In checking my backlinks earlier tonight, I found that I was tagged by Andy Beard.  In the spirit of passing things on and following through — I’ve decided to respond… So here goes:

1. What have you learned so far from visitors to your blog?
That I still have an ability to discuss the search industry.  I’ve only been at it for two weeks, and so far I’ve been really impressed with the response.  Considering there has been effectively no organic search traffic coming in — I’m pleased with how things are going.  According to MyBlogLog there are 32 members subscribed to my blog’s community, and FeedBurner tells me that I have another six who are signed up for the email subscription.

2. If someone would offer to pay for a course (or more) for you, what would that course be?
Probably some evening culinary courses at Johnson & Wales University in Providence.  I’ve always enjoyed cooking but I never create anything close to what I can imagine.  In the rare event that I have some down time, I like watching the Food Network — so I think that’d be a good break for me mentally from work — while also being a rewarding course that I know I’d use for the rest of my life.

3. Are you satisfied with what you’ve achieved in 2006, in general?
Absolutely.  My wife and I moved away from the congested area of the East Bay and now live closer to family and friends.  That was one of the most important tasks for me last year considering that right now — she’s five days overdue with our first child.  Professionally speaking, I could’ve done more for myself and my career — but I’m already pleased with the opportunities that have presented themselves here in 2007… and I know many of those were begun because of initiatives launched in ‘06.

4. Has blogging changed your life or your personality in any way?
Yes.  I’m more interested in what takes place in the search industry and in other areas of interest.  I find myself loading up Google Reader multiple times throughout the day.  I also find myself spending more time trying to develop quality ideas for my blog… So much so that I’ve invested in a five subject notebook to hold the ideas that aren’t quite flushed out.

5. If you had the opportunity to meet one person that you admire the most in the world, who would that person be?
Brett Tabke — which is a bit untrue, because I’ve met him in the past (at the Boston PubCon).  I find that what Brett has accomplished with WebmasterWorld is absolutely incredible.  I’ve been a member since 2001, but I’ve always found his site to be a community of dedicated professionals that continuously grows ever day.  Having run many forums and discussion boards on a range of topics — I envy his accomplishments to a degree but would love to access to great tips on community building.

Now — as a result of being tagged, I’m supposed to tag another five bloggers to complete the same set of questions.  Since my blog is focused on SEM related topics, I’m going to tag five others involved in the SEM industry.  Rather than hit up the frequented blogs though, I’m going to go after some that you may not have seen yet — but will find value in.  Here’s the tag list…

• Joe’s Sem Blog
• SEOPittfall
• SEO By the Sea
• The SEM Zone
• Red Tropic

And finally, I propose a motion that states that those tagged, shouldn’t feel obligated to tag others… Because this just stole a good 30 minutes of production time at 1:30 in the morning for no good reason!

I’m not too sure how many sites are seeing different values out there, but a number of client sites as well as some of my own have undergone PageRank updates at some point this weekend. The changes took place at some point between Friday night and Sunday morning — at least, that’s when I began noticing them.

There’s no rhyme or reason to what I’m seeing just yet. Initially I suspected that the domains I had been building and exchanging links for had been hit — but I’m not sure that’s the case. I really cannot be sure if this is an extension of other penalties or filters — or if I’m just a bit unlucky.

In 20 of my active domains, a small group has been hit by the update. Two sites I manage for small family businesses dropped to the lowly value of one. These sites had values of three or four on Friday.

I haven’t seen a lot of coverage on any possible updates, aside from the major update that took place a few weeks back. If you’re following it though, or looking for additional information — check these links out:

• PageRank Updates Continued
• PageRank Update - Jan 2007 (part 2)

If you can add any reports of your findings… Please do so here with the comments below.

The early days of pay per click advertising were much more simple than today. You could communicate more easily to clients, and establish more profitable advertising programs using PPC as a supplement for organic search marketing. Unfortunately, search engine giants continue to tinker with what works best– and we’re now operating in a marketplace that is unfair for those managing pay per click campaigns.

Back in July of last year, Google introduced their “Quality Score” to all AdWords advertisers. This scoring algorithm effectively monitored the landing pages of your ads while determining the overall price in which you should pay in order to obtain traffic on a per keyword basis.

While the move was made to help clean up Google’s programs, it also came on the heels of some important legal matters — most notably a $495 million settlement for click fraud. Understanding their position, I worked with my clients to inform them that this move was one made by Google to help protect advertisers and the entire playing field of AdWords advertising.

Today, I regret having done that.

While the move allowed smaller companies an opportunity to compete on content rather than cost — it has muddied the waters and caused issues for everyone involved. As a service provider, there’s a mysterious cloud that exists. I’m constantly knee deep in a battle to defeat the rising costs of the quality score for my clients. My clients are further frusturated because Google refuses to provide information on how to really improve their pages.

It’s not as though we don’t want to improve things, or, that we want to improve these pages dishonestly. I think I speak for many AdWords campaign managers when I say that we just want more specific information.

While that’s unlikely to happen — Yahoo! has a great opportunity to win back our hearts, as well as many of their former GoTo and Overture advertisers. That is of course possible only if their new system improves upon the flaws evident in Google’s system.

Two days ago, Frank Watson from Search Engine Watch posted that Yahoo will introduce a similar system to Google’s Quality Score to advertisers on February 5th as part of their new “Panama” program. While you can view the entire press release directly from Yahoo, I’ve pulled out some of the more important areas that we need to be concerned with:

“…excited to introduce our new, more quality-focused ranking model because it has the power to significantly enhance the experience we deliver to our users and unlock the full potential of Yahoo!’s search marketing network..”

“…search ads on Yahoo! and its distribution partner sites have been ranked solely by bid price - the higher the bid, the higher an ad appears within the search results. When the new ranking model goes into effect, both bid and the ad’s quality together will determine where an ad appears in the search results. The quality of an ad will be determined by its historical performance in the new system and its expected performance relative to other ads displayed…”

“…Yahoo! is providing advertisers with industry-leading marketplace visibility and features that allow them to better understand their performance and make informed marketing decisions. Advertisers who have upgraded to the new system (code named “Panama”) can gauge the quality of their ads by viewing the prominently displayed quality index within the Panama application. Yahoo! also provides advertisers with an estimated average position and estimated forecast of clicks for their ad campaigns, based on budget allocation and ad quality…”

So what does all this mean?

For one, we can expect something similar to what Google has in place with their Quality Score system. The critical area though is one where feedback becomes important. Messages like “Improve Quality” or “Increase Bid to XX” do nothing for me. If the game is about performance where price is not a factor — why should advertisers have to pay more?

The bottom line is that improving landing page quality is highly subjective. More importantly, I’m concerned with one part of Yahoo’s press release. It’s the statement that “quality of an ad will be determined by its historical performance in the new system”.

In other words, your pages’ performance can not be factored until part of the new Panama system. If you have a page that performs wonderfully for organic traffic, that performance is essentially irrelevant. Yahoo! then is basically telling us that performance cannot be factored when Panama launches, because 95% of the advertisers do not have access to the system. Translation: Yahoo! will then determine advertisement placement solely on price and what it sees as “its expected performance relative to other ads displayed”.

I’m really, really worried about this.

I’ve seen this happen with Google AdWords campaigns, and what tends to happen is that the PPC providers alienate their customers. As a paying customer, you’re once again stuck behind a thick veil of smoke and mirrors, making changes and constantly resubmitting ads and groups in the effort to decrease your costs and improve your quality.

The only opportunity Yahoo! has here, is to be more up front with their advertisers. Is the page lacking content? Does it contain too much content, a lack of detail or questionable content? Are you promoting affiliate offers too strong, or perhaps showcasing another system’s contextual advertising? These are the things that Yahoo needs to tell their users early and often to help win back advertisers.

If they don’t, it’s entirely possible that MSN’s adCenter could improve their system (currently being tweaked for improvements) and instantly one-up both Google and Yahoo! without much effort at all. The result would also result in an increased number of LiveSearch users — therefore leveling the playing field even more.

One thing’s for sure in all of this though… It’s a dynamic industry and one where the major players need to be concerned with advertiser’s needs. Other folks have ideas too on how Yahoo can differentiate themselves. Check out Panama Could Provide Google Antidote for a quick read if interested.

Despite being the most widely used search engine available on the Internet, Google makes a number of mistakes on a regular basis. It’s when they compound those mistakes that they continue on the path they’re on… One where many involved in the Internet begin to look down upon them, similar to what Microsoft went through in the late 90’s.

For Google, things have changed very quickly in a couple short years. Since the dawn of their IPO, Google’s users have become more critical while what Google offers has become increasingly flawed.

So what’s the deal with Google? If you were to ask me, they need a bit of soul searching — because they’re telling us one thing and practicing another. And that’s why I’m sold on the fact that Google is one giant hypocrite.

Let me explain…

“Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” (source)

That worked so well back when Google was content being a search engine. Search engines have the ability to organize search for stocks, images, maps and news… But can someone please explain to me how that same company focused on organizing information gets involved with things like Google Checkout, Froogle, Google Pack and Google Talk?

I know that some people actually use these things — but how does it relate to search? They don’t. They just provide Google with a larger base to market their ads.

I’m okay with that so long as you come clean about it. The thing that floors me is that Google site back and tells us that:

It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
Google does search. With one of the world’s largest research groups focused exclusively on solving search problems, we know what we do well, and how we could do it better. Through continued iteration on difficult problems, we’ve been able to solve complex issues and provide continuous improvements to a service already considered the best on the web at making finding information a fast and seamless experience for millions of users. Our dedication to improving search has also allowed us to apply what we’ve learned to new products, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Maps… (from: Corporate Information: Our Philosophy)

I don’t buy it. Aside from being incredibly hypocritical — Google has one of the most difficult times marketing their products to their users. Why would that be so difficult if you were providing useful tools? One theory of mine is that they’d be a lot more successful if they’d just change their image or do what they say and stick to what they’ve earned their reputation as — a search company.

As an example, Froogle has been around for more than two years now and still fails to organize information well enough to solve the simplest shopping adventures. Still, there have been no improvements visibly made to the tools and as a result it gets shuffled lower and lower on the PR list until we all forget about it.

Next, let’s look at Google Checkout. I know it’s new and I might be jumping the gun here — but just take this for what it’s worth.

This past holiday Google offered bonuses to merchants and buyers for using Google Checkout to purchase things online. While competing with systems such as PayPal is quite the challenge, what does it say about your marketing abilities when you have to resort to giving things away? Giving free things to people when you’re a mom and pop shop fighting for exposure is one thing… But when you have 380 million unique users per month, you couldn’t find a more effective way to advertise and recruit users?

I’m really just bitter though, mainly because I used Google back when they provided efficient search results that weren’t so easily influenced. In today’s version of Google’s search engine (remember, this is the one thing they know best), they over-value sources like Wikipedia despite the fact that it can be one of the most easily spammed sources for backlinks.

To make matters worse, Wikipedia has chosen to implement nofollows once again — a step in the right direction for cleaning up some Google SERPs. But why couldn’t Google have made an alteration?

The answer is simple — Google is no longer motivated to provide effective search results. Rather, they’re satisfied with a questionable image and increasing profit margins. Anyone in business would feel the same way though. That’s why I’m not faulting Google for focusing on those goals — I just wish they’d come to their senses and refocus themselves a bit before they go too far down the path to mediocrity.

After listening to an archived show of NetIncome, Jeremy’s show on WebmasterRadio, I started thinking about black hat optimization and the reputation that it has received in the industry. In the particular episode I’m referencing, Jeremy spoke with legendary “black hat” Quadzilla from SEO Blackhat. Together, they did something that has been needed in the industry for a long time… they provided us with clear examples as to why black hat optimization is truly just effective optimization.

Both Jeremy and Quadzilla commented early in the program that traditional white hat SEO is filled with the same tips and strategies, regurgitated from one source to the next. They hit the nail on the head too, indicating that most of what’s available in terms of articles and tips is repetitive, boring and ineffective to a large degree. In battling for improved rankings on the SERPs, there’s really only so much you can gain from optimized titles, meta tags and link building.

Quadzilla offered a wealth of information on the show, and I’d like to go through some of his comments (as well as Jeremy’s) because they really indicate that there is indeed a gray area between black and white SEO. Those that actively practice the advanced optimization in these gray areas should not be frowned upon. On the contrary, we’re talking about very seasoned individuals that develop advanced techniques that require dedication, research and credentials to be effective.

More importantly, it’s very difficult to practice pure black hat optimization. I know that there’s a strong market of black hat pay per click groups out there — but there are very few in the true SEO landscape. While folks bend the rules and limitations, true black hats are usually exposed before they close up shop and move onto a new niche or vertical. While they continue to exploit holes in the system — those in the gray area are the ones capitalizing on their success.

See, to me the beauty of advanced optimization techniques, aside from the fact that they’re highly effective — is that they’re well guarded. Unfortunately, many SEOs conjure up the image of these advanced SEMs as a “black hat”, putting in minimal time to exploit the weaknesses of search algorithms.

That’s not at all the truth.

In this blog post, I hope to clear up a bit of that confusion, using comments from both Jeremy and Quadzilla, experienced players in the advanced SEM game to help us along. Hopefully, I’ll get it right.
There was a question in particular that stood out to me — and it was posed from Matt Cutts of all people: If you were a search engine, what would you tackle next to reduce web spam? Quadzilla responded with:

Everything that Google’s doing now is reactionary…. They’ll take a list of results and apply a new filter to it… ..They won’t hand code the results, but they’ll say: If we apply this filter or that filter to the algorithm which gives us the best general results? So, they’re being very reactive in terms of what’s being done to improve the algorithm.

This is a very telling quote and one worth basing your efforts around. For years now, the battles that take place for specific SERPs are incredible. Yet, with a few tweaks — Google can (and in many cases has) altered the playing field to weed out what they deem to be the spam or over-optimized players. Unfortunately, this is also what has ruined the once mastered practice of search optimization. In short, Google’s reactionary stance towards cleaning up their engine has caused (what is seen as) white hat SEO to much less effective.

Too often, beginning SEOs literally expect for traditional white hat SEO to be effective. As Quadzilla points out in the interview though, what these people see as white hat SEO can really be learned in as little as four hours.

Moving on, let’s analyze another quote…

The bottom line for what I do anyway, is I look at what works, and what works for me. I think that’s what everyone should be looking at is, you know, what works for you,… What’s working for someone else? How can I copy what they’re doing right in my own business? — And, not worry so much about if it’s technically falling on this side of white hat, or black hat… Just, do what works and at the end of the day if you have a good check coming to you, you’ve probably done something right.

To me, this quote from Quad really reminds me of what the industry was like before SEO became as popular as it is today. In those days, no one ever referenced Google’s Webmaster Guidelines when discussing their practices. Today, 95% of the players in the game market themselves as white hat players who adhere to those guidelines.

Optimizing title tags and cleaning up your code is all well and good — but as more people practice these techniques, the less effective they become. More importantly, if every new site has this built in from the ground up, there’s only so much to be gained from optimization.

To me, the name of the game is in advanced optimization techniques — the gray area beyond those plainly formatted webmaster guidelines. It’s in the things you won’t read about regularly, but practice often. For example, according to Google’s Webmaster Guidelines — you should:

• “avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings”
• “feel comfortable explaining what you’ve done to a website that competes with you’
• and ask yourself… “Would I do this if search engines didn’t exist?”

I don’t know about you — but I’ve got more important things to do than create effective title tags, collect effective keywords and write compelling meta descriptions. Still, I do these things because I know they’ll improve my rankings. I know that the sites I’m competing with do the same — and we all do it because search engines exist.

Does that make me a black hat? Of course not — it makes me smart enough to realize that there’s an element of politics and some smoke and mirrors involved in Google’s operations.

Rather than get off on that tangent though, lets look at one final quote from Quad as he responds to Jeremy’s question of — in closing, what’s the advice you’d give to someone looking to get started?

In Google’s current algorithm, the trust of the domain is supremely important. So if you’re going to do white hat or black hat or whatever for a site, you don’t want to start it, in my opinion, on a fresh domain…

Again, Quad’s giving us some sound advice as to how to be effective. New sites are incredibly difficult to get off the ground. While you could spend months creating a domain and building backlinks — it’s much easier to just purchase a domain that has the platform you need to succeed. Depending upon your techniques, that platform or base could be a particular level of backlinks, history in a specific vertical or niche, a numbers of years of actively indexed content, etc.

So, before you go reporting every questionable SERP you see — investigate it. Take notes, record information and see what they’re doing right. Then, ask yourself if you’re taking the easy way out by filing a SPAM complaint — or if you’re absolutely sure that what the site is doing is creating an unfair playing field.

I’m willing to bet that in most cases, you’re simply selling yourself short on what you could accomplish if you took the time to learn and practice the same advanced optimization techniques.