be peeing in the wind but I think I have a legit concern here and the traffic graph for this site is crazy wrong. When I looked at the link graph for this site it looks VERY suspicious. But I did nothing to acquire many of the spammy links it has recently acquired.
Here’s a cap of some of the absolutely atrocious-looking domains that now link to my site.

So the wording of my request (for interest’s sake) goes like this:

Dear Google,
I am writing with regard to the site cheapfobs.com to request that you reconsider its rankings and its value to users compared to competing sites in niches it covers. I have checked technical issues and content issues related to this site and nothing has changed drastically in the three years I have owned this site, other than two site outages last summer for which I paid a temporary penalty last fall. After the site was reinstated into SERPs it again dropped off recently, with no technical issues to explain this.

My best guess concerning the problem with this site is that I have been the victim of negative SEO. I realize that sounds disingenuous or dubious perhaps but I have worked very hard to keep this site’s link portfolio very clean. I did buy this site several years ago, but from a publisher who is also very reputable. The link portfolio for the site was entirely from good sites where myself or the previous owner offered links to users to relevant content on cheapfobs.com. There are also article sites and some guest posts, which as far as I understand are part of the norm in today’s web marketing world.

However, in a recent check of the site’s link portfolio I came across many links that appear very spammy. Recently, the site has received a high number of links from Polish and East European websites and domains such as the following:
[bad links listed here]

I did nothing to ask for these links from these horrible sounding domain names! Many of these “links” do not work now but show up in Backlink Explorer, the tool I use to track my profile. I do not know how to remove them but to me they seem like someone has done negative SEO on my site.

I would like to know if anyone has filed a spam report on my site and if this is the reason my site has suffered a big loss in traffic in recent months. If someone has, then I think this is a clear indication of Google Bowling or negative SEO, wherein a competitor has purchased links pointing to my site with the intention of deceiving Google into thinking that I have schemed to get these links. If you think that I have bought these links or someone has reported that I have paid for such spammy links I can only say that I would never do any such thing!

I have a five year history with Analytics and Webmaster Tools. I own several sites and manage content for a number of others and I have always used white hat tactics and coached others to do the same. In fact, many of my sites have a very low number of links because I avoid link penalties out of fear of getting ‘whacked’ (I once long ago worked for a company that was penalized by Google Adwords for arbitrage so I am very paranoid!)

If my site has been manually banned in Google, please consider de-penalizing my site, cheapfobs.com.

Companies starting the long journey of search engine optimization (SEO) have to really take a leap of faith when it comes to investing in SEO. Like many reasonable SEO’s I fully understand that this is painful and that there is uncertainty and insecurity in doing so.

I’m currently working with a number of newer companies who are showing varying degrees of commitment to this process. I can point them to various examples of websites where I took over the SEO and helped them grow traffic but here I’ll offer a fresh look at a case study in SEO investment. This is a broad look at a case that is, in some ways a uniquely successful case (as all successes are) but in other ways typical and even predictable.

The initial approach
This company approached me about two years ago around the middle of 2009 and told me that they were spending X amount of dollars (a mid three figures number) per month on SEO and it wasn’t doing anything for them. Unfortunately, there are many companies and people (let me emphasize unfortunately) who take money in the SEO business without delivering growth or, at least, measurable value in some respect. This company had built some backlinks from some time before but other than that had done little to continue growing traffic to the client’s website.

Every SEO has their own unique strengths
When I looked at the website’s situation, I realized that I could do a lot to grow the site’s traffic through content development. This is an admitted strength of mine (hence the name of this site) and is a focus of mine vs. the focus of many SEO’s which is linkbuilding (while there are still others who, it seems, are questionable as to whether they have any focus).

The work
I took over the site, got to work and started developing content, telling the site owners that if they invested about $1000 per month I would double their search engine traffic in 6 months time: from about 50 visitors per day to 100 for a concentrated niche that was somewhat competitive (for page one results, anyway) and also highly interested. I never quite topped out on this budget as I follow the old adage to under-promise and over-deliver.

Since the company was already investing money in SEO, though, the investment was relatively easy for them.

Here’s a graph of those first six months:

What you see in the graph is that the traffic was basically flat-lined when we commenced work on SEO for this site. (I say ‘we’ because I did work closely with the site’s developer on some critical changes.) During initial work, traffic rose only very slowly, so little that it barely registers on this graph. We could see progress in terms of pages getting indexed and getting some traffic from new keywords.

However, there was no great payoff and we had promised the client that traffic would double within six months. They kept spending the requisite high three figures per month, though. They may have been growing worried, I’m not sure, but I don’t think I was.

What happened was that there was a cumulative effect of activating the site’s development and continuing to add content as well as working with partners to create links into the site, then tweaking the site structure as we went along. All of that work cumulatively added up to an eventual spike in traffic.

And that’s the way it goes.

After this, the site owners felt that the site had grown enough and they were happy with the amount of traffic they were getting for the investment they had put into it. Of course, others like continued growth, although a doubling of traffic every six months is not likely, especially as you start to top out on terms that you can truly rank for and as you run out of content ideas (as happens with sites that are focused on a small industry or consumer niches).

The point in all this, of course, is that your search engine optimization payout is often frontloaded but in the end there is a payoff. It hurts at first but in the end you will enjoy results and from there, clients can decide to continue to grow traffic or simply enjoy the benefits of your investment for a while… as long as your competition stays asleep.

I’ve been working in the Search engine optimization business for over seven years now. And while it is not a complicated business, I am amazed at how much it has continued to grow and also, how often I have heard the phrase “SEO is dead.” Let me say a bunch of things about that.

First, some history…
When I went to my first Search Engine Strategies conference in Toronto in 2005, the Keynote Speaker was Danny Sullivan. He talked about how he was one of the first people to take search seriously. He was critical to the organization of many of the first SES conferences and he was told as early as the late 1990′s that “search engine optimization probably has about three to five years.” Well, by then it was already eight or more years later, he noted, and the crowd at that conference was the biggest yet, as were crowds at all conferences. That was over five years ago. In 2007, Jakob Nielsen said, “I am pessimistic about the long-term prospects for SEO jobs…. but maybe I am wrong.”

And then there’s the old saw, “SEO is dead.” An extremely prophetic fellow from 2008 gets number one ranking for a search for the phrase; according to his post, the industry will be dead by November of this year (right after the rapture?) Recently this other prophet said it again. When Google Caffeine was announced, other (in this case, remarkably badly informed) soothsayers said that this was ‘it’ for SEO; ditto for this year’s Panda I’m sure, although I may have grown blind to seeing the phrase by now, so I don’t remember seeing it in print anywhere. Clickz published this “SEO is Dead” post in 2007 and then went on to proclaim the value of SEO in another article, three years later. The latter article (predictably perhaps) generated more comments, interest and agreement.

Every one of these sage prophets of doom (like all prophets of doom, we might add) has been dead wrong. (Of course, though, being wrong is no reason to stop saying the very same thing again.)

Is SEO here to stay?
Probably, people.

In early 2010, SEMPO announced that companies predicted an SEO spend of 14% increase over what they’d spent in 2009 (long after SEO should have been long dead).

And later in the year, Rand Fishkin released details of his 2010 survey of the industry. The reason it was a bit late was because he got more responses than he ever bargained for. The industry was growing much more than even he realized. One survey question discussed spending and survey results told that even in the US (where outsourcing and a weakened economy should have taken a big bite out of the market), over 70% of respondents indicated an increase in demand for SEO services.

All forecasts for the year 2011 show that search engine optimization and search marketing budgets rule the day for any company serious about getting found on the web. Budgets for SEO (and its close sister SEM) are growing and show no signs whatsoever of slowing down. SEMPO predicts that 2011′s increase over 2010 will be greater again – not just in money but in percentage of growth (16% this time).

In other words, the search engine marketing and search engine optimization industries are still vectoring! After all this time. So where, O death is now thy sting?

Like Rock and Roll, SEO will never die. And here’s why.
All of this reminds me of a feature article I wrote in graduate school about rock and roll music. In the essay I discussed how rock music had been declared ‘dead’ throughout its history (by Don McLean, by The Who and by a lot of other people no one should remember, including Lenny Kravitz). But like Neil Young rebutted, rock and roll will never die. I argued that the reason for this is simple. It’s because the idea is timeless: rebellion, anger, and crashing away on drums and guitars will never, ever go out of vogue permanently. It might change, it might go through some valleys but by the nature of the beast, there will always be a way to renew it. It’s not necessarily tied to a form but to an idea with staying power.

The same holds true for SEO.

Why? Simple: because search will always be done by machines, based on algorithms and there will always be a gap in the logic of the algorithm. And if we’ve learned anything from the Terminator movies, the Matrix and every other movie that explores the Frankenstein complex it is that people are more resilient and adaptable than machines. There will always be a way to game search results for profit. And of course if you didn’t know this, search is never going to go away, either, because people will always be looking for new information.

And when they do they will use a machine that is using an algorithm to search for that information and that algorithm will give privilege to certain qualities of the information and someone somewhere will be gaming that algorithm in order to be seen as the source for that information… because there will be money in it.

And I’ll bet that 20 years from now… 30, 40, 50 years from now, people will be listening to rock music as they use a search engine (I’ll even bet Google, in some form), and someone somewhere will be listening to Neil Young as they do so, and they will be singing along “…There’s more to the picture than meets the eye…”

Update:  Embarrassingly, Leo Laporte said it at PubCon 2011.

Over Christmas break, I updated my list of the top 100 Canadian songs to take into consideration all the feedback I have had over the past year. I think it is much improved. It goes far beyond 100 songs now, which was always much too short a list.

The page now receives over 1000 visits per month, except for this past September when Bob Mersereau released a book with the same name and concept, and Google visits reached over 1000 per day. On Canada Day weekend, the list received over 250 visits from fellow patriots.

I actually put a fair bit of work and research into the update and I think the list of 400+ songs is quite comprehensive.

Comment or offer helpful suggestions on the revised list, below.

“SEO is Dead!” says some link-baiting twit somewhere, once every few weeks.

There are even times I wish it were true.

But SEO is very much alive and well. SEO Moz released results of its industry survey earlier this week, taking longer than usual to do so because they had more reponses than they thought they would, presumably because there are now so many more people doing search engine optimization somewhere, in some capacity.

The results were informative and even infographic!

I took part…. but alas, was not the 1 in 10,000 winner of the iPad.

My wife, Shirley, started a Facebook group that now has over 1900 fans, over 1000 photo uploads and rising all the time. The group is called “My Border Collie is smarter than most of the people I know.” In contrast, I’ve seen many other people try to start Facebook fan pages for their companies or sites with far worse results, while spending a lot more time and resources as well. The difference is that my wife’s group is fun and interesting and creates a community of people who can easily communicate about a subject they love. It’s definitely ‘social’ first, definitely ‘media’ last. She affectionately calls it “my border collie group” but it obviously belongs to a lot of people.

“My border collie group” is smarter than a lot of people I know
Companies I’ve seen will try sending some “social media expert” or a young person (because they “understand” Facebook) to try and set up a Facebook group and get people to join without any idea whatsoever why people would join or like their page, group or company.

And they have little foresight about what might be the effect of people liking the group or becoming a fan. More often than not those people will never ever give the fan page another thought in their lives and will likely delete it if they ever get around to cleaning up their Facebook accounts. This is usually much worse than just a me-too mentality; it’s more like “let’s force this on people and on ourselves regardless of any sense of relevance.”

Social media has to be fun. People get together to have fun. They hardly ever get together to be bored and do nothing together. You need to give people a fun reason to join your group and come to your party.

My wife didn’t set out to create a huge Facebook group. She didn’t even know how much activity would be possible on it when she started it years ago. She just set out to have some fun. Sure enough, people wanted to join in.

Social media “experts” & business
Companies getting involved in social media need to put people first and fun first. There’s very likely something immediately wrong when a bunch of people sit around a boardroom talking about how to get involved in social media. In fact, I can vouchsafe for the fact that there has definitely been something wrong every time I’ve had the misfortune to actually be one of those people.

If you are interested in hiring my wife as a social media person with a good track record of success, don’t bother, I’ve got my eye on her. But I know she has no interest in ever sitting in on one of your boardroom meetings focused on “how to leverage our position in social media.” She’d rather be having fun, I think.

Just to close, here’s an awesome video I once posted to my wife’s group. Why say goodbye when you can say hello. After all, social media is all about being friendly.

added later: There’s a good final pun to be made about old dogs (even though my dog was not that old at the time of this video) and new tricks – but I’m not sure I want to make it. Comment below to add your pun?

added later still: Sadly, Samson (featured below) passed away suddenly in his own home, November 16th.

(Or: something funny happened on the way to getting a backlink)
Backlinks are one of the core weapons in anyone’s SEO arsenal. Like so many webmasters, website owners or search marketing specialists, I have never been a big fan of acquiring backlinks. It’s a genuinely painful process for the most part. And it gets harder all the time to get legitimate backlinks from other sites. They want money (I don’t do this; I’m rightfully scared of Google whacks), they think you should link back to them (nope, same reason). Or you comment or participate in a site that nofollows your link or doesn’t allow the link to be active (I’m looking at you, Yahoo Answers).

In the early days of "hypermedia" relevant content would be easily and freely linked

Recently I answered a question on a forum by pointing the questioner to a site I work for, adding an html link. You know, those things the Web is supposed to be made of? Oddly, the forum’s owners allow links to be active, no questions, no nofollow, no problem. The backlink probably helped the ranking of my client’s site a little… but what else happened was a bit unusual. The link referred scads of traffic to the client’s site. As in, noticeable amounts. In fact, nearly as much as the site currently gets from Google for generic search terms.

Pretty cool.

….But then again that’s what good backlinks are supposed to be really about. I mean, right? If a link is relevant to the rest of the content on the page and useful to the page’s visitors it ought to improve the rank of the page linked to. Right? Yet, I doubt that this is accounted for in Google’s algorithm. A link is either nofollowed or followed and that’s probably as sophisticated as Google gets. I’m speculating but with good reason.

Anyway, what’s sadly surprising is that I’m surprised.

How did we get here, I wonder? How did we get to the point where a backlink that actually directs traffic is noteworthy and out of the ordinary? Why do some sites refuse to allow links that ought to drive web traffic (yep, you again, Yahoo Answers). Is it all Google’s fault for over-determining links and not coming up with a way of better grading them algorithmically?

Maybe.*

But anyway, for now, I’m happy that my client is getting so much traffic from a legitimate link to their site.

Do you honestly think Google grades links algorithmically in terms of how effective they are at driving traffic to the target site? Incorporating things like bounce rate, time on (target) site, etc? How much weight do you think they put on any of those variables versus plain old, easy-to-understand follow vs. nofollow?

*Off topic: but some people who I don’t agree with think that links are bad. (This is a whole other argument, of course.)

We all know how the mobile web has exploded this year and how it is still exploding. Over the past few months I’ve had numerous experiences with and conversations about designing applications and websites for the burgeoning mobile market. Here are four broad ranging insights you can take or leave.

People expect security
Don’t be afraid to create a login for your application or ask mobile users to login. Make this easy (say, ask only for a user name) but protect user security while they are mobile. Mobile usability consultants are sure that users like this or at least don’t mind it.

Don’t worry about iPad applications
The iPad is still running along nicely on all the hype it has had this year but you need an iPad app like you need a hole in your wallet. Seriously, if anyone tells you about their expertise in designing for the iPad, start walking away. Web browsers work fine on the iPad and as long as your website works well on a laptop it will work fine on the iPad.  (Update Oct 27, some confirmation from eMarketer: “mobile device users appear to think browsers offer the better user experience” even beyond the iPad.)

Get listed locally
This ought to be your number one SEO concern when it comes to mobile and it may be the only one you’ll ever need. Most SEO best practices for mobile are the same as they are for desktop but local (e.g. Google Places) has gotta be hu-u-uge for mobile.

If you think about it, there’s every reason to think that Google created local listings partly in anticipation of mobile’s growth. If Google’s local listings are not already generated based on your GPS signal, Google will be rolling this out soon, you can bet.

Quick tip about Google Places: If your company or chain has multiple offices or stores, be sure to list the office or outlet closest to the city centre. There are a number of SEO people who advise that local listings are ranked to some degree based on proximity to city center. I’m not saying this will help your ranking in Google Places but I’m 100% sure it won’t hurt.

One more thing: I’ve had to tell this to a number of people lately: Google Places is free. Free, no cost, I’m 100% sure of that. Oh, and you should also list locally with Bing and any of those other guys, too.

This is a very young demographic
That doesn’t mean you only focus on trendy 2.0 graphics and all that. This means that you understand that this group behaves fundamentally differently in many ways.

They think differently. Here’s one example: younger users are much less likely to want to use a call center and if they do they are going to be ashamed to have to do it. Make help available and make it easy for them to help themselves and figure out how to do it on their own.

Note that a significant portion of this demographic is using their parents’ money. They may need their parents’ approval to buy certain things or do certain things. Figure out how to use this in your mobile site or application without it being intrusive or embarrassing.

Ensure usability if you’re serious
The best way to be sure that your site or application is mobile ready is to hire an experienced mobile usability company

From the search engine that first brought you millions of search results in under a second comes instant results – that is, results that dynamically change as you type. This brings us closer to the ideal of search that many of us have in mind… I mean the ideal that we will never need to search for any information as it will all be (instantly) right in our minds.

That ideal and others (e.g. the Star Trek scenario of being able to yell out at a ‘Computer!’ that waits for us to address it, inside the ceiling) are all still a ways away. Still, it’s an exciting step forward.

Matt Cutts, meanwhile, was quick to add that SEOs will still have jobs (presumably assuring himself simultaneously that there will always be a need for a Google spam cop).

Update: there’s a dev site where you can try Google Instant.

Update (Sept 11, 2010) :It has not yet rolled out to Google.ca but Google.com is Instant.

My opinion? It is freaking cool – and a useful, completely worthwhile improvement.

I’m a busy guy, like many people, and I have not had time to reply to – or even allow – some comments that have been cluttering up my WordPress admin panel. This is, of course, very bad form. So I’ll take this time to reply to some very friendly – often very thankful! – people. I love all the amazingly excellent comments people submit to my site. Really, I do.

Here goes.

Hellen Domingue wrote to me a while back to say, “I must say that by and large I am really happy with this web site. After reading your post I can tell you are educated about your writing. Looking forward to future posts. Thanks!”

Why thank you, Hellen. I’m glad my website makes you really happy. It makes me happy, too. But I’ve posted lots since the post you commented on and you have not returned once. Is everything alright? Because I was looking forward to more of your pointlessly effusive, amazingly valuable comments.

Someone with the terribly unfortunate name of Viagra wrote: “Hello thanks for this tips viagra”

Um, Viagra, ever thought of changing your name to something less embarrassing? You must get teased about that a lot. Or is that a stage name – like Madonna or Beyonce? If so, you may want to rethink.

Or wait, are you calling me Viagra?

Another commenter, Best Registry Cleaner, said about SEO Successes in Recent Months: “thanks for this great post wow… it’s very wonderful”

Thank you, Best Registry Cleaner. However, I have to say that your comment was not all that wonderful.

There are so many more, and I really don’t have time to reply to everyone. Just a couple, though.

How to Get Pregnant wrote to say “Thank you for this useful information.I will share it with my friends.I have done bookmarked it.”

Thank you for writing, How to Get Pregnant. Since we are talking like yokels… I’ve done deleted your comment.

And by the way, How to get pregnant? Really? Don’t they teach that in elementary school now?

Finally, Cheap mbt shoes wrote to me a while back, to say, “I like that you think. Thank you for share very.”

Thanks for writing, Cheap! I like that you comment (Now go get lost very).

Comment spammers, please leave your stupid comments below. Since this post is about stupid comment spam…. i am going surely allow your comment idea is very good.and i will truly link to your very interesting blog post and to bookmark your nice website for good information future!

P.S. Legitimate comments are always welcome!