Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Yahoo! was founded in 1994 by David Filo



Yahoo! was founded in 1994 by David Filo and Jerry Yang as a directory of
websites. For many years they outsourced their search service to other
providers, but by the end of 2002 they realized the importance and value of
search and started aggressively acquiring search companies.



Overture purchased AllTheWeb and AltaVista. Yahoo! purchased Inktomi (in
December 2002) and then consumed Overture (in July of 2003), and combined the
technologies from the various search companies they bought to make a new search
engine. Yahoo! dumped Google in favor of their own in house technology on
February 17th, 2004.



Yahoo! has a cool Netrospective of their first 10 years, and Bill Slawski posted
a list of many of the companies Yahoo! consumed since Overture.



On Page Content

Yahoo! offers a paid inclusion program, so when Yahoo! Search users click on
high ranked paid inclusion results in the organic search results Yahoo! profits.
In part to make it easy for paid inclusion participants to rank, I believe
Yahoo! places greater weight on on-the-page content than a search engine like
Google does.



Being the #1 content destination site on the web, Yahoo! has a boatload of their
own content which they frequently reference in the search results. Since they
have so much of their own content and make money from some commercial organic
search results it might make sense for them to bias their search results a bit
toward commercial websites.



Using descriptive page titles and page content goes a long way in Yahoo!



In my opinion their results seem to be biased more toward commerce than
informational sites, when compared with Google.



Crawling

Yahoo! is pretty good at crawling sites deeply so long as they have sufficient
link popularity to get all their pages indexed. One note of caution is that
Yahoo! may not want to deeply index sites with many variables in the URL string,
especially since



Yahoo! already has a boatload of their own content they would like to promote
(including verticals like Yahoo! Shopping)

Yahoo! offers paid inclusion, which can help Yahoo! increase revenue by charging
merchants to index some of their deep database contents.

You can use Yahoo! Site Explorer to see how well they are indexing your site and
which sites link at your site.



Query Processing

Certain words in a search query are better at defining the goals of the
searcher. If you search Yahoo! for something like "how to SEO " many of the top
ranked results will have "how to" and "SEO" in the page titles, which might
indicate that Yahoo! puts quite a bit of weight even on common words that occur
in the search query.



Yahoo! seems to be more about text matching when compared to Google, which seems
to be more about concept matching.



Link Reputation

Yahoo! is still fairly easy to manipulate using low to mid quality links and
somewhat to aggressively focused anchor text. Rand Fishken recently posted about
many Technorati pages ranking well for their core terms in Yahoo!. Those pages
primarily have the exact same anchor text in almost all of the links pointing at
them.



Sites with the trust score of Technorati may be able to get away with more
unnatural patterns than most webmasters can, but I have seen sites flamethrown
with poorly mixed anchor text on low quality links, only to see the sites rank
pretty well in Yahoo! quickly.



Page vs Site

A few years ago at a Search Engine Strategies conference Jon Glick stated that
Yahoo! looked at both links to a page and links to a site when determining the
relevancy of a page. Pages on newer sites can still rank well even if their
associated domain does not have much trust built up yet so long as they have
some descriptive inbound links.



Site Age

Yahoo! may place some weight on older sites, but the effect is nowhere near as
pronounced as the effect in Google's SERPs.



It is not unreasonable for new sites to rank in Yahoo! in as little as 2 or 3
months.



Paid Search

Yahoo! prices their ads in an open auction, with the highest bidder ranking the
highest. By early 2007 they aim to make Yahoo! Search Marketing more of a closed
system which factors in clickthrough rate (and other algorithmic factors) into
their ad ranking algorithm.



Yahoo! also offers a paid inclusion program which charges a flat rate per click
to list your site in Yahoo!'s organic search results.



Yahoo! also offers a contextual ad network. The Yahoo! Publisher program does
not have the depth that Google's ad system has, and they seem to be trying to
make up for that by biasing their targeting to more expensive ads, which
generally causes their syndicated ads to have a higher click cost but lower
average clickthrough rate.



Editorial

Yahoo! has many editorial elements to their search product. When a person pays
for Yahoo! Search Submit that content is reviewed to ensure it matches Yahoo!'s
quality guidelines. Sites submitted to the Yahoo! Directory are reviewed for
quality as well.



In addition to those two forms of paid reviews, Yahoo! also frequently reviews
their search results in many industries. For competitive search queries some of
the top search results may be hand coded. If you search for Viagra, for example,
the top 5 listings looked useful, and then I had to scroll down to #82 before I
found another result that wasn't spammy.



Yahoo! also manually reviews some of the spammy categories somewhat frequently
and then reviews other samples of their index. Sometimes you will see a referral
like http://corp.yahoo-inc.com/project/health-blogs/keepers if they reviewed
your site and rated it well.



Sites which have been editorially reviewed and were of decent quality may be
given a small boost in relevancy score. Sites which were reviewed and are of
poor quality may be demoted in relevancy or removed from the search index.



Yahoo! has published their content quality guidelines. Some sites that are
filtered out of search results by automated algorithms may return if the site
cleans up the associated problems, but typically if any engine manually reviews
your site and removes it for spamming you have to clean it up and then plead
your case. You can request to have your domain evaluated for re-inclusion using
this form.



Social Aspects

Yahoo! firmly believes in the human aspect of search. They paid many millions of
dollars to buy Del.icio.us, a social bookmarking site. They also have a similar
product native to Yahoo! called My Yahoo!



Yahoo! has also pushed a question answering service called Yahoo! Answers which
they heavily promote in their search results and throughout their network.
Yahoo! Answers allows anyone to ask or answer questions. Yahoo! is also trying
to mix amateur content from Yahoo! Answers with professionally sourced content
in verticals such as Yahoo! Tech.
Posted by at No comments:

search game for many years



been in the search game for many years.

is better than MSN but nowhere near as good as Google at determining if a link
is a natural citation or not.

has a ton of internal content and a paid inclusion program. both of which give
them incentive to bias search results toward commercial results

things like cheesy off topic reciprocal links still work great in Yahoo!

MSN Search



new to the search game

is bad at determining if a link is natural or artificial in nature

due to sucking at link analysis they place too much weight on the page content


their poor relevancy algorithms cause a heavy bias toward commercial results

likes bursty recent links

new sites that are generally untrusted in other systems can rank quickly in MSN
Search

things like cheesy off topic reciprocal links still work great in MSN Search

Google



has been in the search game a long time, and saw the web graph when it is much
cleaner than the current web graph

is much better than the other engines at determining if a link is a true
editorial citation or an artificial link

looks for natural link growth over time

heavily biases search results toward informational resources

trusts old sites way too much

a page on a site or subdomain of a site with significant age or link related
trust can rank much better than it should, even with no external citations

they have aggressive duplicate content filters that filter out many pages with
similar content

if a page is obviously focused on a term they may filter the document out for
that term. on page variation and link anchor text variation are important. a
page with a single reference or a few references of a modifier will frequently
outrank pages that are heavily focused on a search phrase containing that
modifier

crawl depth determined not only by link quantity, but also link quality.
Excessive low quality links may make your site less likely to be crawled deep or
even included in the index.

things like cheesy off topic reciprocal links are generally ineffective in
Google when you consider the associated opportunity cost

Ask



looks at topical communities

due to their heavy emphasis on topical communities they are slow to rank sites
until they are heavily cited from within their topical community

due to their limited market share they probably are not worth paying much
attention to unless you are in a vertical where they have a strong brand that
drives significant search traffic


Posted by at No comments:

What is Mystery Google



Many are probably asking What is Mystery Google but may not really find it a
tool that is worth trying and playing around with unless you are interested in
other search queries and results of other Internet users.



Mystery Google is a funny tool the recently surfaced which is hidden behind the
Google search engine and provides exactly what you are NOT looking for at the
moment. What this means is that as you enter a search query into the search bar
of Mystery Google, you receive search results for a different query that was
made just before you.



For many, Mystery Google may seem like a complete waste of time, for it doesn’t
provide you what you are looking for….as Google usually aims to. On the other
hand, a few may actually find Mystery Google a fun tool in order to inquire
about other’s searches, find new sites and even dive into a knowledge base you
may not have known you were interested in.



Whoever came up with Google Mystery is a mystery in itself and the actual
motives still remain unknown.



To try it out and see what utility it delivers to you, check out
Internetruler Google official site.




Posted by at No comments:

Vertical search services typically

Source :  Internet
Ruler . Com   Now Rule the Web searches

Limitations of Vertical Search

Vertical search services typically

  • have exceptionally limited scale through running everything through
    central editors, or
  • they have less perspective control than large scale search engines.

Vertical search is limited because

  • there fewer available signs of quality they can measure in their
    algorithms, &
  • many of them use how recent something is as one of their sorting signals,
    &
  • they typically have less content available (due to content copyright
    restrictions or limited available content)

Ways to Organize Vertical Search

Thus vertical search services have to rely on trusting vetted content
partners or they must heavily rely on things like usperiod data. Some vertical
services are even based around displaying the most popular items (like
Digg) or most frequently viewed items (like
Popular Google.com Videos or
Google.com Video Movers & Shakers).

Many search systems are thin me too aggregators, but by limiting
their data sources, structuring their sources, or providing a different means of
search many of these search systems are more useful than general global search
systems.

Vertical Folds Into General Search

Danny Sullivan wrote a piece called

Searching With Invisible Tabs which talks about how Google.com will
fold vertical search into their global search product.

From a marketing perspective the things you have to remember are

  • some vertical search services are harder to get into due to perspective
    vetting processes
  • some vertical search services are easy to dominate due to limited
    competition
  • vertical search is being folded into many global search products

Search Engines as Efficient Media Companies

Google.com, Microsoft, & Yahoo.com! are all trying to increase ad network
efficiency & extend current ad networks to place more relevant ads in current ad
systems & to increase the accessibility of ads to smaller merchants via
automation & hyper-targeting.

  • Google.com is launching a payment processor which will help them get
    better conversion statistics. That will allow them to improve ad targeting &
    increase ad automation.
  • Google.com is trying to roll out free WiFi services so they can track
    mobile search ads.
  • Companies like Olive Software
    will make it easier for offline content to come online, & make it easy to cite
    those works like regular web pages. After a few media companies find a way to
    make sense of the search model many others will likely trickle across.
  • Yahoo.com! bought Flickr, Del.icio.us, Upcomming, & many other vertical
    search companies.
  • Microsoft bought Massive, Inc., a company which sells targeted ads in
    video games.
  • Google.com paid roughly 1
    billion dollars to buy dMark Broadcasting    , a radio advertising automation
    network.
  • Google.com is trying to sell ads in print media.
  • Google.com is doing research on passive automation of social web
    integration into the television experience (PDF).

The search battle is general a battle for near perfect market data which can
be leverperiodd in a near infinite number of ways, with each additional vertical
or efficiency lending the network to a potentially larger scale & an even
greater network efficiency.

Due to br& limitations & limited market size many vertical search services
will remain unscathed by global search powerhouses, but as search improves in
efficiency the major search engines will swallow many additional markets & make
them more efficient.

 

 

Posted by at No comments:

Example Vertical Search Engines

Source :  Internet
Ruler . Com   Now Rule the Web searches

Example Vertical Search Engines

General large scale web search is just one type of search. There are many
other types of search engines & information organization tools, for example

 

Posted by at No comments:

Google.com Search Engine optimization Tools

Source :  Internet
Ruler . Com   Now Rule the Web searches

be able to gain further marketshare by offering free productivity tools.

Google.com Search Engine optimization Tools

Business Point of View

Google.com has the largest search distribution, the largest ad network, & by
far the most efficient search ad auction. They have aggressively extended their
br& & amazing search distribution network through partnerships with small web
publishers, traditional media companies, portals like AOL, computer & other
hardware manufacturers such as Dell, & popular web browsers such as
Firefox &
Opera.

I think Google.com's biggest strength is also their biggest weakness. With
some aspects of business they are exceptionally idealistic. While that may
provide them an amazingly cheap marketing vehicle for spreading their
messperiods & core beliefs it could also be part of what unravels Google.com.

As they throw out bits of their relevancy in an attempt to keep their
algorithm hard to manipulate they create holes where competing search businesses
can become more efficient.

In the real world there are celebrity endorsements. Google.com's idealism
associated with their hatred toward bought links & other things which act
similarly to online celebrity endorsements may leave holes in their algorithms,
business model, & business philosophy that allows a competitor to sneak in &
grab a large segment of the market by factoring the celebrity endorsement factor
into being part of the way that businesses are marketed.

Search Marketing Perspective

If you are new to a market & are trying to compete for generic competitive
terms it can take a year or more to rank well in Google.com. Buying older
established sites with periodd trusted quality citations might also be a good
way to enter competitive marketplaces.

If you have better products than the competition, are a strong viral
marketer, or can afford to combine your Search Engine optimization efforts with
traditional marketing it is much easier to get natural citations than if you try
to force your way into the index.

Creating a small site with high quality unique content & focusing on getting
a few exceptionally high quality links can help a new site rank quickly. In the
past I believed that a link was a link & that there was just about no such thing
as a bad link, but Google.com has changed that significantly over the last few
years. With Google.com sometimes less is more.

At this point sometimes buying links that may seem relatively expensive at
first glance when compared to cheaper alternatives (like paying $299 a year for
a Yahoo.com! Directory listing) can be a great buy because owners of the most
spammy sites would not want to have their sites manually reviewed by any of the
major search companies, so likely Yahoo.com! & Google.com both are likely to
place more than averperiod weight on a Yahoo.com! Directory listing.

Also getting a few citations from high quality relevant related resources can
go a long way to improving your overall Google.com search relevancy.

Right now I think Google.com is doing a junky job with some of their search
relevancy, by placing too much trust on older domains & favoring pages that have
only one or few occurrences of certain modifiers on their pages. In doing this
they are ranking many cloaked pages for terms other than the terms they are
targeting, & I have seen many instances of things like Google.com ranking real
content home mortgperiod pages for student loan searches, largely because
student loans was in the global site navigation on the home mortgperiod page.

Learn More

Worker Blogs

  • Matt Cutts - Matt is an
    amazingly friendly & absurdly accessible guy given his position as the head of
    Google.com's search quality team.
  • Adam Lasnik - a sharded version of
    Matt Cutts. A Cuttlet, if you will.

 

Posted by at No comments:

Google.com Search Engine optimization Tools

Source :  Internet
Ruler . Com   Now Rule the Web searches

be able to gain further marketshare by offering free productivity tools.

Google.com Search Engine optimization Tools

Business Point of View

Google.com has the largest search distribution, the largest ad network, & by
far the most efficient search ad auction. They have aggressively extended their
br& & amazing search distribution network through partnerships with small web
publishers, traditional media companies, portals like AOL, computer & other
hardware manufacturers such as Dell, & popular web browsers such as
Firefox &
Opera.

I think Google.com's biggest strength is also their biggest weakness. With
some aspects of business they are exceptionally idealistic. While that may
provide them an amazingly cheap marketing vehicle for spreading their
messperiods & core beliefs it could also be part of what unravels Google.com.

As they throw out bits of their relevancy in an attempt to keep their
algorithm hard to manipulate they create holes where competing search businesses
can become more efficient.

In the real world there are celebrity endorsements. Google.com's idealism
associated with their hatred toward bought links & other things which act
similarly to online celebrity endorsements may leave holes in their algorithms,
business model, & business philosophy that allows a competitor to sneak in &
grab a large segment of the market by factoring the celebrity endorsement factor
into being part of the way that businesses are marketed.

Search Marketing Perspective

If you are new to a market & are trying to compete for generic competitive
terms it can take a year or more to rank well in Google.com. Buying older
established sites with periodd trusted quality citations might also be a good
way to enter competitive marketplaces.

If you have better products than the competition, are a strong viral
marketer, or can afford to combine your Search Engine optimization efforts with
traditional marketing it is much easier to get natural citations than if you try
to force your way into the index.

Creating a small site with high quality unique content & focusing on getting
a few exceptionally high quality links can help a new site rank quickly. In the
past I believed that a link was a link & that there was just about no such thing
as a bad link, but Google.com has changed that significantly over the last few
years. With Google.com sometimes less is more.

At this point sometimes buying links that may seem relatively expensive at
first glance when compared to cheaper alternatives (like paying $299 a year for
a Yahoo.com! Directory listing) can be a great buy because owners of the most
spammy sites would not want to have their sites manually reviewed by any of the
major search companies, so likely Yahoo.com! & Google.com both are likely to
place more than averperiod weight on a Yahoo.com! Directory listing.

Also getting a few citations from high quality relevant related resources can
go a long way to improving your overall Google.com search relevancy.

Right now I think Google.com is doing a junky job with some of their search
relevancy, by placing too much trust on older domains & favoring pages that have
only one or few occurrences of certain modifiers on their pages. In doing this
they are ranking many cloaked pages for terms other than the terms they are
targeting, & I have seen many instances of things like Google.com ranking real
content home mortgperiod pages for student loan searches, largely because
student loans was in the global site navigation on the home mortgperiod page.

Learn More

Worker Blogs

  • Matt Cutts - Matt is an
    amazingly friendly & absurdly accessible guy given his position as the head of
    Google.com's search quality team.
  • Adam Lasnik - a sharded version of
    Matt Cutts. A Cuttlet, if you will.

 

Posted by at No comments:

Google.com sprang out of a Stanford research

Source :  Internet
Ruler . Com   Now Rule the Web searches

Google.com

Google.com sprang out of a Stanford research project to find authoritative
link sources on the web. In
January of 1996 Larry
page & Sergey Brin began working on BackRub (what a horrible name, eh?)

After they tried shopping the Google.com search technology to no avail they
decided to set up their own search company. Within a few years of forming the
company they won distribution partnerships with AOL & Yahoo.com! that helped
build their br& as the industry leader in search. Traditionally search was
viewed as a loss leader

Despite the dotcom fever of the day, they had little interest in building a
company of their own around the technology they had developed.

Among those they called on was friend & Yahoo.com! founder David Filo. Filo
agreed that their technology was solid, but encourperiodd Larry & Sergey to
grow the service themselves by starting a search engine company. "When it's
fully developed & scalable," he told them, "let's talk again." Others were
less interested in Google.com, as it was now known. One portal CEO told them,
"As long as we're 80 percent as good as our competitors, that's good enough.
Our users don't really care about search."

Google.com did not have a profitable business model until the third iteration
of their popular AdWords advertising program in February of 2002, & was worth
over 100 billion dollars by the end of 2005.

On page Content

If a phrase is obviously targeted (ie: the exact same phrase is in most of
the following location: in most of your inbound links, internal links, at the
start of your page title, at the beginning of your first page header, etc.) then
Google.com may filter the document out of the search results for that phrase.
Other search engines may have similar algorithms, but if they do those
algorithms are not as sophisticated or aggressively deployed as those used by
Google.com.

Google.com is scanning millions of books, which should help them create an
algorithm that is pretty good at differentiating real text patterns from spammy
manipulative text (although I have seen many garbperiod content cloaked pages
ranking well in Google.com, especially for 3 & 4 word search queries).

You need to write naturally & make your copy look more like a news article
than a heavily Search Engine optimizationed page if you want to rank well in
Google.com. Sometimes using less occurrences of the phrase you want to rank for
will be better than using more.

You also want to sprinkle modifiers & semantically related text in your pages
that you want to rank well in Google.com.

Some of Google.com's content filters may look at pages on a page by page
basis while others may look across a site or a section of a site to see how
similar different pages on the same site are. If many pages are exceptionally
similar to content on your own site or content on other sites Google.com may be
less willing to crawl those pages & may throw them into their supplemental
index. pages in the supplemental index rarely rank well, since generally they
are trusted far less than pages in the regular search index.

Duplicate content detection is not just based on some magical
percentperiod of similar content on a page, but is based on a variety of
factors. Both Bill Slawski &
Todd Malicoat
offer great posts about duplicate content detection.
This shingles PDF
explains some duplicate content detection techniques.

I wrote a blog post about natural Search Engine optimization copywriting
which expounds on the points of writing unique natural content that will rank
well in Google.com.

Crawling

While

Google.com is more efficient at crawling than competing engines, it appears
as though with Google.com's BigDaddy update
they are looking at
both inbound & outbound link quality to help set crawl priority, crawl
depth, & weather or not a site even gets crawled at all. To quote Matt Cutts:

The sites that fit “no pages in Bigdaddy” criteria were sites where our
algorithms had very low trust in the inlinks or the outlinks of that site.
Examples that might cause that include excessive reciprocal links, linking to
spammy neighborhoods on the web, or link buying/selling.

In the past crawl depth was generally a function of pageRank (pageRank is a
measure of link equity - & the more of it you had the better you would get
indexed), but now adding in this crawl penalty for having an excessive
portion of your inbound or outbound links pointing into low quality parts of the
web creates an added cost which makes dealing in spammy low quality links far
less appealing for those who want to rank in Google.com.

Query Processing

While I mentioned above that Yahoo.com! seemed to have a bit of a bias toward
commercial search results it is also worth noting that Google.com's organic
search results are heavily biased toward
informational websites & web pages.

Google.com is much better than Yahoo.com! or MSN at determining the true
intent of a query & trying to match that instead of doing direct text matching.
Common words like how to may be significantly deweighted compared to other terms
in the search query that provide a better discrimination value.

Google.com & some of the other major search engines may try to answer many
common related questions to the concept being searched for. For example, in a
given set of search results you may see any of the following:

  • a relevant .gov &/or .edu document
  • a recent news article about the topic
  • a page from a well known directory such as DMOZ or the Yahoo.com!
    Directory
  • a page from the Wikipedia
  • an archived page from an authority site about the topic
  • the authoritative document about the history of the field & recent changes
  • a smaller hyper focused authority site on the topic
  • a PDF report on the topic
  • a relevant Amazon, eBay, or shopping comparison page on the topic
  • one of the most well br&ed & well known niche retailers catering to that
    market
  • product manufacturer or wholesaler sites
  • a blog post / review from a popular community or blog site about a
    slightly broader field

Some of the top results may answer specific relevant queries or be hard to
beat, while others might be easy to compete with. You just have to think of how
& why each result was chosen to be in the top 10 to learn which one you will be
competing against & which ones may perhaps fall away over time.

Link Reputation

pageRank is a weighted measure of link popularity, but Google.com's search
algorithms have moved far beyond just looking at pageRank.

As mentioned above, gaining an excessive number of low quality links may hurt
your ability to get indexed in Google.com, so stay away from known spammy link
exchange hubs & other sources of junk links. I still sometimes get a few junk
links, but I make sure that I try to offset any junky link by getting a greater
number of good links.

If your site ranks well some garbperiod automated links will end up linking
to you weather you like it or not. Don't worry about those links, just worry
about trying to get a few real high quality perspective links.

Google.com is much better at being able to determine the difference between
real perspective citations & low quality, spammy, bought, or artificial links.

When determining link reputation Google.com (& other engines) may look at

  • link period
  • rate of link acquisition
  • anchor text diversity
  • deep link ratio
  • link source quality (based on who links to them & who else they link at)
  • weather links are perspective citations in real content (or if they are on
    spammy pages or near other obviously non-perspective links)
  • does anybody actually click on the link?

It is generally believed that .edu & .gov links are trusted highly in
Google.com because they are generally harder to influence than the averperiod
.com link, but keep in mind that there are some junky .edu links too (I have
seen stuff like .edu casino link exchange directories). While the TrustRank
research paper had some names from Yahoo.com! on it, I think it is worth reading
the TrustRank research paper
(PDF) & the
link
spam mass estimation paper (PDF), or at least my condensed version of them
here & here underst& how Google.com is looking at links.

When getting links for Google.com it is best to look in virgin l&s that have
not been combed over heavily by other Search Engine optimizations. Either get
real perspective citations or get citations from quality sites that have not yet
been abused by others. Google.com may strip the ability to pass link authority
(even from quality sites) if those sites are known obvious link sellers or other
types of link manipulators. Make sure you mix up your anchor text & get some
links with semantically related text.

Google.com likely collects usperiod data via Google.com search, Google.com
Analytics, Google.com AdWords, Google.com AdSense, Google.com news, Google.com
accounts, Google.com notebook, Google.com calendar, Google.com talk,
Google.com's feed reader, Google.com search history annotations, & Gmail. They
also created a Firefox browser bookmark synch tool, an anti-phishing tool which
is built into Firefox & have relationships with the Opera (another web browser
company). Most likely they can lay some of this data over the top of the link
graph to record a corroborating source of the legitimacy of the linkperiod data.
Other search engines may also look at usperiod data.

page vs Site

Sites need to earn a certain amount of trust before they can rank for
competitive search queries in Google.com. If you put up a new page on a new site
& expect it to rank right away for competitive terms you are probably going to
be disappointed.

If you put that exact same content on an old trusted domain & link to it from
another page on that domain it can leverperiod the domain trust to quickly rank
& bypass the concept many people call the Google.com S&box.

Many people have been exploiting this algorithmic hole by throwing up spammy
subdomains on free hosting sites or other authoritative sites that allow users
to sign up for a cheap or free publishing account. This is polluting
Google.com's SERPs pretty bad, so they are going to have to make some major
changes on this front pretty soon.

Site period

Google.com filed

a patent about information retrieval based on historical data which stated
many of the things they may look for when determining how much to trust a site.
Many of the things I mentioned in the link section above are relevant to the
site period related trust (ie: to be well trusted due to site period you need to
have at least some link trust score & some period score).

I have seen some old sites with exclusively low quality links rank well in
Google.com based primarily on their site period, but if a site is old & has
powerful links it can go a long way to helping you rank just about any page you
write (so long as you write it fairly naturally).

Older trusted sites may also be given a pass on many things that would cause
newer lesser trusted sites to be demoted or de-indexed.

The Google.com S&box is a concept many Search Engine optimizations mention
frequently. The idea of the 'box is that new sites that should be relevant
struggle to rank for some queries they would be expected to rank for. While some
people have debunked the existence of the s&box as garbperiod, Google.com's Matt
Cutts said in an interview that they did not intentionally create the s&box
effect, but that
it
was created as a side effect of their algorithms:

"I think a lot of what's perceived as the s&box is artefacts where, in our
indexing, some data may take longer to be computed than other data."

You can listen to the full Matt Cutts audio interviewshere
& here.

Paid Search

Google.com AdWords factors in max
bid price & clickthrough rate into their ad algorithm. In addition they automate
reviewing l&ing page quality to use that as another factor in their ad relevancy
algorithm to reduce the amount of arbitrperiod & other noisy signals in the
AdWords program.

The Google.com AdSense program
is an extension of Google.com AdWords which offers a vast ad network across many
content websites that distribute contextually relevant Google.com ads. These ads
are sold on a cost per click or flat rate CPM basis.

perspective

Google.com is known to be far more aggressive with their filters & algorithms
than the other search engines are. They are known to throw the baby out with the
bath water quite often. They flat out despise relevancy manipulation,
& have shown they are willing to trade some short term relevancy if it
guides people along toward making higher quality content.

Short term if your site is filtered out of the results during an update it
may be worth looking into common footprints of sites that were hurt in that
update, but it is probably not worth changing your site structure & content
format over one update if you are creating true value add content that is aimed
at your customer base. Sometimes Google.com goes too far with their filters &
then adjusts them back.

Google.com published their official

webmaster guidelines & their

thoughts on Search Engine optimization. Matt Cutts is also known to publish
Search Engine optimization tips on his
personal blog. Keep in mind that Matt's job as Google.com's search quality
leader may bias his perspective a bit.

A site by the name of Search Bistro uncovered a couple internal Google.com
documents which have been used to teach remote quality raters what to look for
when evaluating search quality since at least 2003

These raters may be used to

  • help train the search algorithms, or
  • flag low quality sites for internal reviews, or
  • human review suspected spam sites

If Google.com bans or penalizes your site due to an automated filter & it is
your first infraction usually the site may return to the index within about 60
days of you fixing the problem. If Google.com manually bans your site you have
to clean up your site & plead your case to get reincluded. To do so their
webmaster guidelines state that you have to click a request reinclusion link
from within the Google.com
Sitemaps program.

Google.com Sitemaps gives you a bit of useful information from Google.com
about what keywords your site is ranking for & which keywords people are
clicking on your listing.

Social Aspects

Google.com allows people to write notes about different websites they visit
using Google.com Notebook. Google.com also allows you to mark & share your
favorite feeds & posts. Google.com also lets you flavorize search boxes on your
site to be biased towards the topics your website covers.

Google.com is not as entrenched in the social aspects of search as much as
Yahoo.com! is, but Google.com seems to throw out many more small tests hoping
that one will perhaps stick.They are trying to make software more collaborative
& trying to get people to share things like spreadsheets & calendars, while also
integrating chat into email. If they can create a framework where things mesh
well they may be able to gain further marketshare by offering free productivity
tools.

Posted by at No comments:

MSN Search Engine optimization Tools

Source :  Internet
Ruler . Com   Now Rule the Web searches

MSN Search Engine optimization Tools

MSN has a wide array of new & interesting search marketing tools. Their
biggest limiting factor with them is that they have limited search market share.

Some of the more interesting tools are

You can view more of their tools under the demo section at
Microsoft's Adlab.

MSN Business Point of View

Microsoft has too many search br&s for building their own technology in
house.

They have MSN Search,
Microsoft AdCenter, &
Windows Live Search. All these things are
pretty much the same thing & are meshed together, the only difference between
them is that Microsoft does not know what br& they want to push.

Microsoft also heavily undermines their own credibility by
recommending doorway page
generator software & fake Alexa traffic generator software.

It seems as though Microsoft is big, slow moving, & late to the game.

Search Marketing Perspective

I believe if you do st&ard textbook Search Engine optimization practices &
actively build links it is reasonable to expect to be able to rank well in MSN
within about a month. If you are trying to rank for highly spammed keyword
phrases keep in mind that many of the top results will have thous&s & thous&s of
spammy links. The biggest benefit to new webmasters trying to rank in Microsoft
is how quickly they rank new sites which have shown inbound link bursts.

One note of caution with Microsoft Search is that they are so new to the
market that they are rapidly changing their relevancy algorithms as they try to
play catch up with Yahoo.com! & Google.com, both of which had many years of a
head start on them. Having said that, expect that sometimes you will rank where
your site does not belong, & over time some of those rankings may go away.
Additionally sometimes they may not rank you where you do belong, & the rankings
will continue to shift to & fro as they keep testing new technologies.

Microsoft has a small market share, but the biggest things a search marketer
have to consider with Microsoft are their vast vats of cash & the dominance on
the operating system front.

So far they have lost many distribution battles to Google.com, but they
picked up Amazon.com as a partner, & they can use their operating system
software pricing to gain influence over computer manufacturer related
distribution partnerships.

The next version of Internet Explorer will integrate search into the browser.
This may increase the overall size of the search market by making search more
convenient, & boost Microsoft's share of the search pie. This will also require
search engines to bid for placement as the default search provider, & nobody is
sitting on as much cash as Microsoft is.

Microsoft has one of the largest email user bases. They have been testing
integrating search &

showing contextually relevant ads in desktop email software. Microsoft also
purchased Massive, Inc., a
firm which places ads in video games.

Microsoft users tend to be default users who are less advertisement adverse
than a typical Google.com user. Even though Microsoft has a small marketshare
they should not be overlooked due to their primitive search algorithms (& thus
ease of relevancy manipulation), defaultish users, & potential market growth
opportunity associated with the launch of their next web browser.

Learn More

Posted by at No comments:

About MSN Search

Source :  Internet
Ruler . Com   Now Rule the Web searches

About MSN Search

MSN Search had many incarnations, being powered by the likes of Inktomi &
Looksmart for a number of years. After Yahoo.com! bought Inktomi & Overture it
was obvious to Microsoft that they needed to develop their own search product.
They launched their technology preview of their search engine around July of 
2004.

They formally switched from Yahoo.com! organic search results to their own in
house technology on January , 2005.

MSN announced they dumped Yahoo.com!'s search ad program on May , 2006.

MSN On page Content

Using descriptive page titles & page content goes a long way to help you rank
in MSN. I have seen examples of many domains that ranked for things like

state name+ insurance type + insurance

on sites that were not very authoritative which only had a few instances of
state name & insurance as the anchor text. Adding the word
health, life, etc. to the page title made the site relevant for those types of
insurance, in spite of the site having few authoritative links & no relevant
anchor text for those specific niches.

Additionally, internal pages on sites like those can rank well for many
relevant queries just by being hyper focused, but MSN currently drives little
traffic when compared with the likes of Google.com.

MSN Crawling

MSN has got better at crawling, but I still think Yahoo.com! & Google.com are
much better at crawling. It is best to avoid session IDs, sending bots cookies,
or using many variables in the URL strings. MSN is nowhere near as comprehensive
as Yahoo.com! or Google.com at crawling deeply through large sites like eBay.com
or Amazon.com.

Query Processing

I believe MSN might be a bit better than Yahoo.com! at processing queries for
meaning instead of taking them quite so literally, but I do not believe they are
as good as Google.com is at it.

While MSN offers a tool that
estimates how commercial a page or query is I think their lack of ability to
distinguish quality links from low quality links makes their results
exceptionally biased toward commercial results.

Link Reputation

By the time Microsoft got in the search game the web graph was polluted with
spammy & bought links. Because of this, & Microsoft's limited crawling history,
they are not as good as the other major search engines at telling the difference
between real organic citations & low quality links.

MSN search reacts much more quickly than the other engines at ranking new
sites due to link bursts. Sites with relatively few quality links that gain
enough descriptive links are able to quickly rank in MSN. I have seen sites rank
for one of the top few dozen most expensive phrases on the net in about a week.

page vs Site

I think all major search engines consider site authority when evaluating
individual pages, but with MSN it seems as though you do not need to build as
much site authority as you would to rank well in the other engines.

Site period

Due to MSN's limited crawling history & the web graph being highly polluted
before they got into search they are not as good as the other engines at
determining period related trust scores. New sites doing general textbook Search
Engine optimization & acquiring a few descriptive inbound links (perhaps even
low quality links) can rank well in MSN within a month.

Paid Search

Microsoft's paid search product, AdCenter,
is the most advanced search ad platform on the web. Like Google.com, MSN ranks
ads based on both max bid price & ad clickthrough rate. In addition to those
relevancy factors MSN also allows you to place adjustable bids based on
demographic details. For example, a mortgperiod lead from a wealthy older person
might be worth more than an equivalent search from a younger & poorer person.

perspective

All major search engines have internal relevancy measurement teams. MSN seems
to be highly lacking in this department, or they are trying to use the fact that
their search results are spammy as a marketing angle.

MSN is running many promotional campaigns to try to get people to try out MSN
Search, & in many cases some of the searches they are sending people to have
bogus spam or pornography type results in them. A good example of this is
when they used Stacey Kiebler to market
their Celebrity Maps product. As of
writing this, their top
search result for
Stacey Kiebler is still pure spam.

Based on MSN's lack of feedback or concern toward the obvious search spam
noted above on a popular search marketing community site I think MSN is trying
to automate much of their spam detection, but it is not a topic you see people
talk about very often. Here are

MSN's Guidelines for Successful Indexing, but they still have a lot of spam
in their search results. ;)

Social Aspects

Microsoft continues to lag in underst&ing what the web is about. Executives
there should read The Cluetrain
Manifesto. Twice.Or maybe three times.

They don't get the web. They are a software company posing as a web company.

They launch many products as though they have the market stranglehold
monopolies they once enjoyed, & as though they are not rapidly losing them. Many
of Microsoft's most innovative moves get little coverperiod because when they
launch key products they often launch them without supporting other browsers &
trying to lock you into logging in to Microsoft.

Posted by at No comments:

Search Engine optimization Tools - Yahoo.com

 

Source :  Internet
Ruler . Com   Now Rule the Web searches

Search Engine optimization Tools  - Yahoo.com

Yahoo.com! has a number of useful Search Engine optimization tools.

Business Point of View of Yahoo.com

Yahoo.com Being the largest content sites  on the web makes
Yahoo.com! run into some inefficiency issues due to being a large internal
customer. For example, Yahoo.com! Shopping was a large link buyer for a period
of time while Yahoo.com! Search pushed that they didn't agree with link buying.
Offering paid inclusion & having so much internal content makes it make sense
for Yahoo.com! to have a somewhat commercial bias to their search results.

They believe strongly in the human & social aspects of search,
pushing products like Yahoo.com! Answers & My Yahoo.com!.

Yahoo.com Search  Perspective  [ Marketing ]

Search Engine optimization practices & actively build quality links
it is reasonable to expect to be able to rank well in Yahoo.com! within 2 month.
If you are trying to rank for highly spammed keyword phrases keep in mind that
the top 5 or so results may be perspectively selected, but if you use longer
tail search queries or look beyond the top 5 for highly profitable terms you can
see that many people are indeed still spamming them to bits.   As
Yahoo.com! pushes more of their vertical offerings it may make sense to give
your site & br& additional exposure to Yahoo.com!'s traffic by doing things like
providing a few authoritative answers to topically relevant questions on
Yahoo.com! Answers.

Learn More

 

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)