Pay4ResultsSEO.com

Poor Flash. It has always been an uphill battle for Adobe to get it’s proprietary animation software accepted by developers and manufacturers. Indisputably one of the most elegant and flexible of the interactive, multimedia platforms Flash’s long battle to the top of the internet application ‘must-have’ list was hard fought. For over a decade Adobe has struggled to make sure flash plug-ins were compatible with each of the various evolving web browsers as well as maintaining functionality across a variety of platforms. Even today, as Flash is widely regarded as a leading tool for web development Adobe is facing new hurdles to maintain its market position.

One of the main difficulties facing Adobe is convincing web developers to continue developing flash-based web content in an increasingly SEO (Search Engine Optimization) oriented marketplace. For years SEO experts have rightly advised their client against reliance on Flash content. Particularly prone to SEO failure are sites whose home page and menu is composed in Flash. The crux of the problem was the method by which search engines explore and catalog websites. Search engine spiders and robots (as the programs used for such purposes are commonly referred) for years have ignored SWF (ShockWave Flash) movies simply because they have not been sophisticated enough to recognize the content in a manner appropriate for cataloging.

In other words even if a search engine spider were to look at a SWF movie it would only recognize the components as images, and not actually ‘read’ what the images represented. Simpler still, the robot would ‘see’ a button, but never realize the button says ‘start here’. Therefore even if the robot loaded an SWF file it might never figure out how to access the deeper levels of content.

With the increasing importance being put on Search Engine Optimization in the past few years both Adobe and Google have begun a concerted effort to help bridge the gap between SEO agents and Flash developers.

Since 2008 Google and Adobe have been working on improving Google’s search algorithm so that it can now recognize the text elements of embedded SWF files on the web. As might be imagined while this is a huge development for the advancement of Flash and SEO it is an imperfect solution. Google and Adobe are encouraging Flash developers to follow new text standards to help assist the algorithm in it’s work, but the word is spreading slowly. Also the adoption of new standards by developers does nothing to help with the search of most of the millions of previously existing SWF objects currently online, though both parties are optimistic that as the algorithm improves, so will the search options for older SWF files.

Adobe has independently established an SEO for Flash advisory site, which gives examples of not only the new standards best served by the newest Google algorithms but also tips on SEO marketing for developers who use Flash content. Much like SEO for HTML content Flash developers are encouraged to make strong use of Metadata and Alt text. Fields unseen most of the time by users but very useful to search engine spiders.

Recently renowned technology book publisher O’Reilly has released the long-anticipated title SEO for Flash which is written to cover all aspects of Search Engine Optimization for sites with light, medium or heavy Flash content usage.

Sadly, all of the parties involved regret that while great strides are being made in educating developers on how to get the most SEO value through text-based search algorithms and using traditional methods of SEO such as HTML, CSS and JavaScript, there does not seem to be any tool near to being released which will allows the indexing of audio and video content.



Recent news from web pro news

While Google’s Matt Cutts has certainly provided a wealth of helpful tips via the company’s Webmaster Central YouTube channel, he is not the only one to do so. Greg Grothaus of the Search Quality Team has posted a video (along with a presentation on the Webmaster Central Blog) covering duplicate content and multiple site issues that webmasters continue to face when trying to rank well in Google.

Greg begins by clearing up a popular myth about duplicate content, and that is that Google penalizes sites for having duplicate content. This is not the case. That’s not to say that duplicate content can’t have a negative impact on your rankings, but Google itself is not penalizing you for it.

Have you believed that Google penalizes sites for having duplicate content? Comment here.

Greg says people see messages like the one below and think their content is getting omitted from Google’s results, when in fact it really may just be being omitted for that particular query. Greg stresses that duplicate content is simply a factor on a "by query" basis.

"What’s actually happening, is that we’re looking at the query that the user’s doing, and we’re saying that we want diversity in the results we’re going to show a user," says Grothaus. He says those who think their content is being omitted because it is duplicate, will likely find that if they adjust their query to more specifically reflect the missing piece, they may just find that it shows up in results after all.

Google recognizes that most duplicate content is not created to be deceptive. There are of course exceptions, which are considered spam. Grothaus says even spam sites aren’t being penalized for having duplicate content though. They’re being penalized for being spam. Just like some spammers use bold tags, he says. They don’t penalize people just for using them. And they don’t penalize people just for having duplicate content.

Duplicate Content:

• example.com/
• example.com/?
• example.com/index.html
• example.com/Home.aspx
• www.example.com/ 
• www.example.com/?
• www.example.com/index.html
• www.example.com/Home.aspx

The above list from Grothaus’s presentation shows examples of URLs that are different, but show the same content. Google will recognize that they’re the same, and will try to pick the right one, (although sometimes they pick the wrong one). Greg says Webmasters are the best people to know which one is best, so it helps to only use one.

You will not be penalized for using more than one, but there are some issues that can arise that may negatively affect your rankings. For one, your link popularity will be diluted. Backlinks pointing to several different URL versions of the same content, will make it harder to accumulate link juice for one URL. Greg says that user-unfriendly URLs in search results may offset branding efforts and decrease usability as well. Plus, with multiple versions of the same thing, Google will spend more time crawling the same content, meaning it will have less time to go deeper into your site, and you run the risk of having content not get indexed.

Fixing the Issues

To avoid such issues, Grothaus suggests using a "canonical" version of the URL, meaning the simplest, most significant form. He says to pick one for each page and link consistently within your site. You can also use the rel="canonical" link element as explained by Matt Cutts in the following clip:

More WebProNews Videos

Rules for rel="canonical"

There are rules for the rel="canonical" link element to consider. For one, it should be used between pages that are on the same domain. It works across different hosts. For example, blog.webpronews.com could suggest www.webpronews.com as a canonical URL, but it doesn’t work across domains. So www.webpronews.com couldn’t suggest www.smallbusinessnewz.com.

You can use the element for protocols, such as http:// vs. https://, and you can use it for ports. Pages don’t have to be identical, but they should be similar. Slight differences are ok. You don’t have to use the rel="canonical" link element. It is just another option, or "another tool in your arsenal," as Grothaus says.

Another option is to make all non-canonical URLs do a permanent (301) redirect to the canonical (or preferred) URL. In addition, in Google’s Webmaster Tools, you can specify www. vs. non-www. 301 redirects are commonly used when moving sites.

Multiple Domains

Lastly, Grothaus discusses multiple domains. This is in reference to when you have content for different audiences, such as by country, language, etc.

There are concerns here. You have to consider your reputation being distributed across multiple domains, and Google will only show what it perceives to be the best page for a particular query.

One interesting factor of this to also consider, that may often go overlooked, is that with multiple domains, you’re potentially losing the advantage Google’s tabbed user interface. You know how sometimes search results are expandable and point you to different links within the site? If your content is spread out across multiple domains, you may be missing extra clicks, because Google can’t link to another domain here.

Grothaus explains all of the above and elaborates on each point in the following fifteen -minute video. The information is based on his presentation from the recent Search Engine Strategies conference in San Jose.

See our own interview from SES with Grothaus here as well:

More WebProNews Videos

Recent news from web pro news

You may recall back at SMX Seattle earlier this year, Google’s Matt Cutts talked at length about paid links. He touched upon the topic of Google being able to read javascript after giving out advice for so long to use javascript as a way to keep Google from reading paid links.

When asked about this, Matt said Googlebot had gotten smarter. He noted that Google began changing its messaging on the subject around 2007-2008 to stop mentioning javascript but to nofollow or do a redirect through a URL which is blocked through robots.txt.

Cutts noted that even on the onclick in javascript, the crawl and indexing team had submitted code so that it would respect a rel="nofollow". So you can put a rel="nofollow" attribute on a link that’s running in javascript, and more often than not, Google will make sure it doesn’t flow pagerank even if they’re executing the javascript.

Cutts did say, however, that if you want to be completely safe, to nofollow or link through things that are blocked.

Cutts revisited the topic in a recent upload to the Google Webmaster Central YouTube channel, in response to the following user question:

Now that Google can crawl JavaScript links, what is going to happen with all those paid links that were behind JavScript code? Will Google start penalizing them?

Matt reiterated that Google has gotten better at crawling javascript, and that URLs you put into javascript that you didn’t think would be crawled, might now possibly be crawled and indexed. He says the vast majority of people who do javascript links are ad networks and that Google handles these very well.

He then reiterated the use of nofollow, even within the javascript code, and the use of robots.txt to block out URls, and redirects.

"We find that the vast majority of paid links are typically not done with javascript," says Cutts. "They’re typically completely straight text links. so that’s where we’ve been spending the vast majority of our time."

Cutts says that Google is not currently penalizing paid javascript links, but they may start looking down the line. He says it hasn’t been a big issue at all in his experience though.

"If you’re selling text links, just make sure they don’t flow page rank and they don’t effect search engines," he says.

Recent news from web pro news

Google has added a new way for webmasters to tell it which parameters in URLS, they wish to be ignored. They have added a new feature to Google Webmaster Tools called simply, "Parameter Handling." Google provides the following explanation with the feature:

Dynamic parameters (for example, session IDs, source, or language) in your URLs can result in many different URLs all pointing to essentially the same content. For example, http://www.example.com/dresses?sid=12395923 might point to the same content as http://www.example.com/dresses. You can specify whether you want Google to ignore up to 15 specific parameters in your URL. This can result in more efficient crawling and fewer duplicate URLs, while helping to ensure that the information you need is preserved. (Note: While Google takes suggestions into account, we don’t guarantee that we’ll follow them in every case.)

The feature is yet another option webmasters can use when trying to eliminate duplicate content issues, which as we all know can be harmful to rankings, even though Google says it’s not a penalty. Either way, eliminating duplicate content when possible is likely to be in your best interest.

To use the feature, just go to Google Webmaster Tools, click on site configuration, and settings. There you will find the "parameter handling" option.

Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable notes that Yahoo has had a similar feature for quite some time, which it calls the "Dynamic URLs" feature. Ex-Googler Vanessa Fox has a very informative piece on the topic of URL parameters available here.

Recent news from web pro news

Google has started adding links to specific parts of webpages in the snippets on search results pages.

Google gives the example of the result for the Wikipedia entry for "Trans Fat." The snippet provides links to History, Chemistry, Presence in food, and Nutritional guidelines. These are all sections of one page that the user can go straight to from the results page.

Obviously, if you want to increase the amount of calls to action for your webpages from Google results, you will want to do what you can to cater to this new feature. Luckily, this isn’t a completely mysterious part of the algorithm (though the links are generated algorithmically) that Google is leaving you to figure out for yourself. A post on Google’s Webmaster Central blog essentially tells you what you have to do to get these links in snippets.

"We generate these deep links completely algorithmically, based on page structure, so they could be displayed for any site (and of course money isn’t involved in any way, so you can’t pay to get these links)," says Raj Krishnan of Google’s Snippets team. "There are a few things you can do to increase the chances that they might appear on your pages."

To increase said chances, you should make sure any multi-topic pages are "well-structured" and broken into distinct sections. You should also make sure each section has an associated anchor with a descriptive name. Pages like this should have a table of contents which link to the individual anchors.

One thing to keep in mind is that these new links won’t appear for results in every search. Google says whether they show up or not depends on the specific query used to get to it. Ok, there is a bit of mystery there after all.

Recent news from web pro news

Google has people riled up with its latest local search effort Google Place Pages. Place Pages are a Google Maps feature launched last week, which serve the purpose of providing everything you want to know about a place (a city or a business) in one spot. For example, if you search for a specific restaurant, you should get web pages, directions, reviews, images, street view imagery, business hours, etc. Google lets businesses submit specific categories they want to include.

There is concern from some that Google is trying to eliminate the need for users to leave Google and even visit a small business’ web site. WebProNews reader Doug Stewart, who wonders if this is an "assault against the small business website," commented, "Google wants people to spend more time on Google. Yahoo wants people to spend more time on Yahoo. Facebook wants people to spend more time on Facebook. Several of these large online "media" [companies] are doing everything in their power to keep the eyeballs on their website (unless you pay them for an outbound link)."

Do you think Google’s Place Pages are good or bad for business? Tell us what you think.

Google has always claimed to do everything with the user’s experience in mind. Unfortunately for SEOs and webmasters, however, it also could mean that people have less reason to go to their sites.

To me, this would really depend on the information that the searcher is hoping to acquire. It’s going to be about finding the right balance of useful information and providing an incentive to still go to your site (if that is your goal). The Place Pages would certainly bring a new element to the online reputation management table. You’re going to want to keep an eye on what’s showing up on your Place Page, and address the situation accordingly. They can include user-generated content.

Another concern that has been voiced about Place Pages, is that Google could start ranking them in natural search results – outside of Google Maps. In fact, Erick Schonfeld points out that this is already occurring for at least the Burdick Chocolate Cafe (the example Google used when it announced the feature).

This could theoretically reduce clicks to actual sites, but again, this would just emphasize the need to manage your reputation on your Place Page. Your site is likely to be easily located from the Place Page anyway.

Blogger Eric Fredline says Google’s Place Pages are "designed for optimization," but that something is missing. "For one, Google would need local merchant’s to define some sort of ‘conversion event’.  This is conceptually as easy as defining a new ‘block type’ that will appear on the landing page and be optimized," he says. "For example, a restaurant might view a phone call or an Open Table registration as a conversion event.  If it’s a phone call, I imagine the merchant could be encouraged to use Google Voice to provide a closed loop analysis of the conversion event."

"Perhaps more likely than having individual merchants doing this (at least in all cases) would be a small army of SEO and SEM experts doing it on the businesses’ behalf – but within a closed looped system managed by Google," he adds. "Google could potentially create a whole new eco-system."

Another interesting factor of Google’s Place Pages is the fact that they have sponsored results on them. This could raise more concerns, such as competing ads showing up on a business’ place page. In Google’s chocolate Cafe example, the Page is showing ads for chocolate companies like Godiva and Ghirardelli.

There are a lot of questions about the Pages, and answers will likely come in due time. In fact, Google Place Pages will be discussed in more than one panel at next week’s Search Marketing Expo, which WebProNews will be attending. We should have more information on it then. 

The Place Pages come with their own structured URL. The example Google gives is http://maps.google.com/places/us/cambridge/brattle-st/52/-burdick-chocolate-cafe. You can see how it is structured by places/country/city/street/address/business name. Google discusses the feature here.

Google says that while not all businesses have a place page yet, they will soon. Businesses can update their info through Google’s Local Business Center.

What is your take on the role of Google’s Place Pages? Share your thoughts.

Recent news from web pro news

If you write for the web, whether that be on a blog or any other content site, there is a good chance your content has been scraped at some point, if not on a continuous basis. The good news is that it’s probably not that big of a deal. At least that is what Google’s Matt Cutts imples.

Answering user questions as he so often does, Cutts took on the question, "Is there a way to benefit from content scraped from your site?"

The simple answer to this is yes. You actually may be able to slightly benefit from having your content scraped. According to Cutts, if you make sure the pages on your site have links to you in them, the scrapers may leave the links in and end up linking to you. He says these links can "help you along."

"There are some people who really hate scrapers and try to crack down on them and try to get every single one deleted or kicked off their web host," says Cutts. "I tend to be the sort of person who doesn’t really worry about it, because the vast, vast, vast majority of the time, it’s going to be you that comes up, not the scraper. If the guy is scraping and scrapes the content that has a link to you, he’s linking to you, so worst case, it won’t hurt, but in some weird cases, it might actually help a little bit."

It’s the same principle that Cutts talked about when talking about having links in low-quality directories. He says Google tries not to score the low-quality directories too high, but it doesn’t hurt your site at all for being listed there.

He says that most of the time, you don’t really need to worry about scrapers, because they don’t have a large effect in terms of the actual impact on users very often. He does add that if you see a scraper ranking higher than you, you can consider doing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act request (DMCA), or if it’s a true spammer (gibberish, etc.) you can go ahead and do a spam report on them.

Recent news from web pro news

Duplicate content is a common occurrence on the web and in many cases can hurt search engine rankings. While the search engines may not always technically penalize webmasters for duplicate content, there are still a lot of ways it can hurt.

WebProNews is covering the Search Marketing Expo (SMX) East in New York, where representatives from the three major search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing) discussed how their respective web properties handle duplicate content issues. Following are some takeaways from each.

Duplicate Content in Google

The way Google handles duplicate content has been discussed a lot in recent memory. This is largely due to a video Google’s Greg Grothaus uploaded, in which he discusses at length, the way Google handles a variety of different elements of the duplicate content conversation.

Joachim Kupke, Sr. Software Engineer of Google’s Indexing Team reiterated much of what Grothaus said. He also said that Google has a ton of infrastructure for content duplication elimination:

- redirects
- detection of recurrent URL patterns (the ability to ‘learn’ recurrent url patterns to find duplicated content)
- actual contents
- most recently crawled version
- earlier content
- contents minus things that don’t change on a site

Kupke said to avoid dynamic URLs when possible (although Google is "rather good" at eliminating dupes). If all else fails, use the canonical link element. Kupke calls this a "Swiss Army Knife" for duplicate content issues.

Google says the canonical link element has been tremendously successful. It didn’t even exist a year ago, and is has grown exponentially. It has had a huge impact on Google’s canonicalization decisions, and 2 out of 3 times, the canonical tag actually alters the organic decision in Google.

Google says a common mistake is designating a 404 as canonical, and this is typically caused by unnecessary relative links. So, avoid changing rel="canonical" designations, and avoid designating permanent redirects as canonical.

Also, do not disallow directives in robots.txt to annotate duplicate content. It makes it harder to detect dupes, and disallowed 404s are a nuisance. There is an exception however, and that is that interstitial login pages may be a good candidate to "robot out," according to Kupke.

Kupke says that canonical works, but indexing takes time. "Be patient and we WILL use your designated canonicals." Cleaning up an existing part of the index takes even longer, and this may leave dupes serving for a while despite rel=canonical, Kupke adds.

At SMX, Google announced that cross domain rel=canonical is coming within this year. So for example, if the Chicago Tribune has an article on the New York Times, and the rel=canonical points to the Chicago Tribune then Google will only credit the Chicago Tribune with the content.

Duplicate Content in Bing

As far as how Bing views duplicate content, intention is key. If your intent is to manipulate the search engine, you will be penalized.

Sasi Parthasarathy, Program Manager of Bing says to consolidate all versions of a page under one URL. "Less is more, in terms of duplicate content." If possible, use only one URL per piece of content.

Bing isn’t supporting the canonical link element (as a ranking factor) yet, but it is coming. They do say to use it, but it’s just not really a ranking factor in Bing yet. Bing says that there has been an increase in the usage of canonical tags in the past 6 months, but adoption issues still exist. According to Parthasarathy, 30% of canonical tags point to the same domain (which is fine), and 9% use it to point to other domains. This could be a mistake or it could be manipulative. Bing says they will look for other factors to try and determine which it is.

Bing says canonical tags are hints and not directives. "Use it with caution," and not as an alternative to good web design.

With regards to www vs non-www, just pick one and stick with it consistently. Remove default filenames at the end of your URLs. Bing also says 301 redirects are your best friend for redirecting, use rel="nofollow" on useless pages, and use robots.txt to keep content you don’t want crawled out.

Duplicate Content in Yahoo

If everything goes according to plan, you’re going to need to worry about how Bing handles duplicate content if you’re worried about how Yahoo handles it, but Yahoo’s Cris Pierry, Sr. Director of Search, offered a few additional tips.

Pierry says descriptive URLs should be easily readable, and it’s not a good idea to change URLs every year. In addition, use canonical, avoid case sensitivity, and avoid session IDs and parameters.

Pierry also says to use sitemaps, and submit them to Yahoo Site Explorer. Improve indexing by proper robots.txt usage, and use Site Explorer to delete URLs that you dont’ want Yahoo to index. Finally, provide feeds to Yahoo Site Explorer, and report spam sites linking to you in Site Explorer.

Yahoo says metadata and SearchMonkey are enhancing presentation.

WebProNews reporter Mike McDonald contributed to this article from SMX East.
 

Recent news from web pro news

Google does not use the "keywords" meta tag in its web search ranking. Google’s Matt Cutts explains this in a Webmaster Central video. This is not breaking news, by any means, but there are a lot of people out there that still put a lot of stock into this.

In fact, Cutts mentions that people have sued each other for meta tag keyword theft, when really this is just a waste of everybody’s time, because they don’t even play a role in the ranking of sites on Google. Have you been under the impression that the keywords meta tag was important to ranking in Google? Comment here.

"About a decade ago, search engines judged pages only on the content of web pages, not any so-called "off-page" factors such as the links pointing to a web page," says Cutts. "In those days, keyword meta tags quickly became an area where someone could stuff often-irrelevant keywords without typical visitors ever seeing those keywords. Because the keywords meta tag was so often abused, many years ago Google began disregarding the keywords meta tag."

Just because Google ignores the "keywords" meta tag, that doesn’t mean it ignores all meta tags. In fact, there are several that the search engine definitely uses. For one, Google sometimes uses the "description" meta tag as the text for search results snippets. But even then, the "description" meta tag isn’t used to influence ranking.

Google also recognizes the "google," "robots," "verify-v1," "content type," and "refresh" meta tags. Information about how Google understands these can be found at this page in the Webmaster Tools help center.

"It’s possible that Google could use this information in the future, but it’s unlikely," Cutts says of the "keywords" meta tag. "Google has ignored the keywords meta tag for years and currently we see no need to change that policy."

So the moral of the story is, if a competitor is jacking your keywords, and using them in their own "keywords" meta tag, this will have no effect whatsoever in how they rank in Google when compared to your site. Cutts says other search engines might use the information, but Google doesn’t.

Google does note that its enterprise Search Appliance has the ability to match meta tags, but this is of course separate from Google web search.

As I have said before, these videos and other tips Google frequently gives out are worth paying attention to for any webmaster looking to rank well. Whether they’re talking about duplicate content, meta tags, or paid links, they’re all aimed at telling webmasters how it is, and clarifying any misconceptions to the contrary. Whether you agree with Google’s methods in all cases or not, the tips are for your benefit.

Like it or not, Google controls what people find on the web when they search. The company’s huge market share is just something that is. There is always the possibility that could change in the future, but at this point, it looks like webmasters are not going to be able to ignore Google for a long time, if they hope to be found on the web by searchers.

We realize (and Google surely does too) that many well-seasoned marketers already know that Google ignores the "keywords" meta tag, but webmasters are born everyday, and not all of them have been so heavily seasoned to this point, and that’s why Google puts this information out there. There is always misinformation (particularly when it comes to search), and sometimes the record just has to be set straight. Who better to do that than Google itself?

Do you find Google’s Webmaster Central videos useful or do you think they’re mostly just retreads of things you already know? Share your thoughts here.

Recent news from web pro news

Matt Cutts has appeared in yet another Google Webmaster Video, and this time he has a whiteboard with him so he can illustrate what he’s talking about. What he’s talking about this time are uncrawled URLs in search results.

Cutts says Google gets a lot of complaints from webmasters who say the search engine is violating their robots.txt files, with which they intend to keep Google from crawling certain pages. Sometimes those URLs still end up in search results.

According to Matt, what is happening in most cases is that when someone’s saying "I blocked example.com/go" in robots.txt, it turns out that the snippet Google returns in search results just brings back a URL with no text for the snippet. The reason for this is that Google didn’t actually crawl the page.

"It did abide by robots.txt. You told us this page is blocked, so we did not fetch this page," says Matt. It is a URL reference. "We saw a link to it, but we didn’t fetch the page itself," he explains.

Google didn’t actually fetch the page itself, and that’s why there’s no text snippet. In case you were wondering what the point of showing them at all is, Cutts breaks out an example looking at the California DMV, whose site is: www.dmv.ca.gov.

Cutts notes that at one point the California Department of Motor Vehicles had a robots.txt that blocked all search engines. "Now these days pretty much every site is savvy enough, you know, at one point the New York Times and eBay and a whole bunch of different sites would use robots.txt," he says.

If someone searches for "California DMV" in Google, there’s pretty much only one answer, he says. So that is the answer that Google wants to return. Luckily for Google a lot of people were linking to that page with the anchor text "California DMV". That helps Google be able to return the result without having to crawl the page.

Cutts also says that they can get descriptions from a directory like the Open Directory Project (DMOZ). He cites Nissan and Metallica.com as examples of sites that used to block Google with robots.txt. They had been listed in the Open Directory Project, however, and Google went and got the information from there to include as the snippet.

When this type of thing happens, it looks like the page was crawled, when in fact it wasn’t. "So we are able to return something that can be very helpful to users without violating robots.txt by not crawling that page," says Cutts.

He also notes that when you don’t want pages to show up, you can use the "noindex" meta tag at the top of the page. When Google sees this tag, it drops the page from its search results completely. Another option is the URL removal tool.