Search Engine Optimization experts disagree. A lot. Kind of like radio commentators during election season. And that’s why you’ll often find conflicting advice or contradictory statements from one search engine optimization blog to the next. The interesting thing is every Search Engine Optimization professional thinks he’s right and the other guy is wrong. Could it be that maybe every Search Engine Optimization pro is right?

In a relative sense, Search Engine Optimization is not necessarily about what is true or factual, but about what is effective. If it works for me then I believe it’s true. Someone else could disagree and still be just as right.

For instance, some Search Engine Optimization gurus will tell you that having your keyword in your domain name isn’t necessary. To be sure, there are many domains that do not have the necessary keywords in them and they are still very popular and successful:

• Flickr
• JohnChow.com
• del.icio.us
• You name one

There are a lot more examples, of course, but I don’t want to bore you. Looking at the list of successful websites that don’t have a keyword in the URL, you’d think it isn’t necessary just as these Search Engine Optimization firms say. But other SEOs will tell you that having the keyword in your URL will give you an edge in the search engines. And I believe they have a valid point. Both camps.

On the one hand, keywords in the URL are not an absolute necessity. Flickr has proven that. But all other things being equal, having the keyword in your URL will improve your competitive edge.

Consider these relative facts:

• Every search engine has a different set of algorithms used to determine rankings
• Google has more than 200 ranking factors in its algorithm
• All the search engines frequently update their algorithms
• The competition for every keyword is different

Every Search Engine Optimization agency has his own style. Some like to focus on link building. Others like to focus on developing content. Others may emphasize site infrastructure more. Some web designers are awesome at developing templates that are cool and search engine friendly, but they aren’t very good at coding metas. To each his own.

When it comes to good Search Engine Optimization, it’s more important to understand the principles involved in ranking a site well and to use those principles that apply best to a particular situation. For instance, Google doesn’t like interlinking between real estate websites. So a real estate broker in Alberta linking to an agent in Florida isn’t going to do either of them any good. But two agents in Jacksonville, Florida linking to each other will do them both wonders. On the other hand, reciprocal linking between two freelance graphic artists where one is in Florida and the other is in Alberta is perfectly acceptable. It’s important to know how the Search Engine Optimization principles will work for your industry.

The more you know about Search Engine Optimization, the better able you are in diagnosing problems and fixing them. If you don’t know the Search Engine Optimization solution, maybe you should call someone who does.

(Aaron Wall) Can you rank a new site in Yahoo! for terms like insurance without getting it nuked in Google? What makes Yahoo! so much slower at ranking new sites than the other major search engines?

I find this question interesting coming from Aaron Wall. In my experience, I’ve seen MSN Live slow on the uptake in ranking new sites for Search Engine Optimization. Occasionally, I’ve seen Yahoo! slow in accepting new sites. But I rarely see Google take to a new site very slowly, aside from its famed “Sandbox,” that is.

I’m sure Aaron Wall has reasons for pointing out that certain sites are getting listed at Yahoo! slower than they are at other sites, but it isn’t like that for every site. None of the search engines have the same set of algorithms. They all put different weight on certain elements and on any given day it could be different than it is today. I think that, probably, Google and MSN Live update their algorithms more often than Yahoo! does. But I’ve noticed that if you get listed in Yahoo! then your chances of getting recognized for more links is greatly increased, giving you a huge boost in your link popularity. MSN was not even reporting links until just recently and I’ve seen sites that are three years old have a bit 0 in that column for MSN Live and have more than 1,000 links counted for Yahoo! while showing up with more than 100 at Google (Google is much more strict on links than either MSN Live or Yahoo!).

Bottom line, it is difficult to say that any of the search engines are faster at ranking new sites as it relates to Search Engine Optimization. I’ve found that Google is lightning fast at crawling new sites if the the webmaster has other sites ranked as well. This may be due to the webmaster knowing what he’s doing and targeting his new sites for fast ranking, but I think it also has something to do with Google favoring new sites from experienced webmasters if those webmasters have sites registered under the same name at Whois. Yahoo! and MSN Live take turns being last. I’m not sure why. Although I am sure every Search Engine Optimization professional has something to add on this topic.

Content is a huge part of website development and Search Engine Optimization, but what is it? Lest you think I’ve gone and flipped my lid, let’s be honest: The definition and nature of content has changed since 1999. To hear some people talk about it, you’d think content was nothing more than words on a web page. But there’s more to it than that.

Essentially, content is anything that contributes to the essence of your website. By essence I mean its meta-qualities - not meta as in metatags, though it does include your tags - but meta as in over and above merely what you see on the page. There are three types of content within this definition:

• On-page content
• Off-page content
• “Behind the curtain” content

Your on-page content is anything that is visible to the human eye on each web page of your website. That includes text, photos, videos, graphics, your template or website design, etc. Those are your visible elements. Off-page content refers to anything off site that contributes to the essence of your website. That includes inbound links, blog content on off site blogs that you own and link back to your site, articles, social networking content, wiki entries, directory submissions, etc. I include these elements in my working definition of content because that’s what they are - in a word, they are content and they work for you.

“Behind the curtain” content is a little bit more mystical. It includes meta tags, of course, but it’s more than just meta tags. It also includes link attributes, site navigation paradigms, XML pages for your RSS feeds, sitemaps, and anything that contributes to user value but cannot be construed as either on-page or off-page content. In other words, your “behind the curtain” elements are primarily content fed to search engine spiders, but that also provide your users with some benefit. It is essentially, code.

Now what is your content supposed to do? Ultimately, your content - all of your content - has one job: To lead your site visitor to implement some action. That action could be a sale, a newsletter sign up, post a comment, something. Whatever it is, there needs to be a call to action. But not every piece of content requires a call to action. Some content - called pre-sell content - should actually be used to channel your site visitor to the place where you want them to respond to your call to action. You are actually canalizing them into responding to you.

So when you develop your content - whether it be off site link building content, visible on site web page elements like graphics and page text, or meta-content - each piece must contribute to the whole. Every piece of content must do its job or be cut from the team. The bottom line is, content teamwork is the most important thing. Every individual piece must work for the good of the team either by closing the sale, delivering traffic, or contributing to your Search Engine Optimization. If every piece of your content is working for the good of all then your content is selling. If not, then you need to rethink your content.

You’ve heard it said often enough: “Content is King.” But is it?

Second-rate Search Engine Optimization experts and followers all over the Internet will repeat this mantra over and over again as if it is true and add such silly wisdom - let’s call it Sisdom - as “If content is king then link building is queen.” Yeah, right.

Let me tell you why this is all wrong. Any schmuck can put content on a web page. In fact, a web page is not a web page without content. Try putting up a blank white screen with nothing but your html and body tags. Call that content and every goober with a hat on will laugh at you. (The goobers without hats will stare blankly.)

I’ve seen people build a five page website and just wait. “Yep, built a website! The business will come any time. I’m juu-uuu-uust a-waitin’. God bless my soul.”

OK, I’m being silly. But you know it happens. People build a website - they’ve got content - and nothing happens. Some king.

Content without links will get you nothing. I’m not saying start building inbound links and all your problems will be solved. But I am saying that you can take any crappy site with content, build links to it and at least improve your Google juice. Content alone will not ensure you any rankings. It won’t ensure you any sales. It won’t ensure you any traffic. But put one strategically placed link somewhere else on the Web and point it back to your crappy site with content and you’ll likely increase your traffic. You’ll likely also increase your PageRank and Google’s algorithms will jump for joy because they found something of value related to your content - even though it’s not on your crappy website.

Now, that’s how links are more important than content. Even a bad link - not a spam link or a “bad neighborhood” link (I’m talking about an ineffectual milquetoast link) - can increase the Search Engine Optimization juice on your lousy content website. Oooooh, but take that lousy content and rewrite it. I don’t just mean change a few verbs and rearrange your keywords. I mean really rewrite it. Rewrite it from scratch so that your content shines - like Patton’s combat boots. Spit polish your content until you can see your own reflection. Don’t do anything. Now you’ve got a website with valuable content - and that’s what will make a difference.

Lesson: Content is not king. Good content is king.

Inbound links to a lousy content site with crappy content is better than a website with bad content and no links. But take that website and make your content good and your good content site without links will outperform a bad content site with all the links in the world. Add links to it, however, and you’ve got one hell of a website to be proud of. And it will make you money as part of your Search Engine Optimization efforts. I think that’s what Rand Fishkin meant when he said that links are more important than content. To that I wholeheartedly agree.

I’d like to confirm the backlink question posed at WebProNews recently. Do spammy backlinks hurt you and your Search Engine Optimization efforts?

Yes, they can. But it does take a lot.

Let’s say you run a small business website that is beginning to attract spammy backlinks from porn sites, pharmaceuticals hawkers, and spam blogs. You’d better have a bunch of good links going in because if you don’t then those nefarious backlinks could hurt your reputation in a really bad way. It’s not the value of the links per se; it’s more the quantity of the bad links and the percentage of bad links compared with your good links.

If you have just 10 good links, because you’re a fairly new site, and you start getting hundreds of backlinks that are low quality spam links, porn links, warez sites, and the like, then that won’t look good for you. On the other hand, if you’ve got 30,000 good links and just a thousand or so of these bad links then you’re probably OK because you’ve got so many good links that Google will tend to overlook the bad ones. That’s another reason why inbound links are so important. They’re effective in reputation management and Search Engine Optimization.

Article marketing, off site blogging, directory submissions, and other valid link building strategies should never be abandoned. Get those good, solid links in place before your competition decides to bombard you with bad links. This could be the new trench warfare - competitors killing each other off with sour link juice. Don’t be a victim, be a proactive linker and do it right.

YouTube is rolling out a beta version of a personalized home page. I think this is great and could have implications for Search Engine Optimization.

I think this is a sign that Google sees its personalization efforts as successful. I assume I don’t need to remind you that Google now owns YouTube, which means the move is a Google executive decision. So the Search Engine Optimization implications are even more far reaching than one I’m about to tell you.

In terms of Search Engine Optimization, since many webmasters use YouTube videos as embeds on their blogs and websites, personalization could make these embeds more accessible. If I, for instance, have a tendency to embed videos about search engine optimization and internet marketing on my blog then when I log into my YouTube account I should get recommendations for videos tagged as search engine optimization or internet marketing. These will mostly be videos I haven’t seen yet.

The personalized home page, according to YouTube’s blog, will focus on three improvements:

1. Recommendations
2. Subscriptions
3. Activity of Friends

What this means for active YouTube members is you will get recommendations based on past videos watched, but you’ll also be given the latest uploads from your subscriptions and be able to keep track of the latest videos uploaded by your friends. That’s three ways that you can use YouTube for Internet marketing purposes.

Recommendations will be taken care of by YouTube, of course. But subscriptions can be targeted. And friends, too, can be targeted. Plus, you can use YouTube’s internal messaging system to let your friends know that you’ve uploaded a new video.

While none of this is Search Engine Optimization-related per se, you can increase your Search Engine Optimizationsimply by networking through YouTube. Whenever a friend uses a video on their website or blog they may, and you can make it available through your profile, decide to link to your website or blog. When used as a networking tool, YouTube can become another method of increasing your Search Engine Optimization benefits. Personalization will go a long way to helping you do that better.

Most people aren’t aware that search engines already perform some limited semantic language analysis. Of course, there is a long way to go, but you can get ranked for your important key terms with semantic language techniques on your web pages.

That doesn’t mean you can abandon your keywords. To make the best use out of semantic language search, you should still use keywords on your website content, but you don’t have to stuff your content with keywords. Instead, if you notice that you have a lot of your keyword on the page, substitute some of those keyword instances with synonyms for your key words and phrases.

For instance, if you are writing about internet marketing, try useful synonyms like “online marketing,” “online advertising,” “internet promotions,” “marketing your internet business,” etc. Don’t substitute every instance of your keyword on the page because that will water your content down and you don’t want that. But you should substitute some instances of it.

Places where you want to keep your primary keyword include:

• Your page title
• H2 and H3 tags
• Meta Tags
• First and last sentence on the page

Then you want to pepper your content is your keyword throughout your page content. But don’t overdo it. You’ll also want to sprinkle your synonyms throughout the content to give your content its semantic flavor. And that’s how semantic language for web pages works. It’s not hard, but it’s more than just littering your pages with keywords too as part of Search Engine Optimization.

Domain name registrar Network Solutions and ICANN are named as defendants in a lawsuit alleging the former is guilty of domain frontrunning, a practice that relies on monitoring what domain names have been searched for and registering those domain names only to raise the price and resell them for a profit. The practice is frowned upon by ICANN, but the plaintiff in the lawsuit, Chris McElroy, says that ICANN has done nothing to stop the practice.

Attorneys for McElroy, Kabateck Brown Kellner, are seeking to make the case a class action lawsuit and will bring anyone who has had this experience with Network Solutions in on the lawsuit. KBN is bringing ICANN into the lawsuit to dispute whether or not the agency is a government entity and has the authority to curb the practice. KBN says the agency is not a government entity and does not have such authority.

While this is an interesting lawsuit and there are plenty of people who will be glad to see Network Solutions be called into account over the practice of domain frontrunning, it will be a long time before anything is done about it. The lawsuit could take years to settle.

According to Matt Cutts, Google is considering others ways of handling the NoIndex meta tag, as it relates to Search Engine Optimization. Of course, if he had his way he’d make sure none of the search engines indexed a page with the NoIndex meta tag. Currently, all the search engines have their own policies regarding NoIndex. Here’s the breakdown:

- Google doesn’t show the page in any way
- Ask doesn’t show the page in any way
- MSN shows a url reference and Cached link, but no snippet. Clicking the cached link doesn’t return anything.
- Yahoo! shows a url reference and Cached link, but no snippet. Clicking on the cached link returns the cached page.

Personally, I’d rather a page with the NoIndex meta tag not be shown any way at all than to be referenced and cached. I don’t want to click a link in a SERP and get a 404 error page or a page not returned for some reason.

Google currently doesn’t show a NoIndex page. But Cutts is wanting feedback to find out what web users expect. They are considering changing their policy and Matt Cutts points out some of the benefits of doing each possible way. Except that there are more than one way to find “some middle ground in between.”

One way that Google, and the other search engines, could handle NoIndex meta tags for pages that are popular and well known is to analyze whether they have any valuable back links as part of a website’s Search Engine Optimization. If not, then don’t show them. If so then go ahead and index it any way. If a webmaster lists the site in the ODP and has articles out there pointing at it and then decides to add a NoIndex meta tag, they aren’t really serious about NoIndexing. For them, it is likely a temporary situation. The search engines could add another tag - a temporary, or timed, NoIndex - that allows webmasters to NoIndex a certain web page, or an entire web site, for a timed period and once that time period has expired they appear in the SERPs again. That way, webmasters who have issues that need to be fixed can fix their issues during that time period and return to the SERPs. The NoIndex tag can be reserved for parked domains and such.

Wow! Andy Beal whipped out the Bible on Steve Rubel.

Of course, it was warranted. Rubel is all over Search Engine Optimization experts about using social media.

What I don’t get is what Uncle Sam and the Good Book have to do with Search Engine Optimization or social media marketing. OK, I do understand Beal’s scripture banging a bit. But what is the deal with Uncle Sam at the top of Rubel’s blog post? Is he telling us it’s unpatriotic to engage in Search Engine Optimization or to engage in social media marketing as search engine optimization?

Just listen to Rubel’s snarky mandates:

Search engine optimization professionals of late seem poised to take over blogs, digg, StumbleUpon and other sites with a range of tactics, some legit, others more questionable with the intent of building Google Juice and nothing more.

To be clear, I do not object to the way that blogs, digg links and Wikipedia rank highly in search results. What does get me hot and bothered is when consultants and bloggers propose launching such an initiatives solely for influencing search. Search Engine Optimization, like word of mouth, should be a byproduct outcome, not a primary objective.

But the Search Engine Optimization shenanigans for the sake of SEO has to stop. If you’re going to play in our sandbox, follow the community’s (unwritten) rules.

I’ve always had a problem with unwritten rules. If they’re rules, why not just write them down? Let’s codify them so that we all know how to break them more easily.

So Rubel is pretty clear: SEOs performing social media marketing for the primary purpose of achieving Search Engine Optimization results are anathema. Uhhh, I disagree, but that’s his opinion. I like the way Beal has answered him, however:

Oh come off it Steve. What about the multitude of PR firms that flood social media with company profiles of their clients–all with the sole intent of building their brand recognition. They want to “appear” as if they’re engaging their customers, but really they’re just jumping in so they can figure out how to push their brand on users.

Steve Rubel is right. He’s not the only one that feels that the way he does. But Beal is right as well. He’s not the only one who feels the way he does. There are plenty of blackhat SEOs out there making the rest of us look bad, but this really isn’t about blackhat Search Engine Optimization. It is about any type of Search Engine Optimization. Rubel says, in one breath, that he doesn’t mind Diggs and other social media getting Google juice, but he does mind people pursuing Search Engine Optimization results through those media. Well, if there is Google juice to be had then people will pursue it. It’s human nature. You can not like it all you want, but there is clear Search Engine Optimization benefit from some forms of social media marketing. It isn’t exploiting the media to seek out the benefits. It’s just plain smart.

The European Union is going to make all search engines - Google, Yahoo!, and MSN comply with strict privacy rules.

EU rules that someone must consent to their data being collected and give individuals the right to object or verify their information apply to search engines, the regulators’ group said in a short statement as they prepare a full report due by April.

This could potentially open up a whole new level of discussions regarding privacy. It could also lead to some competition regarding citizenship. In this post-industrial age when flight fancy is easy to come by and migration between countries is as easy as ever, citizens of one country could migrate to another country based on laws that are more favorable to individual sensitivities like privacy. If that happens, what will become of the U.S. population?

Don’t count it as a mass exodus yet. It is not likely that huge portions of the population will just up and leave overnight. But it is possible that large numbers of Net citizens who have no particular roots or anything tying them down will want to stick around if policies regarding privacy are more favorable elsewhere. Granted, not everyone is interested in privacy, but many people are and if they can find it in the EU, well, then you could see them hop a plane and head to Spain.

This is an interesting read about newspapers. It seems that maybe newspapers have figured out the game. That leaves open the question of the future: What will it become?

I think online news is a great new marketing channel for a lot of businesses and it puts newspapers into a whole new category unto themselves. They aren’t directories because they provide a service. The service is delivery of news. We could honestly see getting back to providing free news in an unbiased reporting style. Then again, it could open up a whole new door of yellow journalism as well. Whatever the case, online newspapers will need to survive financially and that will mean advertisers.

Since newspapers can’t be classified as directories, yellow pages, portals, or fit into any other classification of online marketing, that leaves us with putting them into their own unique category. We’ll call it Online News Delivery.

The Online News Delivery model can introduce a whole new schemes of advertising. You could very well see the news brought to you by pay per action type ads, including audio and video as well as pay per click, along with display advertising. You’ll likely see a big rise in pay per thousand-view ads. But something else you might see is a sponsored article type advertising where a particular advertiser pays to sponsor an article or a series of articles. And that will bring up a whole new question: Will those sponsorship skew the editorial stance of the news?

I hope not. But I can see where this will benefit companies with Search Engine Optimization. If a story is about green building and ecological concerns related to real estate construction, for instance, an online company that specializes in building green houses could benefit by sponsoring that article. The link from that particular story to the advertiser’s website could have more link weight than an ad for that company in other areas of the news. And that’s where the potential conflict of interest comes in. Search Engine Optimization aside, will the news agency then feel compelled to skew the news in favor of the sponsoring company?

I’ll leave that question for the journalist ethics philosophers. I just wanted to point out a potential new advertising model that could see benefits in Search Engine Optimization for the advertiser if done properly. What do you think?

This is interesting. Companies are now advertising for specialists to help them get listed in local search listings. You know that means? Local is here to stay.

What I like about this, and what I think anyone should like about it, is that you can run a free Craigslist listing in any nation in this country and get a job. Bar none. Internet marketing is here. Local search marketing is here. And don’t listen to anyone who tells you it isn’t.

If I were interested in this position, here’s what I’d do. I’d e-mail this advertiser and tell them the following:

• I’ll list their business in each major search engine’s local listings. There are four of them: Google, Yahoo!, MSN Live, and Ask.com.
• I’d also list their business in several niche directories related to their business.
• I’d list them in other yellow page type website services such as IYP, Yelp, Citysearch, and Superpages. If they wanted to perform certain paid search advertising through those websites then I’d manage that as well.
• I could also sign them up to run PPC advertising through Google AdWords and Yahoo! Search Marketing.
• Finally, I’d start a daily blog for their business and use it to drive traffic to their website and build links. They could start an onsite blog or an offsite blog, maybe both, depending on an analysis of their current situation to see what would benefit them the most.

Local search is about more than just listing your business with Google and Yahoo! Maps. That’s a good start, of course. But it doesn’t end there when it comes to local Search Engine Optimization.

Rand Fishkin of SEOmoz responded to an Search Engine Optimization manifesto of a former contributor. The disagreements between the two on critical Search Engine Optimization topics is quite enlightening, especially given how sharp and distinctive they are. I have to say that I agree almost entirely with Rand’s take on things and feel the same way that it doesn’t necessarily mean we’re right and his antagonist is wrong.

Basically, the gist that I got from the article is that Search Engine Optimization experts generally disagree on a number of things, but that we all agree on certain fundamentals. However, it seems that after reading this that we don’t agree on enough of the fundamentals.

Some of the striking things that I found Rand defending include:

• The usefulness of white hat Search Engine Optimization tactics and their staying power
• Keywords in domain names
• That Search Engine Optimization terms like “aged domain,” “relevant link,” “authority site,” and “SEO friendly” actually do mean something
• That Search Engine Optimization is all about links and content (I mean, this one through me on the floor)
• Content is important, but links are infinitely more important

I thought some of these were no-brainers. Obviously not.

While Search Engine Optimization experts can disagree on tactics all day long, there are some things that just don’t make sense to disagree on. Some of those things would be the importance of links (who would ever say links are not important?) and legitimate Search Engine Optimization tactics are legitimate for long term staying power and usually not for short term benefits. Kudos to Rand Fishkin for taking on the task of offering an alternative view on those topics. When it comes to Search Engine Optimization in the real world today, I’d like to lay this out as the basis for all real, legitimate Search Engine Optimization work:

Read Rand’s article here.

Photo sharing site Flickr has recently started using nofollow tags in its individual photo descriptions, reports CNET and WebProNews. Should we care?

There are two ways to look at this. The first way is that nofollow links in the descriptions of individual photos might discourage certain search engine optimizers or webmasters from posting photos to Flickr. That may not be bad as those most discouraged are probably spammers and webmasters looking for cheap link juice. On the other hand, legitimate search engine optimizers and webmasters will suffer along with the spammers and may end up finding other ways to get free links.

The second way to look at this is that that Flickr is now in the practice of selling paid links. Here’s the gist of the change:

(WPN) The links in Set and Collection descriptions are still free of them, but the links embedded in individual photo descriptions have been nofollowed.

Since Flickr members are only allowed three Sets, that means free members will be limited in the number of links they can add and get link juice from. Only paid members who have more than three Sets will have an unlimited link juice at their disposal, which makes Flickr effectively a link seller. How will Google treat Flickr now that this policy has been implemented?

Personally, I don’t see much to worry about. Legitimate search engine optimizerss and webmasters will always find ways to get good links and spammers will always find ways to game the system. Many social sites are adding nofollow tags to prevent the spammers from gaming the system. I say keep posting your photos to Flickr and get a little creative in how seek inbound links. We do not want this to negatively affect search engine optimization as much as it could!