Last Wednesday, I wrote a blog post called My Beef with Google’s Web Master Tools detailing my frustration with their recently introduced “Link From” feature that allows you to see which external URLs are linking to non-existent URLs on your domain. The only problem, most of the time the tool didn’t work. I would get an “Our servers are busy. Try again later.”

After a couple of weeks of getting this message, I was fed up and blogged about it. I’d actually posted a couple of Tweets about it, too, but never got a response. But, my blog automatically posts to my Twitter account and later that same day, I got a Tweet from Sagar Kamdar (@skamdar) that read:

@garycope we are looking at the issue with the “Linked From” functionality. will get back to you when it is resolved.

I was floored! I could only assume that Sagar worked for Google. The next day, I got an e-mail alerting me that someone left a comment on my blog post. It was Sagar. He wrote:

The issue has been resolved. (link)

I checked the Webmasters Tools again and all but one “Linked From” function was working. I wrote back:

@skamdar Thanks! All but one of the “Linked From” links are working now for me. The first one on my list still returns “server busy” msg.

Sagar replied.

@garycope we’ll take a look.

@garycope we are unable to reproduce the issue internally. could you tell me the site and link that is ending in error.

This morning, I logged into Google’s Webmaster Tools and the link was working just fine. As a matter of fact, all of the links were working. I Tweeted back to @skamdar:

@skamdar The issue appears to be resolved. I logged into my Webmaster Tools today and did not receive any errors. Great job! Thanks!

I also told him via a comment on my blog that I would write a follow-up blog post (kinda like this one) singing the praises of Google’s development team. So, thanks Sagar and the rest of the Google Webmaster Tools team for using Twitter and actually taking the time to ready my blog and address the issue. It has been a tremendous help!

All Hail Google! OK, well, let’s not get carried away. Take care everyone!

ShareThis

For example, let’s say you did a redesign and int he process, renamed some of your URLs. If another Web site was linking to your old URL and you move it or rename it, the link from that other site is now broken and you’re not getting credit for that link because the search engines aren’t finding anything when they follow that link. Booo!

How do we fix this? Well, for starters, I would suggest keeping the old URLs and creating a 301 redirect from the old URL to the new one. This preserves any ‘link juice” your older URL had acquired and transfers it to the new one. It also prevents “Not Found” links from appearing in your Google Webmaster Tools > Diagnostics > Web Crawl > Not Found list because anyone still linking to the outdated URL will automatically be directed to the new one and you don’t have to do a thing.

The “Linked From” function was going to make my life, and the lives of many SEO/SEMs, much easier because it could save us the time of trying to find out who was linking to our “Not Found” URLs. Alas, you can imagine my supreme disappointment when I logged in to use the new feature and 95 percent of the time I get is this error message.

This kind of tool is invaluable to SEOs, especially inhouse SEOs, who are trying to make the most of their limited time and budgets. By identifying sites that have outdated links to our site, we can contact their Webmaster and provide the updated link, thus increasing our link juice. Of course, IF Google’s Webmaster Tools’ “Linked From” feature worked, it’d be even better.

ShareThis

Twitter is no longer an exclusively techie/dork medium. Real estate agents, TV stations, newspapers, and even Britney Spears are using Twitter. Depending on your social media savyness, it can take anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks to really get the hang of Twitter. And from what I can tell, media outlets, at least locally, are a little slower to harness the power of the Twitterverse.

I’m not trying to be critical, because I applaud them for even using Twitter. We can only hope that the “how” to effectively use Twitter will come soon.

In Roanoke, Va., the 70th ranked TV market in the country, only three of the four major network affiliates have Twitter accounts. WSLS, the NBC affiliate, only recently created an account, but has done an admirable job of posting timely and regular news updates. WSET, the ABC affiliate has been posting for much longer, but I have a beef about how they use Twitter, but I’ll get to that a little later. WDBJ7, which is my preferred local news source even though I used to anchor and report for WSLS, has a Twitter account, but has only posted one update. Lastly (in almost ever sense of the word), the WFXR, the Fox affiliate, does not have Twitter, much less its own news department - they pay the NBC station to produce the Fox 10 p.m. newscast.

Oh, and my favorite local news anchor (sorry Jay!) Natasha Ryan has a Twitter account. From what I can tell, only her and WSET reporter and weekend anchor Margaret Clevenstine are the only local on-air personalities with active Twitter accounts. Both are relatively new to Twitter. Natasha just started hers and Maggie has been on since July, but hasn’t posted a new update since Sept. 7. Booo!

Look, there’s not one right way to use Twitter and I suppose that certain Twitter patterns appeal to different people. But, the way I see it - Twitter is a “what’s happening now” service. And in that regard, WSET fails in my opinion. See the picture below which is a screen shot of what appears on my Twitter home page, which displays all of the Tweets from the Tweeple I follow. This is not what I want to see.

Clearly it appears that they have some automated system, probably something akin to TwitterFeed (or some poor intern) that blasts all of their news stories at one time. Uh, no. If I want all of your news at once at a predicable time, I would WATCH your news. I’m looking for you to post news AS it happens. That is the point of using Twitter.

Now, I worked in TV for a number of years and for the most part, there are still a lot of zealots running the show, so the transition and adoption of new means of communcations are slow to make their way to the newsroom. Which, is really mind boggling considering that these tools such as blog and microblogs are completely free and can be used with Mobile devices. If you can send and receive text messages, you can post and receive Tweets. It just takes some time to educate your staff and management - something I would be HAPPY to do for WSET and any other company that wants to learn more about Twitter.

Yes, I know, I can sign up for text alerts from virtually any news outlet and that’s cool, but I only get those after the stories have been filed and someone has posted them to the Web site which then triggers the alert to come to my phone. But imagine if a reporter is on the scene of major event, but is waiting for the live truck and the news director can’t be reached to authorize a break-in-programming live event? How cool would it be to read a reporter’s accounts of the news event as it happens?

For example: Let’s say we have a standoff (which I have covered as a photo journalist), but the reporter is just standing there while the photog (videographer) is rolling endless minutes of tape waiting for something to happen.

@tv-reporter: Camera is rolling and the SWAT team is getting into position, but police won’t say if or when they will go in.

@tv-reporter: Gunman is yelling out of his window. Wants the police to back off. Threatening to shoot anyone that comes in.

@tv-reporter: Lots of activity. Feels like something is about to happen - stay tuned!

@tv-reporter: They’re going in! Camera is still rolling! Loud explosion from the flash-bang grenade. No shots - suspect in custody!

Now, this brings up a whole other issue, but one that the media has dealt with before: what if the bad guys are Twittering, too? Highly doubtful, at least now it is. Who knows in 5-10 years?

The bottom line is, this is a free tool that media outlets should be taking advantage of. Every reporter should have a Twitter account and giving viewers and readers behind the scenes information about the news they are covering, especially TV because we only get :30 to :90 worth of news per story and that’s not enough to tell the whole story.

The age of media convergeance is upon us. Newspapers like the Roanoke Times send reporters out in the field with video cameras to post video and interviews on the Web site. TV stations are having their anchors write print-style news for the station’s Web site, though they should really be using blogs at this point - especially Twitter.

ShareThis

I will keep my MySpace account, but I have purged my friends list down to actual friends and family and I don’t plan on checking it often. I will get e-mail alerts if someone leaves a comment or send me a message, but I average about one or two a month and those are usually from my younger cousins, who are much more suited for MySpace than me.

It’s not that MySpace isn’t cool or functional, it’s just that most of my friends, colleagues, classmates and family are on Facebook. Aethetically speaking, I find FB’s layout much tamer than MySpace, which is an assualt on the senses when you visit their site; ads flashing all over the place, movies playing without allowing me the option of turning them off (really bad when you’re at work), and a lot of the time, some questionable images in the form of ads that I really don’t feel are appropriate for a site aimed at the younger generation.

Facebook may not be pretty or have a fancy user interface with customizable templates, but I prefer it that way - one less thing for me to have to maintain or fuss about. I guess it comes down to MySpace having too many bells and whistles (also read “time wasters”), whereas Facebook is pretty straight forward - nothing to customize, no color schemes or background images. I like it. Plain, simple and to the point. Say what you have to say and share what you have to share and you’re done.

One of my favorite features of the “new” Facebook is the ability to comment on your friends’ posts/status updates/photos right from your home page. I don’t have to visit each friend’s photo album or wall to post a comment - I can do it right from the main page. That is a huge plus in my book, not that anyone would read it.

Well, that’s all for now. If you have MySpace or Facebook and are thinking of adding me as a friend, please do so Facebook (look on the icon at the top of the right column of this page). My goal is to see how long I can go without logging into my MySpace account. You know, when you view someone’s profile it will tell you when they last logged in? I’m going to go as long as I can without having to log in. Bets anyone?

ShareThis

Now, as with all things, there are two sides to this story and Lacy certainly has her supporters and you can read their side of the story here and here. Both links are to bloggers who readily support Lacy, but I think the point they are both missing is that whether it is right, wrong or indifferent, perception is reality and in today’s social media world, the perception among the target audience at this conference seems to be that Lacy did a poor job both interviewing Zuckerberg and handling the criticism.

The interview was lengthy, but you can get a feel for how quickly it went downhill by watching the first few minutes. For a more detailed recap of the hostile exchanges between Lacy and the audience, read CNET.com’s article by Daniel Terdiman. It makes me uncomfortable just reading about the confrontational nature of the interview.

Read more at TheButterRoom.com.

ShareThis

Which Web browser do you use to surf the Web? According to the most recent statistics, more and more of you are choosing Mozilla’s Firefox Web browser. If you have been paying attention to the Web browser battle between Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Mozilla’s Firefox, then you know that IE is losing about 6 percent of its market share a year for the past three years.

Mozilla first introduced its Web browser, Version 1, on June 5, 2002. In its first full calendar year of public release (2003), only 4 percent of Web surfers were using it compared to 84.6 percent for IE. Mozilla improved to 5.5 percent in 2004, while IE gained a modest 1/10th of a percent (84.7). In 2005, Mozilla released Firefox and that’s when the ball started rolling for the open source browser. Between existing versions of Mozilla and the newer Firefox, Mozilla went from 5.5 percent to 20 percent of the browser market share, taking a huge chunk out of IE’s popularity.

Since that watershed year, Mozilla has continued to chip away at IE’s lead in the browser war and as of January 2008, Mozilla browsers accounted for 38.5 percent to IE’s 54.7 percent. After a quick look at the Google Analytics stats for some of my clients, those numbers are very accurate across the board.

What is causing IE’s decline in popularity? Is it the underdog status and grassroots ad campaigning for Firefox? Maybe Web surfers are just trying to “stick it to the man” (i.e. Microsoft) for shoving IE and Vista down our throats. Another possible explanation is the increasing popularity of Apple’s computer line and the fact that Microsoft no longer supports a Mac-compatible version of the once-mighty browser. Instead, Apple comes standard with Safari, though I immediately downloaded Firefox.

Personally, I believe Firefox is a superior and more user-friendly browser. It supported the use of tabs long before IE, which was the major selling point for me. I am a habitual multi-tasker and I routinely have 8-10 Web sites open in Firefox. When Microsoft introduced IE 7 in 2006, it came with a tabbed browsing feature, but it was too little too late for this Web surfer. IE has been collecting dust in my Programs File folder ever since. If I need to test a Web site in IE, I use this browser checker Web site.

The other reason Mozilla has been so successful, in my opinion, is the fact that it is an open source browser, which means it allows developers to create cool add-ons that let users integrate into the browser so they can do cool stuff like add a weather bug at the bottom of the browser, add various tool bars, and much more. IE lets you do that too, but is much more selective about which developers it will allow to create add-ons or plug-ins.

From a Web designer’s perspective, Firefox is fully compliant with current CSS Web design standards, while IE continues to defy the World Wide Consortium’s recommended guidelines regarding CSS and other Web design coding standards. Often times, this forces Web designers to design Web sites with specific coding, or “hacks”, specifically for the IE browsers. This is a major headache. However, it is no surprise that we are hearing rumors that IE 8, expected to be release later this year, will be fully CSS compliant. I say “no surprise” because IE continues to lose market share in the browser war and they are finally realizing that they are no longer the dominant browser of choice. In fact, if they continue to lose 6 percent a year, Mozilla will be the most popular browser by January 2010.

Lastly, Firefox is widely considered a more secure Web browser. Because Mozilla is an open source platform, some of the best minds in the world are constantly testing it and improving it, making it one of the most secure Web browsers available today and it is all completely free. Microsoft, on the other hand, is not an open source company and maintains strict security measures to protect their IE browser, which is kinda funny because they have more security breaches than any other browser.

If you would like to try Mozilla Firefox, you download it for free here. I highly recommend it.

ShareThis

He writes, “the majority of the so-called ‘SEO Experts’ are out to get your money. They run services, so they want you to believe SEO is some kind of a science.”

To a certain extent, Josh is correct. As with any industry (cough - mechanics), there are always going to be unscrupulous “professionals” who take advantage of clients that have not done their homework. For the most part, most SEO professionals I know and have worked with are reputable and often times give the basic advice away free of charge.

For example, Aaron Wall of SEOBook.com has a free online “How-to” guide called Learning Search Engine Optimization that gives users the basics of SEO in about an hour … for free.

I agree with Josh in that learning SEO is easy … the proof being - if I can learn it, so can anyone! I think the bigger issue that Josh did not address is that most SEO professionals aren’t out to scare Web site owners or steal their money; we are here to educate, give advice and help people understand SEO and how it works. All you have to do is read the popular blogs like SEOBook.com, SearchEngineLand.com, SEOMoz.org, etc., and anyone can learn the basics of SEO … if they have the time.

Ah, there’s the catch! Time. Time is money. And that’s why businesses hire SEO professionals; because they either do not have the time, or the wherewithal to learn SEO. The profession did not come about because there was an opportunity for scam artists to con Web site owners. Rather, it evolved because Web site owners did not have the time or inclination to learn SEO. These businesses are generally working full time (and then some) and simply can’t make time in their schedule to learn SEO on their own. So, they look for companies or “experts” to help them.

As an SEO professional, I encourage all of my clients to at least learn the basics of SEO. However, if it becomes too much for them, or they simply do not have the time or desire to do so, we are happy to step in and help, as I’m sure Josh is.

I have actually tried to teach a client, free of charge, the basics of SEO, only to have them say, “No, thanks. I don’t have time. I’d rather pay you to do it for me.” Well, if you insist.

I also agree with Josh that SEO is not as hard as some have made it out to be. I think where SEO can get difficult is when you start digging too deep and becoming obsessed with back links, page rank, quality score, etc. SEO can be quite simple; optimize your page with the basics such as title tags (very important), meta descriptions (good, but not a must), good copy (with relevant keywords) that people will understand and find useful (very important), relevant alt tags, a site map, and a few other easy things you can find by simply searching for “SEO tips.” If you have time, you can learn and implement SEO. If you don’t have time, at least do a little research and then hire a reputable SEO professional.

ShareThis

The nofollow tag was originally intended to reduce certain types of SE spam. Though a non-standard HTML attribute, all four major SE (Google, Yahoo, MSN and Ask) support it, but interpret it differently. Again, if you want more details, click on the aforementioned link to Wikipedia.

So, should I use nofollow tags? Well, here’s what I’ve decided to do with my sites: I plan to use the nofollow tag for internal links to non-relevant (to my intended audience) pages such as the “terms of use” page, the “site map” page and the in some cases, the “about us” page. This use is encouraged by Google’s Matt Cutts, who is the co-creator of the nofollow tag. And, well, if Google says jump, we all say how high … uh, not so much. But, in this case, I agree.

I have no problem allowing the SE’s to count my link in the linked-to page’s ranking. I kind of thought that was the point of linking? You link to a page because it is relevant to the topic on which you are writing, so why would you want the SEs to ignore the relationship? For example, I write for a couple of Virginia Tech sports-related blogs because I’m a big Hokie fan (class of ‘97 baby!), so if I’m writing for the football site and I add a link to the box score found on another Web site, I wouldn’t want to use the nofollow tag on that link because the information on that linked-to page is relevant to my topic and I want the SEs to know it.

Now, I could see an example, though rare, in which you would want to add a nofollow to a site, that while relevant to your discussion or article, may contain content you find objectionable, or that you do not agree with. This is an extreme example, but say you are a new reporter, or you blog about race relations in the U.S., and you are writing about a hate site that posted a particularly offensive article - well, you may want your readers to see for themselves what you are objecting to, but you definitely don’t want the Web site’s ranking to be positively influenced by your link, so in that example (rare as it may be), I would certainly add a nofollow tag.

Please keep in mind, I’m not talking about the comments people leave on your blog or site. For example, SEOMoz.org automatically adds nofollow tags to all comments left on their site and I completely support that decision because it makes sense. You don’t want some SEO celebrity wannabe spamming your comments with links to his/her blog or Web site trying to build up their ranking from a credible and legit site like SEOMoz. The nofollow tag was intended to prevent this type of abuse, though the argument has been made by many SEOs that it isn’t working because Google misinterpreted the intent of spammers in that they don’t necessarily care as much about their site’s ranking as much as they care about blasting as many people as they can with their crap in the hopes that a few clueless individuals will actually click on their links.

OK - I’ve given my thoughts, what about yours? Am I way off? Am I missing something? Help me out here - it’s the only way we get better!

ShareThis

Ah, so this is The Butter Room … it’s everything I imagined and more! Seriously, though, I am excited to be a part of such a talented group of professionals and I’m even more excited about my first contribution to this unique site.

First, allow myself to introduce … myself … I’m Gary Cope, the In-house Search Engine Optimization and Marketing Professional for a company in Roanoke, Va. I also founded and run CWI Media & Marketing. If you want more detail, check out my bio. The bottom line is, I spend about 10-14 hours a day working on search engine optimization.

SEO is a never-ending learning process, mostly in part because the search engines (Google, Yahoo!, Ask, MSN) are constantly modifying their algorithms to adjust for changes in the SEO landscape and to combat Black Hat SEO practices. The biggest part of my job is keeping up with those changes and that means reading a lot (and I mean A LOT) of SEO-related blogs. And that brings us to our interviewee Jane Copland, a Search Marketing Consultant for SEOMoz.org. Jane has established herself as one of the most respected search marketing professionals in the business. SEOMoz is a Seattle-based SEO company that serves as a hub for search marketers worldwide, providing education, tools, resources and paid services.

Photo of Jane is Property of SEOMoz.org.

The Butter Room and SEO-KungFu.com thanks Jane for her time and response.

For those who may not be familiar with your background, can you give us a quick overview and a little bit of info about SEOMoz?

Jane Copland: SEOmoz is a search marketing company based in Seattle, Washington. We specialise in creating both SEO tools and in creating educational content for the search marketing community, as well as maintaining a popular Q&A service and a daily SEO blog.

I started working here in September 2006. Looking back, I was incredibly lucky to get this job: there were over 100 applicants, many (most?) of whom were way more qualified to work here than I was. However, I made it through the rather grueling interview process SEOmoz had set up and have been working here for almost a year and a half. Before that, I attended Washington State University and competed on the school’s swim team for four years. I’m originally from New Zealand, but I’ve been living in the U.S. for six years now.

Read the rest of this post >>

ShareThis

ShareThis