Squidbits – Greekgeek's Squidoo Blog Rotating Header Image

November, 2011:

'Tis The Season -- For Sales Research

Nov 25th, 2011
by Greekgeek.
No comments yet

You should get holiday shopping lenses done now, because Google has been favoring fresh content more than ever, lately. (Of course, last month would've been better, to make sure it got indexed in time.)

Regardless, this is the time to gather data about what your visitors are buying. On Squidoo, click the $$$ tab on the dashboard to sort your lenses by recent affiliate sales. Right-click the "Stats" button under each lens with $$$ commissions, choose "open link in a new [browser] tab," then click Squidoo's "Royalties" tab to see what items were bought from that lens.

Create new articles targeting similar kinds of products, which evidently you can sell because you've already did sell some!

But wait— remember my little riffs about coincidental sales versus direct sales? Direct sales come from a review or "best of" list you wrote in which you featured the product. Coincidental sales come from articles you wrote for another purpose — a How To article or a tutorial, for example, where you featured books related to your topic or included the materials used in a crafts project.

It's the coincidental sales you want to look for. You already have lenses to sell the direct sale products, so you don't need to make another. But if you accidentally sold toothbrushes on a lens about hairbrushes, maybe you should make a toothbrushes lens.

There is actually a spectrum between direct sales and coincidental sales, because people often click on a product review, go to the online retail website, and wind up buying something else entirely.

Consider creating lenses on "I went to buy X but bought Y instead" products.

Of course, you'll have to use your judgment. There's many things that one visitor will buy that no one else will buy — that's the beauty of the long tail. But it's time to examine all your sales and see if you detect any patterns (similar kinds of purchases) or any really good ideas for product reviews. New lenses may not get out in time for this holiday season, but at least you'll have them for later.

(And yes, I can hear you saying: "but if I publish them now, and they aren't indexed in time for the holiday shopping season, then they won't be as fresh for the holiday season next year." To which I say: never cheat yourself out of publishing effective content that may be building up an income stream because of something Google might or might not be doing.)

More Tips for Building Amazon Associate Links

Nov 21st, 2011
by Greekgeek.
2 comments

I'm always fiddling with ways to display Amazon Associate links with big bold images and appealing layouts so they get more clicks.

I've got a few tricks I use all the time. They're fast, and I do them almost without thinking about it.

Unfortunately, when I try to explain them, they look scary, because the code Amazon gives us is scary, then I have to insert minor tweaks.

Which is why I've filed this Squidoo Tutorial under Advanced CSS. For old Squidoo hands, it may be useful; for new Squids, it'll probably make your head spin:

My Amazon Associates Links Beat Squidoo's Links

Hopefully they will prove useful to somebody.

 

 

 

 

 

Google Tells Us a Few Algorithm Changes

Nov 16th, 2011
by Greekgeek.
No comments yet

Aha, here's an official blog of Google's that I didn't know about, and should have: Inside Search. Most of it is information on using Google's tools, but occasionally, they reveal information about algorithm changes.

This Monday, they posted Ten Recent Algorithm Changes.

Sometimes, the changes that Google tells us about are not actually the ranking factors that determine how highly a page gets listed in search results, but rather, display factors. Do you see the difference?

Ranking factors determine, "will Google show this link on page one of search results?" while display factors determine, "And how will it look, when Google shows it?"  People click on a link or not depending on what's displayed. However, a page has to get listed in search results where people will see it, before they start deciding whether to click it.

I'm a little tired to be deciphering Googlespeak. In Google's post, I'm having trouble distinguishing which announced algorithm changes are "ranking factors" and which are "display factors."  For example:

Better page titles in search results by de-duplicating boilerplate anchors: We look at a number of signals when generating a page’s title. One signal is the anchor text in links pointing to the page. We found that boilerplate links with duplicated anchor text are not as relevant, so we are putting less emphasis on these. The result is more relevant titles that are specific to the page’s content.

So, wait. On the surface, Google is talking about how it displays page titles in search results. That's a display factor. But then it says "links with duplicated anchor text are not as relevant." That sounds like a ranking factor, and it makes sense: people who build backlinks for their own pages, tend to use their self-chosen keywords, whereas an impartial outsider who links to an interesting site is less likely to use that page's primary keywords in the anchor text.

So does this mean Google is starting to deprecate backlinks with keyword-optimized anchor text? I wouldn't be surprised if it did; Google's avowed definition of webspam is any practice which attempts to manipulate search engines into sending more traffic. But I'm not sure.

Some of the other "algorithm changes" in the aforementioned post are similarly ambiguous.

Here's another, separate tip. On Google's official blog, they've filed a lot of posts concerning the Google algorithm and the kind of content Google is trying to favor under the tag "search quality."

Note to Squidoo: Facebook Is STILL Evil

Nov 7th, 2011
by Greekgeek.
10 comments

Dear Squidoo:

No, I will not be taking advantage of this new "opportunity" to label my lenses for Facebook's Open Graph (and I think you should come out and inform non-savvy users that Open Graph is part of Facebook -- there, that's better). Why?

1. Facebook is evil.

Or, in case you're laughing at silly old Greekgeek and her quaint Facebook phobia, let's review:

What the CIA failed to do in 60 years, Zuck has done in 7: knowing what 800 million people--more than 10% of the world's population--think, read and listen to, plus who they know, what they like and where they live, travel, vote, shop, worship. — Forbes Magazine

Facebook is a big steaming pile of p....rivacy violations, a site designed to collect more and more more personal information from its members to sell to its advertisers. And it started with a Big Lie.

Originally, Facebook enticed users to join with promises of community and sharing their personal lives with their closest friends. Then Facebook turned their private info public and started selling previously-confidential information. Enter the Facebook Privacy Erosion Cycle: privacy protections would come down, savvy users fought back, Facebook promised not to do it ever again, then did it again a few months later, repackaging the launch slightly. Rinse and repeat, until Stockholm Syndrome wore down users' reservations, and Facebook could get onto the next personal-data-mining push.

"Privacy is dead!" Zuckerberg trumpeted again and again. "This is what YOU want! It's an OPPORTUNITY!" And then he made another million selling people's personal info to his advertisers.

Don't take my word for it. Take Facebook's word for it. See Facebook's Changing Privacy Policy Over Time. Or, better, view this fascinating animation of The Evolution of Privacy on Facebook.

Or take Zuckerberg's word for it. Remember, this is what he said soon after he started the embryonic Facebook:

  • Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
  • [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
  • Zuck: People just submitted it.
  • Zuck: I don't know why.
  • Zuck: They "trust me"
  • Zuck: Dumb fucks.

Source: http://articles.businessinsider.com

Enter Open Graph. Open Graph is Facebook's latest attempt to collect, codify, and spy on its users' web browsing activities. It's trying to get us to "integrate" our off-Facebook content with Facebook so that it can collect ever more specific information on our readers and visitors' viewing habits outside of Facebook's garden wall. It's doing this because it's maxed out the amount of content it's milking from its own users. Now Facebook is asking us to assist it in collecting information about users when they stray from its walled garden.

Again, don't take my word for it. Here's a good discussion of Open Graph by TIME's tech blogger.

So I don't want to hear about Open Graph integration as an "opportunity." It's an "opportunity" for Facebook, not for me, and not for my visitors. It's an "opportunity" for us only in the sense of this famous cartoon:

The "Free" Model by Geek & Poke

 

Yes, Google is also guilty of exploiting us as its personal piggybank, but that does not make it better. I have a few bones to pick with Google. However, Google never presented itself as a social community for sharing personal information with your friends, then tried to redefine the meaning of friendship itself in order to collect information for advertisers. That's bait-and-switch. At least Google was up-front the start that its goal was to collect and index any published information it could find.

Facebook has not earned my trust.  It may claim it's the web, just as AOL did in the 90s, but it does not deserve to be the web. Therefore, I will not let it gather information on my readers, and I will not assist Facebook in its bid to take over the web. (Update: it may be impossible to stop it, of course, since Facebook tracks and records all web browsing of non-members as well as members, once they've visited any Facebook page.)

Oh, and speaking of "opportunity," I've been seeing that word being used in a strange way lately. To quote Inigo, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." I keep seeing "opportunity" used in the context of someone  trying to exploit my content for their benefit. How very Zuckerbergian!

Think hard before sliding down the slippery slope to Zuckerberg perdition. Remember, there are— or were— alternatives.

Twitter is starting to win the social media war, because it does not go down the Facebook route.

Remember Squidcasts?

With Squidcasts, I was communicating directly with my readers who were interested in the subjects I was writing about.  With Squidcasts, I was able to give them highly-targeted, relevant info specific to their interests without collecting data on them, without forcing them to sign up with a social network. They got the benefit of my content, my tips, my recommendations— for free!— and it kept some of them coming back. They chose whether or not to subscribe to a particular article's Squidcasts, and they chose how to use the info I gave them, rather than the other way around. My traffic dipped slightly when Squidoo took Squidcasts away. Yes, Squidcasts were a bona-fide "opportunity," and now they are a missed opportunity...as in, "I miss them."

Remember Seth Godin's concept of "permission marketing"? Squidcasts (and Twitter) implemented that concept beautifully. Facebook betrays it.

Meanwhile, lately, I've seen other "opportunities" promoted on Squidoo— contests and such— only to find I'm excluded from those "opportunities" because they only exist through Facebook pages where I can't participate without turning over my personal info to Facebook.   When I signed up with Squidoo, Squidoo was not Facebook, and did not require me to be a member of Facebook to participate in Squidoo.

Don't go there, please. Don't relegate me to a second-class citizen because I like Squidoo but not Facebook.  Don't make Squidoo an appendage of Facebook.

Squidoo is better than that.

Don't Listen To Me

Nov 5th, 2011
by Greekgeek.
2 comments

This is an unsolicited, sincere, enthusiastic endorsement of a site on writing marketing copy and killer online prose.

But don't listen to me. Listen to Copyblogger.

For instance, check out the Magnetic Headlines ten-part lesson.

The site is chock-full of actionable, useful advice you can use right now to grab, hold, and tempt your readers to buy and click.

Make yourself a cuppa tea, coffee, or your favorite beverage. Take a break and explore the copywriting tips on this site. You'll be so glad you did.

Handy Squidoo Tip: Caption a Lens Logo or Text Module Graphic!

Nov 3rd, 2011
by Greekgeek.
No comments yet

Screencap from my lens

Eureka! Why didn't I figure this out sooner? There is a fairly simple CSS way to force a caption (including an image caption with clickable link) to hang out directly under a Squidoo lens logo or an image uploaded into the text module!

Ta-da! Actual screencap of a lens!

Here. I have, of course, created a new Squidoo tutorial:

Squidoo Image Captions: Handy Tip

Of course, the easiest thing would be if Squidoo would add an optional caption slot for images.

But then, I suppose there's no way to guess what height / style the caption slot ought to be. It depends whether you're trying to make a photo credit or some kind of comment/description.

Tip: Check Your Google Snippets!

Nov 1st, 2011
by Greekgeek.
No comments yet

When Google lists your page, it lists a "snippet" -- a small excerpt of your content. This snippet will be one of two things:

  • Your META description tag. On Squidoo, this is the first 255 characters of the lens introduction.
  • OR: an excerpt from your page showing the first instance (usually) of the keyword the Google user searched for.

You can't predict what people will search for. But you should at least do a command-F when viewing your article to see where your top keywords appear. Do the few words on either side of it make someone feel that your article is useful, relevant, and may possibly answer their questions? Or are they vague, poorly written, and don't give a good impression of what your page is like?
Also, do this for your business name or blog name. Here's an example. My main mythology blog, Mythphile, gets enough Google love to receive the special Google table-of-contents treatment. (Search for Mythphile and you'll see what I mean.)
However, recently I finally clued into the snippet description that was showing in search results. I forgot to take a screenshot, but what it said was:

Mythphile by  is powered by WordPress using theme Tribune.

WHOOPS!  That doesn't tell us a THING about this blog or the content on the page. That's from the footer at the bottom of the blog. Apparently, I don't have the blog's name anywhere on the blog except in the Header and navigation links (e.g. "What Is Mythphile?"), and the snippet tool does NOT excerpt the header, when it's one word and too short to be a useful snippet.

So I ran to my blog template and added a widget in the upper righthand corner of the sidebar. Now that blurb is what displays in the Google snippet:

What Is Mythphile? Mythphile is a blog exploring the intersection between mythology and modern culture, timeless symbols and current events.

Moral: Make sure that the first instance of your top keyword, username, and brand name/business name/blog name appear in a meaningful sentence, because that's likely going to be the only data web searchers have to go on when trying to decide whether to click your link in a page of search results.

Yes, this is yet another example of my SEO axiom, "Make Search Results SEXY!"