Posted on April 4, 2013
Category: music | Comments Off on Some Fun Music
Just for a change and to get away from work, I finally got around to editing and uploading a video of the band that was shot at one of our live gigs here in the south of Spain. It’s not a professional video by any stretch, just one taken by our drummer’s old man on his cool Nikon camera. But its fair enough to put up and the sound is pretty good considering the size of the place (it’s tiny).
The song in question is ska, one of only two we currently do (although we plan on writing more) and I wrote it as a sort of tribute to the Madness tribute band I played in several years ago called “One Step Beyond” – hence the name of the song. It’s a tongue-in-cheek swipe at the old Madness song “Night Boat to Cairo” as you’ll probably guess from the structure and a couple of pretty obvious lines…
Without further ado, here it is:
If you like it, I’d appreciate you put it up on Facebook and tell all your friends, tweet it and of course give it the thumbs up on Youtube. Thanks!
Posted on March 30, 2013
Category: web 2.0 | Comments Off on Has Squidoo Just Doomed Itself to the Search Engine Scrapheap?
Yeah, I know I haven’t written anything in this blog for several months and to be honest, I simply haven’t felt the need to write anything. Plus I’ve been busy figuring out what I need to do with my own sites to get Google to take its jackboot off my bloody neck and let some of my sites rank again. But that’s another story.
This is the story of a once mighty web 2.0 site known as Squidoo.
I’ve been a member at Squidoo since 2007 and have watched it go through its ups and downs with its relationship with the mighty search engine that is the closest thing to a cyber god (deliberately spelled with a small “g”) for those of us who make our living from its search index. A few years ago, it ran afoul of Google’s graces and was unceremoniously “slapped” down because of the proliferation of total crap that spammers were building “lenses” about.
The Squid introduced some tough anti-spam measures, booted out the spam and after a while, was allowed back in to Google’s good books. In fact, for the past year or so, Squidoo lenses have been much easier to rank in the SERPs than my own sites, thanks to Squidoo’s massive site authority. But all that is about to change again.
Has Seth Godin Officially Lost It?
Seth Godin, the man behind the massive success of Squidoo and his team of headless chickens are reacting to some big problems they have created for themselves by taking draconian measures to avoid another Google slap. Apparently, the site has been warned to curb its recent growth of “thin” pages that are full of affiliate links.
Fair enough you might say. Take steps to force lensmasters to pad out their lenses with good, original, readable and useful content and reduce the number of affiliate links on each page. These “sales” lenses have made a lot of lensmasters a lot of money over the last year, which is why they were being built at an alarming rate, with the full backing of the Squidoo team I might add, thanks to their frequent “challenges” and other promotional moves.
So far the measures introduced have seemed fair enough. But it seems this is not enough for dear old Seth. He appears to have lost this particular plot. Or perhaps his team of top dogs have lost their heads.
For some unbeknown reason, they have decided that all outbound links from all lenses should now be nofollow.
Has anybody there actually thought that one through?
Does anyone listen to Matt Cutts or other important Google employees when they tell us that our pages should link out to authority sites? Does anyone listen when we’re told that we should NOT build pages with no outbound links for the spiders to follow? Because creating “dead-end” pages is NOT good for the way in which Google crawls the web and therefore NOT good for a site that follows that practice?
For those who don’t know this: Not all outbound links are the work of evil spammers. It is actually quite natural to link to a page that may have been referenced to support an article, or to an accepted authority on the subject as “further reading” and the spiders must be allowed to follow those links.
It is even natural to link to our own sites if a lens the article is supported in some way by a complimenting article on our own site. Not an evil attempt to game the system, but a legitimate reference.
Preventing this by implementing a blanket “nofollow” on all outbound links actually reduces the authority of the page because it does not allow the spiders to follow the links to the referenced material.
It’s also well known in SEO circles that a no-followed outbound link on a page is an indicator that the link may have been “bought” – a sure signal to the Google spam team that closer inspection may be warranted. Do we want Google to start looking at all our lenses thinking we’re selling links because they’re now all “no-follow” and worse, they’re pointing at our own sites?
Didn’t think so.
Misinformed Forum Comments
I don’t much enjoy reading through comments in the official Squid forum especially over these changes. Certainly, there are some members who really do understand this and have explained why this is a bad idea. But it looks like they have been shouted down by the majority herd.
Most the members are simply ill informed about how linking and SEO works. Many believe (in their ignorance) that this measure is a good thing. Its not their fault they don’t understand how things really work. But reading their comments just makes me shake my head in sympathy for the people who are in charge of Squidoo, who seem to be listening more to these people than to people better qualified to make that kind of judgement.
Thankfully, there seems to be at least some sense has filtered through the skulls of the people that run things. They have already back-peddled a little and realized that nofollowing internal links was a very bad idea. But that still doesn’t bode well for what the Google spiders will encounter when spidering that huge, supposed authority site and finding no way out of it, like they’ve been caught in a jar and had the lid put on without any breath holes.
So we wait and see what happens next. Will Seth and Co. come to their senses in time and figure out a better way of dealing with the problem of “thin” lenses with too many affiliate links?
Or will they do exactly what the owners of Hub Pages did a while ago and allow their domain authority to implode by panicking and implementing so many changes they have no way to gauge what the effect of each change has had on the site? Will they then be forced to watch a mass exodus of the authors that actually make the money for the site?
Where will they go next? Many Hubbers (me included) moved a lot of good, original, useful and most importantly sales generating content to Squidoo when HubPages went into self destruct.
Many will bleat the tired old mantra “its not your site, if you don’t like what they’re doing, just leave… yada yada yada” and they’re quite right. If the owners of the site want to mismanage it all the way to the search engine scrapheap like HubPages did, I certainly don’t want all my hard work to go with it.
The next move is yours, Seth. Please make it a good one.
PS: here’s this page’s outbound link to an authority site: http://hq.squidoo.com/squid-news/changing-link-status-on-squidoo/ – its a link to that particular forum post that is getting everybody so alarmed.
Posted on September 27, 2012
Category: seo | Comments Off on Is Google Doomed to Become the Search Engine Scrapheap?
The way in which search engines are displaying organic search listings has altered a lot in the last year or so. Google, being the most popular engine is probably top of the list for changing its own format from one of genuine results to a large proportion of paid ads.
Most people of course don’t notice, but with most searches that are likely to have some commercial value (shopping searches, product reviews etc), what used to be a nice clean page with 10 results containing websites that in most cases gave some value to the searcher is now a page full of text advertisements with the organic listings pushed further down the page.
Now before I continue, I should point out that I’m talking about the kind of search results that have commercial value. Information searches that don’t make any money for anyone are generally not included in the focus of this article. Those kind of searches still provide good information and are a valuable research tool. Not knocking that side of search. Only the commercial side of things.
Big Brand Domination
Another big change that again, most people don’t notice is that big brands are dominating the organic listings where smaller, independent sites once provided their own opinions, advice and reviews. You only have to type in a search for a product like a small kitchen appliance, popular toy or some beauty products and you’re going to find under the ads that Amazon is probably the top result, closely followed by the likes of ebay, Sears, WalMart and other big name stores.
On first refection, you might think that’s fine. Let’s face it, if you want to buy something online, chances are Amazon will have it at probably the best price and they will ship it free to most locations now. Why bother with any or the other stores even, let alone all those little independent review sites?
In fact, why bother even wasting a click and a short wait for your browser to load up Google’s annoying paid ads? Just keep Amazon in your bookmarks or favourites and go straight there. Cut out the middleman with all its blatant ads and go straight to the place you want to go to anyway!
By making sure that Amazon ranks top for most product searches, Google has really taken a path that will dig its own grave and bury it.
Google Decided to Wage War on SEO
And in the process, while it was stamping out all the little “work at home mom” sites and destroying the incomes of thousands of ordinary people, it decided to replace their sites at the top of the first page of the search results with Amazon plus a bunch of other big brand names. Oh great, take the food out of the mouths of the little guy and give it to the already uber-rich fat cats. How popular!
Sour grapes? Yeah, of course. A lot of my sites suffered the same fate and I lost some of my online income. I look at these changes from the perspective of a one-man business that once worked very well and now doesn’t. I never used spamming tactics or automation like some did. My content on the web is all original, researched and useful. I built sites that I am proud to show off to anyone who wants to see them. Just what Google said it wanted.
Say What You Mean?
But Google doesn’t really want that at all. Google doesn’t care how much work and effort you put into building a great site with well researched, original and entertaining content. If you want to rank for any term that you can potentially make money from, Google does NOT want your site to rank for it.
Because you are making money from that search term and Google is not.
Every time a potential customer clicks one of my affiliate banners (by way of thanking me for providing a useful, informative and factual review of a product I hasten to ad), the commission goes to me and not to Google. Google hates that. They want it all. They want EVERY sale, click and cent that is spent online to go into their bank account and NOT into those of the little guy.
Don’t believe me? Like I care.
What Makes Google Tick?
Think about what drives Google. It’s more than just a search index. It’s a multi-billion dollar company that answers to its greedy shareholders who are constantly baying for more, more, more! And in order to give them more, Google has to grab income from every possible source to do it. Hence the proliferation of Google Ads splattered all over their results pages. Hence the all-out war on SEOs who Google sees as taking money out of its pockets.
But maybe this very strategy will be its downfall.
You see, people are not stupid. You can fool some of the people some of the time… and you can probably fool most of the people most of the time. You know where that’s leading. People may become ad-blind after a while, but it’s hearing it from someone I know who doesn’t have a clue about search engines, SEO or search strategies that brought it home to me.
Real People Think Like Real People
She looks at Google to search for a new book or a new toy or whatever. After a while she stops bothering to look at Google. That’s because she’s clicked the ads enough times, not realising they were ads and been sent off to sites that she didn’t want to be sent off to. So now she doesn’t bother even opening Google in her browser.
Nope. She goes straight to Amazon and searches there. Because she knows that Amazon’s search feature will bring up exactly what she wants to see!
Not a bunch of other stores and a crapload of ads that will send her to where she doesn’t want to go.
She is not alone. Lots of people I know are bypassing Google to search Amazon for what they are looking to buy online. It’s sensible, saves a little time and gets them directly to where they want to be. Looking at the product sales page where they can see the price they will pay, product info and they can even read other customer reviews. All on the same page. No being screwed around by greedy Google ads. No wasting time searching Google only to find Amazon is the top result anyway.
Could Google’s own relentless drive for more profit and its destruction of those independent review sites that actually provided people with something they DID want – independent reviews of a product that does NOT come from the store selling it – be the engineer of its own downfall?
I think it just might.
I probably left a lot of key points out of this article, but I didn’t plan on sitting here all day to write an in-dept finger wagging at Google. I just wanted to add my own opinion to the multitude of others and point out that a lot of the little sites that Matt Cutts and his Spam Team squashed actually served a valid purpose.
Independent reviews of a product, when properly done are a valuable resource for buyers not wanting to get possibly biased reviews from the manufacturer or seller’s own site. Sure we make some commission for adding our own affiliate links to the seller’s site. But that’s no different from a big newspaper earning money for writing an editorial about a new product and displaying an ad on the page. Companies pay for promotion and it makes them more sales. It’s a money-go-round that works.
Everybody wins. The product seller makes a sale. The affiliate makes a commission for making that sale happen. The buyer gets the product they wanted after reading a review that gave it to them straight, so they are happy with their purchase.
And it worked very well online too until Google decided to get greedy and suppress it. Bad Google.« go back — Previous Posts »