TJ Kelly - Web design, development, SEO, Social Media, Wordpress » Search Engine Optimization

Timestamp in Google Results

TJ Kelly — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:14:13 +0000

Update: Apparently I’m late to the game here. I’ve never noticed a timestamp before, but they tell me that it indicates the time of your last visit. Does it sometimes also show date?

When did Google add a timestamp into their results? What does it mean and what does it accomplish?

Can anyone shed some light?

"TJ Kelly" – My Google Identity

TJ Kelly — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:04:31 +0000

A while back, I read a Newsweek article about managing your “Google Identity.” It got me thinking about my search engine persona. The article raises a bunch of great points, not the least of which is people use search engines to answer questions. The question “who is TJ Kelly?” is no different.

So, I did some ego-googling. What I found surprised me. There are at least 3 other TJ Kellys that have a visible, accessible online presence. Given that this whole “internet thing” is sort of what I do, I’ve made it a personal goal of mine to occupy as many of the 10 (or 11) Google search results as I can. As of the time of this writing, I hold 6 of 11 results, with the 11th being my Google Profile.

What does your Google Identity look like?

Google me and you’ll see what I mean: http://www.google.com/search?q=tj+kelly

Twitter’s SEO Mistake

TJ Kelly — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:18:22 +0000

Like most web-savvy people out there, I like to perform the occasional vanity-search by googling my own name. In my case, however, I feel it’s somewhat justified because (ready for this rationalization?) managing a web-presence is what I do.

During one such recent ego-google, I came across what I believe is a big mistake committed by our old (new) friend Twitter.

Twitter’s mobile version is showing up on SERPs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this mean a HUGE canonicalization error on their part? Not to mention duplicate content. I’d heard recently that Twitter pages had taken a hit in Google SERPs lately. Is this part of the reason?

I think Twitter dropped the ball here. The thing is, I can’t figure out how. I checked out Twitter mobile’s robots.txt file and it appears to be doing everything right… right?

Can anyone shed any light on this situation?

Update: DiggBar NOT an SEO-killer

TJ Kelly — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:58:54 +0000

Digg’s VP of Engineering, John Quinn, just posted to the company’s official blog, weighing on the DiggBar vs. SEO question. The most important thing he said (from an SEO perspective) is, “Prior to launching the DiggBar, we reached out to Google and SEO experts to ensure we adhered to the leading best practices…”

That is outstanding. It tells me that not only did the company recognize its value to the SEO community, it paid the SEO community a compliment by finding a solution that works well for every party.

The Details

Quinn says that Digg “took several steps to ensure that search engines continue to count the original source, versus registering the DiggBar as new content.”

Ok, how? The answer is brilliant in its simplicity. In English, “We include only links to the source URLs on Digg pages to allow spiders to see the unmodified links to source sites. These links are overwritten to short URLs in JavaScript for users who have this preference.”

Of course. Why didn’t I think of that? Spiders don’t use Javascript, they just read source code. So, print a source pointing to the original content, and use front-end Javascript to point to the DiggBar URL. On top of all that, Digg is gracious enough to noindex the DiggBar page.

Brilliant. And great news. It means that all our DiggBar SEO woes are gone. Digg can return to the top (or near the top) of our Champion of SEO website-list. And, perhaps more importantly, it means I can start promoting my clients via the DiggBar like everybody else.

Is DiggBar an SEO-killer?

TJ Kelly — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:34:46 +0000

Note: this topic has been updated. Please see “Update: DiggBar NOT an SEO-killer.”

Reading about and playing with the new DiggBar, I immediately wonder if it will have an impact on SEO.

Previously, Digg did authors a huge favor by linking to their site with whatever keywords they submitted thrown into an H1, all from a heavyweight source (and, to my memory, they did do-follow these links.. right?). Now, Digg links to a shortened URL and uses a 301 to redirect to the target website.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this essentially fool the search engines into thinking that the target website, TJK Web Design, actually lives at digg.com/d1o1uR and not at tjkwebdesign.com? And by pointing to a different URL, doesn’t that not only provide no extra Google juice, but in fact weaken my existing juice?

MG Siegler of VentureBeat, recently noted that this also shifts Digg’s focus away from its own site, and turns Digg into a service. For my money, that service isn’t valuable enough. At least, not for web authors. We’ll just have to wait and see if and how it effects any SEO efforts. If my observations are correct and my prediction is accurate, I think Digg might take a bit of a hit from SEOs out there no longer using Digg to promote their stuff.

Who knows? Maybe that was part of Digg’s intention. And I’m sure they’ll more than make up for the loss in new visitors attracted by the ease-of-use of the new toy.

Note: this topic has been updated. Please see “Update: DiggBar NOT an SEO-killer.”

The Paradox of Content

TJ Kelly — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:59:04 +0000

Earlier this week, I wrote about “the catch-22 of relevance” and mentioned how SEO relevance ultimately comes down to a website’s content… “It’s no easy task to provide lots of great, high-quality content week in and week out. But that’s what it boils down to.. providing great content.” But content is a tricky thing.

What is content?

Let me clarify what I mean by “content.” The dictionary definition of the word “content” tells us that everything visible to a user on your website’s pages is considered your website’s content. But what I’m referring to with the word “content” is the meat of the sandwich. Header, footer, nav, sidebar, ads, etc.. all that is extra. People don’t come to your website to check out your footer. You don’t eat a burger for the slice of cheese on top of it. Users visit your site for the main content (the all-beef patty).

On most commercial websites, this main content tends to be comprised of product descriptions, sales pitches, articles, white papers, or other information. It’s often accompanied by photos, videos, screencasts, etc.

What’s the big deal?

We’ve established that content is the bread and butter of a website. As search engines go, content is the metric by which all sites are graded… What is this website about? How much info does it provide? How often is it updated? For search engines, content is the be-all and end-all of a website.

To humans, though, content is a little less cut-and-dry. Text content is great and it can be extremely informative. But, to a human user, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” We are not meant to envision the world in lines of text. (Sidenote: I found it impossible to think of a word to use in that last sentence that didn’t, in some way, imply the use of seeing, vision, eyes, etc). 90% of the information we receive is gathered through our eyes. Of course, that includes reading, but it also means that we rely on visual stimulus for the majority of our mental process. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t get a ton of visual stimulus from reading line after line of text.

So what’s the point?

The point is that text content will be largely ignored by human users. Every usability test ever conducted has shown that users don’t read, they scan.

Another catch-22 (sort of): web authors want to attract users. To do this, they employ SEO efforts. SEO strength is built on relevance. Relevance is determined by content. Text content is written for human users. Human users largely ignore text content.

The Paradox

The paradox of content is simple: high-quality content brings users to your website… and when they get there, they won’t read your content.

The Exception

Blogs treat content differently than commercial or “informational” websites. Blogs exist because someone wants to publish content and someone else wants to read that content. These might be the exception to the rule.

Clearly, there are more exceptions to the rule than just blogs (news sources, wikipedia, etc). And, since every user is different, nothing is ever universally true. But, in the commercial web world, the rule applies almost across the board.

On Google's Changes

TJ Kelly — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:50:24 +0000

Google just announced that they’ve made some “upgrades” to their results pages: “more and better search refinements” (those “related searches” terms at the bottom of the search results page) and “longer snippets.”

I see two interesting developments here.

1) It seems that Google just opened the door for SEOs to exploit “related searches” terms. On one hand, it’ll help users to find related items. But on the other hand, it might just be another avenue for SEOs to get their keywords in front of users’ eyes.

2) Longer snippets means more context on the SERPs. This could go one of two ways: more of your relevant, high-quality content gets displayed on SERPs, providing users more info about your site, OR it just provides more motivation for keyword-saturation in content to try to fill the now-longer snippet with bold terms.

Maybe I’m way off and nothing will change. Who knows? But I’m sure it will be interesting to see what happens.

The Catch-22 of Relevance

TJ Kelly — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:57:33 +0000

In the world of Search Engine Optimization, only one thing really matters: relevance. It sounds simple, but how can you achieve relevance? Actually, you can’t. Either your website’s content is relevant, or it’s not. Of course, relevance is entirely subjective. And as the saying goes, “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” So one could argue that a website is always relevant. It’s just a matter of finding out to whom and how many it’s relevant.

Search engines are not human

Search engines run on computers, using algorithms. Computers are not capable of being subjective (just as most people are incapable of being objective). So, their only measure of relevance is popularity. That is, the more popular your site is, the more “relevant” search engines consider your site to be. Again, it sounds simple.. and for the most part, it is.

However, this model is a classic example of a “catch 22.” If relevance builds SEO strength, and SEO strength (theoretically) builds popularity, and popularity builds relevance… that results in a never-ending loop of relevance = popularity = relevance.

Be relevant

How do you break into this loop? Well… be relevant! And be clear, accessible, and popular. So while there are 1001 SEO tips, tricks, and techniques out there, only one thing really matters. And that’s how relevant is your content? If you find a universal answer to that question, please tell me. And then I’ll copyright it and retire in my twenties.

Relevance is a matter of opinion, but there are few ways to help your chances. Mostly, don’t waste people’s time. Write or create something worth sharing. Start there and the rest will eventually follow.

Content is hard

It’s no easy task to provide high-quality, relevant content week in and week out. But that’s what it boils down to: providing great content.

Clearly, a lot more could be said about content. And I will get there. I plan to dive deeper into the “paradox of content” in one of my next posts.

Update: I wrote more about the paradox of content. You should read the post. I think you’ll enjoy it.

Feedback

What do you think? Am I over-simplifying here? How do you achieve relevance? Let me know in the comments or tweet at me.