Does Yahoo Prefer Yahoo Cart Sites?

Does Yahoo prefer shopping carts in the Yahoo store environment?

We've heard this issue in quite a few circles for 2 specific arguments:

· The Yahoo engine prefers the Yahoo cart.

· A Yahoo cart won’t work in Google SEO.

While both of these points may have an amount of truth to them, neither of these arguments appear to us to be *true enough* for concern. That is to say, we aren’t concerned with the Yahoo search engine, per se. And we have Yahoo carts that perform nicely in Google.

Google is the engine of choice

Google holds the Lion's share of market value and that trend grows every year. For our clients’ sites, across product vertical, Average revenue per visitor is higher for visits from Google vs. Yahoo.

We will work through the Yahoo cart as if it’s just another website. However, we migrate people off the Yahoo cart at every opportunity. The cart is difficult to use; it is a quantifiable hindrance to Google SEO; and the backend admin area is difficult.

Does Yahoo Prefer Yahoo Cart Sites?

Not necessarily. The Cart seems to have nothing to do with this question. The answer boils down to how well the site is optimized in general. Here is a Yahoo cart site that we are watching. Their site ranks better in Google than it does in Yahoo:

	Google	Yahoo	Change
Name	1	1	0
	2	2	0
Keyword 1	5	Not in first 30.	26
Keyword 2	10	Not in first 30.	21
	14	Not in first 30.	17
Keyword 3	18	2	(16)
	23		7
Keyword 4	1	Not in first 30.	30
	2	Not in first 30.	29
Keyword 5	4	Not in first 30.	26
Keyword 6	Not in first 30.	21	(9)
Primary Keyword	1	14	13
Keyword 7	23	11	(12)
Keyword 8	12	8	(4)
	13		17
Keyword 9	11	4	(7)
Keyword 10	6	3	(3)
	15		15
Keyword 11	2	3	1
Keyword 12	6	2	(4)
			147

Summary:

This client is concerned about moving from the Yahoo cart to an eCommerce Platform but they are worried that their revenue will suffer. Yahoo is their number 2 source of revenue and they don't want to lose that share.

We don’t in any way doubt that a large portion of their business is derived from Yahoo visitors. The Yahoo demographic matches nicely with people who would go out and buy their product line.

What is the real question?

The real question is different than they think…

It would be really nice to know if revenue per visitor is higher from Yahoo versus Google. If the average is the same, then open up Google traffic and forget about Yahoo.

Yahoo traffic and revenue might well suffer with a push in Google. But the net gain should be a significant increase in revenue.

Google Crawling Past HTML Forms

Regular readers of our blog will probably attest to the idea that we are big proponents of the Google search engine. Let's face it, we abide by Google's suggested rules of engagements and our efforts result in quality listings for our clients.

It is rare that we speak negatively of the Google "system" outside of rising Pay Per Click costs and a general lack of competition.

We have a new gripe.

Google Is Crawling Past HTML Forms

A recent post to the Google Webmaster Central Blog tells all about how Google is programming their spider to explore content behind HTML forms. The main reason for this work is to "discover new web pages and URLs that we otherwise couldn't find and index..."

They go on to speak about adhering to good Internet citizenry practices such as following noindex, nofollow, and robots.txt directives. They obviously won't get past a login form but they will quickly bypass a GET form pointing to database results.

This is an SEO nightmare.

Optimized Your Post-Form Pages Much?

If you've done your homework, your database site has a navigational flow to the deep content that you want indexed. Your .php and .asp form results are undoubtedly pure user functionality with little care to metatags and headers.

The forms are just a way for your visitors to get right to the goods, right?

Well, now your non-optimized, form-result pages with non-specific metatags (if they exist) are available to the Googlebot.

Don't build pages for Google!

How many times have you heard that statement? Don't build content for Google. Don't optimize content for Google. Yeah, right.

By definition their search engine looks for, and appropriately ranks, relevant content. The only way that content gets relevant is if someone makes it relevant. They're about to climb through some forms and find a wealth of unoptimized, irrelevant trash.

In their own words, "This experiment is part of Google's broader effort to increase its coverage of the web."

Unfortunately this effort will uncover some real garbage. I have a feeling most of that garbage is titled "Search Results".

Another Search Engine Gives Up

What is it about the "Winter Blues" that causes search engines to give up the race with Google?

Yahoo Gives Up

January, 2006 - Yahoo concedes 2nd place:

“We don’t think it’s reasonable to assume we’re going to gain a lot of share from Google,” Chief Financial Officer Susan Decker said in an interview. “It’s not our goal to be No. 1 in Internet search. We would be very happy to maintain our market share.” (Story)

As it turns out they lost significant market share in 2006 and 2007. Now they're fending off takeover attempts by MSN and others.

Ask.com Gives Up

March, 2008 - Ask.com Abandons Chase

We were excited to see Ask.com abandon the old "Ask Jeeves" look and feel in 2007. They shifted their aim to become a quality all-purpose search engine with relevant results. Their efforts were noticeable in the search engine rankings and we shifted efforts to their engine.

That is no longer the case. Yesterday they announced they have shifted gears. The new target is on "finding answers to basic questions about recipes, hobbies, children's homework, entertainment and health." (CNN.com Story)

We are very disappointed with this turn of events.

Disappointment

Google is a good search engine and we rely on their relevant results. Unfortunately they have a monopoly within the search industry and it has (and will) stifle innovation through competition.

Cost per click rates continue to sky-rocket as competition falls to the way-side.

Most Popular Google Searches

Each year we Internet Marketing types take a break after New Year's to blog about some of our findings from the previous year. A "2007 post-game show" as it were.

No single organization provides us with more Post-game fodder than Google and Google's 2007 Zeitgeist is no exception. What better way to decipher the past year than through the keywords entered into the largest search tool in history?

Our favorite tidbits from 2007:

1. Top "How To" questions - "What is Love" search volume eclipsed "How to Kiss".
   
   
2. "How to Levitate" makes the list! If Google can define love then it can teach you to levitate also...
   
   
3. Viral marketing works - Transformers is a top keyword for 2007. Producers created stunning visuals, enticing commercials and a viral marketing tactic for their target audience. They created a web interface where visitors could submit a web form and servers would deliver a customized message to a cell phone, directly from Optimus Prime. The interface has been off their site for over a month and people are still searching for the form.
   
   
4. Kids are in charge - Hannah Montana search volume makes the Rolling Stones tour look like it is - over...
   
   
5. The iPhone - The iPhone is everywhere.
   

Happy New Year from all of us at First Scribe!

Google PageRank Algorithm Change

It appears that Google has updated their algorithm behind the PageRank (PR) bar in the Google Toolbar.

This would appear to be the second time they have worked on the PR algorithm in the last 2 years. The previous update did little other than dropping PR across the board. This change is targeted and has some marketing folks in a tail-spin.

Bad Links

According to Matt Cutts, a Google insider, the algorithm change is targeting "bad links". Google repeatedly says that you should not rely on traded and purchased links to boost your PageRank. They say that the best links are one way and freely given.

I'm here to tell you that idea works really well for Google but it rarely happens in reality...

How should you react?

If you are actively buying or trading links via an affiliate program you need to reconsider and quick. Google is highly sophisticated and they can tell if links to and from your site are mixed in with links to gambling, porn, cartographers, etc.

Do you sell Adsense content-network ads on your site? It's possible you will see a PR drop for links outside of your industry...

How Will First Scribe React?

We won't. We don't sell or trade links. We are listed in some small business directories and I can't see that as a negative impact on our site.

Our PR has fluctuated between a 5/10 and a 6/10 over the last 4 weeks. I'm seeing similar fluctuations on our competitions' sites so I'm not alarmed.

Interestingly enough - our organic search engine rankings increased as our PR moved. Some competitors are no longer on the first page...

Is it permanent?

Yes and No.

The change happened some time in the Sept. or Oct. and they will undoubtedly tweak it again this quarter. Google often makes algorithm changes that over-reach the target and then they tweak it back.

Paris Hilton teaches us SEO

Paris Hilton made the 2007 Guinness Book of World Records as the world's "Most Overrated Celebrity" (Showbiz Tonight). This is certainly a dubious award but what does Ms. Hilton have to do with the Internet Marketing world?

Granted, she has an obvious impact on corporate productivity due to extended water cooler conversations regarding the latest Hilton Headlines but is that all she is?

Honest Boss, I'm working!

Surprisingly, Hilton has much to teach us about the Internet in regards to the search algorithm and SERP standings.

How so? Well, we would argue that the best way to learn about search engines is to start with a high-level look at a situation with the following variables:

• "Accidental SEO" competition - a lot of similar content without obvious SEO involvement
• Big PageRank - We consider 7/10 to be a good starting point
• A non-saleable item - The lower the profit possibility the better
• Some certainty of new pages

Enter Paris Hilton

Hilton meets all of our needs.

• News pages almost always rely on a replication of the Editor's headline when writing page title, description and lead content in the story. Therefore the content almost never adheres to common SEO practices.
• There are many news and gossip websites with PageRanks of 7/10 and beyond.
• The news industry is in search of heavy readership but there is no direct profit off each page.
• Hilton is a wealth of information from public record (everyone sees the same arrest report at the same time). She is a constant character in the news of late so we can count with some certainty on the news agencies to pour out news stories about her on a daily basis.

The news industry becomes an accidental petri dish of sorts for us to ponder - and an entertaining one at that.

"So Paris, How do you rank?"

• By volume
  Search volume for "paris hilton" is respectable at 55,590/day in Overture - Digital Point Solutions. Not bad compared to the bar-setting "porn" at 126,342/day. Compare Hilton's search volume to "iraq war" at 1,780/day and we have the pulse of America but that's for another post.
  
• By SERP
  Today a Google search of "paris hilton" gives the #1 placement to Wikipedia - a site well known for fast-loading pages and new, relevant content. Interestingly enough, we found this page was updated with news of Hilton's release no more than 12 hours after her release.
  
• New Content
  Hilton was released from prison this morning which means that there are bound to be new stories to that effect for us to find. A Google search for "paris hilton release" brings up quite a few copies of the same Associated Press story on June 23, 2007. The top listing is from hollywood.com - a 7/10 site with a big text link front and center on the home page that points to the new content.

Changes in Google caching?

We are noticing a significant difference in the amount of time it takes Google to cache and subsequently rank a new page.

Two months ago, 3 to 6 weeks was a fair estimate to cache status with a PageRank of 0/10 in Google. A quality page rank would arrive somewhere on order of 3 months later.

Now we are noticing a cache time of 6 to 10 weeks with a grey PageRank bar and quality rank on order of 4 months later. This is calculated off of existing pages with an exiting Page Rank of 5/10, and a quality text link pointing to relevent content.

Could it be that Google is sending people to the Sandbox for a longer period?

The only good advice is to consistantly add quality content to your website. MSN seems to pick it up first and Google will appreciate it later.

Grey PageRank Bar for Supplimental Results

We are noticing a lot of grey PageRank bars on random websites these days.

A grey PageRank bar used to mean that your website was outright ignored by Google. A good-quality website with few links would receive a 0/10 rank and a site full of spam would receive a grey bar.

There is another reason to receive a grey PageRank bar these days - Supplemental Results.

It appears that Google is now displaying a grey PageRank bar on website supplemental results. (Example from CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/n_korea/)

Supplemental Results

Supplemental results are pages on your website that the Google algorithm deems as less important than your main content. The pages still seem to count in your total page count, but for whatever reason they don't appear to support your main topic so Google de-emphasizes their importance.

Supplemental pages are:

• Old,
• Short on content,
• Deeply buried in the architecture,
• Spammy,
• Rarely viewed, etc.

You can find out how many supplemental page listings you have by opening Google and typing site:http://www.YourURLHere. com . Page through to the deeper listings but you will almost certainly have a few supplemental pages.

Supplemental pages generally do not appear in search engine ranking pages (SERPs) unless the term is extremely specific to the page.

Is this a problem?

That depends. If your home page and/or your domain shows a grey PageRank bar you have a serious problem. We have only found this a few times in the last 2 years and each time the websites were complete spam.

If a small percentage of your pages are deemed supplemental then there's no real issue. Constantly update your site with fresh content and supplemental results will fall to the background.

We often hear "Google loves Blogs!"

The truth is that Google loves new content and hates spam. Create good content on your site and your site will outperform your competition.

Did First Scribe save .travel?

A prospective client approached us in August to help with some Google ranking issues. Apparently their website was indexed by Google to roughly 800 pages and then promptly plummeted to about 15 pages. Needless to say, they weren't ranking on any search terms and they were at their whits end as to a solution.

My initial thought is that they were spamming, duplicate content, fighting with a new algorithm, or just plain new.

Then I realized something I hadn't before. They had a one of the new .travel domain names. www.MyUrl.travel
With a little research I found that all .travel sites were dealing with the same situation.

A search in Google for "site:.travel" returned 113,000 pages. When I clicked on the "cached" link next to any of the returns - each page had not been cached. As far as Google rankings were concerned, the pages didn't exist.

The same search for pages in Yahoo found zero pages.

No PageRank

On further inspection of their home page I found that the page would load fine but it didn't have a cache and no page rank. Not just zero page rank, but a grey bar. I haven't seen a grey bar in 2 or 3 years.

Note: A 0/10 PageRank in Google generally means that your website is of little importance to them. For the PageRank bar to be gray generally means that Google is not even indexing the home page of the site.

My advice to these folks was to buy a .com domain and forget about the .travel domain.

All .travel sites blocked?

As far as I could tell, none of the .travel sites had a page rank. Grey bar for all - no exceptions. None of the sites had cached pages in Google or Yahoo.

The Canada.travel site: http://www.canada.travel had no page rank, no cache. The tourism board of Canada was blocked...

What to do?

After 2 weeks of intense investigation, I let the client know that he was out of luck and he had 2 courses of action:

1. Buy a .com domain and start over.
2. Contact Google directly and ask them to fix the problem.

Big Choices

The client obviously had some clout in the industry (and a great deal of budget invested in the new domain name) because they opted for #2. Turns out they are on speaking terms with Ronald N. Andruff, President & CEO of Tralliance Corp.

Tralliance Corp. was the sole purveyor of .travel domains and is a real company. (I.e. they don't appear to be a fly-by-night organization.)

Mr. Andruff emailed Vinton G. Cerf at Google directly. Mr. Cerf is Vice President & Chief Internet Evangelist of Google. From my perspective, he is the top of the food chain and by all accounts a really nice man.
http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#vint


It couldn't be Google's problem - Please go away.

At this point I was very politely assured that I was mistaken.

Of course, I wasn't mistaken so we continued the pressure.

After another round of assurance that we were quite correct, Google conceded that the .travel was not being cached and engineering looked into the problem and subsequently fixed the problem.

Yahoo has yet to recognize .travel.

Flash in Google

Rumors have floated around the web design world for some time regarding Google indexing text from within Flash .swf files.

For years web designers have repeatedly told clients that Flash looks fantastic but it isn't worth a lick in search engines because Google is unable to read the text. Well, now everything has changed.

See our Google test page: http://www.firstscribe.com/text.html

What we have here is a run of the mill html page with a simple Flash show full of junk text. One keyword stands out above the rest "Quagmire Effigy". It's a junk term with zero competition on the Internet.

One would assume that a single html page with this text string would quickly rank on the term simply because it would be the only page on the Internet containing that string. Historically speaking of HTML pages, that was the case. Historically speaking of Flash pages, no matter how hard you wished for it - Google couldn't read Flash so it would never rank.

Google Reads Flash

We posted the page as we would have posted any other. There is absolutely nothing special about this .swf file. Roughly 2 weeks after posting this page to our website Google cached the page; cached the Flash show; and ranked it on the term Quagmire Effigy .

We have our proof -- Google can index text within Flash.

The next step is to test to see if Google can index links from within Flash. We have a page cooking at the moment to test links. Go to our test page (above) and you will see the link to test that item.

Conclusion

We don't think it's time to run out and start building every site out of Flash. Certainly there are many wonderful uses for Flash and in some cases Flash sites are the way to go. More than 75% of all the websites we build have some element of Flash in the design. Obviously we find Flash to be a very important design element.

Feel free to look around the First Scribe site and look for Flash elements. I think you will find many more Flash elements on this site than meets the eye.

But, due to the cost overhead and the *many* remaining issues of search engine optimization of Flash, we will continue to build websites in HTML.

Remember - "Ugly websites work!"

More often than not the most effective website is the ugly one. Graphics and Flash continue to hinder the search engine optimization process. Look at Google, Ebay, and CNN - each of them have a very functional look to them and they are the dominant leaders in their markets.

There may be a magnificent way to use Flash to make you look amazing and stand above your competition - but the whole thing is useless if it alienates search engines and visitors.

Our tests will continue...

Ken Kralick
SEO Specialist
http://www.firstscribe.com/