Social Networking had seen itself evolve through the years. Websites like Facebook have become platforms for many individuals, organizations, and companies in pushing forward with their goals or advocacies. Many businesses have used Facebook as a more convenient advertising tool to reach out and entice … Read the Rest
Thank you Amita Paul, CEO of Objective Marketer for providing this fantastic analysis of SxSW and the conversational activity around the event.
The report provided influencer and demographic data and provides insights as to how information is shared during events. Some of the key findings include:
Higher followership did not guarantee higher retweets but higher rewteets did require a higher number of followers
Most active users were with tweets in the range of 1,000 to 100,000. Activity level of the users with fewer tweets was high. So, It is not necessary that people who are heavy twitter users will be the most active
Embedding multi-media content may not be as effective a strategy on Twitter as it is on Facebook. The retweets for messages without images (31.6%) was almost double than the retweets received for messages with images (16.8%)
The number of Retweets is significantly more when the follower /friend ratio [...]

Thank you Amita Paul, CEO of Objective Marketer for providing this fantastic analysis of SxSW and the conversational activity around the event.
The report provided influencer and demographic data and provides insights as to how information is shared during events. Some of the key findings include:
- Higher followership did not guarantee higher retweets but higher rewteets did require a higher number of followers
- Most active users were with tweets in the range of 1,000 to 100,000. Activity level of the users with fewer tweets was high. So, It is not necessary that people who are heavy twitter users will be the most active
- Embedding multi-media content may not be as effective a strategy on Twitter as it is on Facebook. The retweets for messages without images (31.6%) was almost double than the retweets received for messages with images (16.8%)
- The number of Retweets is significantly more when the follower /friend ratio > =1.
- Tweets and Retweets can have different activity peaks. Retweets followed Tweets for about 30 minutes to 1 hour.
A Google Web Search Help thread I have been tracking since November has an interesting history. In short, some searchers are suspecting that Google is censoring the search term [climategate] from the search results.
On November 28th, Richard Sharpe asked if Google was censoring the term:
If I use Google to search for pages about ClimateGate, it does not put up any search suggestions after I have entered “Cli” however, Bing offers many terms, with “ClimateGate” at the top of the list.
In addition, google says there are about 10M pages that match my search, Bing says there are as many as 50M.
If Google is going to censor the pages I can search for, then I am switching to Bing.
Then on December 2nd a different member noticed Google started showing search suggestions, such as “climate-gate” and “climate gate scandal” on Google Suggest. In fact, a Googler named Jem confirmed this saying:
Thanks for voicing your concerns. We haven’t made any adjustments to our suggestions to limit the appearance of [ climategate ] in Google Suggest. So you know, it’s totally normal for a suggestion to take time to appear consistently in our query suggestions (it’s even normal for it to appear in some but not all cases).
So why wasn’t it showing before? Well, she explained that before it wasn’t such a popular topic and now it is. She added:
Since [ climategate ] is a growing search trend, it’s likely to start appearing more and more consistently over time. I can’t promise, though — suggestions are generated automatically, and Internet fame can be fleeting
![]()
If you’re interested, below I’m linking to some Google Insights for Search data about [ climategate ].
So why today is it no longer showing up in Google Suggest? Isn’t today the big climate conference? Looking at the search data does show it is still very popular.
Danny Sullivan has a ton of details, with pictures and additional analysis at Search Engine Land, he concludes:
Overall, there’s no doubt that Climategate is a popular topic, no doubt. However, those who want to demonstrate how popular would be better advised to use Google Trends, rather than the far less dependable web search results counts.
As for Google, I’ll wish again that they’d provide better results counts. I’d also hope for more consistency on how, when and why it shows suggested terms. Finally, I’m still hoping that Google will show precisely what it searched for when it looks for more than the word you’ve entered. Last year, Google grew more transparent about how it customizes results but failed to deal with broad searching as part of that. Clearly, that type of disclosure is overdue.
I am just shocked it was removed ‘automatically’ a few days after it came up, especially after Googler’s Jem response.
Forum discussion at Google Web Search Help.
A Google Web Search Help thread I have been tracking since November has an interesting history. In short, some searchers are suspecting that Google is censoring the search term [climategate] from the search results.
On November 28th, Richard Sharpe asked if Google was censoring the term:
If I use Google to search for pages about ClimateGate, it does not put up any search suggestions after I have entered “Cli” however, Bing offers many terms, with “ClimateGate” at the top of the list.
In addition, google says there are about 10M pages that match my search, Bing says there are as many as 50M.
If Google is going to censor the pages I can search for, then I am switching to Bing.
Then on December 2nd a different member noticed Google started showing search suggestions, such as “climate-gate” and “climate gate scandal” on Google Suggest. In fact, a Googler named Jem confirmed this saying:
Thanks for voicing your concerns. We haven’t made any adjustments to our suggestions to limit the appearance of [ climategate ] in Google Suggest. So you know, it’s totally normal for a suggestion to take time to appear consistently in our query suggestions (it’s even normal for it to appear in some but not all cases).
So why wasn’t it showing before? Well, she explained that before it wasn’t such a popular topic and now it is. She added:
Since [ climategate ] is a growing search trend, it’s likely to start appearing more and more consistently over time. I can’t promise, though — suggestions are generated automatically, and Internet fame can be fleeting
![]()
If you’re interested, below I’m linking to some Google Insights for Search data about [ climategate ].
So why today is it no longer showing up in Google Suggest? Isn’t today the big climate conference? Looking at the search data does show it is still very popular.
Danny Sullivan has a ton of details, with pictures and additional analysis at Search Engine Land, he concludes:
Overall, there’s no doubt that Climategate is a popular topic, no doubt. However, those who want to demonstrate how popular would be better advised to use Google Trends, rather than the far less dependable web search results counts.
As for Google, I’ll wish again that they’d provide better results counts. I’d also hope for more consistency on how, when and why it shows suggested terms. Finally, I’m still hoping that Google will show precisely what it searched for when it looks for more than the word you’ve entered. Last year, Google grew more transparent about how it customizes results but failed to deal with broad searching as part of that. Clearly, that type of disclosure is overdue.
I am just shocked it was removed ‘automatically’ a few days after it came up, especially after Googler’s Jem response.
Forum discussion at Google Web Search Help.
Each year I do a post on Black Monday Shopping and how to take advantage of high value seasonal searches to target shoppers in your market looking for Black Monday sales. While Black Monday queries are typically “national” in nature, there is a lot of potential to convert these queries into local sales. This strategy [...]
Each year I do a post on Black Monday Shopping and how to take advantage of high value seasonal searches to target shoppers in your market looking for Black Monday sales. While Black Monday queries are typically “national” in nature, there is a lot of potential to convert these queries into local sales. This strategy applies to big sites as well as small sites.
If you haven’t done so already I recommend doing the following asap:
- Figure out the top relevant queries for your city or service area. Check out useful tools such as the Google Adwords Keyword Tool, Google Trends & Google Insights for Search to figure out hot keywords and which markets are looking for what. According to Google Trends searchers in Michigan, Missouri & Ohio have been querying “black monday” the most over the past 30 days. Thanks GM & Chrysler! Google Insights is showing a lot of “black monday” activity around Florida and Texas over the past month. Maybe the Trends & Insights teams might want to coordinate their data a bit, but whatever.
- Once you have figured out the queries you want to rank for start creating content that targets these queries. Maybe something like “Top 10 Cyber Monday Deals in Florida”. Of course the whole idea of Cyber Monday is that people are looking for online deals so the queries might not be super local, but there more local signals your site sends off the more likely you are to rank in your market for “national” queries. And if you can rank for these queries you have a chance to convince shoppers to get off their butts and head over to your store.
- Once you get your content up you’ll want to generate some links to it. Call up your local paper and offer a version of the article to them. Make sure you highlight other local businesses and their Cyber Monday sales so it doesn’t look like a self-promoting thing. And make sure it has a link back to your article on your site. If you don’t want to work that hard, just Tweet a link to it and make sure that it’s available in a RSS feed and shows up on your Facebook page, your Linkedin page, etc. This won’t help it rank much, but it will help the search engines and others discover it.
- Don’t forget that even if you are primarily an offline business, you can still offer a Cyber Monday deal on your website.
Happy Cyber Black Monday 2009 Deals Sales Shopping!
Posted by willcritchlow
Bored of sorting massive lists of links in all kinds of different directions to understand the link profile of a new site?
Struggle to understand how to gather actual insights about link profiles from lists of thousands of links and persuade management of the actions needed?
Don’t panic. Help is at hand.
I’m going to share some data visualisation tips today that I reckon I could use to beat up on Rand in a presentation-off (umm, again). We have recently been doing some deep dives into clients’ and prospects’ link profiles which gave me an excuse to mash up some Linkscape API data in Excel. I’ve used Linkscape data, but you could use any link analysis tool you like as long as you can get some metric to sort the linking domain by (I have used domain mozTrust in most of the examples below). Equally, I’ve used Excel, but you can use any data analysis package you like. If you want to use Excel, you will need the Data Analysis Toolpak (for the histogram function).
I’ll get into how to make the charts in a minute, but first I’m going to just show you some pretty pictures:
Impress the boss
This one is of questionable use (I think there are better ways of actually visualising the data) but it’s pretty, and bosses like pretty (allegedly). This is a surface chart of number of linking domains by domain mozTrust shown across 4 data points – all links, links to the homepage and links to the next two strongest pages:
The bit of insight this does give us at a glance is that the vast majority of the site’s very low DmT links go to the homepage and that the most trusted domains linking to the site (DmT >=
don’t link to the homepage or the next two strongest pages.
The same chart just showing links to the homepage compared to all links which shows the top end a litle more clearly:
Gathering insights
I think this data is actually easier to see as a line chart like this (locations A and B are the top two strongest pages on the site after the homepage):

What we just about see here is some bumps up at the top end of the DmT scale in the light blue line which is the same bit of insight I mentioned above.
Drilling down
Diving into this data to show only the top end of the DmT scale, we get:
And we see that although the homepage and these top two location pages are the most powerful pages on the site, they are not the ones with the links from the biggest / most trusted sites. This is an area for further examination that would be hard to discover by looking at endless lists of links.
This is just an example of the kind of insight you can gather. I’m showing off tools and techniques here rather than specific insights. I’ll leave you to do your own playing to discover interesting things about your clients and competitors. I didn’t know what I was going to find when I started diving into the data for this site. You likely won’t know either, but graphs are great discovery tools. Sometimes, of course you find nothing of interest:
Comparing just the top two pages doesn’t give us any very meaningful insights except that the big links out at 6.5-7 DmT to location A probably explain why it’s more powerful than B. It might be more insightful at a lower granularity.
Equally, I haven’t yet learnt to understand the meaning that I am sure is buried in charts like this one:
This is the number of links to a whole site by the mR of the linking page. Like the mythical guys who can understand network traffic by watching LEDs blink on routers, I’d love to be able to look at this kind of chart and really understand things. The closest I’ve got so far is that I think these charts should look roughly smooth in the absence of manipulation. If we assume that the difficulty of acquiring a link is roughly correlated to its strength and that we get links at a rate inversely proportional to their difficulty, then I think this chart should look roughly like a Poisson distribution:
Which this one does, so I’m happy.
Persuading management / bosses
The next thing that some of these charts helps with is making the case to management when you know something is true, but they need more persuading. This next example takes two different sites (neither of them is the site above) that are in different industries but have remarkably similar link characteristics at the macro level (don’t ask me how I found these sites – I am just that sad). The spider chart shows how similar they are:
However, if we dig in a little further, we find quite a difference behind the scenes:
The red site seems to have loads more decent links (mR 4, 5, 6) than the blue site. So how does the blue site end up with similar domain metrics?
It’s all about the relatively small number of very powerful links the blue site has. Zooming in on mR 6 & 7 links:
If you were just to look at this chart, you might imagine that the red site was getting more juice passed via these links than the blue site is. However, you’d be being fooled by the logarithmic scale. In terms of total juice passed by just these mR 6 and 7 links, the actual story is:
In other words, the blue site is competing almost purely on the basis of the big mR 7 links it has that the red site doesn’t. That’s kinda interesting in terms of strategy generation isn’t it?
How do you do this analysis?
Pretty much everything in this post was generated using the histogram function in Excel running over Linkscape API data. It’s pretty straightforward with the online help. The only gotchas I noticed that you might need to know about were:
- Align the ‘bins’ (which are the x-axis values on most of the charts above) either with mR / mT intervals (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, …) or go much more granular (e.g. 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, ….). Anything in between tends to generate artifacts
- The bin range has to be on the same sheet as the data – if you try to pull in a bin range from another sheet, it fails silently
- If you want to do the surface chart, you need to do some interpolation between your points. In the examples above, I just did a linear interpolation (i.e. drawing a straight line between the different page levels) – so if the homepage has 100 mR 2 links and the next page has 50 mR 2 links, I just created 10 imaginary pages with 55, 60, 65, 70… mR 2 links to spread the surface out far enough to see it. This may not be the best way of doing things. I’d love to hear from anyone who has a better method
Thanks to foliovision for the photo from the ProSEO seminar.
Technorati Tags
linkbuilding, analysis, visualisation, visualization, data
Posted by willcritchlow
Bored of sorting massive lists of links in all kinds of different directions to understand the link profile of a new site?
Struggle to understand how to gather actual insights about link profiles from lists of thousands of links and persuade management of the actions needed?
Don’t panic. Help is at hand.
I’m going to share some data visualisation tips today that I reckon I could use to beat up on Rand in a presentation-off (umm, again). We have recently been doing some deep dives into clients’ and prospects’ link profiles which gave me an excuse to mash up some Linkscape API data in Excel. I’ve used Linkscape data, but you could use any link analysis tool you like as long as you can get some metric to sort the linking domain by (I have used domain mozTrust in most of the examples below). Equally, I’ve used Excel, but you can use any data analysis package you like. If you want to use Excel, you will need the Data Analysis Toolpak (for the histogram function).
I’ll get into how to make the charts in a minute, but first I’m going to just show you some pretty pictures:
Impress the boss
This one is of questionable use (I think there are better ways of actually visualising the data) but it’s pretty, and bosses like pretty (allegedly). This is a surface chart of number of linking domains by domain mozTrust shown across 4 data points – all links, links to the homepage and links to the next two strongest pages:
The bit of insight this does give us at a glance is that the vast majority of the site’s very low DmT links go to the homepage and that the most trusted domains linking to the site (DmT >=
don’t link to the homepage or the next two strongest pages.
The same chart just showing links to the homepage compared to all links which shows the top end a litle more clearly:
Gathering insights
I think this data is actually easier to see as a line chart like this (locations A and B are the top two strongest pages on the site after the homepage):

What we just about see here is some bumps up at the top end of the DmT scale in the light blue line which is the same bit of insight I mentioned above.
Drilling down
Diving into this data to show only the top end of the DmT scale, we get:
And we see that although the homepage and these top two location pages are the most powerful pages on the site, they are not the ones with the links from the biggest / most trusted sites. This is an area for further examination that would be hard to discover by looking at endless lists of links.
This is just an example of the kind of insight you can gather. I’m showing off tools and techniques here rather than specific insights. I’ll leave you to do your own playing to discover interesting things about your clients and competitors. I didn’t know what I was going to find when I started diving into the data for this site. You likely won’t know either, but graphs are great discovery tools. Sometimes, of course you find nothing of interest:
Comparing just the top two pages doesn’t give us any very meaningful insights except that the big links out at 6.5-7 DmT to location A probably explain why it’s more powerful than B. It might be more insightful at a lower granularity.
Equally, I haven’t yet learnt to understand the meaning that I am sure is buried in charts like this one:
This is the number of links to a whole site by the mR of the linking page. Like the mythical guys who can understand network traffic by watching LEDs blink on routers, I’d love to be able to look at this kind of chart and really understand things. The closest I’ve got so far is that I think these charts should look roughly smooth in the absence of manipulation. If we assume that the difficulty of acquiring a link is roughly correlated to its strength and that we get links at a rate inversely proportional to their difficulty, then I think this chart should look roughly like a Poisson distribution:
Which this one does, so I’m happy.
Persuading management / bosses
The next thing that some of these charts helps with is making the case to management when you know something is true, but they need more persuading. This next example takes two different sites (neither of them is the site above) that are in different industries but have remarkably similar link characteristics at the macro level (don’t ask me how I found these sites – I am just that sad). The spider chart shows how similar they are:
However, if we dig in a little further, we find quite a difference behind the scenes:
The red site seems to have loads more decent links (mR 4, 5, 6) than the blue site. So how does the blue site end up with similar domain metrics?
It’s all about the relatively small number of very powerful links the blue site has. Zooming in on mR 6 & 7 links:
If you were just to look at this chart, you might imagine that the red site was getting more juice passed via these links than the blue site is. However, you’d be being fooled by the logarithmic scale. In terms of total juice passed by just these mR 6 and 7 links, the actual story is:
In other words, the blue site is competing almost purely on the basis of the big mR 7 links it has that the red site doesn’t. That’s kinda interesting in terms of strategy generation isn’t it?
How do you do this analysis?
Pretty much everything in this post was generated using the histogram function in Excel running over Linkscape API data. It’s pretty straightforward with the online help. The only gotchas I noticed that you might need to know about were:
- Align the ‘bins’ (which are the x-axis values on most of the charts above) either with mR / mT intervals (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, …) or go much more granular (e.g. 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, ….). Anything in between tends to generate artifacts
- The bin range has to be on the same sheet as the data – if you try to pull in a bin range from another sheet, it fails silently
- If you want to do the surface chart, you need to do some interpolation between your points. In the examples above, I just did a linear interpolation (i.e. drawing a straight line between the different page levels) – so if the homepage has 100 mR 2 links and the next page has 50 mR 2 links, I just created 10 imaginary pages with 55, 60, 65, 70… mR 2 links to spread the surface out far enough to see it. This may not be the best way of doing things. I’d love to hear from anyone who has a better method
Thanks to foliovision for the photo from the ProSEO seminar.
Technorati Tags
linkbuilding, analysis, visualisation, visualization, data







