Here is a recap of what happened in the search forums today, through the eyes of the Search Engine Roundtable and other search forums on the web.
Search Engine Roundtable Stories:
Other Great Search Forum Threads:
I have not done the video in about three weeks due to holidays, but I am back and here is the recap of 3 weeks of news all in 10 minutes. Google made two "minor" updates to Panda, one on October 20th and the other on October 13th. But one was pretty major, some say it had to do with the link algorithm and not Panda. A poll we ran claims 9.2% lost their jobs because of Panda and 25% are worried they might. Google is now defaulting SSL search to logged in users, but this kills query data. So why doesn't Google build an API to pass this information securely to Analytics tools? Google's search quality raters handbook was leaked again. Google said SEO is not spam. Google AdWords launched cost per phone and dynamic search ads. Google dropped support for the + search operator. Google & Bing treat the canonical tag differently. Google said exact match domains aren't golden. Google's link count in webmaster tools spiked. Google is too smart, people are calling them the intention engine and that isn't good. Bing teamed up with Firefox to make a custom browser. Yahoo is now powered by Bing almost everywhere now. Yahoo is up for sale or are they? That covers the past three weeks of news we covered at the Search Engine Roundtable.
Make sure to subscribe to our video feed or subscribe directly on iTunes to be notified of these updates and download the video in the background. Here is the YouTube version of the feed:
For the original iTunes version, click here.
Search Topics of Discussion:
Please do subscribe via iTunes or on your favorite RSS reader. Don't forget to comment below with the right answer and good luck!
A WebmasterWorld thread has one webmaster who claims that the Panda 2.5.2 update which happened around October 14th was more about Google's link algorithm being a bit buggy.
The niche he follows, he noticed a site jump to the top spot but couldn't figure out why. The site only had site wide links from very poor sites and didn't have any solid quality links to warrant the increase. He said:
Moreover, it looks like these are the ONLY backlinks that Site has. I said to myself - "well, google must be ignoring these links" and I spent a lot of time with Yahoo Explorer, Open Site Explorer and Majestic, to find that hidden powerful link that gives the Site its superb rankings. I couldn't find any.
For the life of him, he couldn't figure out why the site jumped up. He added,
I am wondering, what the hell is going on with the Google's paid links detection algo? Or with the backlink relevancy factor, that factor alone should be enough to send the Site far down where it deserves to be?
Several other webmasters chimed in saying they "noticed the same," adding "relatively new sites that have bought 100s of cheap backlinks in spammy directories seem to be doing quite well for certain terms at the moment."
Maybe the October 14th update was not about Panda and was more about links? Or maybe they are completely separate.
Did you notice sites with low quality or spammy links recently start doing really well?
Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.
The Google Keyword Tool has replaced the green bar indicator displayed in the competition column of the results with a text label of either "High," "Medium," or "Low."
Visually, it will look different but technically, you are not losing much information. Plus, as Greg Finn notes at Search Engine Land you can still download the results, which shows the metric of competition based on a 0.0 scale to 1.0 scale in digits. So you can get very specific with the export file. Greg was able to determine the high, medium and low scales:
Here is a screen shot of the old green bar web version:
Here is how it looks for most people now, with just text:
Forum discussion at Search Engine Watch Forums.
Two years ago, Google had launched a search feature for filtering search results by sites you have not visited yet. The option showed up on the side bar, most recently, under "more search options." But the option seems to be gone now.
Here is a picture from Search Engine Land of what it looked like when it launched - do note, it has changed over the years.
But now, on some browsers, for some users, and I can replicate it, it does not show up at all.
The first report I've seen of it going missing was two days ago at the Google Web Search Help forums. Sarah from Google confirmed the bug, saying "I could reproduce on Firefox 7 and will look into it."
There is no ETA for a fix or if this feature has been removed forever.
Forum discussion at Google Web Search Help.
Halloween is coming up this Monday and a Google Webmaster Help thread has Googlers and frequent forum users dressing up their profile pics for the holiday.
John Mueller from Google started off the thread by updating his profile picture, as displayed above, and posting this message:
Halloween is just around the corner, time to dress you your user photo :-)Check out the fun & easy tweaks possible with the Google+ photos creative kit.
Who can dress up best? What's your favorite effect?
Enjoy
Here is a video on how the Google + photos creative kit works:
I am looking forward to the special Halloween logos this year. You can see the 2010 halloween logos and the previous years over here.
Happy Halloween.
Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.
Here is a recap of what happened in the search forums today, through the eyes of the Search Engine Roundtable and other search forums on the web.
Search Engine Roundtable Stories:
Other Great Search Forum Threads:
A Google Webmaster Help thread has a site owner complaining that his new site that he purchased and rebuilt doesn't rank well for it's domain.
He bought stocktips.com and is upset it doesn't rank for the phrase [stock tips]. He said:
We bought this domain few months back and we're struggling to rank for our own name. We completely re-designed the website, done a good job with on-page SEO, no black-hat whatsoever, what could be wrong?
In response to that, Google's JohnMu responded saying a few things:
(1) Buying the site made it appear as if it is a new site.
(2) Buying an established site and running similar content on it in the future does help you get a jump start.
(3) Exact match domains does not equal rankings for that keyword phrase.
John said:
FWIW Just to chime in -- it looks like you have a site on a domain that has been used before, and which includes keywords that you're targeting. While that can help, you basically still have a new website. Having keywords in your domain name does not automatically result in your site ranking first for those keywords -- our algorithms do much more than just look at keywords in a domain name :-).
Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.
Image from Bannykh Alexey Vladimirovich/Shutterstock.
It is commonly known that when an SEO discovers something that works that most no body else knows about, they won't share it even with their best of friends. But they would never in a million years share it in a public setting, like a discussion forum or conference.
That being said, a WebmasterWorld thread has one member teasing the rest claiming to have found an awesome SEO technique that is golden. He said:
I discovered something in one of my zillions of tests I always have running, something huge. Something so huge in fact that after several additional tests has me shaking today.
I do not think it is a bug, with one change I can outrank any site in Googles index that competes with me. For all you smart arses no it is not adwords. I have never seen anything like this, not since Google was born. Not since all the web or webcrawler or av.
So if you discovered this, what would you do?
No one in their right mind would share the details right away. They would use it up for as long as possible until the technique no longer works. Once it stops working or working as well, they might share it with friends and then those friends might share it in a public setting. That is how it works.
Which often makes most SEOs claim that forums are public conferences are wasteful. I disagree that they are wasteful, because you can still learn from these things.
What would you do?
Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.
Image from Oleinikova Olga/Shutterstock.
Microsoft announced they have a deal with Firefox to create a flavor of their browser with Bing as the default search provider.
So today we're teaming with Mozilla to release Firefox with Bing, a version of the popular Web browser that includes default search settings for Bing. Now Firefox users who are Bing enthusiasts can use Firefox with Bing to use the Web the way they want without having to take extra steps to navigate or customize their settings to Bing.
Firefox with Bing offers the latest version of Firefox with Bing set as your home page and the default setting in the search box and AwesomeBar (where you can also type in queries as well as Web addresses). If you already have the latest version of Firefox, then you just need to download the Bing Search for Firefox Add-on to set the same preferences.
You can download it over at firefoxwithbing.com.
A Webmasterworld thread, the community there is extremely Bing positive, has comments like "Yey! Go Microsoft!"
Forum discussion at Webmasterworld.
A Sphinn discussion asks, would you accept new work if that new work is competitive to your existing client's niche?
In short, do you offer official or non-official exclusivity to your clients?
Most of the responses in that discussion claim they would never work on a competitive project. They said it just isn't fair to their clients. Here are some of the responses:
Just imagine the situation you could get into with one doing 10 times better than another. Or one gets dinged by Panda and the other doesnât. Too much hassle for me explaining that.
No no no no not ever nohow no way. And believe me, I've been asked. In fact, none of my partners are allowed to take on a client that directly competes with one of my existing clients. That's the way we've operated since 1996, and that's the way we will continue to operate (as long as I'm calling the shots here).
But I know many companies that do, especially the larger ones. Their rational is that they have different teams working on different projects, so they won't put the same team on two competitive projects, they would just give it to a new team.
In addition, some argue, working on two clients in the same niche would benefit both clients because they learn twice as much.
In any event, please take our poll and let us know if you would take on competitors:
Would You Work With Competitive SEO Clients?
Forum discussion at Sphinn.
Image from bioraven/Shutterstock.