JoeSinkwitz
msg:4141775 | 1:13 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
The definitions changed and of course a bunch of discussion has occurred regarding mico-level specifics, but really it is about links...just like in 2000. Congrats, you're current. Everything old is new again.
1. Do a "related:domain.com" query; that'll give you a quick start.
2. Ignore PR; it matters very little. Look for caching and indexing instead.
3. You'll find this in the WMT account and by looking at your logs to see if you're getting crawled enough to hit everything.
4. Very slight weight given to this factor from our research. Really though, users like a quick loading site, so conversions for the non-profit will improve the better the overall experience -- little downside.
Good luck.
|
ReturningSEO
msg:4141804 | 1:30 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Thanks Joe. All good to know.
I'm going to have alot of trouble with link building as most of the content that would make people want to link to us is behind closed doors. Any advice?
->SEO
|
JoeSinkwitz
msg:4141841 | 1:50 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Provide some samples, enough to whet the linking appetite and do some press coverage / social media to get the ball rolling.
Also, non-profits have the fortunate distinction of not being very threatening. If there are commercially related companies in that niche, why aren't they linking to you? You might be able to create a "this company cares" type badge that links back to you and shows their company is active in the community -- that basic linkage will go a long way.
|
ReturningSEO
msg:4141856 | 2:02 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Can't do the samples as it's actually commercial resources. However, we might be able to enter a partnership and become the commercial partners exemplar. That would potentially open the link development conversations.
Thanks Joe.
->SEO
|
internetheaven
msg:4141956 | 3:35 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| Return to SEO after 10 years. What's new? |
|
To help you understand the problem with modern SEO, I'll give you a similar question posed by a colleague of mine recently:
"I've been away for a week, what have Google tinkered with whilst I've been away?"
10 years ago it was a fair game and and understandable. Now, you are at the mercy of Google's monopoly (you'll have to do alot of reading to catch up how they managed to do such where Microsoft had failed) and SEO means doing what everyone else does and crossing your fingers that the SERP lottery picks you.
|
ReturningSEO
msg:4141976 | 3:44 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| you are at the mercy of Google's monopoly |
|
Tell me about it! 90% in the UK and even the Y!/Bing merger will only get 9%. At least the Bruce Clay chart is simpler to understand ;-)
SEO<-
|
tedster
msg:4142087 | 5:15 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
For an overview, try the threads in the Hot Topics area [webmasterworld.com], which is always pinned to the top of this forum's index page. That collection has been building over recent years and it covers a lot of the Google SEO territory.
|
ReturningSEO
msg:4142136 | 5:56 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Thanks Tedster. Will do.
SEO<-
|
arieng
msg:4142155 | 6:11 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
In my mind, the biggest change in SEO over the past decade is the rise (and for many, the fall as well) of the paid link market.
- People realized links led to page rank.
- People started buying links.
- A whole industry formed to administer the buying/selling of links.
- Google realized that their algos were being manipulated, and started spreading information that buying links could lead to penalties.
- Most link buyers ignored Google.
- Google introduced the "no-follow" tag, and began discounting obviously purchased links.
- Most link buyers worked a little harder to disguise the paper trail of any purchased links.
- Google applied a couple of high profile penalties. Many webmasters got the hint and stopped buying links. Others kept buying them, smiling all the way to the bank.
Which brings us to present day. Google still can't tell if some links are paid for. They continue to threaten and warn that new algo changes are coming and link buyers will be sorry, but many think they're just blowing smoke.
This is by no means a suggestion that you should buy links. I just think that it is important to note that link buying still works wonders, and that there are sites in the SERPs that you are competing against who are buying links. Lots of sites rank well without buying links, but we all need to understand that it is still really prevalent.
|
ReturningSEO
msg:4142165 | 6:25 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Thanks Arieng.
The good news for Google is that link buying is off the cards. Non profit and charity means no money.
SEO<-
|
internetheaven
msg:4142378 | 10:48 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| Non profit and charity means no money. |
|
Do charities still get free Adwords ads? Might be your best bet.
| At least the Bruce Clay chart is simpler to understand ;-) |
|
Wow! That's a throw-back. I sometimes forget just how wonderfully diverse the web used to be. I used to spend hours tracking my results and optimizing for various search engines ... now even a #1 ranking on Yahoo doesn't get me excited ... I get more goosebumps from a #9 Google ranking.
|
Acrill
msg:4142552 | 4:54 am on May 28, 2010 (gmt 0) |
1. What's the easiest way to determine what Google thinks the theme of your site is (our is a little jack or all trades)
Webmaster tools can show you a list of keywords that the googlebot uses to judge the theme of your site.
|
ReturningSEO
msg:4142571 | 5:30 am on May 28, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Thanks Peeps
|
tangor
msg:4142574 | 5:39 am on May 28, 2010 (gmt 0) |
As a secondary, don't forget Bing or Yahoo. These are moving up as well.
|
ReturningSEO
msg:4142576 | 5:44 am on May 28, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| As a secondary, don't forget Bing or Yahoo. These are moving up as well. |
|
We are still paying some attention here, however, their combined market share is only 9% in the UK and not growing.
|
pavlovapete
msg:4144652 | 3:36 am on Jun 1, 2010 (gmt 0) |
And don't forget
[static.googleusercontent.com ]
|
|
