May 19, 2004
In
This Issue:
1. Banner Ads are Dead, Long Live Banner Ads
2. In the News - Google Admits a Bug
3. More News Headlines
4. This Week's Q&A - Using Keywords in URLs, Titles, etc.
5. Wrapping It Up
_________________
Banner Ads are Dead, Long Live Banner Ads
Aside from a great search algorithm that produced relevant search
results, Google's greatest innovation has been the ability to target
text-based ads to the content of a web page. When you do a search
on Google, you'll likely see text ads along the right side of the
page. Because they're text (as opposed to graphical banner ads),
these ads are more user-friendly -- they don't flash or make noise
like some banner ads do; they don't slow down the page load time;
and they're targeted to match what you searched for. Go to Yahoo
or iWon.com, or just about any other search site, and you'll see
graphical banner ads that are a polar opposite: they flash and
might make noise, they slow down the page, and they likely have
nothing to do with the content of your search. Financially, Google's
text ads have proven to be a better way to advertise -- more people
click on these text ads than on graphical banner ads.
As more sites adopted Google's strategy of using targeted text
ads, it seemed that graphical banner ads would soon become a
part of Internet history. Gone. Dead. Goodbye. And not a minute
too
soon.
And now Google has screwed that up. They announced late last
week that advertisers can now display graphical banner advertisements
instead of just showing text ads. Mind you -- these banner ads
won't show up on Google.com; you'll only get the text ads there.
But on the thousands (millions?) of other sites that get paid
to
show "Ads by Google" (such as Weather.com, AOL.com, Ask.com,
etc.), you might start seeing graphical banner ads instead of text
links.
If you're an advertiser who uses Google's AdWords, this may be
very good for you. You can now place your logo on other web
sites, and only pay for that when someone actually clicks on your
banner
ad. As for me, this is bad news. I was looking forward to the
death of the graphical banner ad. Not now.
_________________
In The News
It wasn't a very good week for Google. They admitted that someone
found a bug in their system which led to the removal of microsoft.com
and adobe.com from Google's search index. Ouch. Google offers a
tool that allows a web site owner to send an email asking Google
to remove a page from her/her own site ... or apparently from any
other site. The "someone" used this tool and submitted
Microsoft's and Adobe's home page for removal, and it worked. Unbelievable.
Background: There's been great discussion in recent weeks on
one of the webmaster bulletin boards I read from web site owners
who
were distraught to learn that their own home pages were no longer
listed by Google. One of those distraught webmasters found the
bug in Google's system and removed Microsoft's and Adobe's home
pages, then posted about it on the bulletin board. And that led
the group of distraught webmasters to assume that their own home
pages had been removed by their competitors using the same trick.
Search Engine Watch has a brief article about this, which includes
Google's admission of the problem and claim that the bug has
been fixed now.
Google Confirms Automated Page Removal Bug
Google: Remove Your Website
Also at Search Engine Watch this past week, editor Danny Sullivan
wrote an intriguing article about the current state of the
search engine industry, which seems to be a flashback to how
the industry
was about 6-7 years ago. Back then, search by itself was
a loser for the likes of Yahoo, Excite, Lycos, and their fellow
search
engines. Searching itself was often frustrating for users
who
couldn't find the sites they wanted, and the search engines
had very little
revenue being generated from search. That's when they all
became portals -- offering free email, free web sites, news and
stock
quotes, weather, and all those extras. Along came Google,
and BOOM! A pure search engine without all the clutter, all the
extras, and
great search results. The portals opened the door for Google
to come in and serve a need. Google found a way to make money
off
search, and the rest is history.
Sullivan ponders Google's recent moves -- the introduction
of Gmail, Google Groups mailing lists, Froogle Shopping search,
etc. -- and
wonders, correctly in my opinion, if Google is losing its
focus on search, and if the door may be opening for someone
new to
come in and be "the new Google" of pure search. Interesting
thoughts in this article. It's well worth a read.
Return To The Sad Days Of More Than A Search Engine?
_________________
More News Headlines
Here are a few news headlines worth your time to read.
These are just some of the headlines we've posted
to OWTweb.com in recent
days.
Google moves toward clash with Microsoft
May 19, 2004 - News.com
Google is preparing to introduce a powerful file and text software
search tool for locating information stored on personal computers.
Online buyers shift to aggregator sites, BizRate reports
May 17, 2004 - Internet Retailer
The proportion of online buyers who start their shopping trips
at aggregator sites--search engines, comparison sites, e-shopping
malls and auction sites--has increased from 46% of shoppers
to 54% in 15 months.
Search engines take the stand
May 13, 2004 - News.com
Internet search engines are having a profound influence on
judicial research--a controversial trend that's so far
garnered little
attention outside legal circles.
More headlines: http://www.owtweb.com/news/
_________________
This Week's Q&A
[The following is taken from an email exchange I had recently
with a client. We're working together on upgrading this client's
web site. The project has several goals, one of which is to make
the site more search engine friendly. At the time of this email,
we were at the point of identifying the right search words and
phrases to target, and how and where to use them on the new site.
That's mainly what this excerpt is about. While this client didn't
send these questions specifically for use in this newsletter, the
Q&A is included here with the client's permission. Exact details
about the project itself have been edited. We hope you find the
discussion beneficial!]
>> I noticed that we do especially well on keywords
where the keyword
itself is actually part of a page URL.
>> Like when I searched
for "blue widgets", the number
one result was somebody
who had blue widgets in
>>
the URL. We were number 2, we had "widgets" in
the URL
and "blue" somewhere in the copy on that page
>> I
think.
This is an ongoing debate in SEO circles: does the URL count
as a factor in search rankings or not? Most people (me included)
think
it plays a very, very small role. It's definitely less of a factor
than the other page elements like text content, <TITLE>,
etc. For every instance where it looks like the URL matters,
there's another where it doesn't. I'm actually testing all this
on owtweb.com.
For example, we have this article:
http://www.owtweb.com/resources/bad-web-design.html
The only place the phrase "bad web design" appears is
there in the URL. And, no surprise, that article doesn't appear
in the Top 100 on a Google search for "bad web design".
So the URL clearly can't be that big of a factor. (Most of our
other articles rank pretty well on various searches.)
>> Should we make sure that whatever the most
likely search keyword
for a particular product would be is
>> contained in
the URL for the page the product can
be found on? I think it
is already
true in most cases,
>> but probably not for all.
I already do that to a degree, and I did with your current
site -- which is why most are already as they should be. I'll
keep
it in mind with the new site, but again, I don't think it's
that much
of a factor compared to other things.
>> How does the search engine search (let's assume
a major one like
Google)? First the URLs, then page
>> content, then hidden meta name keywords?
Yikes. It would take a book to really answer that question, or
at least a couple chapters. :-) Two things to WAY oversimplify
this:
1) Look at the source code of a web page, that's what the crawler
digs through.
2) Use a Lynx Viewer for a similar "what the browser" sees:
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html
>> You say these meta names, description and all that
will go with
any generic page. But only the TITLE one
>> will ever be seen by the public, right?
The content we use in the "Description" meta tag MAY
appear in the SERPs at Google, Yahoo, and other SEs/directories.
The only way for the public to see it on your site is to view the
source code. Same with the "Keywords" meta tag.
>> We are doing badly under certain basic keywords.
For instance,
we do really well for "green widgets"
>> (because again, I think it's part of URLs?), but we
are doing really
badly for "orange doodads." Both are
>> important. Orange doodads is already a keyword in
the list, it's
part of the Title also. What more can we
>> do?
To my knowledge, the phrase "orange doodads" only appears
in the <TITLE> of your home page. We changed that a couple
months ago, right? The phrase "green widgets" appears
in the <TITLE> of, I think, every page in the Green Widgets
section. So you have that many more opportunities to get rankings
on "green widgets".
The best scenario is to have the phrase appear in the page <TITLE>, "Description" meta
tag, and several times in the actual content -- preferably in
the larger font sized text at the top of the page as well as
the regular
written content. If a phrase only appears in one of those places
on a page, it's less likely you'll do well on searches for that
phrase ... although, as always, there are exceptions. (Such as
if 100 other pages on the web link to your page using that phrase
as the anchor text of the link.) (Have a question? Email questions@owtweb.com)
_________________
Wrapping it Up
Thanks to all who managed to not email or call after seeing my
goofy picture in the latest Tri-Cities Area Journal of Business.
Much appreciated.
I wonder if things are changing in the Tri-Cities
... every meeting and phone call I've taken in the past week
from prospective clients, or existing clients who need to upgrade
their
web sites, has had as its major point of discussion the need
for a search engine friendly web site. Wow. Maybe times are changing,
or maybe it was just one good week. My first phone call tomorrow
will probably be someone wanting a Flash-based web site with
buzzing
sirens and spinning gizmos, right? See you next week! Thanks for reading,
Matt McGee
The OWT Newsletter is a weekly service offered free to anyone
interested in learning more about web development, search engine
optimization/marketing, and just about anything else related to
running a business web site. You don't need to be an OWT client
to subscribe to our newsletter!
Subscribing and unsubscribing can be done online at OWTweb.com.
You may share this newsletter with others as long as the newsletter
is shared in its entirety.
Private replies to emails will be written if we have time, but
we don't provide web site critiques or consulting services
for free. You can learn more about our web development and search
engine marketing services online at www.owtweb.com.
|
