Bing Gets Serious About Link Building

I think one of the best things I have ever heard a webmaster blog from a major search engine say is to build your website like a brand. Bing’s exact words state: “Develop your site as a business brand and be consistent about that branding in your content”
To many people out there get all [...]

I think one of the best things I have ever heard a webmaster blog from a major search engine say is to build your website like a brand. Bing’s exact words state: “Develop your site as a business brand and be consistent about that branding in your content”

To many people out there get all antsy to have their internet marketing look like a recipe. If it looks like a recipe it is a recipe for disaster. Bing’s official webmaster blog states that it is very important and vital to treat your website like a brand. How would a brand build its image? If you take that step you will build your business the right way rather than just go after rankings. Rankings are important but they are not the only and final goal you should be worried about for your internet marketing campaign. Building business is the most important aspect to your SEO campaign. Bing also recommends taking an approach that really utilizes a robust social marketing element into your daily routine. Link building is very vital to the success of a website but unfortunately it is important to do it in a way that allows your business to grow and not just your rankings. Bing also refers to going “unnatural” in the search engines which states that an unnatural approach is one that blatantly attempts to manipulate the system in order to achieve higher rankings.

Bing’s exact words go as follows:
” So what does it mean to go unnatural? It means you’re trying to fake out the search engines, to try to earn a higher ranking that the quality of your site’s content dictates as natural through manipulation of search engine ranking algorithms.”

Bing hasn’t been the first search engine to come out with this type of best practice’s guide. Google has been doing it for years now just not many people want to follow it. When the top two search engines in the world layout a best practices guide on how you should conduct your search engine optimization efforts it is time to listen.

Please take a look at the Bing Webmaster Post that talks about link building and SEM, it is a great read:

http://www.bing.com/community/blogs/webmaster/archive/2009/11/20/link-building-for-smart-webmasters-no-dummies-here-sem-101.aspx

A Canonicalizable Tool

Susan Moskwa, a Google Webmaster Trends Analysts, posted a thread at the Google Webmaster Help forums announcing a new tool her husband created. The tool is named canonicalizable tool and it basically shows you potential canonicalization issues with your home pages. Here is a screen shot:

Canonicalizable Tool

What I find interesting, and this is not new, but honestly, it is new to me. Susan Moskwa’s husband is the lead developer of the LinkScape tools at SEOmoz. His name is Nick Gerner, so when Susan posted in the Google Webmaster Help , it sparked my interest:

My hubby threw together this tool this weekend:

http://www.nickgerner.com/2010/01/canonicalizable/

What do y’all think? Useful? What else does it need? Obviously I’m biased but I’m sure he’d love feedback. :)

In any event, the tool looks clean and simple and useful.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.


Susan Moskwa, a Google Webmaster Trends Analysts, posted a thread at the Google Webmaster Help forums announcing a new tool her husband created. The tool is named canonicalizable tool and it basically shows you potential canonicalization issues with your home pages. Here is a screen shot:

Canonicalizable Tool

What I find interesting, and this is not new, but honestly, it is new to me. Susan Moskwa’s husband is the lead developer of the LinkScape tools at SEOmoz. His name is Nick Gerner, so when Susan posted in the Google Webmaster Help , it sparked my interest:

My hubby threw together this tool this weekend:

http://www.nickgerner.com/2010/01/canonicalizable/

What do y’all think? Useful? What else does it need? Obviously I’m biased but I’m sure he’d love feedback. :)

In any event, the tool looks clean and simple and useful.

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.



Bing’s MSNBot Crawling Fake File Names?

A WebmasterWorld thread and an older Bing Forums thread has discussion from webmasters over the issue of Microsoft Bing’s web crawler, MSNBot, crawling file names that do not exist on a specific site.

This reminders me of the ongoing issue of Bing creating fake referrals in webmaster log files. This has been going on for years, where Microsoft claims they have fixed it, but never really has.

In this specific case, it seems like Bing is creating file names on a specific site to crawl. Wel, they are not creating files, just trying to fetch pages that do not and never have existed on a specific site. I am not sure if this is a Bing issue or a webmaster issue.

A long time WebmasterWorld member explained the issue:

In what is apparently a rather old bad behavior, msnbot has a practice of regularly requesting totally manufactured URIs that appear to be designed to trigger 404 errors. Here are two sample log entries of the two styles of bogus URIs msnbot requests:

’65.55.207.126′¦Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:39:49 -0500¦’msnbot/2.0b (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm)’¦’*/*’¦’/ADBF3C7AB534E8356F30D8AC05291640_00000.temp019f.html’¦”
’65.55.207.28′¦Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:46:22 -0500¦’msnbot/2.0b (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm)’¦’*/*’¦’/000166709_00001.temp00be.html’¦”

The requests ALWAYS take on one of the formats above starting with either a 32byte GUID or a nine digit integer.

In the Bing thread, another person said:

For many many years, msnbot has been crawling my sites looking for files that have never existed… i’m trying to figure out why…
the filenames have changed slightly in recent times but they have been similar in structure since the beginning… they are something like 000092601_00002.temp0001.htm… in other words, 9 numbers underscore 5 numbers dot temp 4 numbers dot htm… the search for these is all over my server’s directory tree…

I’ll emphasize once more that these files have never existed on my site and i have no clue how msnbot may have picked them up…

Honestly, I feel bad that I am always beating up on Microsoft. I know they are new to the game, when you compare them to Google. But I have to report these issues.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld & Bing Forums.


A WebmasterWorld thread and an older Bing Forums thread has discussion from webmasters over the issue of Microsoft Bing’s web crawler, MSNBot, crawling file names that do not exist on a specific site.

This reminders me of the ongoing issue of Bing creating fake referrals in webmaster log files. This has been going on for years, where Microsoft claims they have fixed it, but never really has.

In this specific case, it seems like Bing is creating file names on a specific site to crawl. Wel, they are not creating files, just trying to fetch pages that do not and never have existed on a specific site. I am not sure if this is a Bing issue or a webmaster issue.

A long time WebmasterWorld member explained the issue:

In what is apparently a rather old bad behavior, msnbot has a practice of regularly requesting totally manufactured URIs that appear to be designed to trigger 404 errors. Here are two sample log entries of the two styles of bogus URIs msnbot requests:

’65.55.207.126′¦Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:39:49 -0500¦’msnbot/2.0b (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm)’¦’*/*’¦’/ADBF3C7AB534E8356F30D8AC05291640_00000.temp019f.html’¦”
’65.55.207.28′¦Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:46:22 -0500¦’msnbot/2.0b (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm)’¦’*/*’¦’/000166709_00001.temp00be.html’¦”

The requests ALWAYS take on one of the formats above starting with either a 32byte GUID or a nine digit integer.

In the Bing thread, another person said:

For many many years, msnbot has been crawling my sites looking for files that have never existed… i’m trying to figure out why…
the filenames have changed slightly in recent times but they have been similar in structure since the beginning… they are something like 000092601_00002.temp0001.htm… in other words, 9 numbers underscore 5 numbers dot temp 4 numbers dot htm… the search for these is all over my server’s directory tree…

I’ll emphasize once more that these files have never existed on my site and i have no clue how msnbot may have picked them up…

Honestly, I feel bad that I am always beating up on Microsoft. I know they are new to the game, when you compare them to Google. But I have to report these issues.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld & Bing Forums.



Merry Christmas All & Googlers Working Today

Merry Christmas! Although I have about five items to write about today, I figured I hold off on them until Monday. Trust me, I know how it is to be swamped and buried in feeds and news to catch up on while I am celebrating a Jewish holiday – so I will spare you all. Plus, I finally am making the move to Google Chrome, using Chromium on my Mac – so it is nice to take it slow to get up to speed on it.

If you are reading today, make sure to check out our Christmas logos for 2009, which I just updated this morning to add several more logos from other search engines. In short, there are logos from Google, Yahoo, Bing, Ask.com, and many others – so check it out.

In addition, I caught Googlers working on Christmas again. For the past few years, I have caught Googlers helping webmasters in the forums. This year is no different. JohnMu from Google posted in at least two threads on Christmas eve. One was the Merry Christmas Google thread and the other was a more technical webmaster question. Googlers did the same in 2008, 2007 and 2006. They also worked on New Years last year and the year before.

Finally, I will be working on my weekly search video recap today. Expect it to go live later today and you can watch (or just listen to) it at your leisure.

Merry Christmas and in our tradition, forum discussion at Search Engine Roundtable Forums, Cre8asite Forums, Google Toolbar Help, HighRankings Forums, WebmasterWorld, DigitalPoint Forums, Google Maps Help, Google AdWords Help & Google Webmaster Help.


Merry Christmas! Although I have about five items to write about today, I figured I hold off on them until Monday. Trust me, I know how it is to be swamped and buried in feeds and news to catch up on while I am celebrating a Jewish holiday – so I will spare you all. Plus, I finally am making the move to Google Chrome, using Chromium on my Mac – so it is nice to take it slow to get up to speed on it.

If you are reading today, make sure to check out our Christmas logos for 2009, which I just updated this morning to add several more logos from other search engines. In short, there are logos from Google, Yahoo, Bing, Ask.com, and many others – so check it out.

In addition, I caught Googlers working on Christmas again. For the past few years, I have caught Googlers helping webmasters in the forums. This year is no different. JohnMu from Google posted in at least two threads on Christmas eve. One was the Merry Christmas Google thread and the other was a more technical webmaster question. Googlers did the same in 2008, 2007 and 2006. They also worked on New Years last year and the year before.

Finally, I will be working on my weekly search video recap today. Expect it to go live later today and you can watch (or just listen to) it at your leisure.

Merry Christmas and in our tradition, forum discussion at Search Engine Roundtable Forums, Cre8asite Forums, Google Toolbar Help, HighRankings Forums, WebmasterWorld, DigitalPoint Forums, Google Maps Help, Google AdWords Help & Google Webmaster Help.



How To Build Links For Bing

Link building is one of the most important tasks for any webmaster or marketer that is looking for long term search engine optimization growth. Google has taught us all that. But what about Bing? Now that Microsoft has waged a third quarter blitz to gain some competitive advantage against its arch nemesis, the folks in [...]

Link building is one of the most important tasks for any webmaster or marketer that is looking for long term search engine optimization growth. Google has taught us all that. But what about Bing? Now that Microsoft has waged a third quarter blitz to gain some competitive advantage against its arch nemesis, the folks in charge of indexing websites at Bing want to make sure we all understand the best practices for building inbound links to our websites.

The good news is it’s not a far cry different than building links for Google. The bad news is it’s not a far cry different than building links for Google.

Let me explain that. First, a little snippet from the Bing blog:

Bing’s position on link building is straightforward – we are less concerned about the link building techniques used than we are about the intentions behind the effort. That said, techniques used are often quite revealing of intent.

That’s pretty much Google’s take as well. Rather than focusing on good technique versus bad technique, the search engines are more concerned with why webmasters perform certain tasks. That’s why one technique may work well for some webmasters, but get other webmasters flagged for spam. So how does Bing know whether you have good intentions or bad?

That’s the same question that many people have been asking of Google for several years now. And the answer is just as muddled as the answer for good technique/bad technique.

Again, from the Bing blog:

The webmasters who create end user value within their websites, based on the needs of people, are the ones who will see their page rank improve. So where does that value come from? Content. Good, original, text-based content.

In essence, all good link building starts with good content. That’s true for Bing and Google alike.

It’s refreshing to see Bing get serious about link building quality. That hasn’t always been the case. I think the people at Bing have spent a few years studying Google from the inside out. As a result, they’ve modeled some of their own indexing and ranking practices on Google’s policies. The result for Bing is a better search engine and more respect from the SEO community. So what about link building for Bing? What makes a good link?

Well, from their own blog, here’s the bucket list:

  • Seek links from relevant sites
  • Seek out high authority websites
  • Stay natural

The same old message we’ve heard from Google, right? Yes.

And to answer the How question, here’s what Bing says (again from the blog):

  • Develop your brand
  • Let relevant industry people with blogs and websites know of your website
  • Publish optimized online press releases
  • Do some article marketing
  • Participate in blogs and forums
  • Build relationships through social media
  • Create an online newsletter
  • Write a blog
  • Join some industry associations
  • Become a trusted expert in your niche

Sound familiar? If it does then it’s probably because you’ve been listening to what the folks at Google and the thousands of SEOs (including me) have been saying about link building for the past ten years (or five years at least).

The good news is, Bing’s list of link building best practices is the same as what we’ve all been saying for some time now. The bad news? Bing isn’t being particularly innovative here. But then, they shouldn’t be.

Google Removed Negative Search Result Michelle Obama, Should They Have?

A week or so ago, we reported that a search in Google images for Michelle Obama returned a racist image. The image was offensive, racist and has been removed from the search results – which is what I was hoping for. But Google responded to the thread and explained that they normally do not change the search results unless:

(1) It violates our Webmaster Guidelines
(2) If Google believes they are required to do so by law
(3) Or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the image

I am not sure if this image fell under any of those three conditions. Google was not clear if it did, nor did they specifically say which this case fell under. I don’t think it violated the Webmaster Guidelines, I don’t think the image was “illegal,” and I doubt the webmaster asked to have the image taken down. I can be wrong on all of these points, but I am not sure.

Here is Google’s full response:

If you recently used Google Images to search for the term [ Michelle Obama ], you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the image in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google.

As with Google Web Search, ranking in Google Images results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.

Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results, or images from our Google Images results, simply because the content is in very poor taste or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the image, page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the image.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google Images and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it. We will continue to improve the product based on your feedback to make sure that users find the most useful, relevant images through Google Images.

-Jem

Am I missing something? Why did Google take it down? Did the White House force them to by making it a legal matter? Maybe the site was indeed in violation of the webmaster guidelines? The site itself is still live, so I am not sure.

Google is clear that they do not remove offensive, racist or anti-semitic from the search results. I am just confused in this case. Don’t get me wrong, I am extremely happy the result was removed – but was this only done because she is the First Lady?

Forum discussion continued at Google Web Search Help.


A week or so ago, we reported that a search in Google images for Michelle Obama returned a racist image. The image was offensive, racist and has been removed from the search results – which is what I was hoping for. But Google responded to the thread and explained that they normally do not change the search results unless:

(1) It violates our Webmaster Guidelines
(2) If Google believes they are required to do so by law
(3) Or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the image

I am not sure if this image fell under any of those three conditions. Google was not clear if it did, nor did they specifically say which this case fell under. I don’t think it violated the Webmaster Guidelines, I don’t think the image was “illegal,” and I doubt the webmaster asked to have the image taken down. I can be wrong on all of these points, but I am not sure.

Here is Google’s full response:

If you recently used Google Images to search for the term [ Michelle Obama ], you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the image in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google.

As with Google Web Search, ranking in Google Images results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.

Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results, or images from our Google Images results, simply because the content is in very poor taste or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the image, page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the image.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google Images and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it. We will continue to improve the product based on your feedback to make sure that users find the most useful, relevant images through Google Images.

-Jem

Am I missing something? Why did Google take it down? Did the White House force them to by making it a legal matter? Maybe the site was indeed in violation of the webmaster guidelines? The site itself is still live, so I am not sure.

Google is clear that they do not remove offensive, racist or anti-semitic from the search results. I am just confused in this case. Don’t get me wrong, I am extremely happy the result was removed – but was this only done because she is the First Lady?

Forum discussion continued at Google Web Search Help.



Are “Web Site Designed By” Links Bad?

A Google Webmaster Help thread asks a common question in link building. The question is, are “web site designed by X,” where “X” is a link to your company, against Google’s guidelines?

Both a “level 4″ and “top contributor” replied to the thread. One said:

I would think this is a matter of personal preference, and it is quite common in the industry.

The other said:

As far as we know – there is no harm from them. (Hope not – I use them on all my sites ;) )

What do you think? Like they said, this is done very often. My company no longer does this, we haven’t in years. But we did it a lot before “link building” was so important – go figure.

This is not a new question, we asked in in 2006 with <a href="http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/006751.html"Should Search Engine Optimizers Request Site Credit Links?

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.


A Google Webmaster Help thread asks a common question in link building. The question is, are “web site designed by X,” where “X” is a link to your company, against Google’s guidelines?

Both a “level 4″ and “top contributor” replied to the thread. One said:

I would think this is a matter of personal preference, and it is quite common in the industry.

The other said:

As far as we know – there is no harm from them. (Hope not – I use them on all my sites ;) )

What do you think? Like they said, this is done very often. My company no longer does this, we haven’t in years. But we did it a lot before “link building” was so important – go figure.

This is not a new question, we asked in in 2006 with

Forum discussion at Google Webmaster Help.



Cute: AdWordsPro Sarah Bakes Cake For AdWords Forums Birthday

This is cute, AdWordsPro Sarah posted a note at the Google AdWords Help forum showing that she baked a cake to celebrate the forums birthday. She wrote:

A birthday is not a birthday without cake- and while virtual photo cake is not as delicious as the real thing- I have never made cake for thousands of people (and if I did, you probably would not want to eat it). So this little cake is a gesture to say thank you to everyone who helped this little (or not so little now) forum grow this past year. I am truly touched by the generosity that is exhibited here on a daily basis. It makes me proud to be a part of this community.

Make a wish!
AdWordsPro Sarah

Sarah’s Happy Birthday Forum Cake: http://cli.gs/vVgz4R

Here is a picture of the completed cake, but if you want to see the process of baking this pumpkin cake, see over here.

AdWords Forum Birthday Cake

Now, if we can just get Adam Lasnik to bake a cake for the Webmaster Central forum. :)

Forum discussion at Google AdWords Help.


This is cute, AdWordsPro Sarah posted a note at the Google AdWords Help forum showing that she baked a cake to celebrate the forums birthday. She wrote:

A birthday is not a birthday without cake- and while virtual photo cake is not as delicious as the real thing- I have never made cake for thousands of people (and if I did, you probably would not want to eat it). So this little cake is a gesture to say thank you to everyone who helped this little (or not so little now) forum grow this past year. I am truly touched by the generosity that is exhibited here on a daily basis. It makes me proud to be a part of this community.

Make a wish!
AdWordsPro Sarah

Sarah’s Happy Birthday Forum Cake: http://cli.gs/vVgz4R

Here is a picture of the completed cake, but if you want to see the process of baking this pumpkin cake, see over here.

AdWords Forum Birthday Cake

Now, if we can just get Adam Lasnik to bake a cake for the Webmaster Central forum. :)

Forum discussion at Google AdWords Help.



PubCon Live: What Every Webmaster Should Know About Code Installation

Below is live coverage of the What Every Webmaster Should Know About Code Installation from the PubCon 2009 conference.

This coverage is provided by Avi Wilensky & Sheara Goldenthal of Promediacorp.

We are using a live blogging tool to provide the real time coverage, please excuse any typos. You can also interact with us and while we are live blogging, so feel free to ask us questions as we blog. We will publish the archive below after the session is completed.

What Every Webmaster Should Know About Code Installation


Below is live coverage of the What Every Webmaster Should Know About Code Installation from the PubCon 2009 conference.

This coverage is provided by Avi Wilensky & Sheara Goldenthal of Promediacorp.

We are using a live blogging tool to provide the real time coverage, please excuse any typos. You can also interact with us and while we are live blogging, so feel free to ask us questions as we blog. We will publish the archive below after the session is completed.




Does Google Handle Canonical Issues Fully?

Tedster, WebmasterWorld’s Administrator, posted an excellent thread at WebmasterWorld asking how do you think Google handles the canonical issues they find on their own? By that he means, if webmasters don’t use a 301 redirect or use Google’s canonical header tag to instruct Google on how to handle that URL, how would Google handle it?

Would they cosmetically clean up the search results so that there does not appear to be any canonical (duplicate) URLs in the results? Or do they actually decide to implement a 301 on your behalf and pass all the ‘link juice’ from one canonical URL to the parent URL?

First, take my poll and then I will give you my thoughts on it:

How Does Google Handle Canonical URLs on Their Own?(polls)

I really think for the most part, where Google is not confident on which should be the main URL, Google will only apply this cosmetically to the search results. I remember when the new canonical tag came out and Google warned to use this carefully, because it is as powerful as a 301, but without actually being physically redirected. For Google to apply their own 301s, hidden be that, is extremely dangerous for both Google and the webmaster. I would assume, in certain cases, Google does do this, but I am not sure if they do this in most cases. Of course, this is just my thoughts – I have no hard evidence, since I never really tested it myself.

I would assume Google would want to be right 100% of the time on this. I would think that would be a goal. And when they are 100% or even 99% right, implementing this would make sense.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.


Tedster, WebmasterWorld’s Administrator, posted an excellent thread at WebmasterWorld asking how do you think Google handles the canonical issues they find on their own? By that he means, if webmasters don’t use a 301 redirect or use Google’s canonical header tag to instruct Google on how to handle that URL, how would Google handle it?

Would they cosmetically clean up the search results so that there does not appear to be any canonical (duplicate) URLs in the results? Or do they actually decide to implement a 301 on your behalf and pass all the ‘link juice’ from one canonical URL to the parent URL?

First, take my poll and then I will give you my thoughts on it:

I really think for the most part, where Google is not confident on which should be the main URL, Google will only apply this cosmetically to the search results. I remember when the new canonical tag came out and Google warned to use this carefully, because it is as powerful as a 301, but without actually being physically redirected. For Google to apply their own 301s, hidden be that, is extremely dangerous for both Google and the webmaster. I would assume, in certain cases, Google does do this, but I am not sure if they do this in most cases. Of course, this is just my thoughts – I have no hard evidence, since I never really tested it myself.

I would assume Google would want to be right 100% of the time on this. I would think that would be a goal. And when they are 100% or even 99% right, implementing this would make sense.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.



Page 1 of 212

Seth Godin: Sliced Bread

Malcolm Gladwell: Outliers

Anthony Parinello: Your Price is Too High