2 New sites for your SEO bookmarks

YouTube for web marketers

First up is a new multimedia site for internet marketers called – IM Broadcast

This site was created by Loren Baker of Search Engine Journal and a few of my pals, Dave Snyder and Jordan Kasteler from the firm Search and Social. For the launch last Friday they live streamed their conference – Scary SEO.

Follow me ;

User; theGypsy (of course)
MyVid Favs; Gypsy’s videos
My Group; SEO Geeks

I was lucky enough to be an early beta-tester and have signed on to be a moderator for the next while. If you want to give reading a rest and watch SEO goodiness, be sure to join up.

The SEO Search Engine

Another new treasure I wanted to pass along is a vertical search engine for the SEO community named; Search SEO Pros.

This website is simply a collection of Google Custom Search Engines that were put together by yours truly. We thought a dedicated search engine for search optimizers and enthusiasts was needed and set about loading some up.

Jam packed with some of the best resources on the web today; Search SEO Pros is your first stop when researching your search needs. It is actually 4 search engines in one covering expert blogs, video and even the search engines themselves (Google Blog, Yahoo and more).

So be sure to bookmark Search SEO Pros – you’ll be glad you did ;0)

Popularity: 67% [?]

Leave a Comment & We’ll Donate $1 To Fight Poverty

Wednesday October 15th is “Blog Action Day: Poverty” and so far 11,211 blogs/websites have participated in this massive awareness campaign, including your friends here at Site-Reference. We hope you can join us! Simply post a comment below and Site-Reference will donate $1 (per comment) to Kiva.org.

What is Kiva and why are we supporting it?

Well, a lot of us here are self-starters and while we’ve worked hard, we were given opportunities the majority of the world’s population simply don’t have.
You know, little things like quality education, the proper infrastructure (access to the computers, internet, etc), and most importantly financing. No matter what, it takes $$$ to make $$$. Whether its a few bucks to keep you fed while you get going, or a few million to create the next great piece of software, all entrepreneurs need some money to start with.

With Kiva, fortunate entrepreneurs such as us are able to make small loans to those in the developing world that can then turn them into profitable businesses and sustain themselves, their families and in some cases their communities over the long run. And the best part- once these loans are repaid they go to help the next guy/girl.

For more on Kiva checkout their page here: http://www.kiva.org So if you’re reading this- leave a comment- it’s the least you can do and we’ll donate $1 to Kiva.

Or if you have more than the 2 seconds it takes to leave a comment, get involved yourself at Kiva.org or go help out that charity you’ve always told yourself you’d get involved with.

On Monday Ocotber 20th, we’ll tally up all the comments and we will make our donation at that time.

Many thanks for your continued support, Nic, Dave and the Site-Reference crew

Popularity: 79% [?]

Yahoo and Microsoft at it Again?

After publicly claiming that they were through dealing with Yahoo! and had pulled all deals off the table, Microsoft would neither confirm nor deny that they had started talking to them again. This is tantamount to admitting that they are, since the ‘no comment’ stance is different than the ‘we’re through, period’ stance.

In the convoluted mess that this whole saga has become, I suppose nothing should surprise us. So eager was Yahoo! to ward off stockholder revolts and stay independent of Microsoft that they signed on with Google to use Google’s search advertising platform. This is stunning for two reasons:

1. The likelihood of this passing regulatory scrutiny is low (unless they know something that I don’t), since together Yahoo! and Google combined would control over 80% of the online advertising market.
2. Yahoo is basically admitting that their $1.63 billion purchase of Overture in 2003 (and all the subsequent R&D dollars that have gone into the ad-serving platform since then) were all for naught.

Item #2 is particularly interesting, since Overture, and subsequently Yahoo, had a huge head start in the paid search space. Adwords Select, the first pay-per-click model from Google, launched in 2002, while GoTo (the former name of Overture) launched four years earlier. What a message for Yahoo! to send to the world – we just aren’t as bright as those Google guys, and we’ve given up trying to be.

I wouldn’t want to be in Jerry Yang’s shoes right now…

Popularity: 13% [?]

“SEO” Trademarked?

Could SEO companies soon lose the right to call themselves SEO companies? If a man named Jason Gambert has his way, the answer is yes.

Mr. Gambert claims in his application (which was rejected several times before finally being accepted for publication) that SEO is defined as a “process”, and not a service. Thus, he is claiming that he has the right to trademark it as a service. SEO as a “process” would remain free for general use, not that it would matter.

The only problem he faces is that SEO has indeed been a service for over ten years, and thousands of companies can demonstrate prior use of the mark as a service (including my own). The chances of him actually getting the trademark are close to nil.

On his blog, Mr. Gambert claims that he is trademarking the term for the good of the industry, and that he will enforce certain standards that companies will have to meet in order to use the term “SEO”. To which the industry replied “Who the hell is Jason Gambert, and what are his qualifications?” The answer to this question has yet to be answered, but many doubt his claimed altruism and believe that ultimately, it’s about the money that can be made by licensing the term.

Even if his stated plans are true, good intentions have no bearing on whether or not a trademark is granted. It’s my understanding that many opposing documents have already been filed, and it will then be up to Mr. Gambert to answer to people that have a much more legitimate claim to the term than he does.

For a detailed history of this saga, please visit http://www.seomoz.org/blog/pulling-a-fast-one-a-clever-internet-marketer-is-trying-to-trademark-seo

Popularity: 11% [?]

Optimizing for Personalized Search

iGoogle get’s social

Seems that the fine folks at Google are stepping a little closer to the world of social media/networking after opening up a sandbox for iGoogle developers (as reported today on GoogleSystem and Search Engine Land). For those not yet familiar with iGoogle, it is a personalized Home page for Google that one gets when creating an account on many of their services. Looks like this (also multiple tabs);

The iGoogle service was by far the fastest growing service last year and this should continue that growth pattern over 2008 and beyond. This addition of a social element ensures that.

Where’s the beef?

So, what does social goodiness have to do with SEO you ask? Simple, it will also mean a greater number of Google users, if they know it or not, will be logged into Google’s personalized search. That in turn means that those of us in the search engine optimization game should be certain we’re familiar with the differences in optimizing for it.

Personalized search, in essence, tries to get to know the end user based on their actions and interactions with the search results they are served. The search engine will look at a variety of signals such as;

1. Previous search queries (probabilistic query refinement); As an example; if the searcher has been recently searching the term ‘diabetes’ and submits a query for ‘organic food’ the system attempts to learn and presents additional results relating to organic foods that are helpful in fighting diabetes.
2. Previously presented results (may be omitted in subsequent queries); results that have been presented to the end user can be omitted in future results for a given period of time in exchange for other potentially viable results.
3. User query selection (and flagging of similar content); Past selected or preferred documents can be analyzed and similar documents or linking documents can be used to refine subsequent results. Furthermore, certain documents types can be seen as preferred, in what would be a combination of Universal Search concepts. Common websites that accessed can also be tagged as ‘preferred locations’ for further weighting.
4. Selection and Bounce rates (and user activity on document/site); an editorial scoring can be devised from the amount of time a user spends on a page, the amount of scrolling activity, what has been printed, or even what has been saved or bookmarked. All can be used to further refine the ‘intent’ and ‘satisfaction’ with a given result that has been accessed.
5. Advertising Activity (performance metrics); the advertisements clicked on can also begin to add to a clearer understanding of the end users preferences and interests.

Time to get personal

These types of signals, known as user performance metrics, bring new concerns for the search optimizer and have the potential to change how we approach our efforts. If each person has slightly different result rankings, the goal will become more about over-all traffic generation and conversions more than merely trying to rank top 10. Google has even recently discussed using such engagement metrics in the regular, non-personalized results.

If you’re unfamiliar with the ramifications of personalized search be sure to check out our handy publication (PDF); the Ultimate Guide to Google’s personalized Search.

And get hooked up to the RSS feed for more on this topic in the future.

More on Personalized Search;

Join the discussions on the forum

Popularity: 11% [?]

Google to Unload Performics

Google announced late last week that they would unload the search engine marketing component of Performics, although they will consolidate the affiliate marketing component of the business into their own offerings.

In a statement, Google said:

It’s clear to us that we do not want to be in the search engine marketing business. Maintaining objectivity in both search and advertising is paramount to Google’s mission and core to the trust we ask from our users. For this reason, we plan to sell the Performics search marketing business to a third party. We believe this will allow us to maintain objectivity and the search marketing business to continue to grow and innovate and serve its customers. While we have not yet identified a buyer, we’ve received preliminary interest from a number of our current partners. Search Marketing will continue to run as a separate entity until the division is sold.

Of course, this is welcome news to search marketers, even though many of us still feel that the whole issue was handled poorly.

I must admit that I do not understand all of the intricacies of closing a huge acquisition, and there may be several reasons that would have led Google to stay mum on the issue until the approval of the DoubleClick deal by the EU. Perhaps it is bad form to talk about what you will do with a company before you have made certain you will acquire it.

This still wouldn’t explain the FAQ on the acquisition that was put out by Google in April of last year:

What will Google do with Performics?

Performics is part of DoubleClick, and we are acquiring it as part of the transaction. We have no plans to dispose of it at this time.

This was shortly thereafter changed to read:

They have built a strong business that is valued by their clients, and we will be evaluating all strategic alternatives for this business. We are committed to continuing to meet the needs of Performics clients, and we expect no interruption in service during this transition. Google has many important agency, SEM, and other partner relationships, and we continue to value those relationships.

So maybe my idea that it is bad form to discuss the future of a company you have not yet acquired is wrong. Or maybe amending the original statement was necessary damage control after “important agency, SEM, and other partner relationships” raised hell about the prospect of competing with Google.

In either case, Google ultimately did the right thing, and I should probably get over it already.

Popularity: 10% [?]

And Then There Were Two?

Back when my company started in the search engine optimization business, there were a veritable bevy of search sites that all vied for market share (anyone remember Altavista? FAST? Excite?).

Over the years, Google has emerged as the consistent leader, with an ever-increasing lead over its main rivals.  It is now followed in market share by Yahoo, MSN, AOL (which doesn’t really count, since it serves up Google results), and, finally, Ask.com.

However, two things happened in the past few weeks that could reduce the number of search engines with any significant market share from four to two.

First of all, Microsoft offered an unsolicited bid to buy Yahoo.  The Yahoo board has rejected the offer amount, saying that it severely undervalues the company.  However, the issue will probably eventually go to a proxy vote, in which Microsoft may be able to seat its own board of directors, making the deal a fait accompli. 

There is a possibility that the two search engines would still operate as independent entities even after a Microsoft takeover, but that’s not really Microsoft’s style.  The fiscal gains to be realized by laying off an entire research staff and employing only one search technology (probably Yahoo’s, since it is widely regarded as more advanced) are too tempting to ignore.  This is all mere speculation, but it also would seem that if Microsoft really wants to compete with Google, they will try to do so using one uniform technology and touting it as superior.

Yahoo’s board recently delayed the proxy vote by a couple of weeks (analysts speculated that this time period was probably all that shareholders would stand for).  But after flirting with a few other companies, they recently met with Microsoft executives to hear Microsoft’s vision of Yahoosoft (or is it Microhoo?).

So that scenario would likely take us down to three major engines.

And then Ask.com seemed to raise the white flag.  After a serious effort to compete head to head with Google (remember the commercials touting “The Algorithm”?) Ask.com recently announced that they would be laying off 40 people (roughly 8% of their workforce) and targeting a specific type of user.  It was falsely reported in USA Today and other publications that Ask was exclusively targeting the female housewife market, although company execs have acknowledged that they would begin tailoring their engine to their existing user base and stop trying to be all things to all people (which Google does fairly well, but that’s neither here nor there).  One thing is for certain – Ask is trying to carve out a niche for itself and no longer compete head to head with Google.  Another certainty – the butler didn’t do it.  He’s been dead for over two years.

Which may take us down to two major players in search.  Once people begin recognizing Google as the major corporation that it is (as they already acknowledge Microsoft), would there be room for a smaller, hipper, “anti-establishment” search player to hit the scene and make some noise? Things are definitely getting interesting.

Popularity: 8% [?]