If you plan to have a future in the business then, by all means, you will need to get your SEO training asap.

Ahem . . . You were expecting something else? :-/

Somewhere in the universe I hear Matt Cutts chuckling, contentedly.

No related posts.

About two years ago, at PubCon Las Vegas, Justin Sanger described a future of Web traffic “atomization”.

Atomization of traffic invokes the image of a future where a website’s traffic will come, not from a single great source like Google, but from hundreds or thousands of sources such as review sites, social-friend sites (Facebook), social-business sites (Linked In), content sites, mobile apps, and many others.

Atomization captures and conveys the idea that as time passes Web traffic will increasingly arise from and arrive from everywhere – atomized traffic sourcing – filling up your server data logs like the fine mist of particles released into the air by an aerosol spray or “atomizer”. Traffic comeing from search engine queries will inexorably shrink as a percentage of traffic generation.

So, in a future of growing traffic atomization it will be an important traffic development strategy to “be everywhere”. (In other words, if you too see such a future then start working on your traffic atomization strategy now.)

Now, compare Justin’s analysis/thinking about the evolution of Web traffic sourcing to the thinking that Google’s new “instant search results” – which changes the display of search results – makes SEO more important than ever.

Why will SEO be more important than ever? Because NOW the number of websites visible in the immediate search results on the “search engine results pages” or SERPs has been reduced. Since fewer sites will be seen in the SERPs it must follow that it is more important than ever to rank at the top . . since there are now fewer opportunities “to be seen”. Ergo, SEO is more important than ever. So, spend more time, money and effort . . . chasing a) the shrinking “free” landscape of the SERPs pages; and, b) ditto for chasing search versus traffic atomization.

Two very different views of the world, not necessarily in conflict, IF atomization – being found or findable as many places and ways as possible – corresponds with “link diversity” and a growing “link graph”.

And those “facts about links” remain important ranking factors.

But what if link diversity or traffic atomization corresponds with a steadily decreasing dependence on “search”? Will links suddenly have less value in ranking IF links begin to compete with search?

Atomization IS the future.

So what now?

Food for thought and strategy.

No related posts.

There is an interesting and oft repeated debate taking place on the front page of WebmasterWorld. The debate resides in the thread entitled “Why does Google give so much weight to keyword domains?”

I’ve read similar threads on a variety of webmaster and domaining websites discussing “keyword in domain and search engine ranking” and, after my own consideration of a) the Googles SERPs, that is “what I can see with my own eyes”; b) reflection on the back-and-forth in the threads, including the general lack of concrete evidence/data to back up the assertions of a specific significant advantage; and, c) my own experience as registrant of keyword domains I’ve come to the following conclusions:

• Once upon a time, some years ago, keyword domains plus anchor text briefly rocked the SERPs, which is why a) you saw so many versions of buy-cheap-blah.com URLs in the SERPs; and, b) why that phenomena was abruptly dispatched by Google to the archives of SEO history
• For a time, if you were the potential seller of keyword domains and you posted in forums, you had a lot to say about the benefits of keyword domains, likely adding at least to the perception of an advantage
• Some webmasters, particularly new or inexperienced ones having a tough time ranking, may have a tendency to want to report, by any means available, any and all SERPs ranking disadvantages they believe they are suffering from unfairly. Ergo such threads provide an opportunity to at least anecdotally report on the issue
• I have yet to see any form of public heavy data lifting that would demonstrate that any given website is, in fact, benefitting “from a lift solely attributable to the keywords in the website’s domain”

Do I believe that “keyword in a domain offers some small benefit, like the benefit afforded by a “plus sign” attributable to 1 of 200+/- ranking variables? Yes. Sure. Why not? Why shouldn’t a website’s domain name have some significance in sorting out where the website belongs, what its theme is, what purpose it serves? A keyword based domain name offers another tiny bit of (semantic) data, so why not afford it some slightest of weight?

Likewise, when keyword domains are viewed from the perspective of ranking, it is possible that some keyword domains may rank a bit higher not because of the keywords alone but because the juicy keyword domain was registered a long(er) time ago, when such keyword domains were available, and therefore the site may a bit older, as well as any inbound links being a bit older.

Do I have any empirical evidence or data to back up my assertion that having keywords in a domain and having the benefit of an older domain offers little concrete advantage, especially in competitive SERPS?

Sure I do.

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, on the subject of the ranking weight of keyword domains, I give you Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 1:

http://Internet-Marketing.com

Do you see this old keyword domain crushing the SERPs for the search phrase “internet marketing“? I don’t. It would be nice, but that’s life. I’ve got my work cut out for me. :p

Might the invisibility of Internet-Marketing.com in the SERPs be because “internet marketing” is a highly competitive field? Might ranking in competitive SERPs require a bit more?

Go ahead and register a keyword domain or pay a premium for a keyword domain in the aftermarket. Then you, too, can move beyond anecdotal evidence that keyword domains have an unfair advantage in ranking in the search engine results and reach your own conclusions.

IF it really is true, as if often argued, that keyword domains have special ranking juice then I, too, have a complaint I  wish to file with the Mt. Kilimanjaro-plex Search Quality Engineering Department:

Yo! Up there! Matt! Where’s my ranking advantage?

God I love this whole internets thing. :p

Related posts:

1. Chossing a Brandable Domain or a Generic Keyword Domain
2. Domain Development Necessity Versus Dreams

Curious phenomena.

From what I’ve read there is reason to doubt the “consumer of information value” of postings found at RipOffReport or ROR.

It’s not hard to mine the Web discussion about ROR so I won’t repeat the reason’s to harbor doubts about the consumer value or merits of “consumer reports” on ROR.

I’m not saying that all ROR posts are BS. Clearly there are complaints on the ROR site that relate to companies that are, themselves, selling BS, delivering BS and which deserve the bad rap they get in return.

Despite evidence that Rip Off Report isn’t the new ConsumerReports.org the posts on ROR manage rank highly in search results for company names. Quite unlike ConsumerReports.org, offers – as a service (cough, cought) – to help companies improve their consumer reputation “for a fee”. Translated: We know what gets posted on ROR will rank in Google’s results for searches connected to your company name so, if you want to repair any harm that does, pay us and we’ll see what we can do.

Hmmm . . . Sounds like a credible approach to consumer advocacy.

Here’s what bugs me.

I assume that Google “lends rank” to ROR due to its algorithms that are supposedly looking for signals of “trust” and “authority”.

Now, to me, trust is synonymous with “trustworthy”. However, for some reason I keep gagging when asked to swallow the idea that ROR meets my definition of “trustworthy consumer guidance”.

And what other role is ROR supposed to be fulfilling as it’s primary goal than guiding consumers?

Do a little research yourself and tell me about ROR’s signals of trustworthiness.

And authority? Well, that’s a topic for another time.

But really, I have to ask myself: IF Google’s search engineers are supposedly hard at work on equations that will determine both trustworthy and authoritative information – and this would include trustworthy and authoritative information about companies – do you think something might be broken as evidenced by the presence of ROR “information” in such close proximity to a companies name?

Would you feel at ease knowing that your company’s reputation might be in the hands of an operation like ROR?

Is that as good as it gets, Google?

No related posts.