John Andrews is a Competitive Webmaster and Search Engine Optimization Consultant in Seattle, Washington. This is John Andrews blog on issues of interest to the SEO community and competitive webmasters. Want to know more?  Competitive Web & SEO
September 30th, 2009 by john andrews

Always Be Link Building

Every few days a note flies across the discussion groups pointing to some trick that improves web site performance. Today is was this interesting article on button colors and conversion rates. Dan Harrison published “How to Quickly Triple Your Conversion Rate“, describing some testing he did on his gadget affiliate site. The bottom line? Orange buttons outperform blue. And red outperforms orange. And “shop now” outperforms “more info” and “buy now”. Or something like that.

Of course I got some emails today asking me if “we” should change our buttons to red, and our button text to “shop now”. Please re-consider Dan’s post, and consider context.

Red and orange were higher contrast than the blue, for Dan’s site. The contrast attracts the eye. The eye then reads the message (button text), which makes a suggestion to the reader. If the reader has just browsed an item and found it intriguing, a “shop now” message may be very effective. If the reader has not been so primed to buy, “more info” might perform better.

Dan’s site has a top section with brief blurbs on popular products. Products the landing user has not already expressed interest in, specifically. I expect in that circumstance, a “shop now” will outperform a “buy now”. Only the most impulsive visitor would “buy” something they never knew before seeing a brief blurb. The “buy now” asks for a commitment. Shop Now does not.

Of course Dan’s visitors are to some degree primed for gadgets and enviro gadgets. Only Dan can test Dan’s traffic. And only you (and Google if you let them watch your business activity via Google Analytics or AdSense) can test your traffic.

Dan’s inner sections, where products are found via drill down, would probably do better with “buy now”. I’m not positive, and like Dan, I would want to test. But I would not consider it magic if it worked… I would consider it good design.

Also keep in mind that the overall visual design influences the visitor. Not just contrast, but lines present on the page, distractions, attractors, and scanned text. It all works together, as the user puts it to work on a task (find what I need).

Is it a good article? It’s a great article. It’s link bait, drawing links (like the back link in this blog post) which Dan will convert into money as he links over to his gadget blog or cashes in on his profile as a web publisher/affiliate. A blog which, should be noted, I never knew existed before Dan wrote about his testing. And yes, we are his target audience (we buy gadgets).

Should we change our buttons to red? No, but we should revisit the importance of contrast and visual design, because apparently we have forgotten some of our priorities (demonstrated by how easily we were impressed by Dan’s article). We may need to do some more testing to see if we can further boost conversions for the happy potential customers that are primed to shop or buy, but which we are failing to entice completely.

And finally, we should always be link building. Always, as a matter of course.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
September 30th, 2009 by john andrews

Rocky Mountain Bank Security

Last week Rocky Mountain Bank (according to reports) emailed, unencrypted, social security numbers and personal financial data on 1300+ customers, to the wrong address (link below):

The e-mail, sent by an employee of Jackson, Wyo.-based Rocky Mountain Bank on August 12, contained names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and loan information of more than 1,300 bank customers.

From court documents (PDF):

The confidential information includes names, addresses, tax identification numbers,3 and loan information for each of the 1,325 customer accounts.

That email, with the customers’ information, went to a gmail address. A frantic skirmish ensued, with Rocky Mountain Bank actually getting a court order to force Google to lock the email address. That part got the attention of the tech community, but what about the part about Rocky Mountain Bank leaking customer social security numbers? Why wasn’t that part sensational? And the part about Rocky Mountain Bank filing a request to seal the court order, on the grounds that it was not good for the bank, with an assertion that the confidential information may not have been actually “disclosed”:

Plaintiff argues that if its complaint and motion papers are not filed under seal, all of its customers may learn of the inadvertent disclosure. Plaintiff further argues that publication of the disclosure before it determines whether the Gmail account is active or dormant will unnecessarily create panic among all of its customers and result in a surge of inquiry from its customers. In his declaration, Mark Hendrickson, states that “until there is a determination that the Confidential Customer Information was in fact disclosed and/or misused, the Bank cannot advise its customers on whether there was an improper disclosure.”

It gets worse. Now that Rocky Mountain Bank (of Jackson, Wyoming) has confirmation from Google that the owner of the gmail account had not yet read the email, we are asked to accept that all is well in Rocky Mountain Bank Security Land:

“As a result, no customer data of any sort has been viewed or used by any inappropriate user during this data lapse,” Martinez wrote. “Rocky Mountain Bank acted to protect its customer’s confidential information. That objective was accomplished. The matter is now closed and the TRO (temporary restraining order) entered on September 23, 2009 is now vacated.”

Seriously? Unencrypted emails are stored on numerous servers on their way to their destination. An email sent from Rocky Mountain Bank in Wyoming to a Gmail account, is not “secure” along the way. Just because Google says the email has not been read via the gmail account, does not mean the email has not been copied, stored, archived, or even read on numerous cooperating servers in the public path between Rocky Mountain Bank and Google’s GMail servers. I don’t even trust that Google’s determination is accurate. Without details, who knows if the email and been read and marked as unread? Or forwarded? Or accessed outside of the web interface? Has anyone looked to see just what Google specifically examined? Or is Rocky Mountain Bank just hoping we’ll all forget this “mistake”?

Not to mention the tougher questions. Is it standard Rocky Mountain Bank procedure to email confidential customer data unencrypted, every day? Is it only when they realize they sent it to the wrong address, that it becomes news?

I expect a name change for Rocky Mountain Bank in the near future, for Reputation Management purposes, but really… when will we start demanding more from our banks and their inept managers and executives?

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
September 28th, 2009 by john andrews

The Value of Gestalt

Just back from Think Tank meeting in San Diego, I am struck anew by the awesome latent value of SEO “gestalt“:  the collective gut feeling that practicing, experienced SEO people have. That is arguably one of the most valuable parts of a conference like Think Tank. A gathering of Internet entrepreneurs, Think Tank is not just search people. But there are enough SEO experts in attendance to make it a valuable gathering for those of us focusing mainly on search issues. The collective demeanor and opinion of those engaged with the optimization of search monetization on the web has incredible value.

Today’s Techmeme highlights a Wall Street Journal article entitled “Monster Has Plans to Become 800-Pound Gorilla of Job Ads“. The article states things like “Over the past three years, it [] has spent more than $200 million to redesign its Web site for job seekers;“. It includes a number of optimistic quotes from Monster’s representatives.  Clearly this Wall Street Journal article will help maintain its stock price or even sell more stock. The problem is, this article goes against some very strong SEO gestalt currents I’ve witnessed.

I recall a number of recent conversations with colleagues about how doomed career sites like Monster are these days. How the job/career marketplace has moved away from central database-driven sites and into decentralized social media. How the monetization of career opportunity has shifted away from the old “employer/recruiter” system, despite the efforts of companies like CareerBuilder and Monster to syndicate and socialize their efforts. I won’t highlight here where the insights pointed, but that these private conversations with web entrepreneurs practically deny this Wall Street Journal article’s main premise. See the disconnect?

The Wall Street Journal has access to leaders and analysts in the career industry. I only accessed the collective gestalt of a few dozen web entrepreneurs. Who would you bet on? What does that say for the value of the broadcast news media, and the value of the gestalt of your network of peers, friends, and colleagues? What does that say about how media outlets like The Wall Street Journal have evolved in this day and age of Social Media, perhaps as tools of industry instead of tools of the readers? If outlets like the Wall Street Journal are recognized as tools of marketing for the corporations they “analyze”, and are no longer considered sources of insights and education for the readers/investors, how can they survive? Should they survive as consumer products?

Social Media is most revered for its ability to aggregate the collective conscience of small niche groups, in public, for free. That may not yet be recognized, but should be. But Social Media does not have to be free. That collective gestalt is valuable. We are still in the early stages of tool development, which is largely driven by investments chasing huge markets, but soon enough the private forum/private membership sites will be able to lock up those communities. It has to happen… that is the only way to develop them beyond the basics structures we have now.

I’m sure there are theories addressing all of this, but I, like today’s software developers, don’t have time to investigate. We are all forced to go with the flow during the transition phase. But don’t be fooled… those entrepreneurs who branch off early enough (but not too early) will win big. I doubt the wisest investment involves except as it plays in an exit strategy.

Pubcon is coming up in Las Vegas, and that is the next big gathering of search-focused web entrepreneurs I’ll attend. I’m going to  set up at least one small private dinner or gathering, specifically to address some of this SEO gestalt theory in the context of Pubcon networking. If you’re interested, drop me an email or call. I can’t promise you’ll get a seat, but I will put you on the list. Aside from networking with quality peers in a quality venue (good food, good fun) it will aim to elicit a general sense of the status quo and the future of select SEO issues we all deal with every day. Nothing intense… nothing to distract from the general value of networking, but I will ask everyone to contribute some gut feelings on core SEO issues that are certain to be important going forward. I think that has incredible value, and would like to prove it.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine

Competitive Webmaster

Wonder how to be more competitive at some aspect of the web? Submit your thoughts.

SEO Secret

Not Post Secret

Click HERE


John Andrews is a mobile web professional and competitive search engine optimzer (SEO). He's been quietly earning top rank for websites since 1997. About John




comments policy



Recent Posts: ★ SEO Industry Growth, Widespread Failure, and SEO Industry Challenge ★ Do you want to WIN, or just “Be the Winner”? ★ 503: GONE ★ Cloud Storage ★ Identity Poetry for Marketers ★ PR is where the Money Is ★ Google is an Addict ★ When there are no Jobs ★ Google Stifles Innovation, starts Strangling Itself ★ Flying the SEO Helicopter ★ Penguin 2.0 Forewarning Propaganda? ★ Dedicated Class “C” IP addresses for SEO ★ New Domain Extensions (gTLDs) Could Change Everything ★ Kapost Review ★ Aaron Von Frankenstein ★ 2013 is The Year of the Proxy ★ Preparing for the Google Apocalypse ★ Rank #1 in Google for Your Name (for a fee) ★ Pseudo-Random Thoughts on Search ★ Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, or a Blog ★ The BlueGlass Conference Opportunity ★ Google Execs Take a Break from Marissa Mayer, Lend Her to Yahoo! ★ Google SEO Guidelines ★ Reasons your Post-Penguin Link Building Sucks ★ Painful Example of Google’s Capricious Do Not Care Attitude 


☆ about

John Andrews is a mobile web professional and competitive search engine optimzer (SEO). He's been quietly earning top rank for websites since 1997. About John

☆ navigation

  • John Andrews and Competitive Webmastering
  • E-mail Contact Form
  • What does Creativity have to do with SEO?
  • How to Kill Someone Else’s AdSense Account: 10 Steps
  • Invitation to Twitter Followers
  • …unrelated: another good movie “Clean” with Maggie Cheung
  • …unrelated: My Hundred Dollar Mouse
  • Competitive Thinking
  • Free SEO for NYPHP PHP Talk Members
  • Smart People
  • Disclosure Statement
  • Google Sponsored SPAM
  • Blog Post ideas
  • X-Cart SEO: How to SEO the X Cart Shopping Cart
  • the nastiest bloke in seo
  • Seattle Domainers Conference
  • Import large file into MySQL : use SOURCE command
  • Vanetine’s Day Gift Ideas: Chocolate Fragrance!
  • SEM Rush Keyword Research
  • ☆ blogroll

  • Bellingham SEO
  • Domain Name Consultant
  • Hans Cave Diving in Mexico
  • Healthcare Search Marketing
  • John Andrews
  • John Andrews SEO
  • SEMPDX Interview
  • SEO Quiz
  • SEO Trophy Phrases
  • SMX Search Marketing Expo
  • T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East 2007
  • TOR
  • ☆ categories

    Competition (39)
    Competitive Intelligence (15)
    Competitive Webmastering (547)
    Webmasters to Watch (4)
    domainers (63)
    Oprah (1)
    photography (3)
    Privacy (16)
    Public Relations (187)
    SEO (398)
    Client vs. SEO (2)
    Link Building (3)
    Search Engines vs. SEO (1)
    SEO SECRETS (11)
    SEO vs. SEO (1)
    ThreadWatch Watching (5)
    Silliness (24)
    Social Media (7)
    society (31)
    Uncategorized (23)

    ☆ archives

  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • July 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006