image05 image06 image07

Banner4

Contact us

Powered by Blogger.

Link list 3

Link list 2

Top5 Events

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

Tagged under: , ,

Website Design and Development



Visit www.coffeeshophotel.com to view full website

#websitedesign



Sunday, July 8, 2018

Tagged under:

Desktop, Mobile, or Voice?



We're facing more and more complexity in our everyday work, and the answers to our questions are about as clear as mud. Especially in the wake of the mobile-first index, we're left wondering where to focus our optimization efforts. Is desktop the most important? Is mobile? What about the voice phenomenon sweeping the tech world? 

As with most things, the most important factor is to consider your audience. People aren't siloed to a single device — your optimization strategy shouldn't be, either. In today's Whiteboard Friday, Dr. Pete soothes our fears about a multi-platform world and highlights the necessity of optimizing for a journey rather than a touch point. 

The mistakes we make 

So, first of all, I think we make a couple of mistakes. When we're talking about mobile for the last few years, we tend to go in and we look at our analytics and we do this. These are made up. The green numbers are made up or the blue ones. We say, "Okay, about 90% of my traffic is coming from desktop, about 10% is coming from mobile, and nothing is coming from voice. So I'm just going to keep focusing on desktop and not worry about these other two experiences, and I'll be fine." There are two problems with this: 

Self-fulfilling prophecy 

One is that these numbers are kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They might not be coming to your mobile site. You might not be getting those mobile visitors because your mobile experience is terrible. People come to it and it's lousy, and they don't come back. In the case of voice, we might just not be getting that data yet. We have very little data. So this isn't telling us anything. All this may be telling us is that we're doing a really bad job on mobile and people have given up. We've seen that with Moz in the past. We didn't adopt to mobile as fast as maybe we should have. We saw that in the numbers, and we argued about it because we said, "You know what? This doesn't really tell us what the opportunity is or what our customers or users want. It's just telling us what we're doing well or badly right now, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy." 

Audiences 

The other mistake I think we make is the idea that these are three separate audiences. There are people who come to our site on desktop, people who come to our site on mobile, people who come to our site on voice, and these are three distinct groups of people. I think that's incredibly wrong, and that leads to some very bad ideas and some bad tactical decisions and some bad choices. 

So I want to share a couple of stats. There was a study Google did called The Multiscreen World, and this was almost six years ago, 2012. They found six years ago that 65% of searchers started a search on their smartphones. Two-thirds of searchers started on smartphones six years ago. Sixty percent of those searches were continued on a desktop or laptop. Again, this has been six years, so we know the adoption rate of mobile has increased. So these are not people who only use desktop or who only use mobile. These are people on a journey of search that move between devices, and I think in the real world it looks more something like this right now. 

Another stat from the series was that 88% of people said that they used their smartphone and their TV at the same time. This isn't shocking to you. You sit in front of the TV with your phone and you sit in front of the TV with your laptop. You might sit in front of the TV with a smart watch. These devices are being used at the same time, and we're doing more searches and we're using more devices. So one of these things isn't replacing the other. 

The cross-device journey

So a journey could look something like this. You're watching TV. You see an ad and you hear about something. You see a video you like. You go to your phone while you're watching it, and you do a search on that to get more information. Then later on, you go to your laptop and you do a bit of research, and you want that bigger screen to see what's going on. Then at the office the next day, you're like, "Oh, I'll pull up that bookmark. I wanted to check something on my desktop where I have more bandwidth or something." You're like, "Oh, maybe I better not buy that at work. I don't want to get in trouble. So I'm going to home and go back to my laptop and make that purchase." So this purchase and this transaction, this is one visitor on this chain, and I think we do this a lot right now, and that's only going to increase, where we operate between devices and this journey happens across devices. 

So the challenge I would make to you is if you're looking at this and you're saying, "Only so many percent of our users are on mobile. Our mobile experience doesn't matter that much. It's not that important. We can just live with the desktop people. That's enough. We'll make enough money." If they're really on this journey and they're not segmented like this, and this chain, you break it, what happens? You lose that person completely, and that was a person who also used desktop. So that person might be someone who you bucketed in your 90%, but they never really got to the device of choice and they never got to the transaction, because by having a lousy mobile experience, you've broken the chain. So I want you to be aware of that, that this is the cross-device journey and not these segmented ideas. 

Future touch points 

This is going to get worse. This is going to get scarier for us. So look at the future. We're going to be sitting in our car and we're going to be listening — I still listen to CDs in the car, I know it's kind of sad — but you're going to be listening to satellite radio or your Wi-Fi or whatever you have coming in, and let's say you hear a podcast or you hear an author and you go, "Oh, that person sounds interesting. I want to learn more about them." You tell your smart watch, "Save this search. Tell me something about this author. Give me their books." Then you go home and you go on Google Home and you pull up that search, and it says, "Oh, you know what? I've got a video. I can't play that because obviously I'm a voice search device, but I can send that to Chromecast on your TV." So you send that to your TV, and you watch that. While you're watching the TV, you've got your phone out and you're saying, "Oh, I'd kind of like to buy that." You go to Amazon and you make that transaction. 

So it took this entire chain of devices. Again now, what about the voice part of this chain? That might not seem important to you right now, but if you break the chain there, this whole transaction is gone. So I think the danger is by neglecting pieces of this and not seeing that this is a journey that happens across devices, we're potentially putting ourselves at much higher risk than we think. 

On the plus side 

I also want to look at sort of the positive side of this. All of these devices are touch points in the journey, and they give us credibility. We found something interesting at Moz a few years ago, which was that our sale as a SaaS product on average took about three touch points. People didn't just hit the Moz homepage, do a free trial, and then buy it. They might see a Whiteboard Friday. They might read our Beginner's Guide. They might go to the blog. They might participate in the community. If they hit us with three touch points, they were much more likely to convert. 

So I think the great thing about this journey is that if you're on all these touch points, even though to you that might seem like one search, it lends you credibility. You were there when they ran the search on that device. You were there when they tried to repeat that search on voice. The information was in that video. You're there on that mobile search. You're there on that desktop search. The more times they see you in that chain, the more that you seem like a credible source. So I think this can actually be good for us. 

The SEO challenge 

So I think the challenge is, "Well, I can't go out and hire a voice team and a mobile team and do a design for all of these things. I don't want to build a voice app. I don't have the budget. I don't have the buy-in." That's fine. 

One thing I think is really great right now and that we're encouraging people to experiment with, we've talked a lot about featured snippets. We've talked about these answer boxes that give you an organic result. One of the things Google is trying to do with this is they realize that they need to use their same core engine, their same core competency across all devices. So the engine that powers search, they want that to run on a TV. They want that to run on a laptop, on a desktop, on a phone, on a watch, on Goggle Home. They don't want to write algorithms for all of these things. 

So Google thinks of their entire world in terms of cards. You may not see that on desktop, but everything on desktop is a card. This answer box is a card. That's more obvious. It's got that outline. Every organic result, every ad, every knowledge panel, every news story is a card. What that allows Google to do, and will allow them to do going forward, is to mix and match and put as many pieces of information as it makes sense for any given device. So for desktop, that might be a whole bunch. For mobile, that's going to be a vertical column. It might be less. But for a watch or a Google Glass, or whatever comes after that, or voice, you're probably only going to get one card. 

But one great thing right now, from an SEO perspective, is these featured snippets, these questions and answers, they fit on that big screen. We call it result number zero on desktop because you've got that box, and you've got a bunch of stuff underneath it. But that box is very prominent. On mobile, that same question and answer take up a lot more screen space. So they're still a SERP, but that's very dominant, and then there's some stuff underneath. On voice, that same question and answer pairing is all you get, and we're seeing that a lot of the answers on voice, unless they're specialty like recipes or weather or things like that, have this question and answer format, and those are also being driven by featured snippets. 

So the good news I think, and will hopefully stay good news going forward, is that because Google wants all these devices to run off that same core engine, the things you do to rank well for desktop and to be useful for desktop users are also going to help you rank on mobile. They're going to help you rank on voice, and they're going to help you rank across all these devices. So I want you to be aware of this. I want you to try and not to break that chain. But I think the things we're already good at will actually help us going forward in the future, and I'd highly encourage you to experiment with featured snippets to see how questions and answers appear on mobile and to see how they appear on Google Home, and to know that there's going to be an evolution where all of these devices benefit somewhat from the kind of optimization techniques that we're already good at hopefully. 

Encourage the journey chain 

So I also want to say that when you optimize for answers, the best answers leave searchers wanting more. So what you want to do is actually encourage this chain, encourage people to do more research, give them rich content, give them the kinds of things that draw them back to your site, that build credibility, because this chain is actually good news for us in a way. This can help us make a purchase. If we're credible on these devices, if we have a decent mobile experience, if we come up on voice, that's going to help us really kind of build our brand and be a positive thing for us if we work on it. 

So I'd like you to tell me, what are your fears right now? I think we're a little scared of the mobile index. What are you worried about with voice? What are you worried about with IoT? Are you concerned that we're going to have to rank on our refrigerators, and what does that mean? So it's getting into science fiction territory, but I'd love to talk about it more. I will see you in the comment section. 

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Tagged under: , , , ,

Risk-Averse Link Building


Risk Averse Links

Building links is an incredibly common request of agencies and consultants, and some ways to go about it are far more advisable than others. Whether you're likely to be asked for this work or you're looking to hire someone for it, it's a good idea to have a few rules of thumb. In today's Whiteboard Friday, Russ Jones breaks things down.

1. Never build a link you can't remove!

So we're going to touch on a couple of maxims or truisms. The first one is never build a link you can't remove. I didn't come upon this one until after Penguin, but it just occurred to me it is such a nightmare to get rid of links. Even with disavow, often it feels better that you can just get the link pulled from the web. Now, with negative SEO as being potentially an issue, admittedly Google is trying to devalue links as opposed to penalize, but still the rule holds strong. Never build a link that you can't remove.

But how do you do that? I mean you don't have necessarily control over it. Well, first off, there's a difference between earnings links and building links. So if you get a link out there that you didn't do anything for, you just got it because you wrote great content, don't worry about it. But if you're actually going to actively link build, you need to follow this rule, and there are actually some interesting ways that we can go about it.

Canonical "burn" pages

The first one is the methodology that I call canonical burn pages. I'm sure that sounds a little dark. But it actually is essentially just an insurance policy on your links. The idea is don't put all of your content value and link value into the same bucket. It works like this. Let's say this article or this Whiteboard Friday goes up at the URL risk-averse-links and Moz decided to do some outreach-based link building. Well, then I might make another version, risk-averse-linkbuilding, and then in my out linking actually request that people link to that version of the page. That page will be identical, and it will have a canonical tag so that all of the link value should pass back to the original.

Now, I'm not asking you to build a thousand doorway pages or anything of that sort, but here's the reason for the separation. Let's say you reach out to one of these webmasters and they're like, "This is great," and they throw it up on a blog post, and what they don't tell you is, "Oh yeah, I've got 100 other blogs in my link farm, and I'm just going to syndicate this out." Now you've got a ton of link spam pointing to the page. Well, you don't want that pointing to your site. The chances this guy is going to go remove his link from those hundreds if not thousands of pages are very low. Well, the worst case scenario here is that you've lost this page, the link page, and you drop it and you create a new one of these burn pages and keep going.

Or what if the opposite happens? When you actually start ranking because of this great content that you've produced and you've done great link building and somebody gets upset and decides to spam the page that's ranking with a ton of links, we saw this all the time in the legal sector, which was shocking to me. You would think you would never spam a lawyer, but apparently lawyers aren't afraid of another lawyer.

But regardless, what we could do in those situations is simply get rid of the original page and leave the canonical page that has all the links. So what you've done is sort of divided your eggs into different baskets without actually losing the ranking potential. So we call these canonical burn pages.

Know thy link provider

The other thing that's just stupidly obvious is you should know thy link provider. If you are getting your links from a website that says pay $50 for so and so package and you'll get x-links from these sources on Tier 2, you're never going to be able to remove those links once you get them unless you're using something like a canonical burn page. But in those cases where you're trying to get good links, actually build a relationship where the person understands that you might need to remove this link in the future. It's going to mean you lose some links, but in the long run, it's going to protect you and your customers.

That's where the selling point becomes really strong. Imagine you're on a client call, sales call and someone comes to you and they say they want link building. They've been burned before. They know what it's like to get a penalty. They know what it's like to have somebody tell them, "I just don't know how to do it."

Well, what if you can tell them, hey, we can link build for you and we are so confident in the quality of our offering that we can promise you, guarantee that we can remove the links we build for you within 7 days, 14 days, whatever number it ends up taking your team to actually do? That kind of insurance policy that you just put on top of your product is priceless to a customer who's worried about the potential harm that links might bring.

2. You can't trade anything for a link (except user value)!

Now this leads me to number two. This is the simplest way to describe following Google's guidelines, which is you can't trade anything for a link except user value. Now, I'm going to admit something here. A lot of folks who are watching this who know me know this, but my old company years and years and years ago did a lot of link buying. At the time, I justified it because I frankly thought that was the only way to do it. We had a fantastic link builder who worked for us, and he wanted to move up in the company. We just didn't have the space for him. We said to him, "Look, it's probably better for you to just go on your own."

Within a year of leaving, he had made over a million dollars selling a site that he ranked only using white hat link building tactics because he was a master of outreach. From that day on, just everything changed. You don't have to cheat to get good links. It's just true. You have to work, but you don't have to cheat. So just do it already. There are tons of ways to justify outreach to a website to say it's worth getting a link.

So, for example, you could

·         Build some tools and reach out to websites that might want to link to those tools.
·         You can offer data or images.
·         Accessibility. Find great content out there that's inaccessible or isn't useful for individuals who might need screen readers. Just recreate the content and follow the guidelines for accessibility and reach out to everybody who links to that site. Now you've got a reason to say, "Look, it's a great web page, but unfortunately a certain percentage of the population can't use it. Why don't you offer, as well as the existing link, one to your accessible version?"
·         Broken link replacement.
·         Skyscraper content, which is where you just create fantastic content. Brian Dean over at Backlinko has a fantastic guide to that.

There are just so many ways to get good links.

Let me put it just a different way. You should be embarrassed if you cannot create content that is worth outreach. In fact, that word "embarrassment," if you are embarrassed to email someone about your content, then it means you haven't created good enough content. As an SEO, that's your responsibility. So just sit down and spend some more time thinking about this. You can do it. I've seen it happen thousands of times, and you can end up building much better links than you ever would otherwise.

3. Tool up!

The last thing I would say is tool up. Look, better metrics and better workflows come from tools. There are lots of different ways to do this.

First off, you need a good backlink tool. While, frankly, Moz wasn't doing a good job for many years, but our new Link Explorer is 29 trillion links strong and it's fantastic. There's also Fresh Web Explorer for doing mentions. So you can find websites that talk about you but don't link. You're also going to want some tools that might do more specific link prospecting, like LinkProspector.com or Ontolo or BrokenLinkBuilding.com, and then some outreach tools like Pitchbox and BuzzStream.

But once you figure out those stacks, your link building stack, you're going to be able to produce links reliably for customers. I'm going to tell you, there is nothing that will improve your street cred and your brand reputation than link building. Link building is street cred in our industry. There is nothing more powerful than saying, "Yeah, we built a couple thousand links last year for our customers," and you don't have to say, "Oh, we bought," or, "We outsourced." It's just, "We just do link building, and we're good at it."

So I guess my takeaway from all of this is that it's really not as terrible as you think it is. At the end of the day, if you can master this process of link building, your agency will be going from a dime a dozen, where there are 100 in an averaged-sized city in the United States, to being a leading provider in the country just by simply mastering link building. If you follow the first two rules and properly tool up, you're well on your way.

Sunday, May 27, 2018

Tagged under: , ,

Sample Promotional Video Advertisement by Logicgateone Corporation


Logicgateone Corp. is a local and international provider of quality website designs,online and print graphic presentations, software development, and top SEO Outsourcing Company based in Subic Bay, Philippines. Visit our website at http://logicgateone.com/

Monday, May 14, 2018

Tagged under:

How to Discover and Monitor Bad Backlinks


Identifying bad backlinks has become easier over the past few years with better tool sets, bigger link indexes, and increased knowledge, but for many in our industry it's still crudely implemented. While the ideal scenario would be to have a professional poring over your link profile and combing each link one-by-one for concerns, for many webmasters that's just too expensive (and, frankly, overkill). 

I'm going to walk through a simple methodology using Link Explorer and Excel (although you could do this with Google Sheets just as easily) to combine together the power of Moz Link Explorer, Keyword Explorer Lists, and finally Link Lists to do a comprehensive link audit. 

The basics 

There are several components involved in determining whether a link is "bad" and should potentially be removed. Ultimately, we want to be able to measure the riskiness of the link (how likely is Google to flag the link as manipulative and how much do we depend on the link for value). Let me address three common factors used by SEOs to determine this score: 

Trust metrics: 

There are a handful of metrics in our industry that are readily available to help point out concerning backlinks. The two that come to mind most often are Moz Spam Score and Majestic Trust Flow (or, better yet, the difference between Citation Flow and Trust Flow). These two scores actually work quite differently. Moz's Spam Score predicts the likelihood a domain is banned or penalized based on certain site features. Majestic Trust Flow determines the trustworthiness of a domain or page based on the quality of links pointing to it. While calculated quite differently, the goal is to help webmasters identify which sites are trustworthy and which are not. However, while these are a good starting point, they aren't sufficient on their own to give you a clear picture of whether a link is good or bad. 

Anchor text manipulation: 

One of the first things an SEO learns is that using valuable anchor text can help increase your rankings. The very next thing they learn is that using valuable anchor text can bring on a penalty. The reason for this is pretty clear: the likelihood a webmaster will give you valuable anchor text out of the goodness of their heart is very rare, so over-optimization sticks out like a sore thumb. So, how do we measure anchor text manipulation? If we look at anchor text with our own eyes, this seems to be rather intuitive, but there's a better way to do it in an automated, at-scale fashion that will allow us to better judge links. 

Low authority: 

Finally, low-authority links — especially when you would expect higher authority based on the domain — are concerning. A good link should come from an internally well-linked page on a site. If the difference between the Domain Authority and Page Authority is very high, it can be a concern. It isn't a strong signal, but it is one worth looking at. This is especially obvious in certain types of spam, like paginated comment spam or forum profile spam.