I'll be at SES Chicago and looking forward to your questions on pay per click (PPC) auditing and click fraud. The panel is Thursday, December 8th from 12:30-1:45pm.

Auditing Paid Listings & Click Fraud Issues
Did you really get that much traffic from paid listings last month or is something funny going on? Reviewing your paid traffic is an essential task any serious search engine marketer should undertake. Discover how to spot abnormalities and follow-up with search engines if you suspect a competitor or someone else is creating clicks just to drive up your costs. Also discover the proactive things paid listing providers already do to protect advertisers.

Google had added two new PPC ad spots to beneath the search results, just like in the Yahoo! search results.

I believe Google tried this a few years ago, one can only guess as to why the did away with it originally.

It seems this would satisfy two goals for them:

1. Increase ad inventory to further increase ad revenues. There are only so many ads Google can run on a page, this may be the last of this type of change. Google is going to have to get more creative. Maybe they could have spots that rotate, just like in big city road billboards?

2. In the short term, this will allow some advertisers to appear on page one of results for a lower cost per click. It's doubtful this benefit will last long, especially in the uber competitve industries.

As always make sure you do a fair amount of A/B testing and make sure to test ad placements as well.

First Google's Sitemap Service allows users to view any site's captured information:

• Crawling errors
• Sitemap errors
• Top search queries
• Top search query clicks
• and much more...

Then Google Analytics has to shut down because...well...alot of people wanted to use a free semi-robust analytics tool...plus it had the Google logo on it.

Then today I read that by wanting to simply try Google Analytics that you 'sign-off' on quite a bit:

....Further, Unless You notify Google otherwise in writing, Google and its wholly owned subsidiaries retain the right to identify You as a valued customer and optionally issue a press release that, at a minimum, discloses You have licensed the Product and that the Product is Your preferred web analytics package.

Is this a change of 'do no evil' anti big corporation mentality? Is Google more about getting out the products rather than then products themselves? Does Google fear Microsoft's ambitious goals and their own 'smart think tank'?

Google seems to be trying to downplay Microsoft with witty little one-liners. The Google fan boys may get a giggle out of it but us seasoned folks know that cracking jokes at the competition is a sign of concern.

Moving to a new eCommerce platform can come with many hidden SEO issues which can seriously jeopardize your search engine optimization efforts. You need to ask the right questions to determine if a particular platform can support your SEO program.

1. Are the URLs static, simple dynamic or complex dynamic URLs?
   
   • Static URLs (http://www.site.com/page.aspx) are the optimal choice as there shouldn’t be any issue with the URL being crawled as there are no long variables or session id’s for the search engines to choke on.
     
   • Simple dynamic URLs (http://www.site.com/page.aspx?category=487) have one variable. While search engines have shown that they have the capabilities to crawl and index these URLs, care needs to be taken in assigning the variable names. For example, Google has specified that they have a direct issue with variables named “id”.
     
   • Complex dynamic URLs (http://www.site.com/page.aspx?category=487&id=7821564565&xtr=jhy76) have multiple variables and will most likely not be crawled, cached or properly indexed.
     
2. Does the platform use cloaking or a “search appliance”?
   Great care needs to be taken when going this route. Either solution serves the search engines one thing and a user something else, although it may be only slightly different. It would be best to contact the engines directly and get written approval of the use of such technologies. Typically I have only heard of larger corporations having this type of access; however these solutions present a degree of risk that some may find unacceptable.
   
   These solutions are typically used to solve the problem of the complex dynamic URLs that these platforms usually use. As an alternative suggestion, a URL rewrite module/application would eliminate the risk involved with the other technologies and accomplish the same thing – the use of static URLs.
   
   
3. Does the platform have a “built-in” SEO feature?
   Often times a “built-in” feature means that the title tag and meta data are created from the content of each individual page, or worse, one title tag and set of meta data is used for all pages within a category. The problem is for proper optimization you need to order your keywords and text in your title tag a specific way and in a specific order. In addition, more than likely you will need a custom meta description tag that is a couple of sentences to summarize the page. You probably will find that there are many pages where you don’t want the meta description pulled from the page’s body of content.
   
   
4. How are redirects and 404 “Page Not Found” errors handled?
   Keeping a clean house can become an overwhelming task with an ever evolving online store. Promotions, as well as products, routinely come and go. How does the platform support these changes? Some examples of bad house cleaning are:
   
   • 302 redirects that leave old pages indexed in the search engines and don’t pass on their “credit” (back links, etc.) to newer pages
     
   • A typical black and white default 404 page that is a dead end to users with nowhere to go
     
   • Old pages, that instead of redirecting properly, simply shows the new pages content (or a default page’s content) under the old page’s URL.
   
   
5. Are DHTML drop down menus hiding navigational links?
   Depending on how drop down navigational menus are coded, it’s possible to completely hide navigational links from search engines as most DHTML drop down menus are generated with JavaScript. Since search engines cannot execute JavaScript, HREF links that are embedded in JavaScript (no physical HREF tag exists with the URLs) are not displayed to the search engine bot.
   

It’s been an interesting month for SEO. MSN Search and Google have made substantial changes to their ranking algorithms, right behind last month’s Yahoo! changes. While staying abreast of these changes is crucial to providing quality SEO services, Zunch goes one step further by preparing for the future changes, today. While we don’t have a crystal ball, we have the next two best things: zLab, Zunch’s SEO test lab, and SEO experts with plenty of years ‘in the trenches’ who know when, at times, the best action is no action.

It seems that we always have tests running in zLab. Some of the tests are researching solutions to real-world SEO problems, some tests are settling arguments between Jeff and Tyson, and some tests are “hey, what would happen if…” or as we some times call it “things you would never test on a client’s site but would be really cool to see”. These tests allow us a window in which to see why pages rank they way they do and often serve as an indication as to what changes have been made in the latest search engine update.

Having an SEO strategy that gets you rankings is not enough; you need to know when the best strategy is to do nothing and “ride out” the update.

Huh?

What most often happens with these types of changes MSN and Google did this month can be assimilated to throwing a rock into water. As the ripples spread out, they completely change the surface of the water - some points are higher some points are lower. You only know how the water level is truly affected until the waves stop. Because of the practices Zunch incorporate into our SEO program, we often find that after the waves of change pass, clients most often come out on top.

There have been some interesting changes going on in the Yahoo! SERPs.

Looking at the case examples now yields significantly different results.

Case 1 - Update
Now, a search for [texas real estate license] shows the original #1 spot is gone. That’s sites #1 ranking was replaced by a #4 and #6 ranking.

The original #1 (which had the home URL) ranking is now in the #6 position. Of special interest is that now the actual title is listed along with an actual snippet from the page (not the Yahoo! directory title and description). Also ‘index.html’ is now on the end of the green URL.

So, if memory serves, the Business.com’s feed listing might now be replaced with these two new rankings.

When clicking on the site you are now sent to two redirects on Yahoo (rds.yahoo.com and rdre1.yahoo.com vice the one redirect -rds.yahoo.com- as the others below) then over to the actual site, bypassing the Business.com set of redirects.


Case 2 - Update
Now, a search for [illinois real estate license] shows the original #1 spot is gone. In fact it’s not even in the top 100, but ranked 107th.

Wow. Was Yahoo that far off? Was the relationship between Business.com and Yahoo affecting the ranking that much?

When clicking on the site you are now sent to a redirect on Yahoo (rds.yahoo.com) then over to the actual site, bypassing the Business.com set of redirects.


Case 3 - Update
Same position (#2), however, again this time we see the actual title and snippet from the site (not the Yahoo! directory title and description). And we also now see the tracking code in the URL (www.spectraesolutions.com/?trackcode=bizcom)

When clicking on the site you are now sent to a redirect on Yahoo (rds.yahoo.com) then over to the actual site, bypassing the Business.com set of redirects.


What else is interesting to ponder is:
Is/was Business.com replacing natural (free) rankings with their feeds of advertisers on their own PPC system? If so, then some advertisers are/were paying for traffic they may have once been free. Good for Business.com. Not so good for you if you’re paying .65 cents a click to Business.com and, through Site Match (modified because of the sheer bulk of advertisers Business.com brings), Business.com is paying .10 cents, or less, for your once free listings.

I was gauging the effect of the Yahoo! update on some sites I have a special interest in. I saw some very interesting shifts where these sites were now ranking #1 over state government agencies that police this industry and .edu sites.

What makes this even more interesting is that the #1 spots that the sites are occupying appear normal with the right title tag, copy snippet and green URL. However, once you click the Yahoo! SERP link you're taken to Business.com and then forwarded to the actual site with a bizcom tracking code.

Of interesting note is that the owner of these sites advertises through Business.com listings and through their PPC program. So it may be possible he is paying for all of these clicks. They did tell me that Business.com traffic was up significantly.

I've provided some information below on what's happening:

Case 1
A Yahoo! search for [texas real estate license]:


Click to Enlarge

The #1 natural spot embedded link is:

The embedded link is:
<a class="yschttl" id="http://www.texasrealestatelicenseonline.com/" href="http://not-a-real-namespace/http://rds.yahoo.com/;_ylt=AvCktS_QTBZ1EYXWQg_KR5lXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1ZDJvY3A5BGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANERlgwXzM-/SIG=1cin1bsv0/EXP=1127937398/**http%3A%2F%2Frdre1.yahoo.com%2Fclick%3Fu%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.business.com%2Fink.asp%253Fp%253Dd21e2129-7f48-492e-9674-9e52224c628d%2526track%253D1%26y%3D02D7DF5749ECACE5%26i%3D482%26c%3D14984%26q%3D02%255ESSHPM%255BL7kzg%7El%253Fmz%7Es%253Fzlk%7Ekz%253Fsv%257Czqlz6%26e%3Dutf-8%26r%3D0%26d%3Dwow%7EDFX0-en-us%26n%3DE9L45H2PD0SK7PEM%26s%3D29%26t%3D%26m%3D4339A3F7%26x%3D01A7A1D039655330">

Clicking on the #1 natural spot listed as "www.texasrealestatelicenseonline.com" takes you through several 302 redirects one of which redirects to Business.com.

See the whole request process with headers here.
As a comparison here is the #2 spot headers here.

You eventually wind up at:

http://www.texasrealestatelicenseonline.com/?trackcode=bizcom


Case 2
A Yahoo! search for [illinois real estate license]:


Click to Enlarge

The #1 natural spot embedded link is:

<a class="yschttl" id="http://www.illinoisrealestatelicenseonline.com/" href="http://not-a-real-namespace/http://rds.yahoo.com/;_ylt=AjLDA3DPwAusV_CXXav3UopXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1dTRxczg1BGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANERlgwXzM-/SIG=1d1p0kj58/EXP=1127936261/**http%3A%2F%2Frdrw1.yahoo.com%2Fclick%3Fu%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.business.com%2Fink.asp%253Fp%253D2497dd09-986a-40aa-9da8-6bd322dd5bad%2526track%253D1%26y%3D02212E9CE2898E62%26i%3D482%26c%3D14984%26q%3D02%255ESSHPM%255BL7vssvqpvl%253Fmz%7Es%253Fzlk%7Ekz%253Fsv%257Czqlz%253Fl%257Cwpps6%26e%3Dutf-8%26r%3D0%26d%3Dwow%7EDFX0-en-us%26n%3DD2345H33B0SK6P6E%26s%3D7%26t%3D%26m%3D43399F85%26x%3D0182D3ABD78B11B7">

Clicking on the #1 natural spot listed as "www.illinoisrealestatelicenseonline.com" takes you through several 302 redirects one of which redirects to Business.com.

See the whole request process with headers here.
As a comparison here is the #3 spot headers here.

You eventually wind up at:

http://www.illinoisrealestatelicenseonline.com/?trackcode=bizcom


Case 3

A Yahoo! search for [property management and construction software]:


Click to Enlarge

The #2 natural spot embedded link is:

<a class="yschttl" id="http://www.spectraesolutions.com/" href="http://not-a-real-namespace/http://rds.yahoo.com/;_ylt=AgNC15IqREpG9KYIAc7tPi1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1azRsNmFzBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANERlgwXzM-/SIG=1dk8garb4/EXP=1127941407/**http%3A%2F%2Frdre1.yahoo.com%2Fclick%3Fu%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.business.com%2Fink.asp%253Fp%253D5438f5f3-0e60-4231-b57f-6b69dbaa2b67%2526track%253D1%26y%3D02BA23B0DBC60665%26i%3D482%26c%3D14984%26q%3D02%255ESSHPM%255BL7ompozmkf%253Fr%7Eq%7Exzrzqk%253F%7Eq%257B%253F%257Cpqlkmj%257Ckvpq%253Flpykh%7Emz6%26e%3Dutf-8%26r%3D1%26d%3Dwow%7EDFX0-en-us%26n%3DEBO45H7OD4SK78FU%26s%3D67%26t%3D%26m%3D4339B39F%26x%3D018BD80638555F53">

Clicking on the #2 natural spot listed as "www.spectraesolutions.com" takes you through several 302 redirects one of which redirects to Business.com.

See the whole request process with headers here.
As a comparison here is the #1 spot headers here.

You eventually wind up at:

http://www.spectraesolutions.com/?trackcode=bizcom

In case you hadn't heard Google is trying to directly court Fortune 1,000 companies. Sure it’s only a 1,000 companies; on the other hand it’s THE top 1,000 companies. Less meat for us agencies, but I digress.

I had the opportunity to listen to and meet David Dietze, who handles all travel and technology commerce clients throughout the Southeast and Southwest, and Brian Devill (David called him the 'muscle') at a local DFWSEM meeting.

Into the Q&A the subject of click fraud was brought up...I was beat to it...and I asked David point blank if Google was open to working with third part click fraud data providers/aggregators. He said that Google was open to working with them and wanted to know anytime an advertiser or their click fraud auditing service provider suspected click fraud. Good to know.

The big question I wanted to ask was how big of an issue is click fraud to Google's own advertising clients in the pre and post sales process. Brian answered "Click fraud is THE issue." Nice to know that Google themselves are running into some of the problems that agencies are. I think agencies may have the upper hand here though...it’s in our best interest to detect click fraud for our clients and obtain refunds, such as Zunch's Click Fraud Detective does. The same can't be said for Google.

It seems Google has been confused internally over their capabilities to protect pay per click advertiser from click fraud.

In a recent article in Bloomberg CEO Eric Schmidt says:

Believe me, as a computer scientist, we have the ability to detect the invalid clicks before they reach advertisers.

But the Google Adwords FAQ says:

If we find that invalid clicks have escaped automatic detection, you'll receive a credit for those clicks.

And the Google blog says:

When we believe those clicks are invalid, we reimburse advertisers for them. Some invalid clicks do make it through our filters, but we believe the amount is very small.

I have to admit I find it humorous that Schmidt says to trust him, because of his PhD in computer science that invalid clicks don't reach advertisers then other PhDs at Google say that invalid clicks do reach advertisers. Also, does that mean that Google thinks that there aren't PhDs working against them? Or how about just really smart people who know how the system works and know enough about web technology to be dangerous?

It may have took PhDs to create the first atomic bomb for 'peace', but it doesn't take one to turn into a weapon of war.

Link building is one of the most confusing aspects of SEO for most people. Many don't realize that it's the links that provide the most weight in rankings for Google with Yahoo having less emphasis and MSN have even less than that. This is one of the reasons why you will more likely first see ranking in MSN, then Yahoo and finally Google.

Link building is the longest and most difficult process of SEO. Creating content is the second hardest. Why? Because, for the most part, who links to you is the part of SEO that you control the least. That's why Google relies on it as much as they do - its the least likely spot to be gamed. It can be done but it usually requires a great amount of resources and/or money.

Links fall into four categories:

1. Reciprocal linking. You exchange a link to a site for a link from their site to yours. More than likely, even if the site is similarly related, there will be very little gained from this kind of link. There are exceptions to this rule covered below.

2. Directory links. There are two kinds of directories:
a. 'Free For All' directories where there is not much of an editorial process and where many of the existing listings are scraped from other sites. This like has about as much quality as the standard reciprocal link.

b. Established editorial directories link The Open Directory Project (ODP or DMOZ) or Microsoft's bCentral that go through an established quality check. These are the best types of directory links. Note: The ODP is a unique directory in that Google pulls information directly from it. This may have an added bonus. A link from the ODP is highly desirable, but is by no means a silver bullet.

3. One way links. Links from relevant web sites to your own that you do not need to return are the standard link that most people seek out. Links from .edu domains and some established .org domains are more sought after than others.

4. Trusted site links. A 'trusted' site is one that Google recognizes as a special site which are usually well established and have a strict editorial process. For example, news publication sites often fit into this category. Why? For an article to be written a journalist has to research the story, talk to experts and witnesses and have their facts checked then have an editor approve the piece. Because of all of the quality check that happens that means that a link from a site of this nature is more likely to be the most legitimate.

Each of these types of links can and does play a role in most link programs. Trusted links however, are not normally achieved through a link building program but through an interactive public relations campaign. Often it takes public relations folks (or ex-journalists) to know how to pitch a site or a person for an article.

Out of the rest of link types, links from .edu and established .org domains are next on the list. They are usually difficult to get, which makes them carry more weight than standard links.

In addition to the type of links, the link text used will have a significant impact on rankings. Ideally you will want to change out your link text to focus on a diverse keyword list. If you sell shoes you may want to have different link text variations such as:

- Store X - Tennis Shoes, Walking Shoes, Cowboy Boots and Dress Shoes
- Reebok Shoes, Nike Running Shoes, New Balance Tennis Shoes from Store X
- Discount Brand Name Golf Shoes, Running Shoes and Bowling Shoes

To help the process along, link tools can be purchased to help find links, track submittals and track who links to you and who links to your competitors and not to you. Many can be found by doing simple searches in your favorite search engine.

In the end it will take time and persistence to obtain a solid link base. Zunch offers special link building programs that can make the difference in your rankings. Wether your domain is brand new or you have existed for years and are looking to secure your visibility Zunch can help, contact us today.

Threadwatch broke a news bit about MySpace sites being setup using images of young attractive women to lure guys into going to specific web sites with instructions to "do me a favor" by clicking on their AdSense ads to make sure they work.

The one example site used appears to no longer be serving ads, however how hard is it to spend $8.00 to put another domain up with another MySpace area and start making more money again? What’s worse is that it looks like it took independent folks to point it out instead of Google's team discovering it on their own.

This in addition to news about Google possibly deleting blogs because bloggers ran MSN search makes for yet another day of bad PR for Google.

Well Danny Sullivan beat me by an hour or so with breaking the news last week and now its all over the web radar. Here is the low-down:

Google says that in the entire world there is only 1 percent of all click fraud activity that they are unable to detect. In addition, over a four year period, Google says that amounts to $90mm dollars.

Hogwash. Heres the between-the-lines for you for Google:

1. We lost our appeal to have the case go to a federal court (that clearly favors large corporations) where we could drag this thing out forever with appeal after appeal.

2. We then lost our appeal to not have to show any data or allow anyone to look at what we actually do to detect and prevent click fraud.

3. We have been losing billions of dollars in market capital.

-So-

We decided to throw (very little) money at the problem to see if would go away so we wouldn't:

1. Wind up losing the case
2. Lose a few billion more in market capital
3. Have to show any click fraud experts (who actually have experience in dealing with this day in and day out) our data or what we actually do to detect and prevent click fraud
4. Have to pay out to more lawsuits (unless adverisers opt out of the proposed settlement)
5. So we could: Get to use our spin doctors to say that agreeing to this settlement means there is only 1 percent of all click fraud we aren't able to detect

Wow. Sounds like a good deal for Google. But what about advertisers? This settlement makes no concessions to changing a system that is shrouded in secrecy and conflicting interests. Google still holds all of their information close to vest. They wont share all of the client's own information much less their own or their methodologies for protecting advertiser's marketing dollars.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like most advertisers will get most of the money they lost back. Whats worse, advertisers only get credits back to use in the Adwords system. So that means advertisers have no choice but to lose even portions of that money to click fraud in the future and it won't be the 1 percent that Google is spinning.

The court was officialy notified today that Lane's Collectibles and Google have reached settlement in the amount of $90mm dollars to be applied for on a claims-made basis.

More news to come...

Highlights of SEMPO's December 2005 "The State of Search Engine Marketing" survey:
Of the 553 respondents-

• 3 times as many advertisers/agencies this year said click fraud was a serious issue.
• 16% are tracking click fraud in some fashion and believe this to be a serious problem (up 6% vs. last year).
• 23% of advertisers were tracking click fraud and believe it to be a moderate problem
• 33% of agencies were and believe it to be a moderate problem
• 1/3 of advertisers and agencies aren't tracking click fraud but are worried about it
• 1/4 of advertisers and 18% of agencies said click fraud wasn't a problem (too bad that wont say what agencies)
• 2% of all advertisers (all in large companies) hadn't heard of click fraud

Over half of all advertisers and 41 percent of agencies said they had experienced "competitive click fraud"

Of course click fraud is more damaging and prevalent in different verticals, but make no mistake - it will happen to most PPC campaigns. As affordable as Click Fraud Detective is, there is no sensible reason not to be protecting your online advertising investments.

Link architecture is the skeletal structure of the content of your site.

Search engines crawl the web a page at a time (although they have many many crawlers). When they visit a page they record the meta data and visible content of the page as well as the links from that page. It’s the links from that page that guide the search engines through the rest of your site. Obviously it's important that the search engines find each page as easily as possible.

Sites that have content buried deep within the site that’s more than a few clicks away risk having that content slow crawled or not crawled at all. It's important to note that by depth of content we are not referring to directory structure but to linking structure. If you have a web page at this URL http://www.site.com/folder1/folder2/folder3/page.html that is linked to from the home page then this page is only one level deep in the site. It's important to note the distinction. Just because a page is on the root of a website (http://www.site.com/page.html) doesn’t mean it is easily crawlable if it is linked to on the third level of your site.

For any site it is important to have a sitemap as they aid search engines with crawling the second and third levels of your site by making them accessible through one page closer to the home page. Sitemaps should at least be linked to from the home page, if not every page. Very large sites may need several sitemaps broken up logically.

Another important aspect of link architecture is cross-linking similar topics or cross topics. Done properly, your internal site pages can aid the search engines in understanding what a page should rank for. For example if you have a shoe site your walking shoes page should link to your running shoes and dress shoes category pages as well as accessory pages for socks, laces and insoles using descriptive anchor texts. It not only helps your optimization but also users in finding new merchandise on your site and provides a better chance at on up-sale or add-on sale.

Proper link architecture will ensure your site is craled easily and indexed regularly.

A dynamic URL is a URL that has values appended to it with a ? mark.

Static URL:
www.zunch.com/services.aspx

Dynamic URL:
www.zunch.com/services.aspx?id=123&cat=car

In the above example id and cat are variables with 123 & car being their values, respectively.

Most content management systems and shopping carts use dynamic URLs to efficiently display content from a back-end that allows users to usually enter content in and make new pages easily without having web development skills.

The downside is that generally when search engine see a URL with a '?' they run. Google has made progress in indexing simpler dynamic URLs, however it best to avoid them all together if possible. Content management systems and shopping carts can be expensive to implement, so how do we do this with an established site? A URL rewrite.

A URL rewrite can take a dynamic URL and rewrite it so that it appears static to the search engines and users.

Before rewrite:
www.zunch.com/sitemap.aspx?id=123&cat=car

After rewrite:
www.zunch.com/sitemap~123~car.htm

The URL is cleaner and the dynamic pieces are reduced to only what we need - the values. In addition we now have a static looking web page that looks like it sits on the web root.

Depending on what web server you use there are different solutions available commercially or you can develop one internally.


Good resource for Apache & Microsoft IIS URL rewriting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_rewrite

Canonical issues is SEO talk for where more than one URL serves one website's content.

Let’s go over a few definitions to set the stage:

root domain name = separates one entity from another on the web, like how a company name sets apart one company from another. Example: zunch.com

subdomain name = separates different parts of an entity on the web and precedes the root domain name. Example format = subdomain.zunch.com.

What many don’t realize is that since anything before the root domain name (ex: zunch.com) is a subdomain, they don't know that 'www', is in fact, a subdomain. Because many web servers by default answer to 'www.site.com' and 'site.com' many site’s already have a canonical issue. In the past, search engines (Google included) have treated these URLs as two different websites. Uh-oh.

If two different URLs are serving a website's content that means that a website's content and link popularity are being split apart. In Google, some documents from one URL would be filtered out while others would be filtered out from the other. This means your content is split up into two different URLs. We always want to create more content for a website - not separate it!

As if this isn't bad enough, your back links could also be split up. Inevitably some sites would use 'www.site.com' and others would just use 'site.com'. Of course, you don’t want your link popularity split among different URLs as your links are a major ranking factor.

If your site is already serving content on each URL you simply need to use a 301 permanent redirect from one URL to the other. The defacto 'www.site.com' is probably a good choice. So in this case you would setup a 301 permanent redirect from 'site.com' to 'www.site.com'. This is rather simple for most web servers, however I have heard that web servers such as Lotus-Domino can be difficult to deal with and a call to support may be needed.

The search engines are making strides to address canonical issues. In the mean time, a use of a simple 301 permanent redirect can keep the canonical issues from being an issue at all.

This will be the first part of a series of back to the basics, SEO 101 for the new year.

A site's navigational system is the webbing the holds your site together. Like a web, there may be multiple threads linking to other threads together providing a diverse and sound structure.

In SEO a site's navigation plays a significant role in letting the search engines know what a page is supposed to be about. For example, if you sell clothes, proper linking to your new leather sandals page has several advantages:

1. A link from the home page assures your new leather sandals page will be crawled more quickly than if it was buried three levels deep.

2. Using the proper anchor text "men's leather sandals" instead of an image or "click here" allows the home page to describe what the page on the other end of the link is about.

3. Interconnecting the new leather sandals page from already established shoe and sandal pages helps to lend credibility and helps to describe what the page is about.

When linking, make sure that your links are static and not created virtually. You can tell if your links are static by using the "view source" feature in your browser on your pages and seeing if your links each have an href="pagenamehere.html" or href="pagenamehere.php", etc. If you cant see the link in the source code, neither can the search engines and this needs to be corrected by your web developers. In the mean time, while you wait for a fix for your dynamic navigation, you can place your links inside of noscript tags. Keep in mind when placing your links inside of the noscript tags that they will be visible to visitors who do not have JavaScript enabled.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt was quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald as saying:

It shouldn't matter what Google does with their ads, he argues, so long as the received value, which advertisers can measure, is higher than the price they pay.

Shuman Ghosemajumder tried to make a similar comment on the PPC Auditing and Click fraud Issues panel at SES in Chicago that I sat with on the panel in a room with advertisers who definitely weren’t in the Google fan boy crowd.

The bottom line, as I mentioned in the panel is: "Who is Google to set that expectation?" Who is Google to tell me that the 3% conversion rate should be good enough even if it might have been 4-5% had it not been for click fraud?

Shuman also mentioned (more than once) that Google throws out more clicks then they charge for. Well great...as an advertiser how am I supposed to know that? Except for the email announcing a credit for "low quality" clicks (Google never uses the phrase "click fraud" for crediting you back funds) they hide behind the infamous form letter of how their click fraud teams dont see the activity you questioned as "click fraud".

I suggested that the PPC networks share that information with advertisers so they could see what the PPC networks were doing for them proactively. I doubt we will ever see it though as that would lay out how big of an issue click fraud is and they cant have that.

I examined the report of a suspicious domain that was sending a considerable amount of paid traffic to client's site. It took ten minutes to figure out that this domain was established primarily to generate revenues from Adwords and provided no value to users.

Traits:

• The domain is less than 1-month old
• The domain registration owner information is hidden
• The content on the site is copied and sometimes regurgitated from other sites
• The site has no incoming links
• The site has AdSense ads featured predominantly on the left and right sides of the pages and runs AdSense for site search
• No Alexa rank

With lax Adwords reviewing it makes it easy to see how spammy domains get into PPC content networks. This makes it easier for automated bots to have yet another site to click on with their masking technology and for hackers with access to the millions of zombie machines to hit these ads from all over the world with millions of IP addresses.

Link Love. We all need it and we all want it.

If you could sell it on TV it would be like the commercial for 'male enhancement' where the guy has a smile surgically fixed on his face or like the commercial for men's body spray that has women chasing them (and their mom, and their mom's friends, and their friends, or any other combination of 'mom' and 'friends' that I may have forgot to mention) . Basically, once you've got it you 'have arrived'.

Unfortunately, whether your trying to sell or buy links through any medium, Google doesn't like it. Google doesn't like it because they have relied so heavily on linking that strategic link buying or buying links en masse can affect their rankings.

Several good points were made in a thread going on at the SEW forums about Google's reliance on links:

1. If Google favors aged sites with a mass amount of relevant link that have been built naturally (ie: no one asked for or bought a link) how are newer or smaller business going to compete against the 900lb gorillas?

2. How detrimental is it if a site about widgets sells a link to a site about red widgets and the link helps the red widget site rank for red widget related terms?

3. Since the buying of links pre-dates Google, rather than Google affecting the link architecture of the web (again) by trying to direct webmasters on how to link to other sites that they evolve their algorithm to take into account this ancient (by the web's timeline) marketing vehicle?

It's been awhile since we had a news article about the mysteriousness of search engine optimization (SEO) and how SEOs are either voodoo witch doctors or masters of deception or slight of hand. The latest Newsweek article "Hotwiring Your Search Engine" strays close like most general media outlets do.

Some tidbits:
1. The Tag Line: " Google a topic, and the results are based on popularity, right? Wrong. Inside the shadowy world of 'SEOs.' "

2. "...an obscure procedure called a "search-engine optimization."

3. "Their goal is to boost their clients' (and in some cases their own) sites to the top of unpaid search-engine rankings—even if their true popularity doesn't warrant that elevated status."

The article does point out that search engines are reaching out to SEOs and forming a relationship:
"[Search engines] are increasingly tolerant of ethical or "white hat" SEOs like Fishkin, who primarily help their clients knock down the virtual walls that prevent search engines from fully indexing their site. Earlier this year Google engineer Matt Cutts started a blog directed at the SEO community, dispensing tips on how to make sites more visible to the automated software "spiders" that catalog the Web. It's good for Google and SEOs: better-organized sites increase the amount of content in Google's index, while improving SEO rankings."

At Zunch, SEO isn't voodo or a parlor trick. Zunch's established SEO process consists of best practices for:

• web development
• information architecture
• content writing
• web server administration
• public relations

While there is no magic at play, what is being used is tried and true methods for eliminating technical barriers that prevent a site from being indexed properly, arranging, clarifying and specifying what a page's content is about and gathering supportive links that support the purposes of the web site.

A press release is circulating that there is back door into the Google Adwords system that allows countries outside of a geotargted area to display and click on ads not meant for their country. Geotargeting is/was one of the best ways to help reduce your exposure to click fraud from countries which have been known to be more of a click fraud threat than others.

As long as there are billions of dollars being pumped into PPC there will always be fraud. From competitors trying to push you out of a space, to publishers with content networks lining their pockets with your ad money to radical groups trying to make a political statement by targeting your external advertising and messaging. This combined with the PPC networks not willing to share their information with their advertisers nor in keep communication channels open is why advertisers need to 3rd party click fraud service that can audit, monitor and detect fraudulent activity on any PPC network such as Zunch's Click Fraud Detective.

Google denies making PCs, but that denial is vague:

"We have many PC partners who serve their markets exceedingly well and we see no need to enter that market; we would rather partner with great companies," Google said in a statement.

Ok, maybe they have already chosen to partner with someone:
http://redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=15148&hed=Talk+Mounts+of+Google+Computer+

"Wyse Technology told RedHerring.com last month it has been in talks with the Internet search behemoth to make inexpensive Google-branded PCs (see Wyse to Make $150 Computers). Wyse’s hard-drive-less computers, called thin clients, are often used in clusters in business or organizational settings."

More to come, Im sure.

News is breaking out on the web about a box that Google may have developed. This box contains every sort of connection port you would need on an electrical device. RJ-45 (Ethernet cable), RJ-11 (phone cable), SVideo, Optical Audio, digital and analog (RCA) jacks, USB and equipped with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. "Ok," your saying "A Swiss army cable/electrical connection device. And?" The "and" part is the nifty part. With this device, out of the box, you will have one interface for broadband internet access, TVoIP, VoIP and home automation (climate control, alarm system, etc.)

To hear Robert X. Cringely put it, "As a result, Google becomes overnight a major phone company, a major video entertainment provider, a major player in home automation and even medical telemetry." How is this possible you ask????

Google would need to deploy what are called mobile datacenters. Basically, a large data center that take up rooms can be condensed to a shipping crate. Thousands of these portable data centers would be deployed strategically at certain points of the Internet to allow secure networked communication.

Now picture being an Adwords advertiser with the ability to reach out to consumers through virtually every communication means available today and you have virtually unlimited potential.
This is all potentially great news. But will consumers pick it up and invite it into their homes? Can this box easily unite our communication and entertainment mediums? Is this a sink hole that Google will have to crawl out from next year? Or is it just hot air?

As most of you may know the PPC networks under suit (Google, Yahoo!, Overture, AOL, Ask Jeeves, etc.) tried to have the previous federal courts decision, that decided the lawsuit should be sent back to Arkansas, reversed. The federal court system apparently favors big companies, especially after a bill was signed into law earlier this year. Apparently the appeals court judge felt the same way as the previous judge, so back to Arkansas.

Basically in a state court both parties have little recourse when there is a court order that they don't want to comply with. That's puts the PPC networks in a tight spot considering that no one, NO ONE, gets access to their data. A court order could put that information on display for the plaintiffs counsel and their consultants. Having served as a consultant for the plaintiff's counsel, I can tell you that the data could be very damaging to the defense and that the plaintiff's counsel will be asking for it.

Since around August 10th Google SERPs have been showing a 3rd top placement ad on select searches. I posed a question in the Adwords forum at SEW that I moderate seeing if I could get AdwordsRep to spill the beans. I figured there could be several variables that determine when that new ad inventory spot appeared such as:

• Number of searches
• Number of competitors
• Pricing
• CTRs
• etc.

While AdwordsRep hasn’t posted yet some forum members have had some interesting comments such as this from Shor:

Our account rep was rather vague and reticient on this (as he didn't have a solid brief on the issue) but he did say that 3 ads appear only when the 3rd ad reaches a certain threshold of CTR comparable to the no.1 ranked keyword. He said CTR but he may have meant quality score as that would be a more useful ranking criteria ? He also confirmed that G were currently targeting high volume queries (loans/auto/jobs/dating etc.)

As further support for the CTR factor but a detractor to the idea of high volume queries Phoenix had this to say:

Well I have reason to believe its extending a bit farther than that. Noticed it tonight on a phrase (book title) I was checking for a client "play piano in a flash". It’s a rather low traffic phrase in none of the high traffic industries mentioned, and it’s a book written exclusively by the client only in its first printing. I would consider it a pretty much non-competitive phrase with only a few affiliates offering it. I guess for this phrase it may be more along "he did say that 3 ads appear only when the 3rd ad reaches a certain threshold of CTR comparable to the no.1 ranked keyword".

My co-moderator AussieWebmaster offered his own little tidbit:

So in effect the top organic results just got handed decreased CTR.

I wonder how long before Google goes completely PPC!!! <---- joking!

That may not be that far from the truth, especially considering research showing the difficulty searchers have in distinguishing paid from organic listings and the fact that this 3rd ad spot means fewer organic results above the fold.

This could be a 1-2 punch for Google, a new top inventory spot for advertisers to fight for and maybe more advertisers to fight for them with the reduction in organic results above the fold.