Forbes is running an article about something called Google Bowling, but they are calling it “negative SEO”. I’m not sure which I dislike more: SEO practitioners proudly (stupidly?) proclaiming their expertise at such things, or the press pandering to the public’s seemingly unquenchable thirst for garbage, even in the SEO space.

Anyway Google Bowling is the “art” of linking to a competitor so much, so fast, it makes the competitor look like a spammer. If Google notices the sudden growth of spammy in-links, it might lose trust in the site and lower its relevance (thus lowering its rank in the search results). To the extent that Google has built this into it’s automated ranking algorithm, it may be be exploited. If you know how to trigger such a penalty, you can set up a process to Google Bowl a competitor out of the ranks.
I would like to point out that this sensationalistic garbage is far more theoretical than actual, and far less practical than effective. Which makes me wonder about the so-called SEO people claiming to offer Google Bowling as a service. It simply costs too much to be worthwhile, except in cases where there is truly an algo exploit. But such algo exploits don’t last long either these days, especially in high profile or highly profitable industries. Google can adjust. And that’s why this negative SEO stuff sounds so fishy. It sounds like yet another scammy grab at fast money. I bet it’s hugely expensive.

When people believed there was a so-called “sandbox” preventing new sites from entering the Google index, an SEO I knew publicly said he had a solution and offered to pull a site out of the sandbox for $50,000. Did he have a solution? Not exactly. But $50k is a lot of money and with that, he could get enough good links and promotional attention to get any site to start ranking (with a nice profit left over). Fast money.

Negative SEO? More fast money. Those who really want it will pay. Would it work? Would the impact last? I suppose that depends on the contract terms, doesn’t it.
Negative SEO like that is bad news all around, but the concept of impacting the search results page in order to improve your own pages’ placement is classic good SEO. If you rank #1, why not also control the pages in slots 2 and 3? If your competitor is at #9, why not move him off to page two by ranking an embedded video or second site? Thats just good SEO and good business.

But this Google Bowling stuff is like hiring unsavory local hoods to stand outside you competitor’s store entrance to deter customers. It’s ugly. And it’s arguably illegal since it interferes. But perhaps most telling, it’s scummy. i didn’t say “scammy”, but scummy, as in exhibiting traits of lower forms of life.

For an SEO to proudly offer Negative SEO or Google Bowling as a service is a character flaw, for all to see. A desperate act. And the buyer… I can see how ignorance plays a role, as does desperation. But the market can handle cheaters and desperate players like that. Huh. Funny that. I think the market is already handling them… by enabling the so-called SEOs to hawk Negative SEO as a service. Fast money. A fool and his money are soon parted?

ThreadWatch is for sale again. They have announced a limited time opportunity to buy it before they “turn it off” in 3 days. Classic all-in behavior from a classically macho web site.

If it does go away, there’s plenty to talk about. I guess we have to wait and see….

Archives of SEO Discussions:

John Andrews

SEO Forum 

I do a fair amount of SEO work and often it seems the detail is endless, the volume of work remaining always immense, and the urgency just as reliably dramatic. So I have come to appreciate what I refer to as SEO Music, SEO Incense, and SEO Wine. These things calm the soul and soothe the wit. Listen to SEO Music, drink SEO wine, and burn SEO incense while working on SEO and it all seems..well… more tolerable.

Just thought I’d mention that I’ve already created an SEO wine list. It will contains links to web sites of wine providers, using as anchor text the particular wine that I like to enjoy while working in SEO. Feel free to recommend your own favorites. I look forward to trying them out.

I will be adding an SEO incense list as well, but not an SEO Music list. That would be too much work, and I just use Pandora for that anyway.

To kick off this historical Quality of SEO Life initiative, here are tonight’s guests in my home office:

SEO Wine: Benton-Lane Pinot Noir 2004 in my favorite Reidel ‘O’ series Pinot Noir stemless stemware (see note 1)

SEO Incense: Arbre a Tre Encens Japonais from Esteban Paris (tea shrub) - (see note 2)

SEO Music: Badmarsh & Shri “Signs”, set to repeat. (see note 3)

Note1: I discovered Benton-Lane while visiting Eugene, Oregon in 2003. It was the most enjoyable Pinot I had ever had, and I brought a bottle with me back to the east coast. A year later I was able to buy it locally in New York. I enjoy Pinot Noir as it is less serious than Cabernet, and doesn’t make me snack like a good Cab does.

Note2: I was introduced to Esteban incense while in New York City, specifically the woods series of Esteban incense from GiftsThatMakeScents.com. The wood series was natural and very high quality stickless incense, and a very good match for my “personality” (and I suppose therefore my SEO work). Sadly, they stopped making it due to the high cost of purity. The Esteban Feuilles series (leaves) is not nearly as good for me, but still very good, and much better than the stick incense and even my Shoyeido stickless Japanese incense. I wish it weren’t so obviously artificially colored.

Note3: I picked up the Badmarsh & Shri “Signs” CD back in 2003 while trekking from Seattle thru Vancouver and lower BC. It was my first trip to the region and I spend several days hiking/busing with my backpack and a portable CD player. I picked up some of Asian Fusion CDs and Badmarsh & Shri was in the player as I walked across the long bridge to Richmond on a glorious sunny and breezy day. Perhaps it has nothing to do with SEO, but when I work with Signs playing in the background, I am happy. If you can feel happy while doing creative SEO work, you are very lucky indeed.

I admitted I watched the video of Michael Gray and Brian Provost and some other dudes as “seo” guests on Jason Calcanis’ show. The pain still lingers, but after a few drinks I can score the participants in reputation points. For those who aren’t open source types, a meritocracy grants reputation karma based on participation. You’re only as good as your last post, that sort of thing. Anyway, +1 to support an idea (kinda like raising your hand to be counted as a supporter), +2 is ok if you’re genuinely excited (kind of like raising your hand *and* saying “oh! oh! oh!”), +0 means poo poo I expected better but at least you didn’t do any harm, and -1 means “NoNoNo”, “bad idea”, “no donuts”, and “can’t *anyone* do better than that?” . There is no minus 2, as that would be stoopid. -1 already means bad idea.

So how did the participants do today? Well, I have to say Jason Calcanis got a -1 because I truly disliked his ideas, his sense of the web, and his mannerisms. I honestly disagreed with just about everything he had to say, and that’s pretty rare for me. Then again, I never met him and never listened to him before (and never will again), so I don’t know what he’s normally like. Then again, that doesn’t matter either. So Jason Calcanis : -1

Brian Provost? I have to go neutral with a +0 for Brian. He didn’t do badly, but he didn’t execute either. The guy who defined Jason Calcanis as “Charlatan Douchebag” is soooooo obviously capable, I was seriously disappointed. Perhaps Brian was in someone’s pocket today, as Jason alluded to a threat-of-physical-violence thing from the past. Sad if true. But the “what year is your Viper” question….. ouch. Wait for it… it’s a set up… something from Brian about how 2001 kicked ass for Vipers in 5..4..3..2…1… nah. A trailing off “yeah.” What a let down! But Oh! Here’s a chance for a rebound, as Jason proudly proclaims himself a Corvette weenie and Brian comes back with…… nothing.

I’m borderline -1 for Brian but no matter how disappointed I might be that he missed an opportunity, I can’t cost him karma points for not having done anything. So it’s a +0 for Brian.

What about Gray Wolf? Michael, Michael, Michael. I can do no better than give Michael a -2 for pandering. Prove me wrong, kiddo… I would love to see it. But having Jason Calcanis call you the “Greatest SEO in the world“, and defer to you to confirm, and you say … what did you say? That you weren’t? That you were “surely not the greatest SEO in the world“, that “Rand Fishkin holds that title“, or “ha ha good one Jason“? Noooooo.. as I recall you said something affirmative, like most popular SEO and maybe the greatest SEO in the world? Someone should re-watch the video but hell no, it won’t be me.

What about the other guys? Sorry, I didn’t listen to them. I was in too… much….pain.
Ouch. Painful day for SEO blog readers worldwide. At best I can hope to see redemption on Brain’s ScoreboardMedia blog because I will still read that one.

Funny I just noticed… Ted Leonis is rumored to be an investor in Jason. Ted Leonsis had called Michael to discuss the Ted Leonsis SEO Contest activities back in the day, and I think Michael redirected his posts after that. Ted Leonsis also called Brian back then, on the same matter of displeasure with the Ted Leonsis SEO contest. And the other guy… he was pro Ted Leonsis, wasn’t he? Didn’t he once work with Leonsis or Leonsis’ people? Did he get a call, too? Wow. Interesting coincidence. Is Jason Calcanis a Ted Leonsis puppet?? Sorry…. I digress.

So perhaps you wonder why this bothers me at all. Because of the hypocrasy. Plain and simple.

I actually watched the video. I couldn’t believe my ears.

By popular demand, as the “10 ways” and “101 Steps” title approaches saturate, I present the 5 Basics of writing “5 Basics” posts to earn backlinks and web traffic. Of course, pay special attention to #5 on the list:

1. Write it Today: Tomorrow may be too late, as everyone and his second cousin seems to be publishing “5 Concepts” or “5 Principles” or “5 Basics” articles this week. Seriously. Don’t miss the bus, mmmmm-kay?
2. Keep it Brief: The 5 Basics article is not a substitute for the 101 Ways article of yesterday. It’s really 5 basics. Just five. And Basic. Don’t waste a lot of time.
3. Promote it Today: This goes with #1. Tick tock… it’s only unique for the next few days. Seriously. Everybody’s onto it already. What are you waiting for?
4. Make it Very Specific: This is a secret, until now. The user expectation for a “5 Basics” article is very low… the reader wants to make sure they aren’t ignorant of the basics, hence they read. Many companies use this type of “5 Basics” article to attract less sophisticated potential customers. But readers won’t recommend a “5 Basics” article to someone else. So make it REAL SPECIFIC. Not only will your reader be more likely to pass it along, they will pass it very specifically to a matching target so you get higher quality links and referrals (Hey Janet, this is exactly what you need! “5 Basics of Appearing More Attractive to your husband than a Cold Six Pack” -lol)
5. Link to This Article: In order for “5 Basics” articles to work, they have to have popular appeal. Who ever heard of “5 Basics” articles? Well, YOU have so start spreading the word! If everyone and his third cousin starts to recognize the importance of 5 Basics articles, they will work even better! So go back to Step 1 and START TODAY by linking to this article and writing your own “5 Basics” article.

I saw some news headline that Technorati traffic had increased a good deal over last year. About a half year or so ago I saw some SEO discussions about Technorati as a dead, useless, uninteresting waste of bandwidth. “Couldn’t those guys do something more innovative“, was the gist of the commentary. Well, Technorati stepped up to the plate and is now a big fat search engine spammer, just like Wikipedia.

Search your favorite topic and in the top ten you find “Everything in the known universe about your favorite topic“. Click thru to a landing page on your favorite topic, with your favorite topic in the title tag and your favorite topic styled bold within an h1 tag. Look at the cross-linking on your favorite topic to youtube videos and blog posts, with YouTube captions and blog paragraphs scraped and republished under the Technorati brand. Unique, original content? Not. But slightly more spammy than Wikipedia, where unsanctioned “editors” disintermediate web publishers and aggregate their unique, original content on pages which Google ranks at the top of search results.

The only thing missing from Technorati’s spam pages is Google AdSense. Funny, the only thing missing from Wikipedia is Google AdSense. Then again, I don’t see Yahoo! or Microsoft ads, either. I do see Doublclick ads, though. Funny how that works. DoublClick: Google’s back door to anti-AdSense web properties?

As an complete Silicon Valley Outsider I imagine Technorati is looking to be acquired and wants to show BigTraffic. But hey, what do I know about these things…

In a discussion in a search marketing forum known for it’s hardball approach to online marketing, a Social Media expert today suggested that reputation management might be traded for links. On the surface, that might not seem odd. But looking more closely…. I think it’s very interesting.

As a search engine, Google values links, and rewards web pages receiving links by giving them a higher position in search results. As a commercial advertising business, Google makes a fortune selling links. So naturally linking on the web has become big business, with links created, bought, traded and obtained deliberately through influence. Responding to this threat, Google the search engine suggests that purchased links are bad. Google threatens to devalue links if it determines they are not “genuine”, and suggests that web publishers mark paid links using specialized technology (designed by Google for that purpose) so the links don’t get counted and don’t influence search rankings. Google has even penalized (banned?) link exchange networks in the past. Since Google is arguably the largest link seller out there (via AdSense and AdWords), this is a very controversial topic in the online business world. So how does linking relate to reputation management?

Online Reputation Management is an aspect of PR (public relations). When Google presents a particular web page at the top of a search result set, the majority of Google users click thru to that page. If the search was “your name” and the highest-ranking page was a page proclaiming you to be a “dastardly scoundrel”, you have an Online Reputation problem.

How do you solve such a problem? Forget about asking Google. Asking a PR professional might work, but only because that PR person will hire an SEO (search engine optimizer) to do the work on their behalf. We SEOs can influence the search engine results sets; it’s what we do. So if a PR person uses our services to “correct” a misleading perception, via the search results, that’s a form of online “reputation management”.

And now it gets interesting…. “will trade online reputation management for links”. Full circle, it seems. Links build reputations (good and bad), and people suffer the consequences, so they hire “managers” who hire SEOs to fix the problem. They can now “pay” for the services with “links”. And not just any links… the links asked for in this case were “.edu links” which means links from an educational institutions (because Google seems to value them more, probably because it trusts them to be less commercial). Of course most .edu links that are “traded” are the illicit kind…placed onto web pages at schools and Universities for commercial purposes. In this case, that is clearly the reason… place edu links in exchange for help managing a tarnished reputation.

Done something bad, and got a bad rep? Want to cover it up? Well, just violate a few more guidelines, violate a few University policies, exploit your .edu publishing privileges, and you too can have a clean reputation once again! Ain’t it beeee-you-tee-full!

Ya gotta love this industry. The Devil went down to Georgia; he was looking for a soul to steal…

This is the story of A Quandary. And it’s all Google’s fault.

You need links. You already buy as many links as you can from Google, but you are tired of paying that middleman so you look out onto the web to buy direct from web publishers. An attempt to disintermediate Google, if you will. Of course, since Google is THE search engine and the defacto source of referral traffic these days, it isn’t easy to eliminate the Google middleman. It can be dangerous. Piss off Google and, well, the links might not matter any more no matter what price you paid.

So you proxy your link buying, just as you proxy your domain registration. It’s nothing unusual. Lawyers (registered agents) and corporations (legal entities) have been serving as proxies for business people for as along as we have had business people. “Poyfickly leegull“, as my distant Uncle Vinnie used to say.

So now your proxied link buyer discovers a perfect place for a back link, and notices the web publisher is also behind a proxy. What to do?

Well, you could have your agent contact their agent, and negotiate a deal, whereby the destination website is revealed to the linking web site’s publisher. Eventually link seller knows only that someone has commissioned a link buy to a web property. It could have been the web publisher, but it could have really been anybody (even a competitor might want to encourage certain linking to take place). As for the link seller, all we really know is somehow someone somewhere encouraged the publisher to place a link to a site. It could have been outright payment for linking, or there could have been some lobbying behind the scenes. No one really knows unless they follow the money. And, of course, proxies make it difficult (expensive) to follow that money. I don’t know who Google’s premium partners are, because Google won’t tell me. It would be silly for them to share that info.

This link buying all works swimmingly except when the anonymous web publisher doesn’t answer the emails sent to the proxied whois address, and doesn’t provide a “contact us” form. It seems silly to me that a publisher would settle for $4/day in AdSense earnings for a ranking web page, when she could earn far more with a few back links. It also seems wrong that a web publisher would have incentives to “hide” behind unresponsive anonymous proxies, but clearly it is necessary given the unilateral, economically all-mighty power held by Google. But what about that follow the money aspect?

What if the money you pay to anonymous publishers for links is actually supporting child pornographers or terrorists or, perhaps even worse, liberals!? Come to think of it, how much Google AdSense revenue is flowing to child pornographers and terrorists and (gasp!) liberals?

Seriously. This is all so silly, and it is all a consequence of the largest and most successful web company in the world refusing to yield to innovation and the emerging competitive marketplace we call the Internet. Come on Google, you’ve made a fortune selling links and controlling referral traffic on the web. Web publishers have had enough. We need to move forward. If you say we need links, we have to be able to use our currency to get them. Markets set the relative values of the various currencies, not Google. The days when Google could claim “good will” as the Internet currency are long past. They were flooded out by all those millions in stock option redemptions. You took the cash — why can’t anyone else?

I was at SMX Seattle and watching really really close to make sure I didn’t miss the “advanced” parts of the organic track. At one point an old time SEO speaker said something like “of course you want to go after the long tail, cause that’s where the money is” and I knew he was being sarcastic. In that particular context, the money terms were seriously profitable. I knew it because I had been there once. I knew he knew it, because of my insider’s bias, the tone of his voice, the movement of his eyes when he said it, and the combination of body language and other non-verbal cues. I’m a good  reader that way.

But I suspect many in the audience understood him to say that the money was indeed in the long tail terms for that niche. I suppose it sucks to be them.

Often times the money is indeed in the long tail and not the  big, generic single word search queries. But other times it is not. How is one to know?

Do your research. Stop listening to people who have good financial incentives to mislead and or not-be-entirely-truthful, and do your own research. Did you know that many (most?) SEO conference speakers are unpaid? They get a free pass in exchange for speaking. Some get free hotel, and some free travel. Some get free travel in exchange for participating in additional activities, and sometimes that whole negotiation is a back and forth this-for-that affair. The conference organizer wants a speaker to prepare and be “good”, but often doesn’t want to pay market value for that. The result? In the worst cases, a bunch of speakers who don’t prepare and whose main agenda is to plug their products and services to the audience as soon as possible and as much as possible. Watch for clues like when they say “I didn’t prepare because I wanted to see what everybody else was covering, and then cover what was overlooked”. Yeah, sure you did.

In the best cases, you get someone who has a fresh presentation for some other reason, and does a good job because they are relaxed and not under pressure to “monetize the speaking opportunity”. I didn’t see much of that this time.
So how do you know for certain if the particular market niche of interest converts solely on a few big, obvious, high-search-frequency “money terms”, or fails to convert of those because they are too broad? Build a landing page and buy some traffic on the generic terms and the long tail terms and track conversion. Spend $200 and see what you learn. Spend $200 more and see what else you learn. Act on your findings, and revisit the results as soon as it makes sense to do so. Soon enough you will have real world evidence that yes, the only terms that convert are the obvious “money terms”, or perhaps “no, the obvious terms are too generic to convert, and the specific 4 word long tail queries, although few in number, convert very well”. At that point, consider yourself an expert on that specific landing page / keyword combination. And keep testing.

Use some of the money you make from your long tail conversions to maintain the test with paid traffic. It might surprise you. At first, if the long tail converts, you will see nothing but wasted money on generic terms, and hard labor out of the nickels you’re putting into the long tail. Stop wasting money and work the long tail. But take some of what you make and pump it back into R&D by sending that unprofitable generic term traffic to a more customized landing page. Your knowledge of the long tail conversions and the failure of the generics to convert on your landing page will enable you to customize a better landing page for the generic traffic. All traffic converts. You just need to find the right landing page. If you can find it profitably (without spending more than it was worth), you’ll make money on the generic terms just as you make money on the long tail terms.

Sometimes it seems webmasters miss the most obvious stuff. Google is your competitor, Ask.com doesn’t matter, the only good use of PPC is to test in advance of organic campaigns, the bar at the SEO conference hotel is a public place and you don’t need a Conference Pass to sit there and buy drinks, etc.