Ask the SEO Guru

Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem to be more afraid of life than death.

Marissa Myers, (whom I’ve always thought was nothing less than brilliant), wrote one of the most compelling posts I’ve read in a long, long time.  http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/future-of-search.html

I doubt many within the Search Traffic Optimization community will catch the true significance of the post beyond what Google will or will not penalize, but I hope I’m wrong.

Search engine marketing and Google has had very little to do with SEO for a long time now. In fact, I have argued repeatedly that it was NEVER about search or even relevance. It's about traffic generation, (could be called eyeball fishing), and knowing what ad to show when and to who to give the best chance to generate revenue.

But I’m the first to admit that I’m afflicted with a cynical nature and I’m fully prepared for yet one more round of circular debates.

Be that as it may, that eloquent statement from the divine MM, clearly sounds the first definitive notes of taps for SEO as the illusion of an industry. At the same time, it blasts the trumpets of opportunity for SEM like announcing the arrival of the Pharaoh, but only for those that can see it and accept it.  

Some will read it and refuse to see it. Others will read it and see the incredible opportunities lying just around the bend.  Not for SEO, (which never really existed in the first place), but for an even greater demand for professional services built around navigating the complexities of search to the benefit of a client. Or to spam the crap out of the system. Maybe it's the same thing? I've never really understood the definitions.  

Whichever stance you choose to take, if you have an interest, (let alone a livelihood), involving anything to do with search, you ignore this one at your own peril.

 

Peach Y’all

G

 

Boy,what the hell is that in your ear?

Law #3 of the 48 Laws of Power

Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions.  If they have no clue what you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense.  Guide them far enough down the wrong path, envelope them in enough smoke, and by the time they realize your intentions, it will be too late.

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/Courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm

 

Question for the Week of September 5th, 2008

Hey guru I’m sure you’ve already checked out Googles new browser but I’m wondering if you think it will hurt my seo by helping google track my sites. Does the incognito feature really work?

Thanks

You may be surprised Sam but I probably haven’t played with Chrome nearly as much as you might think. Still, I do have some comments based on my unique perspective.

John Andrews is a very smart individual and a man I consider a friend. He has laser targeted his intellect at the seo community and is a controversial commentator on all  affairs seo. He is controversial because he possesses a clarity of vision, a command of language and a style that makes his offerings difficult to argue against, and this is extremely unique in a world filled with un-intitated, ill-informed, opinionated with no historical reference or record tidal wave of talking heads.

You can read John's post regarding Google Chrome here at John Andrew's Killer blog but the pertinent take-away comes from this paragraph:
**********************

This morning my buddy Stefan sent me the gizmodo link that shows Google’s license for the Windows binary known as “Chrome”:

you might want to take a closer peek at the end user license agreement you didn’t pay any attention to when downloading and installing it. Because according to what you agreed to, Google owns everything you publish and create while using Chrome.

The offending text from the Google license includes:

By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services…You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

*************************************************

While this statement does not address things like track, record, identify, take action against, use to our specific benefit to control or restrict business opportunities of any third party, (which we know they already do with other features such as the toolbar), still, he has taken the time to identify the pieces of the Google Chrome license that exposes their possible, (and based on historical reference- likely), intentions.

When you think about the license agreement, how else could a search engine phrase in legalese, the underlying purpose of any search facility. There is little to indicate nefarious intent when you consider that to display your url for a given search query, in over 100 countries using 100 languages, they kinda need your permission to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through the Services.

Then throw in a little adsense with a dash of contextual flavoring and the stew begins to thicken. But, we've all had a laddle full of that brew already.

That said, just because there is, or at least may be, some justrification for the typical Google vaguenesses, that does not alter the fact that you are also giving them permission to store, analyze, demote, label, penalize, ban, ridicule, give their opinion on or attmept to sway public perception in their favor and to the possible detriment to a third party's reputation or business if they so choose for whatevere reason they choose.

Again ------

SAME AS IT EVER WAS

Like it or not, disagree with me or not,and in spite of all the blog posts to the contrary, seo's have given this exact same permission to every search engine there ever was from the first day they published online content and did not expressly forbid any search engine from taking that content with a no-follow/no-index.

Be that as it may, I personally feel uncomfortable at raising a bet with all my cards laying face up on the table.  I realize there is really no cheap, easy way to NOT leave any footprints but that still doesn't mean I need to jump up and down naked while screaming look at me and hope nobody looks.

My professional philosophy,(which changed dramatically after the 2002 lawsuit), is that as long as SK is in the business of placing websites at premium positions of the organic results of the Google search engine, or to promote any website online that touches the Google realm of influence on the net, (which is just about everything), Google is NOT our friend, they are our competitor.  

Until such time as we as a company decide on a different direction, to use tools that exposes our internal intellectual property and gives a third party free reign to use it any way they choose without benefit of any legal restrictions or limitations is akin to cutting our own throats.

As of today, I am making it official SK policy that no employee using SK property may access the internet to download Google Chrome. This may change at some point in the future but this policy shall stand until further notice. Furthermore, the same policy applies to Google Gmail and/or the Google toolbar.

Now, that’s just me and over the next few posts I’ll give a few details of why I'd make a policy like that. The reasons are likely a little different than you’d expect. It certainly isn’t as obvious as it sounds.

As for others, let me point out something  that I think is  important for those who consider themselves professional online promoters. This is taken from the cnet article here http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10032047-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

************************

I bolded the pertinent part realizing that not everyone can dissect an open source app and modify but it just so happens that I have people on staff who can. If I can, so can others and this may be a viable alternative in much the same way as seoquake is for some things.

As for the question, “does the incognito feature really work”, who knows outside of Google but if I was a betting man, I’d bet it works every bit as good as Google wants it to. Here is what Google said:

The bolded part was to draw attention. The  bolded,  italicized, ENLARGED part was added for shudder effect.

But as comforting as that sounds, here is what the Tech guy for Cnet said:

I’m the first to admit I’m paranoid but that doesn’t mean I’m not being watched.

Keep in mind that I’m the guy who doesn’t believe there is any such thing as search engine spam. Here is what I said about spam back in 2001.

There is no such thing as search engine spam!

http://www.v7n.com/basic-concepts.php

Nothing has happened to change my opinion in the last 7 years.

So to me, it is not an issue of doing anything right or wrong. It is an issue of privacy and having the right to operate my legal business as I see fit and with that right comes the right to also protect my own intellectual property rights as well as those of my clients who have entrusted those right to me.

I would expect that Chrome, like a lot of Google products, offers a lot of features with good quality that you may find value in. A lot of the things they do makes a lot of things easier, faster and cheaper. BUT, with each one you can also see it comes at a price.  

So I’m not telling you what to do, I’m only telling you how I see it and what I intend to do.

 

Peace y’all

G   

 

My mother used to tell me that she married my father for his money and she was going to stay with him until he got some!

But she got screwed.