Negative SEO blog : SEOassassin

But this one made me laugh (and groan). Somebody tell the Idiot, it should appeal to him…

Oh yeah…

IN YOUR FACE, FLANDERS!

Well, well, just when you thought it was safe, someone goes and resurrects SEORoadshow. Sweet. Pictures of Matt Cutts and Tim Mayer and other assorted SE minions will be issued to security, along with shoot-to-kill authorisation. I hear there’s a strong possibility that Ireland may be the location of choice, to make things easier on the whinging Yanks. Timings are still undecided, but September / October are most likely, subject to UK school holidays, other SEO events etc

If you’ve been to one before, I’ll likely see you there. If you haven’t, start working on getting an invite, now.

Interesting - Google now offer an additional internal search box as an alternative to the “More results from…” option in their results. On current evidence, it seems to only be triggered for sites that already have the SiteLinks behaviour, and without a scrap of solid proof, I’m going to assert that it effectively represents an additional level of dominance over and above SiteLinks.

Now, Google have made an official comment on the new behaviour, and as usual, I think they are talking shit. Specifically, they say :

we found that presenting users with a search box as part of the result increases their likelihood of finding the exact page they are looking for

If you look at some of the terms where it happens, I fail to see any appreciable correlation between sites showing the box and the likelihood of users wanting deeper page data.

Examples :

Cambridge vs Oxford

Tesco vs ASDA

Adidas vs Nike

So users want to deep search the Cambridge University site, but not Oxfords? Or Adidas but not Nikes? It is of course entirely possible that there is some deep, complex algorithm in place that makes these determinations using a depth of rich data I cannot fathom. Or maybe they just slapped in on top of the existing stuff. Who knows?

As a further test, try actually using the function - put “pint of milk” into the Tescos box for instance. How helped do you feel now?

When Google inserts results for a related phrase, apparently. If you check the 2nd page for the original term (I know, who ever does THAT, eh?), the numbering starts from 98. Therefore, Google are definitely actually inserting data from a related term into the SERPs when you see that behaviour, with the implication being that both result sets are being retrieved and amalgamated before being served to the user.

Since this behaviour is only ever really seen on somewhat ambiguous, and in my experience slightly obscure terms, I wonder if it’s a way of indirectly determining what terms Google perform badly for according to their own internal metrics (CTR from SERP, follow-on searches etc), since the positioning of the insertion is variable (ooer, missus!).

For all the longtime WMW members out there, you’ll know that DG has long had a fascination with words, their meanings and origins. Clearly, he is not the ONLY person in the world with such an interest, and now I’ve found another, who, frankly, interests me more.

So, if you read this DG, I’ve got a message for you - tits, or GTFO (follow the link, srsly. kthnx)

What the hell is this shit? Check this SERP for the fairly high profile term “cheap flights”. It may have changed by the time you read this (I hope so), but right now, I’m seeing a wierd URL from Travelocity at #2 in the organic results, which on investigation appears to be their “JavaScript is not enabled” page. Fair do’s, their internal IT team need taking out and shooting for presenting that page to spiders, but why have Yahoo indexed that page at all? How is it that it shows up at #2 for a huge term like cheap flights, but not at all (not in the top 100, at least - I got bored looking) for a site: search? Madness

I took the SEOmoz SEO Quiz thing, and scored 71% - none too shabby, on the face of it, but some of the answers that were given as wrong merely reflect a difference of opinion between myself and whoever set the questions. Of course, a couple were where I was just going too fast, and gave an answer that I instantly realised was wrong, and in one case just flat out hit the wrong answer (well, yeah, 301ing a penalised site to someone else certainly can hurt them - I know this, so WHY did I answer “false”?)

(more…)

Having a good domain name makes SEOing a site a lot easier in many cases. Keywords in the URL are a nice boost to have in and of themselves, and if your key terms are there, it also means you’ll get a lot of good ancxhor text WITHOUT HAVING TO BEG FOR IT.

Look what’s going active - www.seoblog.com. Who wouldn’t love that for their root domain…? If the content is any good (and it should be), that should shoot up the rankings like a rat up a drainpipe. It’ll be interesting to watch.

A day or 2 early this, but whatever. 2007 has been a pretty rubbish year for me, for several reasons, and I can’t say I’m too unhappy to see it go. 2008 has early signs of some promise, and with some luck could be every bit as good as 2007 has been bad, and then some.

For anyone who still reads my somewhat erratic stuff, I hope you have a good 2008, no matter how your 2007 was. I’m going to try and be a bit more consistent, and do some more of the article grade stuff next year too. There’s still plenty to say, I promise you that…

Happy New Year, folks!

I think there’s at least a slim chance soemone who reads this is, or knows Idetrorce. Please, please if you can get this message to them, do it.

SHUT-THE-FUCK-UP!!

It’s not just me who is sick of it. Even the Wikis aren’t safe.

I may be one of the few who wants him / her / it / them to shut up because they are going to give people too many ideas though. Shhhhhh