Matt Cutts to Robert Scoble to Noooo!

I'm a new convert to Friendfeed. Like many of you I rushed to follow Matt Cutts there.

Now look what's happened...



I'm getting stuff from Robert Scoble and from his many friends floating down my friends stream.

Now; I like the sound of Scoble but I don't follow him on Twitter or elsewhere simply because he writes so much.

As he's a friend of Matt he also has these chances to pop onto my Friendsfeed. Hmm. Urm.

Ach well. Maybe he bookmarks less and maybe Friendfeed will filter/share as appropriately as it can!

Update: Someone just IM'd to suggest defriending Matt at Friendfeed. Ha! Like that's an option... don't you know search? :)

Be Social: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit

Do you work for Matt Cutts?

I was lucky enough to meet a whole bunch of cool Googlers at SES London this year. They're really helpful people.

Guess which question I heard them get asked the most. "Do you work for Matt Cutts?"

It was like a broken record. I think they're a script that's followed.

SEMer: "Do you for Matt Cutts?" (*awe in voice*)
Googler: *maintain smile* *count to five silently*
Googler: "No, I work in webmaster support/industry vertical/api support"
SEMer: "Yeah, but you know Matt! Sometimes you might talk to Matt!"
Googler: *maintain smile*

Actually, this script isn't always followed. A Googler told me of an occasion where the SEMer simply walk off the very second she said she didn't work for Matt! How rude! It's pretty stupid too. That particular Googler was a member of Web Quality which sits high up in the Google hierarchy.

To be honest, it must be pretty annoying for the Googlers who come to events to constantly get asked, "Do you work for Matt Cutts?"

I also think it's a wasted question ask. Sure, Googlers are very good and very careful about what and how they answer questions but that doesn't mean you (the SEMer) shouldn't try and learn something new by some careful questioning! Imagine you have your most demanding/high paying client behind you and this might be your last ever chance to ask a Googler a direct question. Is it really going to be, "Do you work for Matt Cutts?" It shouldn't be!

I'm not going to share the questions I asked! Ha!

One answer I got ended with the careful, "... but that doesn't mean we won't do that in the future." - which is my cue to think that that may have been a good question to ask.

Another series of questions was diplomatically and expertly answered. No secrets were spilled... but I think I noticed a common theme to some of the answers which is inline with suspicions I already had from reading patent applications (It would have been good to have Bill Slawski handy to bounce ideas off then!).

As a whole I'm reminded of the Simpsons' episode called Homer and Apu where Homer and Apu travel to India and trek up a mountain to ask the wise head of the Kwik-E-Mart if Apu can get his job back. They have three questions. Homer blows each one of them.

Oi, SEM crew, don't be a Homer. Okay?

Be Social: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit

Scientology, Googlebombs and the Algorithm

There is a discussion as to whether certain Scientology search results are a Googlebomb or not.

Google announced they'd tweaked their algorithm to cope with the Googlebomb not long before SES London last year. We were lucky enough to have Matt Cutts and Vanessa Fox along for that one. During SES London a number of high profile SEO speakers/bloggers called Google liar, claimed there was no such algorithm and that it was all manually done.

It was one of those times I felt like standing up, shouting over to the speaker and getting them to clairfy that this was their personal opinion and not a known fact.

When I spoke to Google about this - pointing out what was said - they were clearly annoyed/upset. I can understand why they don't like being called liars!

I do think the Googlebomb fix is algorithmic and here's one simple way it could work.

1. The algorithm tends to put media coverage discussing the Googlebomb attempt above the actual Googlebomb when the algorithm is in effect
2. Media coverage is, I theorise, the key.
3. The algorithm picks up on the possible Googlebomb once enough trusted news sources call out a search result as a Googlebomb
4. After all, there are probably thousands of 'invisible' Googlebombs but it only becomes an issue once the results become 'political' or a talking point.
5. The very same trusted news sources which are used to identify the Googlebomb attempt are then easily upgraded, algorithmically, with a bonus weight appropriate to their own influence and the weight of the Googlebomb target page
6. The weighting ensures the news sources are ranked appropriately among themselves but out rank the Googlebomb target page

If this is an algorithm and if enough news sources talk about the dangerous cult search then we can expect the Google results to change fairly quickly.

Be Social: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit

Matt Cutts corrects IZEA's Ted Murphy's mistakes

Right now we've blog posts from Michael Gray and Andy Beard which are picking up viral steam and complaining about Matt Cutts insisting that all links within paid content should be nofollowed.

Here's the catch. He didn't say that. It's a misquote. Scan down the original IZEA blog post and you'll find Matt himself making that clear.

I think quoting me as saying "ALL links inside of any sponsored post should carry the no-follow tag period, regardless of whether they are required, not required or even link to the advertiser paying for the post" is different than our conversation.

That's really diplomatic. 'I think the quote... is different from our conversation'. It's a nice way of saying; "You're wrong".

Besides, this whole debate is messed up anyway. I would support any search engine call to insist that all links within a pay-per-post review had nofollow. I would.

There's a big difference between an IZEA style pay-per-post review and other commercial content on the internet. The people complaining want to ignore that.

I really do see the pay-per-post reviews in the same was as TechCrunch does. They're corrupting noise on the internet. They're used, pretty much exclusively, to game SERPs. Those are two labels which couldn't be applied to other 'commercial content' on the internet - you know, like a retail website.

It makes sense that all links within the pay-per-post review to be nofollowed because the whole review is not a valid 'editorial comment'. It would stop people finding a loop hole in the system by accepting a PPP for Site A and linking to Sites B and C - with the intent of passing PageRank to Sites B and C all along.

Be Social: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit

Google UK bidding on Matt Cutts

One of the techniques you can use to examine what people are getting up to on Google's Content Network is to use Gmail. Gmail infamously scans your email, picks out keyword topics and places ads accordingly. You can actually access this data by using this link https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&view=rl&rlk=[keywords] so, for example, to see Content Network matches to the keyphrase [Matt Cutts] use this link https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&view=rl&rlk=matt%20cutts. You need to be logged into Gmail. Google also gives us some insight to the system.

Your results will differ from mine. You'll see in the image above that I've got UK ads - and that's because I'm at home in the UK.

So, is Google really bidding on [Matt Cutts]? Heh. Nah. This is more likely to be a content broadmatch. Matt Cutts' name gets mentioned on so many SEM blogs that Google's systems have noticed and made the connection.

The system is actually working; if I'm emailing someone about Matt Cutts then I'm likely to be writing about something Matt's blogged about and Google's quite right to be trying to sell me search engine marketing.

Be Social: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit

Matt Cutts - pressing the red button on AdSense accounts too?

I really like Matt Cutts. No. I'm not going to try and pretend we're super buddies - I don't know him at all on a personal level. However, from his blog and presentations at S[][] conferences it is clear to me that he's a man with conviction. He really wants Google to do the right thing. He really wants to look after webmasters. He really cares. That's a passion. That's a conviction.

An aside comment from Matt on his own blog.

I’ve also pressed to reduce low-quality publishers in AdSense, too.

That's my emphasis. The comment caught my attention because I know small webmasters who have been removed (ie, reduced) from Google AdSense for fake clickthroughs even though they'll protest until they're blue in the fact that they've not been engaged in any click fraud. I'm sure in some cases there were 'automated clicks' from some of the sites but probably due to people scraping them rather than the webmaster trying to trick Google.

I just know that some of these webmasters are going to seize on this. They're going to claim that Google cooked up fake click charges to kick them off the network because they were too small.

Gosh. I don't know. I suppose it all depends on whether Google did decide to reduce small publishers or what a reduction could mean. You could reduce the percentage of small publishers by stop approving new ones. That wouldn't involve kicking out new ones.

My gut feeling is that the organic search / web quality guys wouldn't cook up charges to get people kicked off AdSense. That's just not what I associated with Matt Cutts and the old crew. In fact, I'm pretty sure Matt Cutts is the type of guy who'd be upset if Google actually did something like that. As I said; I admire his conviction.

I'm not so sure about some of the newer recruits into the paid search side of things (as Google gears up to take on the agencies some of the new blood are more mercenary) but I'm sure Google could (and would) just close the account (because they can) due to a lack of success. There are plenty of affiliate networks that'll pause or kill your account if you do don't perform well enough as a publisher.

Anyway, hopefully we'll see Yahoo extend their network (like to Europe, hello guys, Europe - that weathly continent which you're struggling in), Amazon and Live search push theirs. We even have sites like Lastminute launching their own content networks. If Google decides you're too small a publisher to satisfy the advertisers then, (hopefully) soon, there will be alternatives.

Be Social: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit

SMX London, day 1, write up

After attending the Google Keynote Speech I found myself talking to Gillian Muessing the president of SEOMoz. We decided to try and save the Local Search Tactics session from the advanced track which had been canceled at the last minute (no fault to SMX, either). I agreed to step in and follow my talk on Social Media Optimisation in Europe with a talk on Local Search.

I kid you not. No joke. Not yanking your chain. I've been asked to post the slide I used to talk about a conversation from SESs speaker room last year.


There's something of an unspoken rule 'What's said in the speaker room - stays in the speaker room'. I don't think I broke that. I didn't give details. However, it was a real story of an SEO trying to get his British client listed in Google UK.

As I had to put this presentation together in just a few hours I missed the global stats session. Alas! Other bigmouths, however, where at hand to take notes.

The one note I scribbed down from the What's New With The Algorithm track (which didn't really talk about the algorithm) was a comment from Mikkel deMib Svendsen. He said;

Google does need to deal with the paid link problem. I don't think they'll succeed.

I'm looking forward to day 2!

Be Social: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit

Did Ionut Alex Chitu leak Matt Cutts' email address?

Sadly this is a true story and not something I’ve made up for Halloween.

I was emailed today by someone offering to sell me Matt Cutts' email address. The emailer told me that a popular but unofficial Google blog had accidentally leaked it. I had to decide by 5pm today (no time zone was specified) whether I would pay $5,000 for the address or the person behind the email would offer the address to my competitors for $7,000.

Oh dear. Firstly, I’m based in the UK so I prefer to deal in Pounds Sterling rather than Dollars – although with the current rate of exchange the Dollar is pretty cheap for me to buy so maybe the $5,000 would have been a better deal. However, if this ‘canny’ emailer had done his research and worked out who my competitors are I would have assumed they would have noticed although I work for a global digital agency but am clearly based in the UK.

Has it happens Google Operating System did publish a screen grab which included Matts’ email address. Briefly. Philipp Lenssen noticed and kindly pointed out the little slip up. It's an easy mistake to make and it was corrected.

Here’s the newly censored image as it appears right now.

Needless to say I didn’t pay the $5,000 charge. I wrote back and told the author to grow up. Based on the quality of the email I wouldn’t be surprised if the author was actually only 13.

I imagine a fair few people saw the address. Listen folks – if you don’t know Matt then don’t email the address. If you do so and expect good things to happen then you’ll be disappointed. The man is hugely busy. You can tell that just by reading his blog! It doesn’t take a genius to guess at the email addresses used by Googlers either. I just recommend that you don’t guess and don’t make a nuisance out of yourself by trying to pester these people with unsolicited emails.

The best way to email Google is to use one of the group aliases and get a ticket number (keep it in the subject line of the email at all times). That way you know your email will get through the system and someone will look at it.

I email members of our Google account team directly. I email Googlers who I know well (have been to the pub with) directly. All my other Google emails go through the same channels as everyone else. Just because I’ve bumped into a Googler at SES or SMX does not, I feel, give me permission to start emailing them directly.

As for trying to hawk the email address of Googlers – especially with a “pay up now or I’ll raise the price’ deadline – grow up, idiot.

Be Social: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit

What Google hides from us... for our own good?

Google's intention is to index the world's information. The assumption has always been that they would then share that with us.

Yesterday Google stopped reporting when a URL was in the main index or the supplemental index.

Perhaps Google stopped showing the supplemental label because webmasters and SEOrs freak out when one of their URLs are labeled as such.

Google withholding data so we don't freak out? There could be a trend for that.

• Google could keep the PageRank toolbar data up to date - but chooses not to.
• Google could keep the link: command up to date (or even accurate) - but chooses not to.
• Google could keep the Google Directory up to date - but chooses not to.

The reason for this, according to an experimental post from Matt Cutts, is that Google noticed too many SEOs were suffering from "B.O." or backlink obsession.

It's great that Google publishes this data at all. It's all Google's data. They don't have to share it. However, it's slightly irking that I can't have the freshest data available.

Google also cracked down on synonym mining. Previously it had been possible to combine the minus (-) operator with the tilda (~) synonym operator in order to dig up "just synonyms" for words. For example, [-search ~search] would have listed (and highlighted) those words which Google saw as synonymous for "search". This technique does not work today and that's because Google didn't like SEOrs mining the data.

I suppose you could argue that Google once again took the "for your own good - we're withholding this data" approach.

One thing is for certain and that's the SEO community tends to get its knickers in a twist over loosing information like this. I'm sure dire warnings of the supplemental index were in the sales patter of a few SEO companies (again, perhaps it's a good thing Google's reduced its emphasis on the second index… perhaps not).

One of our Search Techies replied to the internal announcement about the death of the supplemental label with the following comment. And I agree.

The webmaster community seems to be freaking out about not being able to identify pages which are supplemental. Its fairly easy though if you look at a couple of cached timestamps. Takes a bit of monitoring but even still.

IMHO The supplemental index is one of Google's biggest failings. A below average response to make the best of a tough situation of crawling capacity.

Be Social: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit

I support Matt Cutts

Ah-ah. Lots of SEO people normally like to reinforce how much they like Matt and how they got on well with him. I've only personally spoken to him a few times at SES this year - and I'm not going to claim anything more than that. What struck me was how pleased he was to talk to other search engine programmers but also webmasters.

I've not been afraid to be unpopular with this blog and say that I support nofollow. I even pushed the boat further out by explaining why link sellers are taking a risk. I imagine that if this blog had a higher readership then I would have had more angry comments.

It should come as no surprise that I wholeheartedly support Matt's post to encourage people to report paid links. Use the spam form (authenticated or not) and include "paidlink" in the text body.

A lot of people are hostile to this. Why?

• They've sold campaigns to clients and explicitly said they would buy links - now they're exposed
• They've convinced themselves that some paid links are appropriate - I think this is the most common one
• They make most of their money buying or selling links
• They need to buy links in order to get their SEO to work

The thing to note is this - Google's guidelines have said that ethical agencies report spam. They have said this for a while.

Be Social: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit