Google’s Matt Cutts Regrets Not Acting Faster On Paid Links & Content Farms

In Google’s Matt Cutts latest video, he answers a question I personally asked about what he regrets, what decision he regrets making in the past related to webspam. My question specifically was:

Was there a key moment in your spam fighting career where you made a mistake that you regret, related to spam?

Matt answered it in than four minutes explained he regrets not acting sooner on (1) paid links and (2) content farms.

Google’s Paid Links Regret

Matt explained that several years ago at a search conference in San Jose, a well-known SEO told him that paid links are too common and there are no ways for Google to fight against it. That is when Matt said he realized that Google has made a mistake and they allowed paid links that passed PageRank to go too far. So in 2005 or so, Google cracked down heavily on paid links and now at this point, Matt said “most people” realize paid links are against Google’s guidelines, possibly against the FTC’s guidelines, that they have algorithms that fight against it and also manual actions around paid links. But Matt regrets not taking action sooner and waiting too long.

Google’s Content Farms Regret

The second regret Matt admitted to was around not acting sooner on content farms. Matt Cutts explained that early on, he did get some user complaints about the horrible user experience some of these content farms had. But when Matt himself went to one of the sites based on a search on how to fix a toilet in his home, he felt the user experience was good. He said he “over generalized” based on that one example, when he should have looked at the site overall and not just one page.

Because of that over generalization, Google didn’t act as fast as they should have on content farms and thus it became more of an issue on the web and for Google to deal with. Here Matt is specifically talking about Panda.

Matt did say that Google does do a lot of “great work” and finds it “rewarding” on the whole. But at the same time, he said he always “wonders” if you could do better by acting one way or another.

read more

Google’s Matt Cutts April Fools Video: No We Won’t Stop Changing; While Shirt Constantly Changes

If you didn’t have enough April Fools day fun today, here is one more for you.

In today’s video from Matt Cutts, Matt answered a real question from Dave in the UK, who asked, “When will Google stop updating its search results?” The answer was never! And to prove his point, Matt animated his shirt to change different colors and then overlay flowers on top of the shirt.

I made an animated GIF image to show the various colors and tricks with the shirt but the video is below. In short, Google won’t stop changing, like Matt’s shirt that day.

Source - http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-april-fools-video-wont-stop-changing-shirt-constantly-changes-188184

read more

Google Says Don’t Delete Your Disavow File Prior To Uploading A New One

Yesterday, Matt Cutts, Google’s head of search spam, posted an interesting tip to SEOs around disavow file submissions.

He said that you should not delete or remove the original disavow file when uploading a new one. He said instead, upload the new one, which will replace the old disavow file. The reason he said was because when you delete the old one and upload a new one, it generates two emails to the Google team and may confuse them when review manual actions.

Here are his tweets:

Matt Cutts        ✔ @mattcutts

Follow

Quick SEO tip: no need to delete your old disavow links file before uploading a new one. You can just upload the new one.

8:23 PM - 25 Mar 2014

145 RETWEETS 49 FAVORITES

Matt Cutts        ✔ @mattcutts

Follow

Some SEOs have been deleting the file first, then uploading new, which creates two emails, and sometimes that confuses folks.

8:25 PM - 25 Mar 2014

34 RETWEETS 17 FAVORITES

As you can see, I am making an assumption that the “folks” being confused are those at Google who review reconsideration requests.

So as a note, when you go ahead and revise your disavow files, make sure you just replace it and not delete the original one.

For more details, see our Disavow link tool category.

Source - http://searchengineland.com/google-says-dont-delete-disavow-file-prior-uploading-new-one-187683

read more

Five Days Later, It Looks Like Google Has Penalized Web Design Library For Selling Links

We all saw this one coming: Web Design Library, the website that was using Twitter to renew paid links last week, appears to have earned a Google penalty.

While I was researching last week’s article, I saw the site ranking at No. 8 for the term web design. Today, I’m seeing it at No. 48 for that same query.

But the more obvious indicator of a penalty is that the site no longer ranks for its own name, Web Design Library.

If you missed the original story, someone using the name “Vince” and tweeting from the@vitaliykoloswdl account was reaching out via Twitter to renew paid link agreements with a number of companies. One of the biggest was T-Mobile, as shown in this conversation that began in February:

But if you look through that account’s tweets, it appears that “Vince” isn’t just reaching out to renew some two-year-old paid links, he’s also tweeting at dozens of companies asking tocontact their “link building guy” or “marketing guy” — often mentioning “link building” and “cooperation” between his site and theirs. (Whatever he’s doing, and no matter where you stand on the ethics of buying/selling links, Twitter isn’t the place for it.)

What About T-Mobile & Others?

At the moment, I’m not seeing that T-Mobile has been penalized. It still shows up in Google’s search results for its own name, as well as for prime queries like “cell phones” and “samsung galaxy s4.” And SearchMetrics’ SEO Visibility tool isn’t showing any significant drop in T-Mobile’s visibility.

Why not? It could be that Google hasn’t penalized T-Mobile (and the other link buyers) yet, it could be that there’s not enough evidence that the link actually was bought, or it could be something entirely different. We don’t know. It’s worth mentioning again that, when Google webspam chief Matt Cutts saw the Twitter exchange last week, he directed an “I’m watching you” tweet at “Vince” and not at T-Mobile or any of the other accounts that “Vince” was tweeting at.

1. 07 Mar

   Vince @VitaliyKolosWDL

   @TMobileHelp The link was bought via iAcquire

Matt Cutts        ✔ @mattcutts

Follow

@VitaliyKolosWDL ಠ_ಠ

10:45 PM - 20 Mar 2014

Source - http://searchengineland.com/five-days-later-looks-like-google-penalized-web-design-library-selling-links-187591 

read more

BrandVerity Offers Feedback From Google, Bing On Paid Search Trademark Complaints

Brands aiming to protect themselves from trademark infringement in paid search are often met with white noise after they submit complaints to the search engines. They typically aren’t told if any action was taken — and even more frustrating, if no action was taken and/or why.

To help solve this problem, BrandVerity has added a process to its paid search ad monitoring system to give clients direct feedback from Google and the Yahoo Bing Network on trademark violation complaints.

After reporting a violation, BrandVerity clients will be alerted when an infringing ad has been disabled. If an ad is not taken down, the support teams at Google or Bing will respond with an explanation of why the ad is allowed to keep running.

“We’re very excited to have Google and Bing involved here. With their feedback, our clients can really close the loop on trademark abuse. Having the assurance that an ad was truly taken down—and knowing when it was taken down—provides some much-needed visibility and transparency into the trademark complaint procedure. We look forward to seeing an ever clearer boost to our clients’ paid search campaigns because of this new feature,” BrandVerity CEO, Dave Naffziger wrote via email.

The functionality is live globally with Google and in the US and Canada with the Yahoo Bing network, with plans to expand coverage.

Source - http://searchengineland.com/brandverity-offers-feedback-google-bing-paid-search-trademark-complaints-187496

read more

Bing Ads Now Shows Zero-Click Search Queries, Offers 20 To 40X More Data Than Before

Formerly dubbed the Search Query Report, Bing Ads has updated what’s now called the Search Term Report, which houses the data on the terms users actually typed before clicking on an ad.

Included in the new release are results on zero-click search queries. These terms had been excluded from the report, but advertisers had been requesting to see them in order to build out stronger negative keyword lists and to better understand the terms for which their ads are not resonating with users. With the update advertisers now have access to 20 to 40 times more search term data than in the past, according to the announcement.Focusing in on these terms can help advertisers improve click-through rates and quality scores.  Additionally, Fady Khoury, Program Manager for Bing Ads Platform reports in the blog post that “the issue of understated impressions and overstated CTR for a search term has been completely solved. Advertisers now have the complete picture around the search terms to make more precise evaluations.” (Emphasis is his.)

Note that if you’re looking at search terms from the Dimensions tab, you’ll still only see terms with at least one click.

source - http://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-now-shows-zero-click-search-queries-offers-20-40x-data-186870

read more

Google Testing New Sponsored Shopping Boxes, With 3D View

Google continues to experiment with Google Shopping displays beyond the traditional thumbnail box panel of Product Listing Ads. This latest version is larger than the sponsored result spotted earlier this month for the book “Don’t Make Me Think”.

Found by Twitter user Britney Muller of Pryde Marketing, the sponsored result for “Nest thermostats” — now owned by Google — incorporates Google Shopping’s 3D product view. The result presents information from Google Shopping including a list of merchants with prices, product details and reviews all in one box in the search result.

Clicking on the tiny “3D” icon brings up window with the full product view. Users can view each side of the product by moving it manually with their mouse or by clicking on the individual product shots.

Expanding the number of products with 3D views in Google Shopping has been a priority for the gTech Partner Solutions team which is producing the images in partnership with manufacturers. This search results presentation is likely to garner many more impressions for the 3D product views than they receive from within Google Shopping itself.

We haven’t been able to replicate this for other products yet, including other Google produced products such as Nexus and Chromebooks, but we can expect to see Google continue to experiment with incorporating more Google Shopping content into the search results.

Update: I haven’t been able to replicate this, but Glenn Gabe of G-Squared Interactive spotted this version for the Samsung Series 3 Chromebook.

Glenn Gabe @glenngabe

Follow

Here's another 3D View PLA (for the Samsung Series 3 Chromebook) http://glennga.be/1fSh7No  cc: @GinnyMarvin

9:59 PM - 17 Mar 2014

source - http://searchengineland.com/google-testing-new-sponsored-shopping-boxes-3d-view-186835

read more

Matt Cutts: Google Mobile Queries May Surpass PC Search This Year

Speaking at SMX West last week Google’s Matt Cutts said that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if mobile search exceeded desktop queries this year. A similar comment was made by a Google speaker informally during a roundtable discussion at the International Franchising Association conference in New Orleans earlier this year.

We asked Google for an official statement and the company declined to provide one. Google doesn’t want to oppose mobile and PC search. Rather it wants to emphasize cross-platform marketing and experiences.

The comments above refer to global query volumes not in the US or North America where PC-based search still far outstrips mobile queries. However in many developing countries, such as India, mobile internet traffic has eclipsed the desktop.

Globally mobile traffic is about 30 percent of all internet activity. That’s also the case in North America.

There are roughly 2 billion PCs in the world and more than 5 billion mobile devices. Thus it is inevitable that both mobile internet traffic and mobile search will ultimately surpass the PC globally.

Still when it happens it will be sobering and perhaps even a shock to some who still see mobile as a kind of secondary channel.

source - http://searchengineland.com/matt-cutts-mobile-queries-may-surpass-pc-year-186816

read more

Google Reviewing “Not Provided,” Withholding Keywords From Organic But Not Paid Search Clicks

When Google moved to secure search in October 2011, it was a blow to publishers, who began losing data about the search terms used to reach their sites. It also opened Google up to claims of hypocrisy, in that advertisers continued to receive the terms. Now, Google says it’s reexamining the issue and seeking a better solution.

Will clicks on non-paid listings go back to passing along search term data again? Will ad clicks have that withheld? Google didn’t say either way, and there could be other possibilities, as well.

Google Looking For Solution

The news came out of a keynote conversation with Google search chief Amit Singhalyesterday at our SMX West conference. I raised the issue of “not provided,” as it’s known as a short-hand term search marketers and many publishers in general.

I wasn’t really expecting much of an answer — in fact, I’ve written so much about the topic, with relatively little response from Google about the perceived inequities and hypocrisy, that I’ve felt like a broken record. I certainly got surprised. Singhal said:

Over a period of time, we [Google's search and ad sides] have been looking at this issue…. we’re also hearing from our users that they would want their searches to be secure … it’s really important to the users. We really like the way things have gone on the organic side of search.

I have nothing to announce right now, but in the coming weeks and months as [we] find the right solution, expect something to come out.

Here’s the complete segment. Note that references to “Sridhar” are about Sridhar Ramaswamy, who oversees Google’s ads.

Paid Clicks To Lose Terms? Organic Clicks To Get Them Back?

Google’s looking for a solution?” What’s that mean! After the talk, I saw people tweeting speculation that paid clicks might get terms withheld:

Benjamin Spiegel @nxfxcom

Follow

@mattcutts @larrykim - don't start messing with your paid terms now ;)

6:30 AM - 12 Mar 2014

Or that organic clicks might get search terms back:

Greg Gifford @GregGifford

Follow

@5le holy crap, if we get keywords back i'm gonna die...

6:26 AM - 12 Mar 2014

Pondering The Possibilities

Which way will it go? Google won’t say, and it could even be that it might go another way. Let’s look at the possibilities, then do some educated guessing. I see it as perhaps up to five things:

• Google decides to make no change
• Clicks may pass only to sites that run secure servers
• Google makes all organic click data available through Google Webmaster Tools
• Organic clicks have terms restored
• Paid clicks have terms withheld

The first is easiest — Google might do a review of everything and decide, in the end, it’s happy with how things are going. I think that’s unlikely, but it is possible.

Clicks For Secure Servers?

Another solution would be that Google could restore search term data to publishers who run secure sites. Before Google’s change, when someone clicked on a listing at Google, information about the search term they used to find that listing passed “in the clear” and across the web to the publisher. The publisher would know exactly how they were located.

After Google’s change, terms on unpaid or “organic” listings were withheld. The chief reason for this was that Google seemed to worry that sending a stream of terms in the clear could cause someone to “eavesdrop” on a string of searches someone was doing, which could build a revealing profile about them.

Google continued to send terms in the clear for ad click and never really gave a reasonable explanation why. It also continued to allow actual search terms to be obtained by publishers, for up to 90 days, through its Google Webmaster Tools area.

To me, all this indicated that Google didn’t view individual searches on their own being exposed as much of a privacy issue. So securing ad clicks wasn’t so pressing, since relatively few people click on ads. It’s hard to get a profile just off that data (though over time, even that could be revealing). The Questions Google Refuses To Answer About Search Privacy is my story from last year that explores all this more.

But if the goal really was to prevent eavesdropping, then providing search term data only to sites that run secure servers is a great solution. It would restore the data flow to publishers, yet a third-party couldn’t easily eavesdrop on the stream of searches from a particular person. It would also have the side benefit of making the entire web more secure.

Another story I wrote last year explains all this more: How Google could have made the Web secure and failed — again. Maybe that’s a solution Google will go to, as it’s doing this review.

Make All Organic Terms Available In Webmaster Tools?

As mentioned, Google does allow publishers to see how people have reached their sites though its Google Webmaster Tools system. The problem is, that system shows a limited amount of data. You only get the top 2,000 terms (which is a lot, actually) and back for 90 days (which is a real problem, because historic trend data is lost).

Last September, Google announced that it would extend query data in Google Webmaster Tools from 90 days to one year. Since then, we’ve been waiting. This could be another solution — that Google finally delivers on its promise and perhaps goes even better, and makes all search term data it has available for any site available with no limitations.

Organic Terms Passed Via Clicks Again?

Google could also go back to the old system, where a click on an unpaid link once again transmits the search term in the clear to publishers. Personally, I think this is unlikely.

Go back to what Singhal said — Google users find it important to have their searches secure, and that likes how things have gone with the withholding of organic clicks. That doesn’t seem to indicate going back to the old system is likely.

A tweet from the head of Google’s web spam team Matt Cutts yesterday also seems to support this:

Matt Cutts        ✔ @mattcutts

Follow

@5le Note that Amit said we're happy with securing searches on organic, but we hear the feedback regarding ads and how that is perceived.

6:24 AM - 12 Mar 2014

Paid Search Terms To Be Withheld

That leaves the last possibility — that clicks on paid links will have terms withheld, just like their unpaid counterparts.

That’s move that would help solve the hypocrisy problem, that Google’s fine with making searches secure except where it might impact its bottom line, something that’s been an issue since this all began. See also:

• Google Puts A Price On Privacy
• Google Puts A Price On Privacy — Again
• Post-PRISM, Google Confirms Quietly Moving To Make All Searches Secure, Except For Ad Clicks

It also seems the most likely, again going off what Singhal said, that there are discussions with the ad side. There’s no reason to have discussions with the ad side unless you’re pondering a change that’s going to impact the ad clicks. Nor was that the only mention of talking with the ad side, as you can hear in the entire segment from the show.

Whether this indeed will happen remains to be seen. If it does happen, it’s super important to note that advertisers would continue to get search terms in the other way they always have, through the AdWords system itself. They wouldn’t go “blind,” though not receiving terms directly to their sites would pose challenges for them in other ways.

Google said to expect something in “weeks to months,” so stay tuned. Also, I’m still at our show and writing this fairly quickly during a break, so please forgive any typos. I’ll catch back up to correct any that may have slipped through.

Source - http://searchengineland.com/google-not-provided-review-186356

read more

Yahoo Goes Live With Yelp Local Reviews

Last month the Wall Street Journal reported that Yelp reviews were being integrated into Yahoo search results. This morning Yahoo formally announced the partnership:

Now when you use Yahoo Search to look up a local business in the U.S. on your smartphone, tablet, or PC, you’ll see user reviews, business information, and star ratings from Yelp. We’ve also added a new photo viewing experience to show high-quality photos from Yelp, other partners, and the businesses themselves.

The information is equally available from Yahoo Search and Maps. When you click on “read all  . . .  reviews” or “write a review” (see image below) you’re taken to the Yelp profile or review page for the specific business. Yelp content is integrated in a similar way on Bing search results.

Yelp reviews don’t yet appear to be integrated into Yahoo mobile search results. I’m sure that will come shortly.

At one time Yahoo was the local search leader. Few people remember that Yahoo was the first company (after a modest implementation by Verizon’s Superpages) that offered interactive mapping — before Google. Over time Yahoo gave up on the maps arms race.

Now Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer is making some encouraging moves to make Yahoo relevant again in search but especially on mobile devices, which means making an investment in improving local and maps content.

The new integration of Yelp reviews and photos, as well as new enhanced local results generally, give Yahoo a boost and more utility. However the company is still playing catch-up to Google in most respects.

It will have to move beyond these now “must have” features if it  hopes to restore or regain momentum in local search.

Postscript: I was corrected by Yahoo that the content is now available on mobile. I was apparently just unable to find it in the couple of quick searches I did on the mobile web this morning.

Source - http://searchengineland.com/yahoo-goes-live-yelp-local-reviews-186354

read more

Google Confirms Giant Banner Ad Test Is Dead

Back in October, Google started experimenting with large banner ads at the top of branded search results on Google.com. If you haven’t noticed them lately, there’s a reason. In his SMX West keynote discussion with Danny Sullivan yesterday, Google’s Amit Singhal said the test failed and is over.

Presumably the click-through rates (CTR) on the graphic banner ads weren’t high enough to justify keeping around. Though CTR seems like an odd performance metric to place on a banner that functions more as a graphic introduction to the organic listings and has no call-to-action.

The test only ran in the U.S. and was small with about 30 advertisers participating and banners showing on about 5 percent of search queries.

We will post the video clip of Singhal’s discussion of the test when it’s available. If you’re interested in taking a stroll down memory lane, Marketing Land captured many of these banner ads during the test in the Slideshare below.

Source - http://searchengineland.com/google-confirms-giant-banner-ad-test-dead-186329

read more

Privacy Groups Want to Stall FB-Whatsapp Deal?

Privacy advocates have asked U.S. regulators to halt Facebook Inc's $19 billion acquisition of messaging service WhatsApp until there is a clearer understanding of how the company intends to use the personal data of WhatsApp's 450 million users.





WhatsApp, a service that allows mobile phone users to send each other messages, has had a longstanding commitment to not collect user data for advertising purposes.


But there's no guarantee that that commitment will hold true once the service becomes part of Facebook, according to the filing to the Federal Trade Commission by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy, both non-profit groups.


The complaint asks regulators to investigate the deal "specifically with regard to the ability of Facebook to access WhatsApp's store of user mobile phone numbers and metadata."


Facebook, the world's No.1 social network with 1.2 billion users, generates the majority of its revenue by showing ads that target users by age, gender and other traits.

"As we have said repeatedly, Whatsapp will operate as a separate company and will honor its commitments to privacy and security," Facebook said in a statement in response to the filing. The FTC declined to comment.


Facebook stunned the technology industry last month when it announced its intention to buy the five-year old WhatsApp for $19 billion in cash and stock. WhatsApp does not show ads on its service, charging some of its users a $1 annual fee to use the service.

WhatsApp stores users' mobile phone numbers, but unlike many online services, it does not collect user names, emails, and other contact information.


Despite assurances by WhatsApp and Facebook that the privacy policies will not change, the groups that wrote the FTC filing note that Facebook has in the past amended an acquired-company's privacy policies, such as the Instagram photo-sharing service that Facebook acquired in 2012.


Regulators must require that Facebook "insulate" WhatsApp user information from access by Facebook's data collection practices, reads the complaint.


"WhatsApp users could not reasonably have anticipated that by selecting a pro-privacy messaging service, they would subject their data to Facebook's data collection practices," reads the filing.

REUTERS

read more

Now Official: Google Adds Restaurant Menus To Search Results

That Google menus experiment we told you about a couple weeks ago?

It’s now official. But it’s only available in the U.S. at the moment.

Google announced that it’s now showing restaurant menus as a OneBox-style answer at the top of its search results. It seems to be primarily triggered by searches that involve both the restaurant name and the word “menu,” although Google’s example involves a query that starts with “show me the menu for….”

The menu OneBox shows multiple food options and is divided into different categories, depending on how the individual restuarants (or chains) organize their menu. You’ll typically see tabs such as lunch, dinner, entreés, sandwiches and the like.

There’s actually more that we don’t know about the menus than we do. For example:

• Where is Google getting the menu details? It seems to be from sites like AllMenus.com and Gayot.com, but there’s no official list.
• Has Google made a deal with its sources to show the menus, or is it just scraping that information?
• What should a restaurant do if it wants its menu showing like this?
• What if it doesn’t want its menu showing this way for some reason? (It’s outdated, for example.)
• How often will Google be updating the menu information?

We’ve put some of these questions to our contacts at Google, but since it’s Friday evening, we may not get a reply immediately.

Source - http://searchengineland.com/now-official-google-adds-restaurant-menus-search-results-185708

read more