Google have extended their services in the UK yet again, with the inclusion of a cinema search option. If you type in the name of a current movie, Google will bring up a box at the top of the listings where you can fill in your post code, to find showings of that movie nearby. The results show five-star rating of the movies, times of showings, a choice of days and a choice of venues.

I was all set to be fairly impressed with this new feature, seeing as I find navigating through the annoyingly time-consuming Odeon page a bit of a waste of time. However, try though I might, I found it impossible get the Exeter Odeon to list among the cinemas. I checked on their site to make sure they were actually showing the movie I was searching for, and they were. So despite typing in my post code, and even the town ‘Exeter’, Google did not list Odeon – the main cinema in this area. To me, that’s a slight oversight.

I will definitely be giving them the benefit of the doubt for the time being, and checking back to see if the listings have increased. I would have expected it to be the other way around, with them lacking listings for smaller cinemas in Exmouth and Sidmouth, but this is not the case.

In any case, they’ve given me accurate listings for the cinemas closest to me, so I suppose my complaints should be minimal. Perhaps they were just trying to save me the train fare to Exeter?

Tab submits “Each month, or thereabouts, as search positioning changes are noticed as a result of the latest Google algorithm updates, an analysis of what happened occurs. The analysis of the update ensues in many news groups and discussion groups and invariably, there never seem to be many people happy with the updates.

This month, the focus of attention is links, and the way Google uses them. I’ve noticed a lot of discussion in Search Engine Watch(1) about the fact that “out of touch executives” no longer displayed their link to #1 at Google. The discussion veered between almost paranoid sounding “Is Google censoring results it does not like?” to the more rational and scientific, “If Google changes X then Y is the result, therefore it is logical that the results would be affected in this way.” Invariably, there were holes in every argument except one, which although was not quite on the mark, at least pointed in the right direction… read more”

The root of this issue is the so-called “Google Bombing.” There are two versions of Google-bombing, one run by web sites on their own behalf, and one that can be used either humorously or maliciously. In either case, it boils down to having a multitude of web pages all with the same links and with the same key phrase used within the text links, all pointing back at the same page within a web site.

These Google Bombs are incredibly effective at building traffic. One of the most famous examples was when people Google-bombed the phrase “miserable failure”, pointing all the links to George Bush’s web site. The web site shot up to #1 in Google for the term.

Companies do this on their own behalf as well. They have affiliates and other related companies all link to them with identical text within the links. If they get enough, Google is led to believe the company’s web site is among the most referenced on a particular subject and ranks it accordingly.

Used properly, this can help a truly relevant resource appear properly in the search engine results. Unfortunately, it is often used improperly to manipulate search results or promote irrelevant web pages, thus negatively affecting search results.

While Google, (or any other search engine whose results can be manipulated by this kind of loophole) would like to eliminate this practice, it’s never been clear how to go about fixing the problem. After all, a Google-bomb link looks to a search engine algorithm exactly like any other link, thus impossible to individually distinguish it from a genuine link. Impossible individually perhaps, but not impossible.

However, upon reading all the various musings, it occurred to me that realistically, Google may be able to stop Google-Bombing all together by simply deprecating the value of inbound links to a web page. I.E. When more than X number of links contained identical wording and the inbound link text did not appear contextually, on the web page being targeted.

In all cases, if the link text was not on the page, the rule would apply. Therefore “miserable failure” for George Bush’s web site would likely fail, as those words do not appear together at all, on the real web site. The value for X links could theoretically be either a percentage or a hard number. For example, if more than 50% of inbound links contain the identical link text, then depreciate their value by 90%.

More realistically you could choose an arbitrary number, such as 200 identical links gets a value depreciation of 90%. This would likely ward off the malicious, and the humorous Google bombing campaigns. They are mostly viral in nature and would quickly eclipse 200 in number. The text chosen rarely is extracted from the text on the page.

But 200 inbound links with identical text for a company web site, would not need to face a penalty. If Coca-Cola? got all their distributors and retails to link to Coca-Cola.com(2), that would exceed 200 inbound links, but the links would all say, “The Coca-Cola Company” and thus be highly relevant and contextually correct with the content of the target web page. It would therefore not need to be penalized. This formula should also not penalize web sites for poorly formed links. e.g. Should an individual link to your web site using alternative terms, it should not trigger the filter. Unless of course 200 others did exactly the same thing.

It is possible that Google’s algorithmic understanding of phraseology is not yet advanced enough to make this possible. I don’t mean to suggest that Google’s technology is not advanced. Perhaps Google’s technologies are simply not yet able to properly analyze the phrases within link text, while contextually relating it to the text within the page targeted.

I would find this shocking, since our firm’s technology uses phraseology in this context on a daily basis. I would therefore surmise that Google is capable, but unwilling to do so. A rational explanation why they would not use this type of algorithm to improve search results is perplexing. If Google’s technology were able to perform this type of link analysis, “miserable failure” would never have worked. Ergo, Google, and every other engine that similarly values links, can solve the Google-bomb problem in a manner which rewards context and penalizes irrelevance.

I believe the search engines will eventually move in this direction, if they are not working on it already. I also believe that any search engine optimization work which includes linking strategies must take into account the context within the links. After all, when you receive a referral link from someone, you generally like to know the context of it too. Search engine algorithms should work the same way.

*source: Search Engine Watch
2. copyright Coca-Cola.com

SEO News Journal – Web Site Marketing – Diffusing The Google Bomb

Google’s Good Writing Content Filter by Joel Walsh

The web pages actually at the top of Google have only one thing clearly in common: good writing. Don’t let the usual SEO sacred cows and bugbears, such as PageRank, frames, and JavaScrï°´, distract you from the importance of good content.
I was recently struck by the fact that the top-ranking web pages on Google are consistently much better written than the vast majority of what one reads on the web. Yet traditional SEO wisdom has little to say about good writing. Does Google, the world’s wealthiest media company, really only display web pages that meet arcane technical criteria? Does Google, like so many website owners, really get so caught up in the process of the algorithm that it misses the whole point?

Apparently not.

Most Common On-the-Page Website Content Success Factors

Whatever the technical mechanism, Google is doing a pretty good job of identifying websites with good content and rewarding them with high rankings.

I looked at Google’s top five pages for the five most searched-on keywords, as identified by WordTracker on June 27, 2005. Typically, the top five pages receive an overwhelming majority of the traffdelivered by Google.

The web pages that contained written content (a small but significant portion were image galleries) all shared the following features:

:: Updating: frequent updating of content, at least once every few weeks, and more often, once a week or more.

:: Spelling and grammar: few or no errors. No page had more than three misspelled words or four grammatical errors. Note: spelling and grammar errors were identified by using Microsoft Word’s ch룫 feature, and then ruling out words marked as misspellings that are either proper names or new words that are simply not in the dictionary. Does Google use SpellCheck? I can already hear the scoffing on the other side of this computer screen. Before you dismiss the idea completely, keep in mind that no one really does know what the 100 factors in Google’s algorithm are. But whether the mechanism is SpellCheck or a better shot at link popularity thanks to great credibility, or something else entirely, the results remain the same.

:: Paragraphs: primarily brief (1-4 sentences). Few or no long blocks of text.

:: Lists: both bulleted and numbered, make up a large part of the text.

:: Sentence length: mostly brief (10 words or fewer). Medium-length and long sentences are sprinkled throughout the text rather than clumped together.

:: Contextual relevance: text contains numerous terms related to the keyword, as well as stem variations of the keyword. The page may contain the keyword itself few times or not at all.

SEO “Do’s” and “Don’ts”

A hard look at the results slaughters a number of SEO bugbears and sacred cows.

:: PageRank. The median PageRank was 4. One page had a PageRank of 0. Of course, this might simply be yet another demonstration that the little PageRank number you get in your browser window is not what Google’s algo is using. But if you’re one of those people who attaches an overriding value to that little number, this is food for thought.

:: Frames. The top two web pages listed for the most searched-on keyword employ frames. Frames may still be a bad web design idea from a usability standpoint, and they may ruin your search engine rankings if your site’s linking system depends on them. But there are worse ways you could shoot yourself in the foot.

:: JavaScrï°´-formatted internal links. Most of the websites use JavaScrï°´ for their internal page links. Again, that’s not the best web design practice, but there are worse things you could do.

:: Keyword optimization. Except for two pages, keyword optimization was conspicuous by its absence. In more than half the web pages, the keyword did not appear more than three times, meaning a very low density. Many of the pages did not contain the keyword at all. That may just demonstrate the power of anchor text in inbound links. It also may demonstrate that Google takes a site’s entire content into account when categorizing it and deciding what page to display.

:: Sub-headings. On most pages, sub-headings were either absent or were images rather than text. That’s a very bad design practice, and particularly cruel to blind users. But again, Google is more forgiving.

:: Links: Most of the web pages contained ten or more links; many contain over 30, in defiance of the SEO bugbears about “link popularity bleeding.” Moreover, nearly all the pages contained a significant number of non-relevant links. On many pages, non-relevant links outnumbered relevant ones. Of course, it’s not clear what benefit the website owners hope to get from placing irrelevant links on pages. It has been a proven way of lowering conversion rates and losing visitors. But Google doesn’t seem to care if your website makes monë¹®

:: Originality: a significant number of pages contained content copied from other websites. In all cases, the content was professionally written content apparently distributed on a free-reprint basis. Note: the reprint content did not consist of content feeds. However, no website consisted solely of free-reprint content. There was always at least a significant portion of original content, usually the majority of the page.

Recommendations

:: Make sure a professional writer, or at least someone who can tell good writing from bad, is creating your site’s content, particularly in the case of a search-engine optimization campaign. If you are a SEO, make sure you get a pro to do the content. A shocking number of SEOs write incredibly badly. I’ve even had clients whose websites got fewer conversions or page views after their SEOs got through with them, even when they got a sharp uptick in unique visitors. Most visitors simply hit the “back” button when confronted with unpalatable text, so the increased traffis just wasted bandwidth.

:: If you write your own content, make sure that it passes through the hands of a skilled copyeditor or writer before going online.

:: Update your content often. It’s important both to add new pages and update existing pages. If you can’t afford original content, use free-reprint content.

:: Distribute your content to other websites on a free-reprint basis. This will help your website get links in exchange for the right to publish the content. It will also help spread your message and enhance your visibility. Fears of a “duplicate content penalty” for free-reprint content (as opposed to duplication of content within a single website) are unjustified.

In short, if you have a mature website that is already indexed and getting traff you should consider making sure the b? your investm뮴 in your website is devoted to its content, rather than graphic design, old-school search-engine optimization, or linking campaigns.

About The Author
Joel Walsh is the owner, founder and head-writer of UpMarket Content. To read more about website content best practices, get a consultation with Mr. Walsh, or get a sample page for your site at no charge, go to the SEO website content page: http://www.upmarketcontent.com/website-content/#seo.

Google PageRank Update Analysis by Dave Davies (c) 2005

For those of you not yet aware, Google is currently updating the PageRank they are displaying in their toolbar. Each update causes a stir among the SEO community and webmasters trying to get their websites to the top of the Google Rankings.

What Is PageRank?

Without getting into too much detail, PageRank is essentially a score out of ten as to the “value” of your site in comparison to other websites on the Internet. It is based on two primary factors; the number of links you have pointing to your website and the value of the links pointing to your website. The value is calculated based on the PageRank of the page linking to you and debatably the relevancy of the page linking to you (there is no hard evidence to back up the relevancy factor in regards to PageRank that I have seen, however it definitely is a factor in your overall ranking).

If you are interested in more information on PageRank you would do well to visit the many forums and articles on the topic and also visit Google’s own description on their website at http://www.google.com/technology/ where they give a brief description of the technology.

What’s New?

The most current PageRank update will undoubtedly cause a largë² stir than usual in that many sites have shown drops in their visible PageRank while at the same time showing significant increases in their backlinks. This fact reveals that one of three things has occurred in this latest update:

-Google has raised the bar on PageRank, making it more difficult to attain a high level, or
-The way they are displaying their backlinks has changed, or
-The way they calculate the value of an incoming link has changed.

Any of these are possible and has been noted in the past as something they are willing to do. Additionally, it is possible for all to occur at the same time.
As we don’t like to use clients as examples, I will use the Beanstalk site, backlink counts, and PageRank changes as the meter by which the following conclusions are drawn, however this information was attained through looking at a number of client websites and their competitors.

Google Raising The Bar To Lower Yours

In the past few PageRank updates it has become quite apparent that Google is continuously raising the bar on PageRank. In their defense, with all of the reciprocal link building, link renting, etc. going on this was a natural reaction to the growing number of high PageRank sites that attained those ranks simply by building or buying hundreds and thousands of links.

There is no doubt that this is a factor in the changes in this current update. If your site has maintained it’s PageRank, and the PageRanks of your second-level pages, then you have done well in holding steady and, if your competitors have not been as diligent their positions will slip.

New Backlink Calculations

I mention this one only to bring to light that it is a possibility for your future consideration during other updates. The Beanstalk website went from 750 shown backlinks on Google to 864. It should be noted that Google does not show all backlinks (if you want a more accurate backlink count go to Yahoo! and enter “link:http://www.yourdomain.com”).

When the Beanstalk site showed 750 backlinks on Google we were showing around 12,000 on Yahoo! (about 6.5% showing on Google). The Beanstalk site is currently showing 864 on Google and 15,500 on Yahoo! (about 5.6%). If anything then, Google is showing less links than before which negates the possibility that a website’s PageRank is dropping due to a decrease in links but being hidden by an increased number being displayed.

In short, while the backlinks Google chooses to display has certainly changed over time, it does not appear to be a major factor in this update. If you see an increase in your sites backlink counts during this update, you undoubtedly have an increased number of links.

The Value Of Links

Separate from the number of links you have is their value. This appears to be an area of significant change in this update. Areas that appear to have reduced value in regards to affecting PageRank are:

Multiple links from the same site or run-of-site links
Intelligent and relevant reciprocal links do not seem to have been penalized, probably due to the increased relevancy factor. If you reduce the value of irrelevant links and raise the value of relevant ones, then there is no need to penalize reciprocal links as, done incorrectly, they will penalize themselves.

Links with text around them that indicate they are purchased, such as “Partners”, “Advertising”, etc.
Google has and is actively trying to reduce the value of paid links. This appears to have been moderately successful where there is clear indication that the link is paid for.

Links from sites that hold little relevancy (this factor is based on educated speculation)
The relevancy factor appears to have become more important. Links from sites with content related to yours are showing positive results while sites with largë² numbers of less relevant links are showing drops in PageRank.

What Does This Mean?

For those of you who have been proactive in your link building, and focused on relevant sites using the Google Directory, searches or a tool like PR Prowler it means, “stay the course”. Those of you who have been building or buying links based only on PageRank with little concern for their location, or how they are presented – you will need to adjust your link building efforts accordingly.

What Do I Do – My PageRank Dropped?

The first thing not to do is panic. Take a deep breath, PageRank is one factor of dozens that Google uses to determine the ranking of your page, it is not the only thing. Visit your main competitors’ sites – there’s a good chance you’ll see that they too dropped PageRank. The plus side to these kinds of updates is that they’re universal. It’s not as if Google has it in for you specifically and so when they do an update, the positive and negative impact is felt by all.

If you’ve noticed that everyone around you has stayed the same or increased in PageRank try to remember this, there’s nothing you can do about where you’re currently positioned in regards to PageRank and it will probably be another 3 months before Google updates the public PageRank again so … start building some good quality (high relevancy, solid PageRank) links. Work towards an increase in the next update.

Panicking won’t help, intelligent reaction will.

What Happens Now?

Traditionally the search engine results will begin to fluctuate based on the new visible PageRank 3 to 7 days after they are visible. This does not have to be the case as Google’s had these numbers all along but its worked this way in the majority of cases in recent history. So monitor your search engine positions over the next week or two and watch for changes. Try to hold back on making major changes to your site during this time as often the final positions will differ from those that can be viewed during the shuffling. In a couple weeks time evaluate where you stand and tweak your site as necessary but don’t spend too much time on that … you have a solid link building effort to undertake.

About The Author
Dave Davies is the owner of Beanstalk Search Engine Positioning. He has been optimizing and ranking websites for over three years and has a solid history of success. Dave is available to answer any questﯮs that you may have about your website and how to get it into the top positions on the major search engines.

Crash Course in Getting a #1 Google Ranking by Jason DeVelvis

First, here’s the rundown of some of the terminology I’m going to use in this article ?
Inbound Links ? Links coming into your site
Outbound Links ? Links leaving your site
Cross Links ? Links that you have “traded” with another site (i.e., they’ve got a link from their site to your and you’ve got a link from your site to theirs)
PR (Page Ranking) ? Google’s measure of how “important” your site is

SEO Is Not Dead

Ok, n?ets talk about what you really want to hear ? how to get those coveted 1-10 ranks for your keywords. Remember this – SEO is not dead. In fact, it is very much alive and important. The first thing to do in order to raise your site rank is target specific keywords. I say specific, because you need to target “keyphrases,” meaning more than one word keywords. Some people use the words interchangeably (me included) so just ignore one-word keywords altogether. You will waste your monë¹ if you shoot for these, because chances are, there are other, much largë² companies who already have you beat, and will continue to have you beat unless you’ve got a bottomless wallet.

Ch룫 Out Your Competition

Take this example, for instance, if you sell computers, you should not try to optimize your site for the keyword “computer” or “computers.” First, think about all of the businesses that do anything with computers. Yeah, that’s a lot. They’ll all show up if you search for “computer.” N?ry to think of who would show up at the top of that list. I’ll make it easy, it’s Apple, Dell, Computer World, Computer Associates, IEEE, Computer History Museum, Webopedia, ASUSTeK, WhatIs.com, and HP. I’m going to go out on a limb hë²¥ and say that I 99.9% guarant률you that you’ll nevë² get into that top 10 list. The HP link has almost 5,000 backlinks (discussed later) and a PR of 7/10. Good luck. Then What Should I Do?

So what should you try to target? Lets re-visit your computer store. What types do you sell? PCs, ok, what types of PCs? Custom. Ok, that’s a little better, “Custom Computers” is still a vague keyword, though. (How many people build custom computers?) What kind of components do you use? Intel? AMD? SoundBlaster? GeForce? There you go, that’s a little better ? “Custom GeForce Computers.” That returned 476k results instead of our previous 633 million with “Computer.” Just a little bit less competition.

I Want More

Want to go further? Forget what types you sell, go for what do your customers want. What do they use your computers for? Gaming? Try “Custom Gaming Computers” – There are 672,000 results hë²¥, but the # 1 spot has a PR of 5/10 and only 41 backlinks. That shouldn’t be too hard to beat, we’ve just got to know who is linking to them, and beat them at the backlink game.

Oh yeah, before we move on to beating the pulp out of your competition, don’t forget to SEO optimize your site for your chosen keywords before spending any time on backlinks. Otherwise, this next section won’t mean much.

But I Digress…

Ok, n?hat your site is thoroughly optimized, how do we find out who their backlinks are? Well, you can do it by hand, or you can purchase a very helpful tool called SEO Elite that will analyze all of the backlinks to a site (and more). But, since you don’t have SEO Elite yet, we’ll do it the long way.

First, go to toolbar.google.com and download the Google toolbar, this will save you some time. Ok, n?ype in your keywords ? “Custom Gaming Computers.” The first link should be overdrivepc.com (if it’s not, then someone may have already read this column and risen above them!) cl to go there. When the page loads, go to your Google Toolbar, cl on Options >”More” Tab > Make sure the “Page Info” box is checked. Then, cl on the blue circle with the i in it. (This is the aptly named: “Page Info”) It should drop down and allow you to select “Backward Links,” choose it. N?ou should be looking at a Google search page again, but this one is different, it only shows pages that link to overdrivepc.com. (Wow, that’s handy!) At the time of this article, there are 41 pages that link to the site, and you can view them all. Some are other pages in the site, others are third parties.

Get Your Site Some Friends!

Follow each third party link and ch룫 out the page. Does it have to do with your business? Would their visitors benefit from coming to your site? (The answer is probably yes) If so, email the webmaster – there should be an email address somewhere on the site. Ask him or her if they would link to your site. Be willing to trade links with them, or to pay for a good link with a high PR. That reminds me ? look just to the left of the Page Info icon on your Google toolbar, and you should see a green bar. That is the Page Rank of the page you’re currently on. You want to target pages with higher page ranks than your own, because for each of those sites that link to yours, they effectively “give” you a little bit of their PR. Kinda like in high school when the head of the cheerleading squad flirted with the nerd in the hallway, she “gave” him more popularity.

By the way, if you can manage to get a link from the # 1 site itself, do it!

Do this for all of these links you can, then move on to the #2 listing for your keywords. Then #3, and so on. Don’t get discouraged if some webmasters don’t reply to you, it may take an email or two. If they say no, thank them for their time and move on. I try my best not to burn any bridges ? you nevë² know when you’ll need to contact that webmaster again, and if he remembers you were polite, that will make you look good.

Whew, Finally Done.

This is a very easy way to move up the Google SERPS, no “expertise” required, just good old-fashioned hard work. It will take some time for Google to re-index those pages and realize that they have a link to you n?And it will take even longer for your PR to go up (from what I hear, it’s been around 3-4 months since the last PR change [Today is 7/14/2005]) But be patient, get links upon links, and keep adding great content to your site, and you will jump up in the SERPS by leaps and bounds.

To Your Success, and Your # 1 Website!

About The Author
Jason is a long time web developer and the owner of Premier MicroSolutions, LLC. If you’re looking for more articles about getting higher Search Engine rankings, go to Content-Articles.com and look over their great directory of articles.

…Don’t deny it, you all know the words. So, what’s it all about? Well, not content with just mapping the earth, and in what is the biggest step so far in the currently raring digital mapping race, Google have mapped a section of the moon – to celebrate the day that man first set foot on the moon, July 20th 1969. Google post on their official blog about the mission, saying that it was actually a birthday wish from one of the staff members, and that – amazingly – the whole thing was conceived within a week!

“It helps to have a working demo. After our satellite maps integration was completed, Chikai, a Google Earth engineer, had time to make his lunar dream a reality — sort of. Everyone loved the demo but it gathered moon dust for a few months while Google Earth was being readied.”

“Until Google acquired Keyhole, Chikai and I both lacked co-workers with the same birthday. Fortunately, someone raised the moon idea again on our birthday. And thus the wish was made. Interestingly enough, several product people are also moon children, which probably helped.”

“A week later, we’ve achieved lift-off for Google Moon. It’s great to stand on the shoulders of giants, especially the brave and brilliant people at NASA we commemorate and whose data made this possible. And it’s energizing to work at a company that can translate a birthday wish into a product in a week.”

Google have used satellite imagery from NASA to produce the feature, which gives you a zoom level of around 8 notches – allowing you to see quite a lot of the detail that there is to see, even for as small a chunk of the moon as it is. Zooming in also gives a nice, funny added touch. Currently you can check out the locations that the Apollo astronauts made their landings; as well as the astronauts on board and their jobs. You can see the locations of Apollo crafts 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

Check out Google Moon at the official website.