You’ll notice the fourth ad is for Ask.com. Hmmm. Am I the only one that finds that peculiar? If anything, the ad definitely caught my eye first, so the advertiser at least got my attention!

But is Ask.com really advertising search results listings in Google AdWords or is this some weird hoax? It’s not like eBay or Target or even Shopping.MSN.com, where a massive company is leading you to a search listing of goods, comparison sites, or products to bid on. The ad actually leads to Ask’s search results page for the term “coupons.”

So I figured I’d try to play Sherlock Holmes and see where the ad was coming from. If you hover your mouse over the ad and copy and paste the link to a text editor, you’ll find the destination URL embedded in the link. Most of the time these are re-directs. This link is re-directing through Everesttech.net, which appears to be associated with Efficient Frontier. They’re an agency which also allows clients to use their bid management software. Since I’ve never used them, my investigation ends there.

I just think the whole thing is odd…dare I say desperate. Someone needs to Tell.com them to throw in the towel. Is anyone else curious, or have feedback or thoughts on the ad? Are they so lacking in users that they have to place their search results into AdWords paid listings? What do you think?

There were a few resonating points that he made that I wanted to point out. However, before I do that, here is one tip I have for you all when attending conferences.

CONFERENCE TIP

During sessions, if you’re the type that likes to take lots of notes because your attention span is lacking (like mine), take pictures of the slides to help you remember the discussion (remember to turn off the flash or else you won’t be able to see the slides). Not all sessions are recorded or audio-archived. And even if they are, it sometimes takes weeks for them to be posted on the conference site. You might feel silly the first time you do this, but do you really care? You’ll be the one person with actual slide images to help you recall the discussion.

Words of Wisdom:

Take advantage of your site search.

Avinash recommends taking a good look at your site’s search data, if possible. Site search not only helps the navigation of the site for the user, but it also gives you data to interpret. Analyzing your top 20 site-searched terms may show a high degree of variance compared to the web-searched terms that people use to find your site.

Find out what’s changed.

He asserts that your top 25 of anything rarely changes for most sites. Use your reports to find out who’s sending you new traffic and which new keywords are being used to find your site. Check out how to create a “What’s Changed?” report here (additional resource here). It helps you find out which data is actionable (i.e. which sites to create a relationship with, etc.).

Where Analytics is heading…

As marketers, we are constantly seeking ways to track more and more data. Avinash projects that we may see an increase in event logging. This involves setting up goals that are not necessarily determined by page views and clicks. For example, create a video and set up goals for playing, pausing, 25% into the video, etc. (see slide below!). This can be achieved in java, ajax, etc. Creating these types of actions and tracking could eventually lead to the demise of traditional programs like Analytics (which is probably why I can’t find an article on his site about “event logging”!).

Hot tip for new users.

An audience member asked what best tip he would give Analytics newbies, if they had to focus on one area initially. His response: Look at the bounce rate of your web site and its pages, your traffic sources, and your search keywords. Bounce rate is essentially the percentage of users who come to your site and leave without clicking on anything (they’ve literally bounced from your site because it sucks, according to Avinash). It is the low-hanging fruit that can be easily understood and easily fixed first to help increase your site’s page views. What is your site’s bounce rate?

[Thank you to Avinash Kaushik who gave a great presentation and provided very earnest answers during the Q&A session that followed. He also gave away copies of his book for free, which I'll be reading very soon.]

Resources:

• Avinash Kaushik’s Blog
• Web Analytics: An Hour a Day
• Juice Analytics

• Avinash Kaushik’s Blog (Occam’s Razor) Google Analytics Evangelist
• Justin Cutroni’s Blog Google Authorized Consultants
  
• Google Analytics Blog The Official Google Analytics Blog
  
• Google Analytics Conversion University
• Site Scan GA Analytics Site Scanner
  

In an effort to make up for fragmented research efforts, the European Union nodded its approval toward France’s desire to fund the next Google.

France is planning to invest €99-million ($152-million USD) with several companies, including the French technology group Thomson SA. Thomson SA, in conjunction with 22 other companies, is working on a multimedia search project called Quaero. Just under half of the funding for the five-year €199-million project will come from the French government.

Quaero, Latin for “I search” (watch out for Apple), will develop technologies for working on all major platforms including desktops, cell phones, televisions and other connected devices. The idea is that this technology would be sold to television studios, film companies, online video sites and just about anyone else that makes, modifies or otherwise uses audio-visual content.

Oddly enough, the 23 organizations working on the Quaero project each have divergent interests and the EU has even gone so far as to say the project’s “chances for success are uncertain.” This is perhaps the nicest way of saying France’s €99-million are as good as wasted on this venture.

Thomson wants to use this funding to develop better internet protocol distribution technology for delivering high definition audio-video content online. Another company wants to develop algorithms that scan audio and video files for key words and phrases to index and search the media. Yet another wants to create a way to embed links in existing videos that would take us to a site based on what we’re touching.

Could you imagine seeing an interesting cell phone in a movie, touching the phone on your screen, and being taken to that manufacturers’ website or some online store offering that device? These are interesting dreams, but is it really wise to roll them all together when not one technology exists?

A Dysentery to Development

One of the main driving forces behind the EU’s plan to make the next Google is the desire to create some competition for the American juggernaut. Unfortunately, the EU has struggled with badly fragmented research efforts, poor funding for programs, and a general lack of ambition in the digital arena.

More often than not, development teams are forced to work with members from other companies to make “the next big thing”, while each team has their own plans and ambitions. Not only does this hinder the development of new technologies, but it makes completion of any project next to impossible. Quaero is no different.

No Euro-Google

What many established and budding technology firms seem to forget is that Google did not become Google overnight. In the first three years of operation the Big-G was nothing more than a very effective search engine, and they slowly gained market by offering a superior service with a very uncluttered interface. Once their existing technologies and offerings were running smoothly, Google would venture into other areas. Not before.

Rather than try to be everything to everyone right away, the companies working on Quaero need to step back and look at their core requirements and build that first. If public support exists, and if the market is there, then these 23 companies can tackle the next technology. The biggest problem with trying to accomplish 23 different goals simultaneously is that there will be no coherent core technology for people to get used to. Instead, we’ll just be served up with a lot of corporate propaganda and fancy advertising promoting something as grand, simple and unified as Google, only to find something as confused, cramped and discombobulated as Yahoo.

Microsoft has been trying to take on Google by offering everything to everyone without success. The same is said for Yahoo. If these internet giants can’t take on the mighty Google with their plethora of functions, features and advertising schemes, how can an over-managed hodge-podge of disparate developers do any better?

Time to Find Europe’s Silicon Valley

France wants to invest in local technology companies to spur innovation and keep skilled labour in the country. The EU is permitting the grant because they have the same goals, and France’s cash will not give any company an unfair advantage over the other. In all, I think this is a great idea and could go a long way in promoting technology companies in Europe. That said, investing in well-established organizations with the hope they build the next colossal success story may not be the way to go.

The most successful internet ventures have all started the same way: a small group of talented people solved a problem with a clean and simple solution. Ten minutes on Google will return a dozen small European companies that are trying to fill a need in the online search and advertising market, and some of these ventures could be quite successful with a little capital assistance.

There are certainly exceptions to this rule but, at the end of the day, the pattern is clear. If the EU is looking for their next digital claim to fame, they might just want to look to someone smaller.

I believe I came across your blog after reading a comment you’d left on SERoundtable.com and was impressed with your knowledge and over 10 years of SEO experience. Are there any aspects of SEO you feel you still have yet to conquer?

There is always something new brewing. Social media marketing and optimization are topics I have not really immersed myself in. I don’t much believe in manufactured link baiting, either, but some fairly obscure people have claimed to be able to do it for their clients.

The content on your blog is typically very advanced knowledge. Are there other complimentary resources that you would recommend for beginner and intermediate SEOs to read alongside your blog?

I started SEO Theory because there were no other resources that consistently focused on intermediate and advanced theoretical topics. It’s challenging to develop new content in that mode every week.

For hard core research, you have to poke around and see who has the bug that month. There is usually nothing new or interesting out there.

For search engine industry news I follow Search Engine Land and Search Engine Journal. Search Engine Watch has actually done a pretty good job of digging up obscure theoretical posts. I would check their blog links from time to time and just scan the archives.

Since I no longer have time for SEO forums I rely almost completely on SE Roundtable to mention notable threads. You’ll see most of the latest algorithmic and technique-driven trends there.

The amount of quality content you provide every couple days is almost mind-boggling. What inspires you to write SEO Theory?

I enjoy the challenge of working against time and large groups of people who have spent more time in school than me.

What is in your opinion the currently most overused and non-beneficial SEO technique that you’d recommend people to stop using? Along these same lines, what would you say is the most popular SEO myth?

The most popular SEO myth today seems to be the idea that people can use rel=’nofollow’ to control the flow of PageRank through their sites. I wouldn’t trust Matt Cutts to do it properly for himself, let alone teach other people how to do it without risking total search disaster.

The most overused and non-beneficial technique, in my opinion, has to be link building. There is a difference between building a network of references for a blog — which you have done very well — and simply grabbing as many links as you can for a blase business site. If the links bring traffic, crawlers, or credibility then they are worthwhile. If they just increase the number of links reported by Yahoo!, they’re pretty much worthless.

In internet marketing, we learn by doing. Is there one SEO technique that you recall implementing that was a huge mistake? Would you like to share what you learned from that experience?

There have been some disappointments and some very unexpected surprises. Perhaps my biggest mistake was not paying attention to the Google Toolbar this year after Google began ramping up its rhetoric against paid links. I didn’t see the Toolbar PR reductions coming — not with a direct connection to the paid links. If anyone had asked me to predict whether Google would do that, I’d have said, “Why would they be so stupid as to point out which sites no longer pass value?

Well, live and learn. I’m watching Toolbar PR shifts a little more closely. There may now finally be some value in the green fairy dust.

The battle between search engines and SEOs began early on. Is it a necessary relationship that benefits the site owners as well as Google? [read: would Google be where they're at without SEOs?]

Site owners benefit more from good SEO than from search itself because the fallacy of search is that it cannot bring relevant traffic to every site. Good Web marketing ensures that search optimization is only one strategy out of many.

I think the question would work better, however, if we asked whether the search engines are doing an acceptable job. I don’t think so. Search engines need responsible optimization as much as site owners do.

Do you foresee Google making any drastic algorithmic changes soon, seeing as how they can’t possibly find everyone that buys and sells links? Or for any other reason…

They make little algorithmic changes every month, but they tend to introduce substantial changes 2 or 3 times a year. On the basis of past experience, I would say we can look for more changes around March or April but that’s just based on past performance.

I seriously doubt Google can have much of an impact on the buying and selling of links. The networks have simply moved underground, and those networks that have died will be replaced by new stealth networks. The real problem is that Google has now made things harder for itself (managing the PageRank mechanism) than before.

Do you feel then that Google might be fighting a battle they cannot win? [read: can they still dig themselves out of this hole?]

Google used to do a pretty job by focusing on non-link related factors for their rankings. Over the past year to year-and-a-half they seem to have decided it’s time to make links a significant factor. The corresponding decline in quality of their search results should have been a wake-up call for them.

Even if they suppress the paid link economy completely, however, that won’t significantly affect the quality of their search results. So to me it’s no so much that Google is fighting a battle it cannot win as it is fighting a battle it cannot afford to take on at all.

Let’s turn our attention now to the users — how do you feel Google is doing with providing a quality user experience in search? Do you think for the user’s sake they’ve been moving in the right direction? [read: how are they doing combatting spammers?]

Spammers are not Google’s problem. Google’s bad assumptions about quality and relevance are Google’s problem. I find myself using other search tools more and more because of Google’s failures than because of professional need. That is the real disappointment I have with Google’s user experience. I LIKE the Google interface. I just hate the fact that Google won’t show the most relevant results first.

Thank you for taking the time to provide some very valuable SEO insight with myself and my readers. Do you have any parting thoughts you would like to share?

I think if people spend less time trying to think like SEOs and more time making connections with other Webmasters they’ll find that a lot of their search optimization needs are either met or made less compelling.

In what I take to be a rare pro-Google post, Mike Grehan makes a profoundly concise statement about what people should really be focusing on:

Forget about search engines for the moment. The natural algorithm of the Web is all about linking. That’s why Tim Berners-Lee invented it. So if you build a Web site you don’t think stands a chance of attracting some natural linkage data around it, it’s probably a waste of time to even open your FTP client.

There is a lot of solid SEO Theory behind Grehan’s thinking. He is one of my favorite SEO writers. He gets the difference between linking-because-some-SEO-says-we-should-link and linking to content you feel should be part of the Web. That doesn’t have to constitute an endorsement. You’re just saying, “Hey, look at this. It’s interesting.”

SEO Theory is really all about that: being interesting to someone.

Feel free to leave comments and/or questions, or visit the SEO Theory and Analysis blog here. [Download SEO Theory white papers and FREE Quick Reference ebook here.]

Recommended SEO Theory Blog reads:

• SEO Theory for Beginners
• SEO Checklist
• On-Page Optimization SEO Checklist
• What Every SEO Should Know About Link Analysis [and related articles]
• Two-Minute SEO
• How to Construct a Valid SEO Test

Well, let’s take a look at the overly simplified scenario:

• Google creates an algorithm that ranks sites higher in search results which have the most relevant links pointing to them.
• Google provides public knowledge of the general value of a site’s strength (PageRank).
• Google makes no denial that relevant linking from trusted sites directly results in higher search result rankings.
• Google says buying relevant incoming links is a no-no because of the advantage of doing so.
• Google states that webmasters who publish links on their site “naturally” is OK.
• Google slaps sites that blatantly game their system by selling links, making an example of them.
• Having that big ole fat zero makes it virtually impossible for those sites to sell static links, as there is no longer any PR value.

These publishers now have to find another way to make money through sponsorship and advertising. Hmm…through Adsense perhaps…? Since many publishers that were hit were those running Text-Link-Ads and PayPerPost, and linking to groups of irrelevant sites labeled as “Advertising,” it makes it pretty easy for Google to locate those publishers flying over the radar. But what about the ones flying under the radar?

What Google can’t catch and prove, Google can’t penalize. As long as their algorithm relies on linking, there will always be ways to manipulate the system. Understanding the rules is only half of knowing how to take advantage of them and make money. The other half is figuring out how to not get caught. Many publishers may not have realized they were flying high over the radar.

Link buying and selling is thriving, and I guarantee it won’t stop until Google either changes their algorithm or hides PageRank from public view. I’m not condoning link buying and selling in this article, nor am I ridiculing Google for the latest round of battles or trying to guess what they’re going to do next. I’m just telling it like it is. Publishers will keep selling links discreetly, and advertisers and marketers will still buy links discreetly. In the end, links equal search rankings, and search rankings equal money.

This first image represents the top 20 keyword phrases that kept users on my site the longest. There were a couple that made me laugh, including the “top 10 reasons im a taurus.” I’m assuming they mean something like “top 10 reasons I act like a Taurus,” since the only reason “im a taurus” is because I was born between April 20th and May 20th

You’ll also see the phrase “adopt dogs reason” which is a variation of “reasons to adopt a dog,” a phrase that appears in my longtails all the time. I participated in Problogger’s Top 5 Lists writing exercise and wrote the piece, “Top 5 Reasons to Adopt a Needy Pet.” Many people seem to be really looking for reasons they should adopt a pet instead of buying one from the pet store, which I’m very happy to know. If you’re looking into buying someone special a puppy or kitten this holiday season, please check out my article first!

Lastly, you’ll see the phrase “high landing page quality score.” Most likely the reader was checking out my tips on “How to Raise Your Google Landing Page Quality Score” (LPQS). Check that one out too if you like, if you’re interested. It’s my general guide on how you can possibly lower CPC through raising your LPQS, but as in life, nothing is guaranteed so best of luck in testing your campaigns.

In this second image, I’ve taken a screen shot of the top 20 phrases that resulted in the highest pages per visit in the last month. These users found my site for one particular reason and decided to stick around awhile!

The first one that caught my eye was “terrible golf swings,” which literally made me laugh out loud. It’s true though, my swing is pretty terrible.

I noticed that many users seemed to find my blog through searching for ClickRiver reviews and information. I’m currently ranked #1 for “clickriver text ads” so it’s not surprising there are many ClickRiver-related phrases in my traffic results. Since I also discuss AdWords a lot, there are also many AdWord-related phrases that show up too. It’s rewarding to know these readers have found other value in my site by finding me through PPC-related searches.

See the one that reads “google +medicine +cabinet”? This is referring to a Google search result returning the contents of my medicine cabinet. This is of course a make-believe scenario…for now.

Last but not least, it seems that some users found me while doing back link research for ShoeMoney, BlogWorld Expo, and Bankaholic. I’m not sure who was searching or why they were searching back links, but I’m glad to know my back links are showing up in the search results!

Let me know what the funniest or most intriguing longtail keywords are that appeared in your keyword data. You may find yourself learning more about your readers than you think!

Advertisers can advertise to users on the go, and publishers can earn profits from their mobile sites. At first thought, I see this as more of a benefit to advertisers than users, with publishers gaining profits depending on users who actively click on ads. With such little space on screen, an ad could take up a significant amount of space. I’ll have to look into this more as the product is being tested.

But with all the talk recently of a Google phone, it wouldn’t surprise me that they are designing a mega mobile advertising system, should they actually release the phone into market.

What are your initial thoughts on this? What would be your reaction if all of a sudden AdSense ads began appearing on the sites you browse on your phone? And what markets are left for Google to dominate? Maybe they’ll launch GMusic, the alternative to iTunes. The mobile version would allow users to download GSongs directly to their phones so Google can make even more money off us!

Six questions and answers to the head of Google’s Webspam team, Matt Cutts. There’s a very interesting presentation of his answers by SEOMoz’s operator Randfish, as well as a great after discussion, with feedback from Matt Cutts himself.

What do you guys think about Google’s nofollow attribute right now? I’m mixed because the nofollow was created by Google to help control link flow, but they also want publishers to voluntarily use it for paid sponsor links to negate link credit. It seems they want publishers to use them when they want us to use them, but also apply them in a natural way. Does this become complicated for you guys?

Matt Cutts: Whitehat SEO Blog Tips

If you have a blog and you want some quick SEO blog tips from Google themselves, Matt Cutts gives a presentation on his recommendations (video here). Some tips you might already know, some you may not. At the very least, it’s a pretty entertaining presentation, with a great discussion following Matt’s post, including comments from “Thanks Matt” to “Tell me that this is a joke, please…” and everything in between.

SEO-Theory on PageRank Flow vs. Link Flow

Michael Martinez gets frustrated at the misuse of internet-related terminology and the issue of two emerging SEO myths, which is a great benefit to us because he cranks out some great articles as a result. If you’re interested, I recommend reading his distinction between PageRank flow and link flow, and the role they play (or don’t) in search engine optimization. In the article, he claims, “There are a couple of major voices in the industry spreading some absolute nonsense about PageRank and “nofollow” right now.” I’ve no idea who he’s referencing, but I did find his comment in the SEOMoz article above. But in all fairness, I do see him commenting in a lot of places.

What do you guys think about all this talk about nofollows, link flow, pagerank and general site manipulation? I find it interesting that Google’s Matt Cutts gives “whitehat SEO tips” rather than “good webmaster tips.”

After posting my PPC tip yesterday, a few readers asked me variations of this question: Would bloggers use AdWords to promote their blogs?

The Answer

Well there isn’t one Yes or No answer. A more targeted question might be, What types of bloggers might use AdWords to make money from their blogs?

Most personal bloggers may never have the need to purchase advertising to drive additional traffic to their sites since a lot of niche blogs can get decent natural search engine rankings for their niche markets. This traffic can be obtained for “free” if they go around to enough communities and get strong back links to their site with the targeted anchor text. Or they could buy links like some SEOs.

But there is one blogger in particular who is currently using AdWords to make money online, and you may have heard of him. His name is John Chow.

I ran across his ad today (left) on the blog site SoulCast.com. I was very intrigued since I can’t remember the last time I saw one of his ads, and it was the perfect opportunity for me to address the recent inquiries about this exact topic.

Without even clicking on the ad I knew which page it was being directed to. But of course, I had to click on it to make sure (sorry, John, I only clicked it once!). And my instincts were right, the ad is targeting his Make Money page. It’s actually a really well-written ad for a number of reasons. The headline makes it clear that the ad is for existing bloggers only; non-bloggers need not click! Smart. The offer is outlined as “I’ll show you how to make money” and the benefit for the user is it’s “100% free.”

“Hey…I have a blog. I want to make money. And I want to learn how for free!” That’s what his target audience should be thinking. “Click.”

The Make Money page is called the landing page, so optimizing this page is one of the most important parts of the campaign. The first line of content in the landing page reads: “FREE E BOOK – Download Make Money Online With John Chow dot Com and learn how I went from Zero to over $10,000 a month by blogging.” Most likely a good portion of those who click through to his landing page will download the e-book since it’s free, and it’s exactly what was advertised in the ad. This is what is referred to as a “positive user experience.”

I Still Don’t See Why He’s Buying Traffic!

You might be thinking, “Why is he even paying for traffic if he’s already so popular? He’s already got nearly 8,000 subscribers, isn’t that enough?” No.

He’s an online marketer, and as an online marketer, he knows there is a whole lot more money to be made if he’s supplementing natural search results with other forms of paid traffic. He’s already created the money-maker, and it works, why not push more traffic to the page? There is only so much traffic that a site can get through search engine results and word-of-mouth marketing. My mentor once told me that internet marketing is a zero-sum game: if John isn’t getting the paid “make money” traffic to his site through AdWords, then someone else is. It’s just how it works.

Most likely an average of 15% of his new visitors will download the e-book and/or sign up for one of his affiliate programs. The free affiliate sign-up links on his Make Money page are low risk since they are very trusted systems, verified by John himself, and they’re free to sign up. He makes either a commission or CPA (cost-per-action fee) from the networks every time someone joins. Also, his affiliate links are embedded in his e-book content, another way to capture any sign ups that might not have occurred on the page. For instance, here is a link from the e-book which takes the user to the Text Link Ads site through his affiliate re-direct link first:

My guess is that he started to push AdWords more at the beginning of June. His e-book was officially posted on his blog on May 30th. A screen-shot of estimated US traffic provided by Compete.com shows an exponential increase right around the same time. Click on the image to enlarge it:

Now, I am assuming there is a correlation between the e-book, the traffic increase, and the AdWords advertising, but I have a hunch it’s not far off from what happened. Regardless, it’s smart of him to introduce a product such as his e-book, market it on his site, and drive PPC traffic to it to obtain more conversions.

The great thing about this type of business model is there is no added overhead or cost to providing the product, as would be the case for an e-commerce company that sells apparel or handbags. It took him one day to create the e-book (learning to convert html to PDF) and probably another day to create the ad campaigns. Now he just has to watch the money roll in. This is how the big boys do it.

Conclusion

For those of you wondering what type of bloggers use AdWords to make money blogging, it’s those who have a marketable product or site, who know how to target a specific niche audience, create the right ad copy, have a landing page that converts, and, additionally in this case, provide the product to the user for free. John Chow is one smart cookie! Anymore questions?

[Thanks to Nick, Chris and Jack for inspiring this post!]