Archive for Algorithm
Organic SEO
Posted by: | Comments
Image via CrunchBase
When people refer to “organic SEO” (search engine optimization), they almost always use it as a blanket term to describe the unpaid, algorithm-driven results of any particular engine. However, a sophisticated search engine optimization company will often take the meaning of “organic” one step further. To such companies, the description of “organic SEO” is not limited to what shows up in the “natural” search engine results – it includes the methodologies used to achieve such rankings.
A search engine optimization company usually falls into one of two camps. A “White Hat” search engine optimization company will use a largely content-based approach and will not violate the terms of service of the major search engines. A “Black Hat” search engine optimization company will use a largely technology driven approach and often ignore the terms of service. Neither approach is invalid (as I have said many times before, there is nothing illegal about violating a search engine’s terms of service), and both can achieve high rankings. But a search engine optimization company that takes the word “organic” literally believes that the “Black Hat” approach is anything but “organic SEO.”
There’s an “old” saying in the SEO industry that “content is king.” This is not necessarily true. In my experience, good content is king. Study after study has shown that when people use search engines, they are primarily seeking one thing: information. They are not seeking to be impressed by fancy flash sites. They are not looking for a virtual piece of art. A search engine optimization company that is truly practicing “organic SEO” recognizes this fact and will refuse SEO work when prospects insist that content addition is not an option.
“Artificial SEO” firms, which embrace a technical loophole philosophy, will allow a company to leave its website exactly as it is, because the work that such firms do is by and large technical and is designed to trick the engine into showing content that it would not otherwise. Certainly, there are acceptable (from the engine’s standpoint) technical aspects that any good search engine optimization company will use, such as relevant page titles and meta tags. But there are many more unacceptable technical methodologies than acceptable ones, including cloaking, redirects, multiple sites, keyphrase stuffing, hidden links, and numerous others. A company practicing “organic SEO” will avoid these.
As any search engine optimization company knows, inbound links are critical to the success of an “organic SEO” campaign. But there are different ways to go about it. Firms that practice true “organic SEO” will look at the website itself and say “how can we make this site something that other sites would want to link to?” A search engine optimization company using “artificial SEO” will ask “how can I get links pointing to this site without adding anything of value to it?” The latter approach usually leads to reciprocal linking schemes, link farms, the purchase of text links, and more – anything save for making changes to the website that entice others to link to the site without the link being reciprocated, without paying the website owner, or without asking “pretty please.”
There is a stark contrast between “organic SEO” and “artificial SEO.” Of course, any decent search engine optimization company will make certain that a site is listed in all the popular directories, such as the Yahoo Directory, the Open Directory Project, and Business.com. A good search engine optimization company will also continually seek any industry specific directories where your site should be listed. But truly using “organic SEO” means evolving your site into something that holds actual value to your prospects. In my opinion, this is much more beneficial in the long run than the artificial methodology of trying to garner incoming links that the site does not truly deserve.
Search engines change algorithms frequently, and for two reasons. One is, of course, to improve their results based upon their most recent user studies. The other, which is obviously related, is to remove sites that are ranked artificially high. Such updates raise panic in the SEO community – particularly among “artificial SEO” practitioners who have just discovered that their most recent and cherished trick no longer works (and may have gotten their clients’ sites removed from the engines altogether). It is not uncommon on the search engine forums to see the owner of such a search engine optimization company threatening to “sue Google” over a recent update. Not uncommon, but always amusing.
There is, with only a few exceptions, a common denominator in the websites that remain highly ranked throughout these algorithm shifts. They offer something of value to their visitors and are considered a resource for their industry. “Organic SEO” practitioners generally do not have to worry about going back and redoing work because of an algorithm shift. While an “artificial” search engine optimization company desperately tries to re-attain the rankings it lost for its clients (or to get the sites re-included in the search engine at all) because it was dependent on technical loopholes that have now been closed, “organic SEO” firms continue adding valuable content to a site, strengthening its value and bolstering its rankings.
A common argument from companies when advised by “organic SEO” practitioners to take this approach is “we aren’t trying to provide a resource for our industry – we are trying to sell products or services.” This is, in my opinion, shortsighted. Remember, you are trying to reach prospects in all stages of the buying cycle, not just the low hanging fruit ready to buy now. Let your website be their resource to learn about your industry, rather than your overpaid salesperson. Prospects are very likely to call you when they are ready to buy – after all, you’ve done so much for them already!
In addition, taking advantage of “organic SEO” to make your website an industry resource provides a tremendous natural boost to your rankings for your individual product or service pages. This means that with “organic SEO”, you’ll get the best of both worlds. You’ll reach people early in the buying cycle, educate them, and steer them toward your solution by using your website instead of your sales personnel. You will also reach the low hanging fruit because your individual product or service pages, which are intended for people who are ready to buy now, will get a significant rankings boost.
Search engines conduct very expensive and frequent studies on what their users want to see when they enter search queries. Obviously, no company has a more vested interest in serving up the type of results that their users want than the engines themselves. “Organic SEO” firms will take the “piggyback” approach. A search engine optimization company that uses “organic SEO” will try to learn what the results of these studies were by examining the sites that figure prominently in search engine results over long periods of time. In this way, the search engine optimization company is using “organic SEO” to make the website not only better for search engines, but also for the user- presumably, the engine’s internal research has shown that these sites have what their users have consistently desired, study after study. “Artificial SEO” practitioners have no real interest in these studies- they are instead expending a great deal of energy finding the next technical loophole to exploit after their most recent one has failed.
The latter approach can make results erratic, but it also raises a largër issue – the goal of the campaign. If an “artificial” search engine optimization company finds a temporary loophole in an algorithm that brings your site to the top, but does not take the time to delve into the user experience once a user gets to the site, it will defeat the original purpose. You may get plenty of visitors, but a large percentage of these will be short-term visitors who do not find what they want on your site and back out without a second thought. The search engine optimization company did not “piggyback” on the engines’ research to learn what type of content users wanted to see when they entered their query.
A search engine optimization company that takes a true “organic SEO” approach will actually take the Merriam Webster definition literally. A good website does have the characteristics of an organism and does develop in the manner of a living plant or animal. It builds upon itself. It learns how it should behave for its own benefit. Most importantly, it establishes its territory at the top of the search engine results. And as the organism thrives, artificial machine after machine fades into obsolescence.
About The Author
Article by BizAtomic – SEO Firm – http://www.bizatomic.com.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Search Engine Optimisation – Update (ronmedlin.com)
- 7 Ways NOT to Select an SEO Consultant (myventurepad.com)
- Should You Flaunt Your Search Engine Rankings? (seroundtable.com)
- A Search Engine Explanation (ronmedlin.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f3528d6a-abfb-4dc9-b658-63fad25a8028)
Two Sides of the Sandbox – Getting Stuck and Unstuck on Google
Posted by: | CommentsThis video tutorial talks about the Google Sandbox theory (sandboxing) and Search Engine Optimization techniques.
The mysterious “Google Sandbox” has been a hot discussion topic for search engine optimizers since the phenomena was first noted and named in late April 2004. Since then, ideas on the function, scope and even existence of the sandbox have been a mainstay in SEO and Google related forums, chats and articles.
The term, “sandbox” describes a process of Google’s ranking formulas that appear to slow the debut of new sites in the Top10 listings. Whether or not the sandbox exists tends to depend on the side of the black hat / white hat debate one comes from. SEOs dedicated to “pure”, non-spammy SEO tend to downplay the effects of the sandbox while those who use dark-art tactics know from personal experience that the effects are very real.
In a November 2005 interview with WebmasterWorld’s Brett Tabke, Google chief engineer Matt Cutts appeared to acknowledge it saying, “How many feel there is no such thing as a sandbox? SEOs normally split down the line. There are some things in the algorithm that may be perceived as a sandbox that doesn’t apply to all industries.”
While Matt’s comments did not exactly confirm or deny the existence of a sandbox, they did leave the barn door open wide enough for a great deal of discussion. Between November 2005 and September 2006, well over 300 credible articles, forum threads and blog posts have addressed the topic.
For some, such as Search Engine Guide editor Jennifer Laycock, the Google sandbox is an expression of importance and credibility imbued upon sites that have established themselves over time in Google’s index. In a June 2006 article, Jennifer wrote, “… there is no Google sandbox! It simply doesn’t exist.”
When new sites are spidered and brought into the index, Google compares them with similar sites already in its index and makes a judgment on the relevance of that site against the others. “After all,” she wrote, “how many mörtgage application sites does Google really need to list? Why should they think that your brand new mortgage site is any more worthy of a ranking than the 1.5 million (yes, MILLION) sites that are already indexed for the phrase ‘mörtgage application.’”
Jennifer wrote her piece in agreement with a post Sheri Thurow from Grantastic Design made to LED Digest (issue 2177) where Sheri proclaimed, “There is no such thing as a Google Sandbox. It’s one of those terms that self-proclaimed search engine “experts” came up with to explain why their methodologies don’t work.”
Sheri’s post generated a great deal of controversy, partially because it was perceived by readers as a rant. She explained her point by writing, “A search-friendly Web site is built on a solid foundation of keyword-focused text and giving spiders a means of accessing that text. Then, objective 3rd parties should basically confirm what you say about your own content. It has been this way for years. For that reason, no Google Sandbox. If your site doesn’t have the foundation, its pages won’t appear in search engine results.”
What Jennifer and Sheri are saying is Google is not going to automatically give a first page listing to a new site, no matter how well optimized that site might be. There might be thousands or even millíons of competing websites being compared against a site that has not had time to establish itself as a peer-referenced site.
Peer referencing is an important cornerstone of Google’s overall ranking formula. Originally, Google built its search results based on the number of links directed to a specific document from other web documents. As technology progressed, the creation and maintenance of web documents became infinitely easier, especially with the deployment of blogs. Driving the creation of millíons of fresh documents, sites and blogs was the popularization of Google’s paid search advertising distribution program AdSense. Suddenly, a direct profít motive existed for some in the SEO sector to use their knowledge and immense talents to game Google’s SERPs six ways to Sunday.
Links, which have long been like gold for search savvy webmasters, became increasingly important following the series of algorithm upgrades that started with Hilltop in the summer of 2004. Since that time, Google has raced to keep up with a myriad of methods devised to game its ranking methods. The implementation of a critical measure of how a site, or a document originating at a specific domain, has established itself along side similar sites and/or documents, is accepted by most SEOs as a long leg in Google’s race against manipulation of their search results.
Google has consistently moved to limit link-based exploits of its link-based organic ranking system. Starting this time last year, it implemented a series of measurements examining a wide assortment of data about documents in its index, along with data derived from linking documents known as the Jagger update.
It is safe to say that for the past two years, the majority of research and advancement in the field of search engine optimization comes from the study and analysis of link structures. When it comes to getting a strong ranking on Google and to a lesser degree, on Yahoo, link partners are as well scrutinized as the specific page or domain being indexed.
One of the newer clichés being thrown around SEO circles is the phrase “Link Baiting”. Links from well-established, relevant sites is good at Google. Getting good quality links is getting harder every day. Link baiting describes a tactic to entice others to link to your site by presenting enticing content.
One of the best-known and well-respected link analysts, Andy Hagans wrote a strong piece earlier this week titled, “Secrets to Beating the Sandbox 2.0 REVEALED: The Ultimate Guide”. Though the title is in itself a fine example of link-bait (as noted by RustyBrick), the content of the piece is extremely thorough and well written.
In his opinion, the Google Sandbox definitely exists. “The sandbox/Trustbox is a set of filters in Google’s search algorithm that together prevent new sites from ranking well until they gain trust.” Andy redefines the debate by suggesting “Trustbox” as a far better name than “sandbox”. It is certainly more descriptive.
Andy’s “Ultimate Guide” opens with a concise tutorial on what the “sandbox” is, how it affects sites, and methods he uses to dig through it. As with most pieces by Andy, he clearly delineates tactics that might be considered black-hat from those that are simply smart work on the part of webmasters.
Though I earlier noted that those who believe in the sandbox tend to fall on the dark-arts side of the SEO sector, I don’t intend to suggest all discussion about the phenomenon comes from black-hat SEOs or to imply that all those who find themselves playing in the sandbox are spammers. Due to their need for rapid placement and their propensity of burning domains, the function of a Google Sandbox affects black-hat (or, more appropriately, self-servicing) practitioners far more directly than it does in-house or agency focused SEOs.
I don’t mean to disagree with Sheri or Jennifer either, not exactly anyway. I suspect that for them the existence of a sandbox is irrelevant and therefore far off their radar screens. It is not in Jennifer or Sheri’s interest to spend time delving into the dark-arts of SEO as neither practice black-hat techniques.
Something resembling the Google Sandbox, or as Andy calls it, Trustbox does exist for new websites. Jennifer Laycock actually summed it up best herself, speaking in a session about small business at SES San Jose, in which she used the opening of a new restaurant to describe the non-existence of “sandbox effect”.
In the analogy, Jennifer explained that she was a fan of Chinese and Ethiopian cuisine. In her mid-west city, there are hundreds of Chinese restaurants, several of which she has eaten at or regularly frequents. The opening of a new Chinese restaurant might register on her radar screen but would not likely cause her to race out to try it. If a number of friends recommended the new restaurant, she would be more likely to try it out. Chinese restaurants are ubiquitous in North American cities. If a new Ethiopian eatery opened in that same large mid-west city, she would be very likely to go out of her way to eat there, with or without recommendations from trusted friends, simply because there are very few restaurants specializing in Ethiopian food.
In other words, Jennifer’s observation brings us back full circle to Matt Cutts’ original affirmation, “There are some things in the algorithm that may be perceived as a sandbox that doesn’t apply to all industries.”
About The Author
Search marketing expert Jim Hedger is one of the most prolific writers in the search sector with articles appearing in numerous search related websites and newsletters, including SiteProNews, Search Engine Journal, ISEDB.com, and Search Engine Guide.
He is currently Senior Editor for the Jayde Online news sources SEO-News and SiteProNews. You can also find additional tips and news on webmaster and SEO topics by Jim at the SiteProNews blog.
Related articles by Zemanta
- How To Beat The Google Sandbox Effects (ronmedlin.com)
- SEO 101 – Part 14: Everything You Need to Know About Link Anatomy (searchengineguide.com)
- Seo Web Site Design And Content Guidelines (slideshare.net)
- Good SEO (seobythesea.com)
- Create Your Search Engine Marketing Strategies By Using Google Webmaster Tool (mt-soft.com.ar)
- Daily Search Forum Recap: March 26, 2010 (seroundtable.com)
- Daily Search Forum Recap: March 12, 2010 (seroundtable.com)
- Optimized Copywriting: Help the Search Engines Recommend Your Company (questionpro.com)
- SEO has a funny side too | Search Engine Cartoons (emarketingtrends.co.za)
- Understand How Google Search Engine Works from Matt Cutts for Better SEO (shoutmeloud.com)
- 4 Reasons Why Your Search Engine Traffic Might Have Dropped (marketingvox.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=24e2b453-5ca2-424b-b2f6-66ec7d79d639)
