Am I Famous Now…

...I Am So Coordinated

Some More Thoughts On PageRank!

February 1st, 2008 by WebMatrix · Comments Off

PageRank
I opened my feed reader today and found about ten posts mentioning that the PageRank update is in progress. It’s nice to finally have a number set in stone but the reality is nothing much is going to change as far as your search engine rank goes.

The PageRank value you see when you use an online PR checker or toolbar does not directly relate to how you rank in search engine results pages. It’s more of a rough guide, and reflects changes to your search engine rank that have already been made.

Danny from Search Engine Land has written a comprehensive article on PageRank and in it he points out the difference between the PageRank you see on toolbars and Google’s undisclosed internal PageRank.

Internal PageRank are the PageRank scores that Google uses as part of its ranking algorithm. Those scores are constantly being updated. In contrast, the PageRank scores that Google allows the world to see — Toolbar PageRank — is a snapshot of internal PageRank taken every few months.

It’s easy to get fixated on PageRank but it’s important to keep in mind it is only one of many factors Google uses to determine your rank in search results pages.

There are two other points Danny brings up in his article which are worth  mentioning.

  • Having a high PageRank does not mean you will rank high in search results pages for any given term.
  • The anchor text of a link is often more important than whether the linking website has a high PageRank.

The best strategy then is to concentrate on getting links from websites relevant to your own, who already rank highly in search results pages for the keywords you want to rank for.

Tags: Comments Off

Do Search Engines Promote Piracy?

January 28th, 2008 by WebMatrix · Comments Off

Warner Music is going after a music Web site that links users to what Warner claims are pirated versions of its copyrighted material.

Warner filed suit last week against Seeqpod for aggregating music selections “that Seeqpod knows is overwhelmingly copyrighted,” according to Warner. “Seeqpod makes a direct and material contribution to infringing conduct, and it deliberately refrains” from preventing copyright infringement, Warner alleged.

Visitors to seeqpod.com are shown a search box, and users can either enter the name of an artist or song or ask for recommendations based on preference. When the results pop up, users can opt to listen to their selection on seeqpod.com, which can then be added to a playlist, or click a link below the returns to be taken to the Web site hosting the song.

“Seeqpod does not just scour the Web for copyrighted music,” according to the suit. “Seeqpod also performs the works whose location is revealed through Seeqpod’s search.”

Warner is seeking injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, the suit said.

The Seeqpod case “is among the first that directly tests how copyright law applies to search engines,” Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote in a Thursday blog post. It’s also an argument that Swedish authorities apparently plan to adapt, as they said Monday that they intend to seek copyright infringement charges against “The Pirate Bay,” a notorious Swedish Web site that actively promotes copyright infringement.

Though major search engines like Yahoo and Google can technically direct users to pirated material, they have not faced many legal challenges because of safe harbors clauses within the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), von Lohmann wrote.

Section 512 of that legislation states that a service provider cannot be sued for linking to a site with pirated works or for “using information location tools” like a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link.

Seeqpod describes itself as a search engine and could therefore argue that it is exempt from prosecution under the DMCA; an argument Warner rejects because of the playlist and suggestion functions.

Section 512, however, has several caveats: the provider can’t know that the material to which it is linking is copyrighted; they have to make a concerted effort to stop linking to pirated material once they become aware of such infringement; and they cannot make any money off the linking to illegal material, according to the DMCA.

Warner claims that Seeqpod is well aware that its search returns are for Web sites with pirated material, and that it directly benefits by linking to illegal material.

“Seeqpod’s expanded user base translates into more dollars in potential advertising revenue and increased corporate valuation,” according to the suit

Seeqpod did not respond to a request for comment.

Warner filed a similar suit in May 2007 against music site imeem.com, which it settled in July with a licensing deal. On Monday, the Qtrax file-sharing service launched, which claims to be a licensed provider of music.

Site Sposor: Cheats 999

Tags: Comments Off

Text Links, Nofollow and Google PageRank

January 24th, 2008 by WebMatrix · Comments Off

In my pursuing of monetising this blog I joined Text-Link-Ads back in September last year. It was simple to deploy their code and then start to generate income by selling text links — it was almost effortless. So I used TLA to earn some petty cash from a few sites that I got lying around, and all is good, although I knew link-buying for the sake of search engine manipulation is not as white hat as I like.

Then in August this year I wrote about potentially being penalised by Google for selling text links and paid reviews. I could sense a storm is coming, although my sites were just small fishes in a big pond. I did cancel my account with ReviewMe back then, but I kept my Text-Link-Ads account alive for a while. After all, the “petty cash” got up to around $300-$400 US greenbacks a month which supported development of my other sites, and it just became too hard to get rid of it.

But I eventually let it go.

At the beginning of this month I received an email from Brock Boser, the Inventory Manager at Text-Link-Ads.

Scott,

It is against our terms and conditions to have a rel=”nofollow” on the TLA ads. Could you please remove this? Please let me know once this is done and so we can send you payment for your links. Until then I have put your account on HOLD.

Also, can you please change the “Sponsored Links” text to something like “Friends” or something along those lines?

Thanks,

Brock Boser
Inventory Manager
Text-Link-Ads

Wow. I did not realise that I cannot put rel=”nofollow” on the paid links, as it was recommended by Google’s Matt Cutts. That is fine then — I guess I better comply with the terms and conditions (which say nothing about the nofollow attribute but forbids modification of their code). However, changing those “Sponsored Links” to “Friends” is definitely not right. A sponsored link is a sponsored link is a sponsored link, and the last time I checked, friends are those whom I knew personally and whom I have frequent communication with. Definitely NOT my advertisers whom I hardly know as they simply bought an ad through a broker.

Well. I guess that’s the call — choosing between money and something you know that is not right. So I replied him with the following email:

Brock,

Sounds like I’ll give TLA a miss. Please cancel my account and I’ll remove the links. To be fair with the advertisers, feel free to keep the payments and refund them.

Regards,
Scott

My account was closed within 24 hours, and all the links removed. I felt a little bit poorer, but felt a lot better for not polluting the search engines.

Then we had OCTOBER, where there were multiple Google PageRank updates, one earlier this month, and another one late last week. Both of them were targetting paid links, as we saw many text-link heavy blogs and websites have been penalised with a lowered PageRank.

I can imagine Matt Cutts sitting inside his Googleplex office laughing out loud, “Bwahahaha… See?! TOLD YOU!” Well, I guess everyone should have got the message now. However, are text-link sellers really penalised?

Some of my sites received a lowered PageRank last week as well. Well, this site stayed as PR5 and so did HostingFu, although it used to be a PR6 10 months ago. FuCoder.com dropped to PR4 (from PR5) but I was closing down that site anyway and have moved all the pages back here. OzBargain received the biggest hit — from PR5 to PR3, and guess what — I used to sell text links on it via TLA (with rel=”nofollow” though)!

However, I doubt it was caused by the paid link penalty as I was following Google’s recommendation regarding paid links. It was likely caused by myself moving the Bargain Blog, which used to be a PR5 site with tons of backlinks to OzBargain.

The thing is, if you don’t already have Google Toolbar (or Search Status which is the one I use) installed to get the PageRank reading, you probably won’t feel like being penalised. At least in my case, the organic traffic are coming along as usual, the keywords that I ranked well stay unchanged, and lots of people have continued to find my sites on Google. The lack of change in search engine traffic has also been reported by many other site owners with lowered PageRank. Penalty? Google probably has not sent a strong enough message! If you send a naught kid to Time Out, make sure it is really a time out for them! You don’t penalise them, and then send them lots of traffic at the same time!

After all, everyone pretty much understands that PageRank has little to do with your ranking on SERP in 2007. PageRank on Google Toolbar is even more irrelevant. It is a bit like that huge exaggerating rear wing on your Hyundai Excel. Yes, it looks good. Yes it gives you quite a bit of street cred (hey, my PageRank bar is longer than yours!). Yes it will make your car look like it is going to go very fast (my site has PR6, surely it is popular!). But how effective it really is?

Yaro Starak wrote about some possible explanations for PageRank slamming. Great points, but I have an alternative. Instead of penalising the text-link selling bloggers and website owners, how about it’s Google’s next step against the Link Brokers, i.e. TLA and friends? Google did it by messing up the economy Google created in the first place — link popularity and PageRank. Websites are not really penalised as they still rank well in SERP despite lowered PR. However potential link buyers have lost the incentive because lowered link value to be passed on, and also for the fear to be detected and then penalised.

I guess it makes sense for Google to do so. Their primary focus is on search relevancy (which brings them more users thus more opportunity to sell ads). To reduce gaming the system, they can suppress the activity by killing the link broker in SERP, like what they did with Text-Link-Ads.com. It just means all the buying/selling will happen underground, but buyers are still making purchases thinking this text link can somehow boost their own traffic. Or they can simply mess up the economy behind link buying to make it an activity not worthwhile to pursue, which seems to be what they have been doing with the recent PageRank updates.

Tags: Comments Off

SEO, The Power of Keywords and The Slug.

June 24th, 2007 by WebMatrix · No Shared Ignorance Wisdom

In my 5 SEO Quickies for Your Blog entry I referred to the power of keyword in URLs.

When posting, use the post slug in the post page sidebar of WP to create the best url/slug you can think of. Otherwise WP will use the post name.
Example of changed post slug here. Although I did not use once the word hack in that entry, you’ll still find the site over Google when looking for Vista activation hack (somewhere around pos.45)

I started using the number of post views plugin around beginning of April 2007. In the SEO Quickies entry I referred to the entry about the Windows Activation as an example of how to use keywords in the URL and use the power of the post-slug.
If you look in the sidebar, in the block most read you’ll notice what I meant months ago. Although it is an entry linking to an external page, the power of keywords such as , , has boosted this insignificant entry to the most read entry on AIFN.

And that even without having any incoming links to that entry or comment on the entry, nothing more than the power of SEs.

Tags: , , , , , , , , → No Shared Ignorance Wisdom

Safari 3 for Windows, Public Beta.

June 11th, 2007 by WebMatrix · 7 Made Me Smarter

Finally the Cupertino nerds have released something which might be useful. The MacOSX internet browser Safari, will be released for Windows too. The reason for the release is the electrical item, gadget, gizmo, whatever, no one wants to hear about anymore… the iPhone.

After Apple obliged every iPod owner to use iTunes, the iCanMakeCallsWithThisDamnThing, will bring Safari to the Windows Desktop!

I hope the UI will be more WMP and usable than what Apple has made of iTunes and Cover Flow.
iHope? I am about to discover it, right at the moment. Here we go.

iFranky, now in iSafari modus.

After installation, the first thing I noticed was that damn QuickTime desktop and system tray item. Bummer.

Is it a big surprise the Safari browser immediately leads me to a perfect sales landing page, brought to you from Cupertino by Apple of course!
Sadly no one bothers to ask me if I have another browser installed and eventually would like to import bookmarks? Thank you, del.icio.us!

Why would I even bother, with my Windows OS to check out .mac online tools, internet essentials for your Mac. :|
Platform recognition… anyone? *sigh*

Hmmm. At first view certainly nowhere as fast as Opera, and STANDARD font rendering … … … sucks! You only have to compare both screen captures from Have Laptop Will Travel in Safari (left) and Firefox under Vista (right).
This will be hard to motivate myself to continue checking Safari. And actually, I would love to give the browser a fair chance, even if first reactions, first behavior puts me of, but noticing that I can nowhere check the URL when I hover a link without title attribute (worse even, also when a title attribute is present) is a big NONO!
Even for a beta version.Safari Firefox Font Rendering Comparison

Tags: , , , , , → 7 Made Me Smarter

Truemors Dies On It’s Official Launch : Your Truemor Has Been Censored

May 15th, 2007 by WebMatrix · 13 Made Me Smarter

Truemors, the site slower than digg.com, dies on it’s first official day. The gossip social voting site, Truemors, launched by Guru Guy Kawasaki has officially died already.

Several weeks long the site had been openly beta-testing and today a TC post announced the official start.

What is truemors? Ballocks A soon to be expected heavily monetized site, but also an open site where everyone can post rumors. And they can be voted by site visitors.

Truemors ToS is clear:

The content of the Site is offered for general information, discussion, and entertainment purposes only. The content is unmoderated by the site and reflects the personal opinions of the posters. [emphasis mine]

Unmoderated, of course. Time for some censorbait.
Within little time, but with breaks inbetween I posted several messages, truemors, censorbait.

Truemors will be forgotten before the next PR update. [link]

Truemors censors. [link]

Truemors just died. [link]

As soon as the posters noticed that Truemors censored, real spam messages started to hit Truemors, as can be seen in the screenshot.
Truemors-1

Also notice that the last message, truemors just died still up is. Only some mintues later, the spam was cleared.
Truemors-2

Did I miss something in the second image??? Did Truemors not die???

Not only was the spam cleared, but also criticism. Maybe I should add I that the same message got deleted twice.

Lets visit the link to disappeared truemor.

Human or computer? One of us has slipped up. Or not…we could have intentionally deleted this page for various good reasons.

UNMODERATED???

Poor start.
Bye Truemors.

Update: I wonder how long this will stay up.
Truemors-3

Tags: , , , , → 13 Made Me Smarter