Linking In Earnest

I watched an amazing video last night - “Randy Pausch Last Lecture: Achieving Your Childhood Dreams” on YouTube.

This vid has been online a bit (has over 2.3 million views) so you’ve probably know about this guy but in case you don’t, Randy Pausch is a Professor from Carnegie Mellon who is dying of pancreatic cancer. He’s blogging and recording his final days as a way to leave a legacy for his very young children and draw awareness to this deadly disease.

The lecture on the video is part of an old academic tradition known as “The Last Lecture”. Professors are asked to pass on to their students all their worldly wisdom as if the next day would be their last. In an ironic twist, Professor Pausch was asked to do the lecture the same time he was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer.

As I watched and listened to this remarkable 76 minute video, four things he recommended stood out for me:

1. “… be good at something, it makes you valuable”

2. “How do you get people to help you? By telling the truth. Being earnest. I'll take an earnest person over a hip person every day because hip is short-term.”

3. (Shows slide of Jackie Robinson) “Don’t complain, just work harder. That’s a picture of Jackie Robinson. It was in his contract not to complain, even when the fans spit on him. You can spend it complaining or playing the game hard. The latter is likely to be more effective.

4. "Work hard. I got tenure a year early. Junior faculty members used to say to me, 'What's your secret?' I said, 'it’s pretty simple: call me any Friday night in my office at ten o'clock and I'll tell you."

Professor Pausch wants us to take what he’s learned and use it to enrich our personal and professional lives. I see no better tribute than to apply his sage advice to my link building business and life in general:

1. Be good, it makes you invaluable. Attracting links is about setting yourself apart and/or creating a niche. Spend time developing your business and marketing your reputation rather than coming up with silly linking schemes.

2. Be earnest. Cutesy link bait may attract a handful of links, but content in demand is there for the long haul. The number one online activity after email is product search. Write content that answers your customer’s questions and provides value.

3. Work harder. Don't succumb to the mediocrity of your competitors. Look to offline promotions for inspiration and ways to set you apart. Don’t use linking tactics that can jeopardize your business.

4. Work hard. You can’t build quality links in a day. Or a week, or even a month. It takes time and energy to create the right content and/or find and approach sites that will do you the most good. Develop your content, your image and your reputation and you’ll become the authority site everyone wants links from.

If you’d like to see the PowerPoint slides Dr. Pausch’s used in the lecture, click here.

All Hail The Dot co.uk Link - Or Not?

I talked with Dixon Jones from Receptional yesterday, Dixon lives "across the pond" and is someone I chat with frequently about link building and life in general.

It's always interesting to hear what fellow linkers are noticing and watching, especially those from other countries. There are subtle differences in linking tactics and approach based on cultural customs and engine variations so I'm always looking to pick up a tip or get input on things when they fall outside my native comfort zone.

I pinged Dixon to get his opinion on using dot com's versus country TLD's and because I thought his answer had a lot of great info in it and might benefit someone else, asked him for permission to reprint our conversation. He said OK so here goes...

debra: ....do you think it's better/more advantageous for a business in the UK to use a dot com? Or use a dot co.uk? How's that affect link building?

Dixon: When I read that question first, I thought you asked what was more "adventurous" rather than what was more "advantageous" - which is interesting, because the two words probably give me different thoughts.

Debra: Yeah well, sorry, my spelling sucks and I probably typed "adventurous" instead of "advantageous". Or maybe my subconscious is trying to tell me something. ;)- So what you think, dot com or dot co.uk?

Dixon: The absolute safe thing (SEOwise) for a UK company with a UK client base to do is to use a .co.uk domain hosted on a UK based webserver - then they should 301 redirect the .com domain to the .co.uk. However - this isn't my preferred approach - more about my preference later.

debra: How much later? I have to go get the kids from school soon.

Dixon: Later as in two seconds while I type this. I can't go but so fast.

debra: Ah. Sorry. Again.

Dixon: There are some really important pre-requisites here. The first is that you shouldn't even start if you do not own the .com domain AND the .co.uk. use a domain where you can control both if you can. If you do not, then there is a very real risk that the other TLD is taken and used in a similar way confusing your customers and the very least and having someone profiteering off of your brand at the very worst.

There are many .co.uk domains available where the .com is taken, and there is a tendency to jump on these. Before buying one, check that the .com owner is established in a different business and certainly not likely to be mistaken for you. Sometimes things happen the other way around. When I started out, I bought dixonjones.com ... but I was a poor man, and the .co.uk was cheaper. Unfortunately, dixonjones.co.uk was taken. Now there is a company of several hundred architects presumably kicking themselves for not buying the .com. (If they had at least thanked me for redirecting their misguided emails for 8 years I might care, but not even a Christmas card so far)

debra: Well that's pretty rude of them. Want me to point some links at them and....

Dixon: No no no. Anyway... The real key for Google last time I looked was where the server is hosted - not the domain name itself. I suspect that this may be changing over time, but the "adventurous" route is not to 301 the .co.uk to the .com, but rather to use the .com HOSTED ON A UK SERVER (very important) and then 301 the .co.uk onto it. This gives you a much better grounding on which to go global. Because let's face it - adventurous is nothing if not about expanding in the future.

debra: All that redirecting and being adventurous makes my head hurt.

(Inserted: Dixon ignores me here and keeps typing)

Another reason for needing both TLDs is that people in the UK certainly do assume a url and type it in. They are as likely to make a mistake using .com instead of .co.uk as they are the other way around.

debra: Yeah, using the dot com is easier and less typing. Glad to know people are lazy everywhere not just here in Virginia.

debra: So how do you determine where a site is hosted? Have a tool for this lazy person?

Dixon: If anyone needs to know where a site is hosted, there are a few tools - one is at http://geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm. You first need to ping the domain (which I do from the DOS/CMD window) "ping http://www.domain.com/" to get the IP number of the site. And for the record, Geobytes isn't mine.

###

Good information as usual, thanks for the input Dixon.

It's Hip To Be Link Square

We recently had a great turn out at our quarterly lunch meeting of the Virginia SEO MeetUp. The afternoon flew by as the group talked and shared ideas on everything connected to SEO. There were lots of questions on things like which conference should they budget to attend and what new tools were out there. It seems all the talk of recession has a lot of SEO/SEM shops budgeting for only one show this year and only investing in tools with a clear ROI. That conversation alone was noteworthy but overall the one topic that sparked the most debate centered around link building and which tactics were working. Click to continue reading...

Is Traffic The New PageRank? No.

How many times have you read an article or blog post where someone says "don't worry about PageRank, if the link will drive traffic it's worth pursuing." I'm betting you read that a lot and if you're like me, catch yourself scoffing just a little when you do.

Yes yes I know PageRank isn't a major component of the ranking algorithm anymore and yes I know it dates me but what the heck, I can't help myself. I'm a busy person with little time to look behind every page I come across so I let the toolbar set the tone. If there's a meter of green, the page passes the initial glance test. If not, I may do further analysis before moving on. For me, the PageRank meter is an adequate gatekeeper and one I can see present tense.

Traffic is harder to determine, there's no way to look at a site and see site traffic unless they offer something like Sitemeter on their pages. There's also no way to see which pages a search engine deems higher quality. You just don't offer stats publicly unless you're selling links in which case they should be provided in a media kit. As a result, it's tough to find out what a site is generating traffic wise and makes securing links based on traffic a gamble since it's a future tense metric. (meaning, I take a risk in securing a traffic based link. I can't tell the success of that link until it generates traffic).

But there's a couple of problems with my old habit.

First, it limits me to using just Google. That's not good since each of the "big three" use a different ranking algorithm I may miss out on an opportunity to find a good partner site by just using one.

Ok truth be told I don't like the idea of one entity having so much power and right now, Google has a lot. Don't tread on me, and power to the people comes to mind when I think of Google. (Which is pretty funny if you consider their motto.) And while Google doesn't tread, right now I feel like they are creeping along into everything and that kinda worries me.

Second, Google has been pushing the use of nonfollow which has prompted a good number of commercial sites to adopt it rendering any authority vote they cast almost invisible not only on G but Yahoo! as well.

Influenital sites like YouTube, the Wikipedia, Yahoo! Answers and now the greater portion of Flickr pink their links which means their authority doesn't flow. We've made them authorities by linking to them but do not enjoy the reciprocity that comes with partnership. Oh well.

And lastly, we know visual PageRank isn't a true representation of the real McCoy... not that it really matters in the big ranking picture anyway. I mean, why do people say things like " well the toolbar doesn't really show true PageRank". Does it show false PageRank? Well no according to Google, it just doesn't show what they see. It's a timing issue. Whatever.

All seems kinda dumb when you talk about it like this. So why does the fuss around PageRank continue? Good question. Better question might be - what's better at giving us the quick qualifying factor like the PageRank toolbar?

Don't tell me Alexa. Yikes! Maybe it's plain old search engine placement, an average of sites across the three engines.

The only tool I know that does that is Aaron's Myriad Search although I noticed it doesn't bring back any results for Ask Jeeves but includes them as an option on the main page.

For now I'm keeping my toolbar. Sorry Aaron, love Myraid and will use it but it doesn't fit on my toolbar. When it does I'll unhook the green meter and put it up there. Until then, here's looking at you PageRank.

Can you spare a Sphinn?

Usurp Wikipedia And Build Authority. Cool.

If you're in the market to find ways to usurp an encyclopedic interloper and wanted to reestablish a long time brand while helping websites develop topical authority in the process, how would you do it?

Seems Encyclopædia Britannica found one. They've created an information widget webmasters can use to place authoritative information on their sites from EC's databases even the paid sections. Here's what it looks like and the marketing spiel that was launched with it:

Britannica Widgets are here, and with them you can instantly post an entire cluster of related Encyclopaedia Britannica articles on your blog or Web site. Just follow the instructions and copy and paste the several lines of code associated with each widget as html into the appropriate place on your site. Any readers who click on a link will get the entire Britannica article on the subject, even if access to the article normally requires a subscription. Really. Try it.

So let’s say you have a site about philosophy, or astronomy, or basketball. Stick one of the widgets below on your site and your readers will instantly have access to Britannica’s coverage of the subject.

Hopefully Britannica won't get a widget smack for using these, will be interesting to watch and see what happens. I'm rooting for them.

Looking Cool Can Look Link Stupid

Have you seen the new social networking site Starbucks launched about two weeks ago called MyStarBucksIdea?

The media release Starbucks issued calls it an online community network but after going through it, it does seem like a glorified customer feedback form. Since I prefer Diet Coke as my caffeine poison of choice, I don't really care what Starbucks is calling their new venture but I was very interested to know how they were going to sell the concept to their customers.

I'm a big believer in cross promotion and incorporate offline advertising into all the custom linking services I offer. IMO, it's smart to advertise to your demographic offline because people assign credibility to what they read and transfer that trust to an online brand when they see it.

And we know trust helps to build links. So I figured I'd learn a thing or two from a company that managed to make paying $4 for a paper cup of coffee at any time of the day an unconscious part of our routine. I was curious to see how this retailer was going to promote a new online opinion venue to a customer base that's predominately offline. I headed over to our local StarBucks cafe to see if they were displaying any in-store collateral supporting the new networking site.

Surprise surprise - they weren't and the counter clerk didn't know anything about the site either. Which sincerely surprised me as I always had the impression StarBucks was marketing savvy.

I'm sure StarBucks spent a ton on money on creating this new Web2.0 platform so it's a surprise to see they're not taking advantage of in-store collateral annoucing it's creation. I know it's perceived to be cool to have a social media tool in your marketing arsenal and while I applaud StarBucks for making an attempt to build community, I'm shocked at their lack of basic Marketing 101.

I know that sounds a little harsh but I really feel that way. Everyone wants to use the latest toys and look cool because when you're cool, people talk about and admire you. But I have to wonder... here's a company with an almost 100% offline presence and they go and launch an online social networking site to build a -- community? They already have community in their stores everyday.

Which is why they should capitalize on it to market the new online venue. If they launch a new coffee, where do they promote it?

In the stores of course. So why wouldn't they promote a major new portion of their business in-store as well?

I know, I know, just because our local StarBucks aren't pimping the new site doesn't mean it's not happening elsewhere. It SHOULD be happening here, Williamsburg is a hot tourist destination and was visited by the Queen last spring so we're not total hicks. Starbucks owns thousands of offline stores -- thousands. Are they using them to promote a new marketing tool designed to listen to customers, the very people they want becoming part of their new community?

From what I can see -no. Too bad too. If the idea is to use the social networking site to empower customers, they're not doing it at the most effect level - the storefront.

Now I ask you, is that cool?

People turn from being customers to brand evangelists when they feel empowered and part of something. Think about your loyalties and why you have them, do you feel the way you do because someone listened and acted on your opinion? Probably. :)

If you have an offline store supporting an online presence, or even if you exist only online, it makes a world of sense to cross expose your URL/promotion at every opportunity.

If you're going to go through all the trouble of creating something as detailed as a social networking site or as a simple as a magnetic sign for the side of your car, be sure it's going to be seen by the people who can make a difference and in a format that reinforces credibility.

You want to look cool? Buy sunglasses. You want to grow your company and your link base? Advertise in on and offline publications and venues reinforcing your credibility.

Time for a fresh diet coke. :)

Bee's Do It, Even NonProfits Do It. Let's Do It, Let's Fall In Link Love

Beth Kanter of Beth's Blog recently published an interview she did with Jonathan Colman of The Nature Conservancy. Jonathan is their Associate Director of Digital Marketing and he shared some insight on how the Nature Conservancy (a non-profit) was using social media as part of their marketing mix.

A lot of the interview struck home and made me think about the parallels between traditional linking and social media promotion. While I agree the two entities are different animals and call for seperate strategies, the bottom line is the same for both... to increase traffic and link love.

With some people holding SEO to the fire for exploiting social media, I thought it might be interesting to look at those parallels based on comments made in the interview and see if there's any common ground. Let's start with this one:

...one of the most interesting parts of engaging in social media is how you can measure just about everything that you do. The real challenge, of course, is to determine the meaning behind those numbers.

There's been some chatter on how links generated through social media are somehow less relevant than those secured through traditional link building methods. In traditional link building you identify a link, assign value to it and then proceed to do what you can to get it. If you're successful in securing the link, it becomes a commodity because of where it came from and the importance you placed on securing it.

It's the opposite with social media. You put the content out there and if you're lucky you'll see big traffic and some quality inbound links. Generating links through the social networks can be a crapshoot, you get what you get. Unlike traditional linking, you can't pinpoint where those links will come from or control which sites to target.

So the question is, are the links generated through social media campaigns any less efficient?

The short answer is -it depends on your goal. In today's linking landscape it's important to secure links from high quality sites, and/or those in your niche for maximum ranking impact. Getting links from places like CNN and The Huffington Post are also great provided they aren't dynamic. But if you're looking to generate eyeballs and traffic, then general links in massive quantities are fine, it should be easy to determine their effectiveness.

Here's another comment Jonathan made:

… another principle strategy of ours: connecting with people where they are rather than making find us. ...Rather than force people to come to our site ... we’re happy to ind them where they’re already engaged and introduce them to the Conservancy in venues of their choice.

Advertising/participating on sites your customers frequent when they're not on your site, that's just smart marketing. It's why keeping them engaged through reviews, surveys and customer commenting on your site is so important. Use your site to pull the info you need to find out where they are. No matter what type of linking campaign you do, you need to know what your customers want, where they are and what sites to target. That's Marketing 101.

He then went on to comment on some specific tactics/sites the Nature Conservancyy was using:

I routinely bookmark and comment on environmental news, green blogs, and stories about sustainability and alternative energy technology. One of our foremost social media strategies is to try to link to and promote as many stories as possible outside of our own site.

When we talk about link popularity as a concept, we tend to overlook the importance of topical relevance for the more impactful issues like anchor text and quality links. It's a given that anchor text and inbound links are strong factors but it's equally important to establish community relevance by linking out to sites within your community. By finding and linking to sites hosting your demographic, you work the opportunity from both sides... you get targeted eyeballs and establish your site in a cited, topical network.

.... with Digg visitors, these folks just viewed the landing page and most of them immediately left without viewing any other pages. But that’s OK, because our popularity on Digg drove in 50+ links from blogs, including a few elite sources like The Huffington Post and Cisco.com, and also caused “spillover” popularity into other social news networks. The real value from this particular success on Digg wasn’t so much the initial spike in traffic, but the increased SEO positioning and second wave of visitors coming from blogs and other sites.

The article being referenced can be found here on Digg , some of the "spillover" sites he mentions are Mixx, Hugg, Care2, Reddit, Magnolia, and Netscape . While you may not get as many votes from any one of these "spillover" sites as you would Digg (provided the story was went hot), put them all together and their numbers are impressive.

You'll also get a wider circle of inbound links which is good for establishing a varied linking pattern and increasing visibility overall.

I turn to Twitter to publicize my social media campaigns, usually the ones on Digg. ... a handful of friends following these tweets ... actually click through and vote on the stories. Twitter, Pownce, even IM can be used to draw people into your campaigns...

I've noticed a change in the way people are using Twitter these days. When I started it was more conversational but now, people seem to be using it to annouce new blog posts, ask questions and ask for Diggs/Fetches/Sphinns. More than once I've picked up an URL or a new site that's been helpful; I recently added a link I saw on Twitter to my latest SEL column, I had finished the post and was ready to send in when the tweet happened. Being able to find and react to information that quickly is every marketing person's dream.

Cherry picking links is still a good idea, you target what you want and what you know you need. Social media is good for spreading the word while attracting links in the process. The links are less targeted but no less efficient or important to your overall inbound link graph. Successful link building is about blending both and loving the results.

Do You Link Dope or Incestuously Link?

Holy cow. Did you know the practice of link doping and incestuous linking are bona fide methods of link building?

Honest. Says so in the Wikipedia.

As I was trolling around today I stumbled on a page in Wikipedia titled "Methods of website linking". I found it after searching on the term "link popularity".

Clicking through I was taken to a page describing methods of website linking I've never heard of like - "Link doping" and "Incestuous linking". Incest and doping and links - oh my!

(click the images if you want to see them more clearly)




Keep in mind I searched on the term "link popularity" and came to the page expecting to see just that. Instead, I found terminology used to describe outdated , incomplete and irrelevant link methods sitting under a title that lead me to believe I was going to read about hyperlinks. Say huh?

Ok, so I backed up and decided the page was really trying to talk about link building methods. Where's the disclaimer and link to search engine guidelines on link exchanges and paid links? Those changes to the guidelines happened last year and were significant. Looks like paid links are on another section but this one talks about recip links so I assumed I'd find updated info. Well you know what they say about assumptions.











I couldn't find any information on link popularity per se, there's a little paragraph there but it's not accurate and far from complete. (The page was redirected from the "link popularity" page which is empty). There are calls on the main page for "cleanup" but they're from November of last year and the revision history shows edits made to the page February 18, 2008. Which means this page has been touched recently and it still contains outdated and irrelevant information.








It amazes me that link popularity, one of the most fundamentally important concepts to understand when talking about search engines and online marketing is on a page with "Link doping" and "Incestuous linking". Where exactly is the tie-in? Everyone (including me) says the Wikipedia is an authority source, but what I found for the term "link popularity" is anything but.

If I get over the fact I didn't get what I was searching for (link popularity) and focus on the page I was led to, I'm still left shaking my head. The page is titled "Methods of Website Linking" and yet - what's being showcased doesn't have anything to do with website linking. Most of the linking building tactics mentioned aren't really tactics and the one key concept on the page - link popularity- doesn't even talk about anchor text. How can you talk about link pop and not mention anchor text?

It appears the people taking care of this page definitely aren't authorities or even moderately versed in current SEO, they've mistakenly jumbled two concepts and stuck them under a generic banner. I'd roll my eyes and let it go if the page wasn't redirecting from one titled "link popularity" and 3/4 of the info on the page wasn't SEO related. Nope, this is a case of someone not knowing what they're doing - and others letting it sit that way for months.

And yet, when I publicly suggest knowledgable people with good content should contribute to the Wikipedia, I'm spoken down to, told to read the conflict of interest guidelines and criticized. Yeah that's right, I can't let go of that little incident, and don't think I should after seeing this.

And if you come back and say - "why don't you help clean it up instead of bitching about it Debra" -- forget it. It will be a cold day in Wiki hell before that happens.

People new to SEO and who want to learn about link popularity and/or link building methods shouldn't give this page on the Wikipedia a second glance. It's inaccurate, outdated, uses terminology no one in the business uses and is mis-matched for the title. This one's a dud.

Maybe Wikipedia should change the tactic "Link doping" to link dropping dope. It fits.

p.s. Pope image is the cover of an old album produced by John Lennon and Yoko Ono.

Fetch / Sphinn