Squidbits – Greekgeek's Squidoo Blog Rotating Header Image

October, 2011:

Google Is Now Hiding Our Keyword Traffic

So, last week, the SEO industry was abuzz with Google's October 18 announcement that it would no longer report visitors' search queries in any of its tools IF the visitors doing the search were logged into Google.

Say what? Let me show you.

BEFORE THIS CHANGE (this is an actual example from my own content):

  • A user searches the web for "where can I find a pet sea hare?" and lands on my page.
  • Google records the "where can I find a pet sea hare" query in its tools and sends it to Squidoo stats
  • I see in my Squidoo stats "where can I find a pet sea hare?" brought a visitor
  • Amused, I do the research and find some C. aplysia suppliers and add them to my sea hare  fanpage in hopes that info will be useful (or at least entertaining) to future visitors.
NOW:
  • A user searches for "where can I find a pet sea hare?" and lands on my page.
  • Google's webtools record the search as ("not provided")
  • Squidoo doesn't report the search query in its traffic stats. (In fact, it may not even know that's a visit... I can't tell, but my visits have suddenly dropped on my Squidoo dashboard stats without a corresponding drop in Google Analytics).
  • I don't know what my readers are interested in, want to know, or need me to clarify.
In this case, it's a one-time query that won't tell me much. But how about more common queries? Looking at Google Analytics, the third most common search phrase people use to find my content is now listed as "not provided," so I no longer know what hundreds of my visitors are looking for, and I can no longer respond as effectively to what my readers want.

Again, Google claims this is to protect users' privacy. However:

  • Search queries don't tell me who is doing the searching. They're like words shouted from the back of the room, except you can't hear the voices. So this doesn't protect privacy.
  • The only search queries Google is concealing are those from logged-in Google members. It's a protection racket: "Join Google, and we won't spy on you!"
  • EXCEPT that Google still shares all the search query data with its paying advertisers, which is why the SEO industry is rife with articles like Google Puts a Price on Privacy and Google Invests in Privacy For Profit .
  • And speaking of privacy, Google is NOT concealling referrer data -- where the visitor comes from -- which is more private than search queries.
If  Google said they were going to start charging for valuable data they've hitherto given away for free, that wouldn't annoy me, but these self-righteous claims of protecting user privacy offend me.

Some parts of the internet are gloating about this, because they consider all SEO to be dirty tricks, and they have swallowed Google's white lie that this change will help protect users' privacy. But I was using that data to improve my content for my readers. And see Matt Cutts' video from this week:

Matt Cutts: "Does Google Consider SEO to be Spam?"

Well, at least that's a little reassuring.

I am also concerned about how Squidoo is handling this change. If Google isn't reporting a significant number of search queries to Squidoo's traffic stats, does Squidoo still count them as visits? This impacts Lensrank.  Yes, Google claims the cloaked data represent only a fraction of visits, but on the other hand, it's everyone logged into Google from, say, Gmail, YouTube, Picasa, Reader, Google Plus, or a ton of other Google services. My third-most-common search query is now cloaked, and you can bet a bucketload of long-tail queries are (Analytics only gives me my top 500 queries, and one of my top lenses used to get more than 500 unique queries a week).

This change will also impact Hubpages and other sites that rely on Google's API to report keywords that brought visitors to your site.

2011 Google Quality Raters Guidelines (Oops!)

Google did something wrong. I did something wrong. Yet I believe that good will come of this. Let's recap what happened with the 2011 Google Quality Raters Guidelines:

  • Step 1: I see a post in the Squidoo forums noting that Potpiegirl (aka Jennifer Ledbetter, WAHM affiliate marketer) ha a new post up about Google.
  • Step 2: I read Jennifer's lengthy (and fairly useful) post on How Google Makes Algorithm Changes.
  • Step 3: I notice that Jennifer's post links to Google's 2011 Quality Raters Handbook.
  • Step 4: Classics major training kicks in: Wait, hang on, is this real? Is this legitimate? Why aren't the major SEO websites like searchengineland, seomoz and seobook salivating over this carcass like a pack of rabid hyenas circling a dying zebra?
  • Step 5: I share the tip with SearchEngineLand, asking if the document is legitimate. Barry Schwartz seems to think so and posts about it.
  • Step 6: Lots of people download the 2011 Quality Raters Handbook.
  • Step 7: Google contacts Barry Schwartz and asks him to take down SEL's mirror of the document. Google also contacts PotPieGirl and asks her to remove the link from her blog.
  • Step 8: Too late: the guidelines have gone viral. As a result, various SEO bloggers and experts discuss ways to make content more relevant and useful. (There, Google, was that so bad?)

I owe Jennifer an apology for tipping without thinking. Hopefully the amount of traffic that has landed on her blog as a result of this offsets the inconvenience of having to delete that link. I also feel guilty for my part in spreading the leak, but I honestly think that having the Quality Rater Guidelines out there will encourage people to focus more on the quality of their content, which is not a bad thing.

So, well, Mea culpa. Now, what are these Quality Rater Guidelines? Simply, they are the rating system that Google beta testers use to test, refine, and improve Google's automated algorithm. They are not the algorithm itself. But in order to create a computer algorithm which can detect and rank sites relevant to a given search query, Google first needs to know which sites real people judge to be the best ones for a given search query.

The reason these raters guidelines are useful to us is that they give us some idea what Google considers "quality content." I can't talk too specifically about what's in the guidelines, but here are three takeaway lessons:

  • The rating system is based on relevance to a topic. Content is king, but relevance is queen. And "relevance" here means "gives the searcher what they wanted when they typed in that search." Is a site absolutely THE go-to place for a particular search query? It wins. Is a site incredibly relevant for that query, satisfying most people who search for it? It ranks pretty well. Does the site only have some relevant content, or is it from a less trustworthy source? That's going to lose points. If it's only slightly relevant, fuggeddaboudit.
  • Google defines webspam as anything designed to trick search engines into getting more traffic. So while backlink spamming, keyword stuffing, or other sneaky tricks may work for a while, sooner or later, Google will tweak its algorithm to negate those practices. If you're doing something only for search engines, it's probably not worth doing it (save, perhaps, making your content structured, organized and clear enough for search engines to comprehend it). If you're doing something that really is for your readers, hopefully, long-term, you'll win.
  • Google doesn't define all affiliate marketing as spam or "thin" content, but it's extra wary of affiliate marketing. Raters are told to watch out for warning signs like a product review on one page that sends people to buy things on another domain entirely, suggesting the review is there to benefit the reviewer (with commissions) not the visitor. If you're doing affiliate marketing, you have to create relevant content that is useful to your readers — price comparisons, pros and cons, your own photos of the product in use, etc. If you only excerpt/quote customer reviews and info from the site selling the product, then your page has provided nothing of value to the reader that cannot be found on the original product page. That's thin, that's shallow, and it's asking for Google to bury your page so far down in search results that no one sees it.

In sum, Google is trying its best to design an algorithm that rewards pages which are useful to readers and relevant to the search query.  Over time, the algorithm gets more and more successful in doing this (we hope). So, if you want your pages to rank well on Google, take a page from Kennedy:

Ask not what search traffic can do for your webpage, but what your webpage can do for search traffic.

 

UPDATE: I discuss this topic a little more here: Google's "Quality Content" Guidelines: Do You Make the Cut?

Resizing Images for Amazon Associates, Squidoo, Zazzle

I experiment with different ways of using images, because they get clicked even when they're decorative. (And there's nothing like a visually intriguing thumbnail to get people clicking -- they want to see it full-sized).

When you grab a basic Amazon Associates "image" code, you get something like:

There's an easy -- well, fairly easy -- way to resize Amazon graphics, up to whatever size the original product image is that's stored on Amazon. (Any larger than the original, and it gets fuzzy.)

(more...)

Bing Still Uses the Meta Keywords Tag!

Uh, oh! Bing still uses the META keywords tag!

META tags. Gotta love 'em. They are pesky bits of HTML code hidden on (some) webpages to give information about each page. Ten years ago, search engines consulted META tags to help them learn what search phrases each page was relevant for. Then people started manipulating META tags to try and convince search engines their pages were the best pages for particular topics by virtue of their META tags saying so. Search engines wised up to this elementary trick (or went bust).

Not that META tags are completely, utterly, totally dead. On rare occasions, Google still uses the META description tag as the page excerpt it quotes in search results. That is, if there's not a better and more appropriate quote that fits the search query better.

The META keywords tag, however, was buried several years ago, when even Yahoo/Bing apparently had abandoned it. Keywords as in...

<META name="keywords" content="spam, spam and eggs, spam and bacon, spam spam spam and bacon, and oh hey bing this is the greatest webpage ever on spam, so let me repeat the word spam a few more times, spam spam, spam, spammity spam">

Squidoo fills in the META keywords tag on each lens with your Squidoo tags, by the way. It's quaint that way.

However — wait! Stop the presses! Our old friend Danny Sullivan has checked with Bing and discovered that Bing still uses the META keywords tag as a signal! 

 

Woo!

 

Whee!

 

Ha!

(more...)

Rel="me" Rel="author" UPDATE for Squidoo lensmasters

I just got a note from Gil on my Rel="author" Squidoo tutorial. (Thanks, Gil!)

The slots on our Squidoo Profile for "other profiles" (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace) are now labeled with rel="me" automatically. So is the "My Blog" slot.

More importantly, Squidoo has now added a slot on our lensmaster profile for a link to "Google Plus" (which will work just fine for a regular Google profile account as well). This link is automatically marked with rel="me" in the code.

Therefore, in order to connect your Squidoo lenses to your Google profile, the process is now:

  1. Create a Google Profile
  2. Edit your Google Profile, add a link to your Squidoo Lensmaster Page in the "Other Profiles" box
  3. View your Google profile and copy its URL
  4. On Squidoo, go to My Settings > Profile, scroll down, and paste your Google Profile URL into the "Google Plus" box
  5. Save, and you're done!
(You don't have to fuss with rel="author" at all, because the bio box in the upper right corner of lenses automatically creates rel="author" from each lens to your lensmaster profile page.)

P.S. Remember those slots in our Squidoo Profile that we haven't been able to access since the Dashboard update? They're editable again!

Making Money Online: Coincidental vs Direct Sales

Squidoo, Hubpages and Wizzley users make money through ad revenue and affiliate commissions. Many of us who come to these sites with basic writing skills are shy about sales lenses. We take a pussyfooting approach instead: we write on something we love, and include links to products that might interest our audience.

I call this second approach coincidental sales:  you're not writing a product review, just hoping that visitors will stop what they're doing (reading your article) to buy. Obviously, this isn't quite as effective as the direct sales approach, but there are ways to tweak it.

Coincidental Sales

My very first two reliable sales lenses were my   Thoth article, an essay on Egyptian mythology, which I'd divided up with some Amazon product thumbnails more as visual decoration than to sell anything, and my "How to take your pet on a plane" article, where I included a spotlight on a particular pet product I use.

In the former case, I learned that you can break sales modules "best practices" -- a keyword-rich header or caption for search engines, a large picture and personalized review for people -- if the textless thumbnail images are so puzzling, intriguing, or provocative that people tend to click on them. Another excellent example is posters or signs that obviously have funny captions, but are slightly too small to read. I shamelessly use a block of Zazzle "demotivational posters" on my Funny Signs lens for exactly this reason. (I don't get many Zazzle sales, but at least I get clickouts). People click images. Surprisingly, they even click images which are decorative elements on the page. Getting them to Amazon is like getting people inside a department store — it won't guarantee a sale, but it's a start. And again, on Squidoo, clickouts boost lensrank.

The second lens I mentioned above, the "pets on a plane" lens, was useful in that it showed me there was a market for a particular product. Multiple "coincidental" purchases of the same product meant I should break the lens off and create an actual sales lens devoted to that product.

Direct Sales

Direct sales lenses, however, are more powerful. People use the web to buy things. Don't be embarrassed to help them. After all, you search the web to buy things all the time yourself, correct? If you provide useful, actionable information that can help someone find what they're looking for, then you've earned your pay more than half those folks wearing orange, green or blue aprons in big box retail stores.

With sales lenses, you have to:

  • Identify the product in the opening sentence, or declare what kinds of products your page covers.
  • Establish yourself as trustworthy and knowledgeable. Polished prose helps.
  • Stay brief, focused, and to the point. They want information to help them decide whether to make a purchase. Give them that information. Don't give them something else.
  • "Talk benefits, not features." The most valuable lesson I've learned on sales is that people want to know what's in it for them, not how many whoosiwhatsits it has.
  • Use crisp, eye-catching graphics, if you can.
  • Don't go overboard. Less is more. People who are shopping are in a hurry; they don't want to plow through more than they absolutely must. So you don't have to be exhaustive and comprehensive. Just give them the most useful benefits, the most important points. (You might do this at the top of the lens, with a spotlight, and then go in more depth for those who pass the first big shiny BUY button without committing.)
  • There is nothing wrong with having a BUY button near the top of the page for those who make their minds up quickly, and another at the end after you've covered it in more depth.

I am learning to create two kinds of sales lenses.

"Best Of X" or "Top Five/Ten X"

You're not just pushing them to buy, buy, buy. You are serving as a concierge, researching all the products of a certain kind (Digital SLR cameras, e.g.) and presenting your recommendations for the top five or ten. Basically, you're being a one-person Consumer Report, saving your readers time and effort by helping them find the product that will best suit their needs.

In this case, you start by saying you're going to review the best [cameras, kitchen utensils, cars, books, dog breeds, software, or other thingies] for X, Y, and Z. Say this right in the first sentence. You need to tell people the page has what they're looking for. Then deliver on that promise. Be brief, but personable. Show you know what you're talking about. (Polished writing helps.) Link to products that also have good customer reviews; if they don't, you've got the wrong product. Go beyond Amazon customer reviews to the web at large -- heck, do look at Consumer Report, and other sites too -- to learn what you can about the products. You don't want to overwhelm; your readers are in a hurry and want a few facts (or features), not an essay. You don't want to lift reviews or copy from anywhere; write in your own words. But research and learn so you can give good info.

"My Review of X"

When I'm stumped for what to write on, I prowl the house looking for things I like, and then review them. My own photos are a powerful message (I hope) saying, "Look, I use this. I know what I'm talking about."

Again, start the article by saying what you're covering. What's in it for your reader? They've come to find out about the Widgetbat XT 3000, not your feelings on widgetbats in general. Use the product name -- brand, model, number -- in the page title and URL, if possible, to attract the precise people who want to know about that product before buying it. They're researching it.

Again, give them more than they'll find in Amazon reviews, otherwise there's no reason for them to read your page as opposed to going straight to Amazon. I list features, what I use it for or like it for, pros and cons.  I highlight the main product in  an Amazon Spotlight.

I also give a few alternates below for people to make their own comparisons. "Other products like this." I include shorter blurbs on them.

 

Three notes on Rel="me", Rel="author" (They work!)

EDIT: DRAT. I spoke too soon. Google has changed how rel="author" works, and try as I might, I can no longer get it to recognize authorship with Squidoo pages. Or at least, Google's snippet validator isn't recognizing it.

-----

 

Three notes on rel="me" and rel="author," which I talked about last month.

  • It WORKS with an ordinary Google Profile, as opposed to a Google+ profile, if you're annoyed with Google+ for various reasons. Here's a screenshot of some Google results showing my author icon, linked to an ordinary Google account not Google Plus. (Alll the way at the bottom, but at least it draws the eye). Ignore the cache on the right... or don't, because as you see, it's one more way users may decide whether or not to visit your page:

Notice how the author icon  makes my link stand out from other text links on the same page, although perhaps I ought to create and add a "how to" YouTube video  as well to see if I can land in that section of Google results.

  • Your author icon will not appear next to your claimed content immediately. Over time, more and more content pages are showing my author icon. For search results that do not show my authorship icon, my author name is not listed either. This suggests that the author icon appears next to authored content AFTER it is re-crawled. 

Therefore, to get the author icon to show up on your older articles, edit and tweak the content, and PING them (on Squidoo, get SquidUtils' Workshop Add-on and then click "ping" on the SU link that appears in the "Just published" page. Or just wait. Google re-crawls everything eventually.

Haven't implemented rel=me on Squidoo yet? Here's that tutorial again.

  • Thirdly, Google has CHANGED the way links are listed on your Google Profile. They've now been divided into "Other Profiles," "Contributor to" and "Recommended Links." The first one, "Other Profiles," is obviously where you put your Squidoo, Wizzley, Twitter, Facebook and other social media accounts. But what about blogs? I tried moving my blog-links to "Contributor to," and it dropped rel="me"  and tagged those links with rel="contributor-to" instead. That doesn't seem right. I'm still trying to figure out where one files blogs.

I think, perhaps, the best thing to do would be to create an Author Profile page on each blog where you are an author, set the other pages/entries on the site to point to that profile page with rel="author," and set up reciprocal rel="me" links between the author profile and your Google profile. In other words, mimic the rel="author" and rel="me" setup that I've suggested with Squidoo, which we know works (see screencap above). But I haven't implemented this yet, so I'm not sure I'm right. Why is it so bally complicated? Well, I'm sure we'll be doing it with our eyes closed just like basic HTML in a few years.

Alas, Google Toolbar Pagerank is NOT Dead

Ding, Dong the --
Oh DAGNABBIT."

-- Twittersphere all a-flutter over (exaggerated) rumors of Google Toolbar Pagerank's demise.

Alas no. What happened is Google changed the URL where it stored Toolbar Pagerank, so most 3rd party tools aren't displaying it.

Google itself has been trying to kill Google Toolbar Pagerank since 2007, but like a zombie, Toolbar Pagerank keeps lurching around the web, a macabre and thin caricature of actual, true, living Pagerank which is never revealed.

Toolbar Pagerank haunts us. Yes, I've actually looked at a Pagerank checking tool within the last month to get a sense of Hubpages vs. Squidoo Pagerank and see which of my lenses or hubs rank (I've got a fair number of toolbar Pagerank 4 to 6 lenses on Squidoo, so far none on HP, but so what)?

Here's why it's silly that I checked:

Google Toolbar Pagerank and the ACTUAL Pagerank Google uses to rank pages are not the same.

Toolbar Pagerank is updated every few weeks (or months). It is not stored in the same place as the Pagerank that Google uses to calculate search results, which is recalculated far more frequently. This is to prevent gaming the system, so that SEOers can't reverse-engineer Pagerank and discover exactly what factors Google uses to order search results. (Source: "Why You Shouldn't Rely on Toolbar Pagerank")

Intersting tidbits about Pagerank from SEO-theory:
Matt Cutts stated that Real Pagerank is calculated several times a day, and it's not just a (logarithmic) scale of 1 to 10. it's got a lot more degrees to it. This suggests that it may not be 100% the same algorithm as Toolbar Pagerank. Matt Cutts says: “…At Google you’ve got full access to the raw values, so I rarely look at the truncated histograms of stuff.”

And by the way, it's not called Pagerank as in "the rank of a webpage." It's named after Larry Page, CEO of Google, who co-pioneered the original algorithm (here it is, from 1998). But of course, Pagerank is nothing like it was 13 years ago, any more than the web is.

More recently, Google has talked about 200+ ranking factors used to determine the order of search results. That 200+ ranking factors was stated several years before we had heard of Google Panda, and (see link above) those factors are constantly being tweaked/changed. In the past two years, social media data has entered the equation, for example.

Google Panda 2.5 Winners & Losers

No time for a detailed post, but I wanted to recommend this link partly so I can find it later when I update my own page on Hubpages, Squidoo and Panda:

Google Panda 2.5 Winners & Losers

Supposedly, Hubpages has regained a lot of its traffic. Quantcast shows it's still down from pre-Panda, and I have seen scattered complaints from some members that their traffic hasn't recovered.

There is the uncomfortable possibility that Google has decided their content as "shallow" and downgraded it on a subdomain-by-subdomain basis. That would account for overall traffic increase but still not to the levels there was before Panda started dinging shallow content.

Many of those who lost traffic feel their content is excellent, unique, and original, and it doesn't deserve to be penalized any more than Daniweb. Are they right, or... in the view of average web users, rather than those of us on the inside of the fishbowl, are those pages spammy, shallow or  just not something most of the web would be interested in reading?

It would be an interesting exercise to examine a sample of Hubages profiles: which members say their traffic has returned, which say theirs remains flatlined. Are there any particular features that the "winner" hubs have in common, or that the "losers" do?

Stay tuned for your next big bad Panda.