online marketing

Google’s Cost Per Query

by Brian Ussery on August 27, 2008   | Google+ LinkedIn Facebook email author Twitter

Google recently modified how they show results and in doing so virtually crippled at least one popular “rank checking software” package. As “JohnMu” pointed out, Google has always been clear about using these kinds of tools. In fact for as long as I can remember, Google Webmaster Guidelines has clearly stated:

“Don’t use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages, check rankings, etc. Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service.”

Bottom line, automated queries require resources without any potential for generating revenue. It has been said that Google’s “ultimate selection criterion is cost per query, expressed as the sum of capital expense (with depreciation) and operating costs (host-ing, system administration, and repairs) divided by performance.“

During Q4 2007, Google reported capital expenses of $678 million with operating costs of $1.43 billion. According to ComScore 17.6 billion “core searches” were conducted by Google during the same period. Using Google’s formula and financial data along with ComScore’s estimates, it appears as though Google’s average cost per “core search query” was nearly $.12 during Q4 2007. Again, this is a rough estimate and a rounded total but, personally I was a little surprised by the number.

If 1 million sites run ranking reports on 100 keywords 12 times per year at $.12 per “core search query”, it costs Google $144,000,000. Over a ten year period, that’s more than a billion dollars. Given this data, it’s easy to see why Google uses “algorithms and different techniques to block excessive automated queries and scraping, especially when someone is hitting Google quite hard.” Matt Cutts suggests, contacting Google’s Business Development Team about permission on sending automated queries to Google.

Now, I fully understand the importance of ranking reports when it comes to SEO clients. That said, there are folks out there abusing the system, running ranking reports on thousands of keywords daily.

Tags: , , ,
Categories: Google, online marketing, Search, search engine optimization, seo • 2 Comments »

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmark
  • StumbleUpon

 

TinyURL SEO

by Brian Ussery on July 26, 2008   | Google+ LinkedIn Facebook email author Twitter

A friend of mine recently emailed to ask, how TinyURL impacts SEO? It’s a good question and one many folks can’t answer so, I thought I’d blog my answer to his question!

For anyone not familiar with TinyURL, in layman terms it’s a tool where users can enter long displaying URLs to get a shortened version. TinyURLs are often used where long URLs might wrap and therefore break, such as in email or social media web applications like Twitter. In more technical terms, TinyURLs are short, dynamically created URLs that redirect users to another intended URL via 301 redirect. Because TinyURLs “301″ or permanently redirect, search engines should not index the TinyURL but instead should index and pass PageRank to the actual URL.

It is important to note, TinyURLs to paid links passing PageRank is a violation of Google Webmaster Guidelines and that sites like Twitter use nofollow techniques to prevent spam.

On their own, TinyURLs can be search engine friendly from a technical perspective. At the same time, I wouldn’t suggest replacing your site’s navigation with TinyURLs and would point out that tracking TinyURLs via analytics might be difficult.

Tags: , , ,
Categories: analytics, Googlebot, online marketing, PageRank, Search, search engine optimization, SEM, seo, Spam • Comments Off

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmark
  • StumbleUpon

 

Why Google WiFi Matters

by Brian Ussery on May 22, 2008   | Google+ LinkedIn Facebook email author Twitter

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it accessible to anyone. As it turns out, making the internet accessible is almost as difficult as organizing the information. For that reason, Google’s Founder Larry Page is in Washington, DC talking with folks at New America. Google wants to make wifi broadband available to everyone not just in the US but, around the world. To do this, Google has proposed using vacant TV channels as well as unused closed cellular networks. Before using either one, Google needs authorization.

Opening these already existing virtual “lines of communication”, is still just one step in providing wifi broadband to the world’s population. The next step involves the placement of hardware as well as infrastructure that is capable of supporting broadband WiFi even in remote locations. That may sound like a daunting task in and of itself in theory but actually it isn’t. In their recent white paper “On Geolocation“, Google concludes that none of the issues involved in creating such a network are “particularly challenging”.

Google already owns vast amounts of bandwidth in the form of unused, ultra high-speed, fiber-optic or “dark cable”. This “dark cable” could easily be used to connect users to “Google ISP” via transmitters broadcasting WiFi. As far as the transmitters are concerned, Google has a number of options ranging from boxes mounted on existing phone poles to vehicles and even airborne transmitters suspended from weather balloons. Under conditions where fiber-optic broadcast range exceeds transmitter capacity, the system switches to communicate via satellite. This type of network could be partially solar powered, easily made redundant and wouldn’t depend on infrastructure. In addition to “normal use”, this type of network could provide immediate and advanced point to point communications anywhere in the world during disasters. All this, assuming Google is allowed to use a few empty TV channels!

Why is this important to search marketers? In addition to making information available, ads will also be available and in some areas of the world that means for the first time. By providing internet access, Google will be able to provide more relevant results based on the users exact geo-location.

- beu

Tags: , , ,
Categories: Google, Innovation, News, online marketing, SEM, WiFi • Comments Off

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmark
  • StumbleUpon

 

Google Whois Domaintools Paid Links Passing PageRank

by Brian Ussery on April 28, 2008   | Google+ LinkedIn Facebook email author Twitter

A few weeks ago Google launched a new feature intended to provide users with whois data in Google’s main SERPs. By entering a query like “whois google.com” users are returned new whois data including creation and expiration dates in Google’s main results. In addition to the new feature, Google provides users the option for more information via “Whois record for google.com” link which resolves to domaintools.com. After linking directly from Google’s main search results to domaintools.com, users are greeted with various details about the domain including website title, description and even an “SEO Score” provided by domaintoools.com.

After linking from Google’s main SERP to domaintools.com you might notice, there are lots of ads provided by Google. If you look closely, right along side those Google ads you’ll find paid links passing PageRank at domaintools.com. Paid links passing PageRank are a violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and grounds for being banned from Google. In this case Google is linking to pages with paid links passing PageRank!

Here is an example using the cached text version of the domaintools.com landing page linked to by Google for the query “whois google.com” http://209.85.165.104/search?…. In it you’ll notice http://vpslink.com… is a paid link passing PageRank. As I mentioned at SearchEngineWatch.com the paid link domain ranks #1 for the keyword term used in it’s ALT anchor text at domaintools.com and linked to by the Google Whois feature.

If you would like more information about paid ads at domaintools.com and have $10k per month, click on the “Sponsor us” link to the right of the Google search box. I’ve not seen many banner ad landing pages with a PR of 6!

- beu

UPDATE: – In response to this post being picked up by blogoscoped.com, Matt Cutts (Head of Google Web Spam Team) confirmed earlier today that DomainTools.com is now in compliance with Google’s Webmaster Guidelines. DomainTools is now blocking ads with paid links passing PageRank via robots.txt. Sincere and special thanks to Matt, Google and DomainTools.com for swiftly resolving this issue!

- beu

Tags: , ,
Categories: Google, News, online marketing, Search, search engine optimization, SEM, seo, Spam, whois • 2 Comments »

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmark
  • StumbleUpon

 

SEO Trademark is BS

by Brian Ussery on April 14, 2008   | Google+ LinkedIn Facebook email author Twitter

I think this “SEO” trademark debate is silly and total garbage, here is why:

1. “SEO” is an abbreviation for “Search Engine Optimization”, three words last I counted but this Trademark claim is for a single word. The word Seo and the abbreviation S.E.O. are not the same thing!
- http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77171330

2. The “Trademark” in question is for “Marketing services in the field of computers in the nature of providing marketing services for the benefit of others by compiling advertising campaigns, promotional services, and consulting for customers”. In other words, nothing having to do with rankings, websites, search, a search engine, search engines, data mining, SERPS, search engine results pages, optimization, search engine optimization, algorithms, PageRank, TrustRank, ordering results, increasing rankings based on any factor, Google, Yahoo, MSN, Alta-Vista and/or other “search” related terms.
- http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77171330

3. SEO is a genericized term:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks

4. Class 35 specifically states:

“This Class does not include, in particular:
- services such as evaluations and reports of engineers which do not directly refer to the working or management of affairs in a commercial or industrial enterprise (consult the Alphabetical List of Services).”
- http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm

5. The application claims that the “mark” was first used in commerce in 2007. SEO as in the abbreviation, was used much earlier.

Now I’m no attorney and not qualified by any stretch of the imagination to give legal advice but I’ve been through the Trademark process and work with trademarked indicia on a regular basis. Either way, I can’t see how a decent attorney (if any exist :) ) couldn’t win against BS like this in court…. I’ll be damed, BS isn’t trademarked either. If you really think trademarking SEO is savvy, then why not give SEM or PPC a try!

- beu

Categories: online marketing, seo, SEO Legal Issues, trademark • Comments Off

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmark
  • StumbleUpon

 

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »