Bing Observance

1

Category : Marketing, SEO/SEM

This week while reviewing my GA’s information I noticed that an old site of mine, www.lasvegascrenews.com had suddenly began receiving more traffic of late from Bing, so much so that is surpassed traffic sent to it from Google and is now the number one source of traffic for this site.

The odd thing is this site hasn’t been updated since it finished its purpose in June of 2009. I had originally created the site as a means of conveying to the board of directors and managing partners of Colliers Parrish International that we should look into syndicating their real estate feeds out to local blogs, as well as take a more active role in social media. The site worked well as an example, after its launch in April 2009, with little SEO and no real promotion, it had 300 unique visitors the first month and about 400 in May. Everyone involved with the project was delighted and it helped push forward a few other internal initiatives at CPI.

The site was no longer needed after July, and when I left in October, I continued to keep site ownership, though I have not decided what I wish to do with it. So I simply have left it alone, contemplating selling off the domain and the site.

So imagine my surprise when I see that the site is suddenly receiving a fair amount of traffic from Bing these past couple weeks of January, after all this is a site that has not had content updated in over 6 months.

I pull up my other sites, most notably the two primary ones I own and manage: www.michaelghurston.com and www.morbidgames.com. While my personal blog and portfolio of sorts here isn’t really a traffic go-getter, according to GA it hasn’t had a single user click through from Bing. Site traffic for this website is generated first by direct users, and secondly by Google.

Now Morbidgames is a different beast, as a site that has a larger community base with near 600 Facebook friends, multiple Twitter accounts nearing 2,000 followers and a host of online retailers that carry its products. The primary source of traffic to MG is by referring sites, with Google being a strong second and Twitter being third. However, GA reports that Bing is 5th on the list under direct visits.

So I’m curious.

Here we have Morbidgames, a site that’s index page uses AJAX to constantly feed in new content to the home page, and whose site is built around a WordPress backend that is updated at least every couple weeks if not more. Yet Bing isn’t really sending it traffic.

On the other hand, we have a site that hasn’t been updated in months and is getting a ton of traffic from Bing. Lastly we have a site that is updated every few days, with little SEO ever done that hasn’t received any traffic from Bing, but a trickle from Google.

So what’s the deal?

Is Bing prioritizing archived and older content over new content, seems unlikely with the push by search engines like Google and others who are looking into live search and value new content over old.

While it’s all just observations at this point, I think it’s worth looking into. Especially since I know that Morbidgames is by far more SEO’d and active than LasVegasCRENews.

  • Share/Bookmark

My disgust for DMOZ

5

Category : Marketing, SEO/SEM

I don’t usually like to flat out bash web services or sites as it’s not professional, but it’s the holidays, I’m stressed and I really hate DMOZ. I suppose the fuel for this fire started when I received an email this morning from esitesecrets.com a site that I signed up to receive news from, but am finding myself more and more disappointed with their lack of useful and current information. I don’t know what it is, perhaps they hired a retired SEO expert from 10 years ago who just hasn’t taken the time to update his knowledge of current trends. Bottom line is that I just cringe as I read most of their articles and think to myself, “that’s so 2003.”

This article in question really irked me, mostly because it was highlighting a nemesis of mine as a site that should be placed on a pedestal, and while it rang true in the early 2000’s, the site in 2007 lost all methods of credibility when they began to have a volunteer force made up of people who destroyed what the site was designed for. In its current incarnation the site has gone to the dark side with “The age old stuff still works at DMOZ, you need to know a friend of a friend of a friend to get your site listed fast” as many webmasters, SEO specialists and internet marketing professionals have found.

Because of this, DMOZ has not been a relevant tool for SEO for the last couple of years, and to say the site “powers Google and Bing” is a flat out exaggeration and lie.  DMOZ links have been devalued significantly over the last couple years as search engines have gone the route of making current content king, significantly valuing sites such as Wikipedia and AboutUs.org as well as well written site content. Current content is king and DMOZ listings are rarely ever updated or changed, regardless of submission editions because of its volunteer staff that will update or add sites they are familiar with at a professional or personal level, but procrastinate considerably on anything else. But you don’t have to take just my word for it…many other popular and better web tip sites agree with me.

http://www.dmozsucks.org/

http://searchengineland.com/10-useless-seo-worries-part-2-12650

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/getting-a-link-from-dmoz-isnt-worth-what-it-once-was

http://www.newswriter.us/ShowAdminArticle-17.htm

http://www.webproworld.com/insider-reports/18846-dmoz-isn-t-open-after-all-18.html

And these are just a few, you can find more in depth articles on sites like Mashable, WebProNews, SiteProNews and others.

  • Share/Bookmark

SEO or Keyword Advertising Experiment

Category : Marketing, SEO/SEM


Outside of the commercial real estate realm I own and operate a very niche market PDF publishing company whose hosting provider, GoDaddy, recently provided me some free credits for Google AdWords and Facebook Ads. The credits consisted of $25 towards Google AdWords and $50 towards Facebook Ads. My first thought was that the amounts were so low, they couldn’t possibly provide any benefit, and since my PDF publishing hasn’t been exactly profitable the last few months I didn’t want to increase any budget items for it.

However, the company I work at recently had inquiries to me to look into both of these ad services so I figured this might give me an opportunity to familiarize myself with these two products. So I began two campaigns on each site and tracked all of my results. I then shared these results with my companies Marketing Technology Director and our PR firm MassMedia; the results were interesting and a little surprising in some cases.

Disclaimer: Since the testing was only done for 2 days for both campaigns, this information is by no means extensive and should be taken with a grain of salt, though I believe it is something I will look into more and I’d recommend others to evaluate on their own as well.

The Ad Campaigns & Initial Results:

For Google AdWords I created a campaign consisting of about 20 relevant key words (short and long included) with a daily max budget of $30 and a bid of 0.01¢ (the estimated bid of my keywords was between 0.04¢ and 0.09¢. The budget increased to $30 because of Google’s “activation fee” of $5 and their “forced” deposit of $10 to open the account. The ad consisted of the name of the company, a brief description of the product and linked to the sites storefront, however, the link shown in the text was to the sites main page, not the store. I ran this campaign for two days prior to beginning the second campaign. After these two days I had generated just under 200 exposures, but no clicks. This was to be expected; however on my Google Analytics I had seen an increase in traffic of 5%. No other ads or releases had been made during this time.

I continued to let this campaign run, as it was not using any of my credits and set up a second campaign almost exactly the same, but with a slightly higher bid of 0.05¢ After two days the ad had generated over 500 impressions, with a click thru rate of almost 0.20%. My websites traffic increase from this was slightly higher obviously. I then paused this campaign for the remainder of the next test, with hardly any of my credits used.

Facebook was a different beast entirely. I started by setting my campaigns to a daily budget of $25, used the same key words, ad text and link setups as I did in my Google AdWords campaign, but had a cost estimate of 0.46¢ to 0.59¢ – apparently my competitors must advertise on Facebook more than Google. I placed two campaigns, one for 0.01¢ and the other for 0.5¢. After the first day with 0.01¢ I had not generated any impressions, so no clicks, but the 0.5¢ had a different story – I had hit my $25 daily budget with over 84,000 impressions and 54 clicks. While the traffic to my storefront had increased that day, the traffic to my sites main page had not seen a change, and since the previous days had been higher, my Google Analytics showed my site had a decrease in traffic for those pages. Which is fine, since ultimately I want people at the store or at least one of my distributors sites since if they visit my home page, blog or forums it’s not going to generate any income directly.

Questions & Answers:

While the Facebook Ads worked the way I had anticipated for the most part – the Google AdWords, which I have turned back on and continue to follow has been causing me to ask questions. While Facebook seemed to generate traffic to me from the clicks to my site, Google AdWords seems to continue to generate traffic to me whether people click on my ads or not.

When I spoke to our companies Marketing Technology Director we came up with the idea that perhaps the people interested in my niche may have seen the ads, but not clicked on them, but for some reason either typed in the web address or name of the book and found my site this way. This would explain why the ads, which link to the store, seemed to increase traffic to the main page instead of the store.

I then thought of the idea, that perhaps looking into ad words as a way of generating a lot of impressions, but not necessarily desiring clicks may be a feasible small-budget marketing strategy. Of course for commercial real estate, we’d have to look at the possibility of higher key word costs, but the concept would remain the same – to underbid in such a way that our ad is seen but not shown dominant enough to generate a lot of clicks.

This was an interesting train of thought for me, but I wanted more input, so I sent a few emails off to our PR firm, MassMedia to see what they thought of these campaigns and their results. The first response was what I had been thinking, but hadn’t voiced, which is that my use of AdWords may have increased the keyword relevancy from an organic SEO point of view. There have been some theories that an advantage of AdWords will increase your sites SEO as sort of a self serving incentive or that AdWords simply grows the SEO algorithm Google Search uses. I don’t know if it’d be possible to really prove this one way or another, but an interesting concept none the less.

Conclusion:

I’m ultimately left with a lot of questions, not too many proven answers, but definitely an interest in researching these results more. While this outcome was a bit different than I expected it definitely made me think about the benefits of organic ranking compared to raw conversions to your site. If someone is simply looking to build site traffic it’s probably best to just focus on the more common optimizations, such as relevant link exchanges, url submissions to directories, enhanced keyword and description tags, consistent content updates and the use of social media networks and tools. Of course, if you have the budget, a well-targeted AdWords or Facebook Ad campaign wouldn’t hurt either.

AdWords Update: I’ve turned my campaign back on and will post a follow up once the $25 has been burned through.

- Michael G. Hurston

  • Share/Bookmark

Switch to our mobile site