Best SEO Blog|Launch your site.

Web site reviews are still very common in some corners of the SEOverse. One of the advantages of putting your site up for review in a forum where that is allowed is you get input from people who think very differently from you. They may ask why you do things you feel are very sensible and necessary.

If you’re looking for reviews, however, it’s a good idea that you do some yourself. In fact, you may be required to post some reviews before you can ask for one.

Here are a few things I often do when quickly reviewing sites:

1. Title Tag Test – Is it unique, does the site rank for it, does it rank for partial expressions? Is the tag cluttered with expressions that make no sense?
2. Masthead Test – Does the page use H1 headers? Does the page use a large font for emphasis? Does the page rank for the “masthead text”?
3. Alt= Test – If there are images on the site, do you see ALT= text for them in Internet Explorer (or any SEO tool that reveals the text)? Is the text relevant to the images? Is it helpful and descriptive?
4. Navigation Test – Does the navigation use crawlable text links with relevant, informative anchor text (even if only in ALT= format)?
5. NoFollow Test – Does the site use nofollow on its own pages (it should not be).
6. Value Test – How difficult is it to get to the conversion content? How much market-speak or sales-speak do you have to skip past to find the BUY, DOWNLOAD, or SIGN UP link?
7. Ad Clutter Test – How much advertising does the site carry? Does the advertising get in the visitors’ way (so-called Hot Zone Targeting) or is it positioned considerately in the margins?
8. Informative Test – How much actual information does the site provide (to visitors who want to know more)? The less informative a site is, the more thin it is.
9. Credible Backlink Test – You should be able to tell at a glance in Google, Live, and Yahoo! whether a site has any credible backlinks.

Title Tag Test – A good site has a compelling and/or informative title. People who stuff keywords into page titles are doing it wrong. If the site is indexed, see what the titles look like in search results listings. If they are incomplete or just collections of keywords, they are poor titles.

Masthead Test – It’s not that a page should have a masthead. Rather, it’s that every page on a site should have a strong lead, something that tells visitors clearly without forcing them to search for it what the page is all about. If a page lacks that kind of clear marker for people, you can believe it probably doesn’t emphasize much for search optimization either.

Alt= Test – If you find no ALT= text, they are just naive. If you find spammy ALT= text, you know what you’re dealing with. If you find relevant, informative text then maybe it could be optimized a little bit.

Navigation Test – Can you get to every page from the nav menu? If not, how do you get to the deep content? How many different ways are provided for reaching deep content? Don’t count clicks from the home page. Just focus on whether deep content is accessible or not.

NoFollow Test – This may be a valid tactic in your opinion but, frankly, there is absolutely no reason to use rel=’nofollow’ on internal navigation. If the pages are not important to the site they should not be there. rel=’nofollow’ should only be implemented on links the site owner doesn’t place or review.

Value Test – Every Website has a purpose. It is either trying to sell you something, get you to join something, or trying to explain something. If the site’s purpose is not obvious, that’s a red flag. If the visitor has to click through 5 pages to get to the transaction, that’s a red flag. There is no value in a site that is obscure and obstructive.

Ad Clutter Test – Real Websites don’t put ads in your face. Some major media sites may still be doing this. I don’t know. I stopped visiting them when they put ads in my face.

Informative Test – Putting too much sales copy between the visitor and the transaction is a completely different matter from not including enough information. You should make the information accessible from the conversion page so that the visitor knows s/he can look for more. If the site just goes for the conversion or only relies on sales speak, it’s a low-quality, low-value site.

Credible Backlink Test – New sites don’t have credible backlinks. Old sites worth linking to do have credible backlinks. If a site has been around for six months or longer and you cannot find even one link from a reputable source (”SEO friendly” directories are NOT reputable sources), then the person either knows nothing about good link building or is really struggling to provide good value.

When you’re asked to optimize a site for many keyword expressions, you have three options:

1. Load them up on to every page
2. Spread them out across as many pages as there are expressions
3. Use a spectrum of keywords on each pages

If your targeted expressions are relevant to a primary topic then there must be a way you can arrange them so that the most similar terms are next to each other and the least similar terms are as far away from each other possible.

Let’s say you have a long list of keywords like:

A..B..C..D..E … W..X..Y..Z

“A” is most similar to “B” and least similar to “Z”, and vice versa. In this situation, you could use the sliding window technique to talk about similar keywords on each page. Page 1 uses keywords A,B,C,D. Page 2 uses keywords D,E,F,G. Page 3 uses G,H,I,J. And so on.

The idea is to write unique relevant copy that optimizes for each targeted expression in as efficient a way as possible. You give yourself two (or more) chances to achieve the best on-page optimization for each targeted expression in a potentially wide range of sub-topics.

This technique reduces your dependency upon boilerplate text and it avoids the problems created by keyword stuffing. Keyword stuffing, btw, has gotten a bad rep in the SEO community lately.

That’s not to say that stuffing keywords is a good thing. Rather, it seems that some people feel that repeating your keywords often is stuffing. That’s utter nonsense.

Here is an example of keyword stuffing. It would look exactly like this (only longer):

aspirin
ibuprofen
acetaminophen
naproxen
analgesic
anti-inflammatory
pain killer
anti-pain

You can stuff keywords into your title tags, your meta tags, your page copy, even into your link anchor text. I’ve seen keywords stuffed into ALT= text for images.

Keyword stuffing is not about repetition — it’s about cramming as many different keywords onto a page as you can contrive.

When you’re writing copy it is certainly possible to rank for 100 expressions with one page but it’s a rare Web page that needs to do something like that.

Nonetheless, if you write a 1,000-word essay and publish it as a single document, you’re going to include a lot of expressions in that essay more than once. Does that make you a keyword stuffer?

Of course not.

Cutting corners, taking short cuts, avoiding the burden of creating unique copy — that makes you a keyword stuffer. You can group your keywords and write fewer articles, saving yourself some time and effort, making the optimization task more achievable.

In fact, because each page is relevant to several expressions the natural link profile for each page should include a variety of anchors.

There is growing demand for SEO analysts. Unfortunately, the majority of information you’ll find on the Web about search engine optimization and SEO analysis is outdated, incomplete, or just plain wrong. Anyone wanting to be an SEO analyst should understand there are no standards in the industry and you’ll find a plethora of competing opinions on what is right.

Here are a few tips on how to evaluate the SEO information you find. You can use these tips to improve your SEO analysis skills.

• Ignore any advice that focuses solely on PageRank, Links, or Authority.
• Question the value of any case study which does not provide historical data.
• Assume that any explanations about recent changes in search results are wrong

Ignore link-explicit advice
Search results are determined on the basis of many factors. If you’re only concerned with Google, you need to develop a balanced approach to three basic aspects of search optimization:

1. PageRank
2. Trust
3. Hypertext Matching

PageRank is the ticket that gets you into the top ten search results in competitive queries. Google will not allow the most relevant documents to reach the top of search results if those documents lack PageRank.

Trust is the ticket that gets you into the top ten search results for certain hyperoptimized queries. Queries become hyperoptimized when people rely extensively, perhaps even solely, on links to achieve high rankings. Trust is almost certainly tied to links but may also be tied to historic behavior, including outbound linking patterns, inbound linking patterns, absence or presence of malware, use or non-use of sneaky techniques, and other practices. Good behavior may earn Trust; bad behavior may lose Trust.

Hypertext Analysis covers many topics but it can usually be broken down into on-page repetition and emphasis. It can also include on-page repetition and emphasis for linking documents. That is, you may improve your search results by obtaining links from documents similar to your own in content, structure, and subject.

Question the value of case studies
SEOs use case studies to make convincing arguments about all sorts of points. The problem with case studies is they typically don’t include verifiable raw data so that people can check the claims being made. A good SEO case study should provide historical data and explain how a trend developed as a result of optimization. You cannot have a trend with less than three data points, so any case study that only shows you beginning and end results is pretty much useless.

Assume algorithmic explanations are wrong
In more than 10 years of studying and interacting with the Search Engine Optimization community, I have never yet seen anyone correctly explain a major search algorithm change in less than six months. John Scott came the closest to achieving that dream in 2004 when he proposed that Google’s so-called Sandbox Effect might be tied to links.

A lot of people through the years have tried to explain how Google works. You can safely ignore all PageRank tutorials, all ranking factors documents, and all single-factor theses. The PageRank tutorials are filled with technical errors and bad math. The ranking factors documents do a good job of collecting opinions and showing consensus but they are not informed. And single-factor theses are almost all obsessed with some aspect of linking.

Every time a major algorithmic change occurs people crank out the crank theories (usually just rehashes of failed crank theories from previous algorithmic changes). The most respected minds in the SEO community generally make fools of themselves trying to dissect these changes. You’ll do better to stick to the basics than to try to adjust what you’re doing on the basis of speculative explanations that have statistically low success rates.

In short, the best SEO analysts take everything with a grain of salt, look for hard data, and invest a lot of time in testing hypotheses and looking for patterns. If you’re good at pattern analysis you’ll have an advantage over the average SEO. Most of your conclusions will probably be wrong (that’s a universal rule, nothing more — there seem to be no exceptions). You have to learn to become detached from your ideas. If you become emotionally tied to an idea you will be obsolete within two years.

You’ll do better to analyze and question the anecdotes people share than to rely upon their opinions and explanations.

You’ll do better to try to replicate successes than to assume that anything will be successful just because someone said it worked for him.

You’ll do better to just stick to the basic stuff for your live sites and leave the experimentation for special sites you don’t mind compromising.

Rule of SEO No. 1: There Is Always More Than One Search Engine
Rule of SEO No. 2: The Visitor Experience Comes First
Rule of SEO No. 3: Do Not Depend On Any Single Optimization Method
Rule of SEO No. 4: Content Before Links
Rule of SEO No. 5: Measure Everything
Rule of SEO No. 6: Question Everything
Rule of SEO No. 7: Do Not Share Your Secrets

The SEO community sets itself up for failure pretty easily by flaunting all of these rules on a regular basis. Most of you focus solely on Google’s search results, arguing that there is no point to optimizing for other search engines because you don’t get traffic from them (that’s called a “self-fulfilling prophecy” and a “self-excluding policy”).

Google is only one of dozens of search engines and despite the crap statistics you hear from Compete, comScore, Hitwise, and Nielsen Google’s real search market share stands at less than 40% of the field today. That doesn’t mean you should only see 40% of your referrals from Google — it means that Google only accounts for 40% or less of the actual search activity occurring on commercial search resources.

There are Web sites that see absolutely no traffic from Google and yet they still get traffic from search. I know this because I block Google from some sites and get plenty of search traffic. So the first rule of SEO is very simple: There is ALWAYS more than one search engine.

If you’re not getting significant traffic from other search engines, it’s because you’re not optimizing for them, not because they don’t send traffic. Trust me, I get traffic from all of them. If I can do it, you can do it.

Many an SEO has shot himself (and clients) in the foot by neglecting the visitor experience. I think the majority of people in the SEO community now understand that visitor experience is important but most SEOs don’t yet seem to put the visitor experience first. A lot of things fall into place when you focus on the visitor experience. It’s not all about your advertising and conversions — it’s about making visitors happy. That’s not nearly as easy as we would like it to be.

The second rule of SEO must be that The Visitor Experience Comes First.

The third rule of SEO, “Do Not Depend On Any Single Optimization Method”, should not need explanation. However, the fourth rule of SEO, “Content Before Links”, probably does. Why? Because too many SEOs still obsess over links.

If you have no place to put your links, it’s because you lack content.

If you have nothing specific to link to, it’s because you lack content.

If you feel you have to “sculpt PageRank”, it’s because you lack optimized content.

If you feel you have “unimportant pages”, it’s because you don’t understand content.

If the content is not important, you don’t need to put it on your site or anyone else’s site. If it’s important, then treat it with the respect it deserves for being important.

You can always get links — just create some content and embed links in it.

Measure Everything and Question Everything are two rules that most SEOs seem to ignore on a daily basis. You rarely see people challenge the assertions made on the majority of SEO blogs and forums. And since people don’t challenge the intuitively good assertions, they are left without any defense against the nonsense that crops up every now and then.

Challenging ideas you agree with helps you improve your search engine optimization. In our field, which lacks standards, most ideas are presented in a very flimsy, unscientific manner. They may be very good ideas but they don’t stand up to logical scrutiny, not even when show-cased in very lengthy, detailed explanations. You’ll help your friends more by raising the bar of acceptable support for their ideas than by telling them, “Great post”.

Measurement falls right in line with challenge. If your goal is to improve your search optimization, you need some metrics — preferably metrics no one else has yet figured out.

Do Not Share Your Secrets is a very difficult rule for people to understand. I have a hard time explaining it. It’s one of those intuitively good ideas that lacks sufficient logical explanation.

On the one hand, everyone in the SEO blogging community is trying to draw some attention — I am certainly not blogging just because I like to see my words on the Web. We do this in the hope that someone else will read what we write. But too often I see SEO bloggers sacrifice good information for the sake of having something to say.

If you have access to an endless stream of good information, you’re safe to share some ideas occasionally. If, however, you’re not sitting on a huge stockpile of secrets (and I am not) then you need to offer something else instead of the latest hot SEO trick or tip.

Try offering people your opinion. Do some analysis. Figure out ways to measure things. Sum up the number of new search engines you’re optimizing for. In other words, don’t give away your secrets just because you feel they are not secret. Other people may know what you know but they don’t know “what you know” unless you reveal the extent of your knowledge.

We don’t have to answer to the SEO credentials police. We don’t have to constantly prove ourselves to every nitwit who wants to pick a fight with us. You’re free to just offer an opinion, make an analysis, and leave it at that.

Someone will disagree with you. You should be so lucky as to have someone openly challenge you. It only makes you a better SEO.

That’s why these are the rules of SEO. Following them makes you better at this business.

How would you feel if you woke up tomorrow morning and saw the news headline, “Latest Obama Scandal Rocks White House”? Elated? Disappointed? Nonchalant?

If you’re in the business of search engine optimization, wouldn’t you want to rank first for that query? Of course you would. So clearly knowing something about upcoming scandals in the Obama administration would helpful to you. I don’t know of any brewing scandals, except for the minor brouhahas over his political appointees, which seem to be par for the course.

Nonetheless, just by using this example topic to illustrate my point (before explaining it), I’ve set up this blog post to appear in at least a few queries about Barack Obama scandals, the scandals in the Barack Obama White House, and scandals from the Barack Obama presidency. It’s not so much that I have to know there will be scandals in the Barack Obama administration as I’m just preparing for the eventuality that there will be some scandals revolving around Barack Obama and/or people in his administration.

It’s only a matter of time before a real scandal erupts and Barack Obama has to do some ’splainin (or dodging, since Presidents often don’t ’splain so much as they hem, haw, and ignore the polite media inquiries).

Okay, the point of this article is that time is on your side. Pick a date in the future. It could be Christmas, New Year’s Day, or next Valentine’s Day. When do you think you’ll start creating content for those dates? Six months in advance? How about two years?

Why two years? Because your competitors don’t think that far ahead. Over the next two years you can build up a lot of content will become relevant when the clock ticks down to the right minute. Think of all the articles and links you will have built in that time.

This is called Event-driven SEO, and it is usually conducted on a short cycle, usually 3-6 months in advance. However, I’ve found that you can plan and begin executing a strategy as much as 1-2 years in advance. It gives you an advantage over people who come out of nowhere with immaculately designed single-topic Web sites. They bring in the design teams, copywriters, and maybe even user-generated content. You can play that game but if you don’t have a foundation to build on by the time you realize the query is competitive you’ve been left in the dust.

A lot of well-established topics have seasonal and date-range query spaces. Planning carefully for those seasons and date ranges helps you preposition content that can support more timely and up-to-date information.

In theory, if I ever optimize for an Obama scandal, I could come back to this article and use it (either by linking from it or TO it) to leverage it to my advantage.