The Search Ninja

Google’s announcement that they have (along with Yahoo! and Microsoft) adopted the canonical attribute for link tags is great news for SEO’s. This special attribute is great tool for resolving duplicate content issues within a given website.In the last 24hrs.

I have seen several plugins and code snippets appear which will allow webmasters to take advantage of the canonical url attribute within various open source CMS platforms. I didn’t however see anything for use in Zen Cart that struck my fancy. Since Zen Cart is my preferred shopping cart system I decided to write a simple PHP script(let) so that my Zen Carts could take advantage of the canonical attribute.

The following code is easily implemented, and may be freely distributed and used (at your own risk of course).

The Code:

<!– Begin SE Canonical –>
<link rel=”canonical” href= <?php
$original_url = HTTP_SERVER . $_SERVER[’REQUEST_URI’];
$split_url = explode(’?', $original_url);
$no_querystring_url = $split_url[0];
echo $no_querystring_url; ?> />
<!– End SE Canonical –>

The Install

Simply copy and paste the script right after the closing title tag (</title>) of your html_header.php file (located in your Common folder of your custom template folder in your Zen Cart installation).

BAM!!!! Don’t say the Ninja never did anything for ya.

A primary obstacle faced by search engines is poorly formed searches. Poorly formed queries fall under the auspices of the
Three I’s; which describe (problematic) features of a query that will hinder any search engine. They are:

Imprecision
Incompleteness
Inaccuracy

Imprecise queries are inexact or ill-defined searches in that they do not effectively describe the specificity of an informational need.

For example let’s say that I had to find an annotated diagram of the supramarginal scutes of the Chelydra serpentina osceola; and I approached this by searching Google Images for “Turtle Shells”. The search results returned would be imprecise (in regards to my informational need). Therefore imprecise queries will return results that are technically correct, however their lack of granularity makes them useless.

Incomplete queries are lacking key terms that describe the informational need. This is easy to confuse with Imprecision, however it is very much its own unique devil.
Returning to our turtle example: If I needed to find a good synopsis about turtle shells; their structure, general appearance, sizes common to major species, etc. and I approached this by going to Wikipedia, ha ha… just kidding I would never go to Wikipedia if I needed reliable information. So I go to Google or possibly Google Scholar and type in “Shells”. Here the topical-realm of shells is so vast and diverse that it does nothing to represent an informational need for turtle shells.

Inaccurate queries lack contextual elements of word sense that are essential to proper classification and association with relevant documents. Polysemes and homonyms are a significant obstacle in information retrieval and word sense disambiguation (WSD) represents a large piece of the IR/WebIR puzzle.

Help the search engines (and yourself) out a little! If you want to do a little fly-fishing and need to find a listing of prime spots to cast your line; DON’T search for “Local Banks” (bank could be a financial institution, a stockpile; such as a blood bank or yes even a shoreline as in river bank).

There seems to be quite a buzz about Google’s now “official” policy which bans reciprocal linking.
The policy has not been well received by SEO’s and Webmasters alike.
A campaign has even been suggested which recommends adding the rel=”nofollow” attribute to any hyper-links that point to Google properties.

Additional suggestions include using the phrase “Web Apartheid” in any content which discusses Google.

Personally I think this is a case of (well-intentioned) bullying on Google’s part.
That is I believe Google’s motives are not “evil”, in as much as they are trying to clean up the quality of the Internet Link Graph.
I believe that they are operating under the assumption that “Google knows Best” and are instituting a policy that they believe is for the greater good of the web (despite the kicking and screaming of the SEO community who have reacted as if they were given a sound ‘over the knee’ paddling by Google).

This of course does not make the decision necessarily “right” if such an evaluation can even be made, as the bottom line is that Google is simply a service and has no “official” obligation to appease the web at large.

One could also argue that reciprocal linking (as is practiced by the SEO community at large) serves no purpose other than to manipulate rankings (and offers no real value to visitors).

There does (or should) exist however a certain responsibility to not abuse the awesome power that the search giant wields. Handing down decisions such as this and operating under the “Father Knows Best” policy just may be an abuse of that power, at least in principle.

Personally this does not affect my work at all and is therefore a non-issue in my eyes.

If however the new Google policy affects you or your clients please do the following:

• Click here to download your PDF Dunce Cap.
• Print the PDF and follow the instructions for building your Dunce Cap.
• Go home and stand in a corner.
• Place Dunce Cap on your head.

You should be ashamed of yourself: You have done your clients a disservice and mis-represented yourself.

If you are relying on reciprocal links for SEO, then you are not an SEO.

I’ll apologize in advance for beating this horse which is very much dead and gone, however:
After reading some highly visible misinformation about PageRank recently I would like to offer a few points of clarification on the Larry Page brainchild:

For more info read: Google PageRank and Related Technologies (PDF)

If todays top SEO’s really are doing well for their clients, they don’t have a clue why.

read more | digg story

In a bold and festive (April Fools) gesture, the Dark SEO Team appears to have hacked Matt Cutts blog. You can click the image below for a full screenshot that I took just minutes ago.

A cool little ajax tool that furnishes quick stats about your site’s popularity according to various sources.

read more | digg story

With the release of Stoney’s Destination Marketing piece I started to think about some of the SEO jargon that gets invented and proliferated throughout the search marketing community. Some of the SEO speak you hear is slick and clever; rolling off the tongue and snapping like a whip at anyone within earshot.

PPC, SERPS, ROI

There are also some not-so-crack-o-the-whip terms that have been concocted by SEO’s as well. We don’t need to rehash them here or pick on anybody, but I’m sure we can think of a few that fit this category.

Here I’m going to detail some of the SEO Jargon & Acronyms that I myself am quick to use; be they creations of my own or of my local colleagues who are, with myself, the co-rulers of SEO here in Reno (Bow Down Sucka!).

• Term: Destination Marketing
• Description: Destination Marketing is the product of a family of philosophies on search marketing that reflects the way we do SEM for our clients at Pole Position. It is based around the simple yet profound idea that websites should be built up as true Internet destinations; offering unique value within their niche and thereby securing loyalty, reputation and success.
• Credits: Stoney deGeyter

• Acronym: AXP
• Definition: Access Probability: A family of technologies that I developed to serve as accurate performance metrics for search marketing campaigns.
• Credits: Jason Green

• Acronym: KRP
• Definition: Keyword Ranking Performance: PPM’s embodiment of the AXP core formula.
• Credits: Stoney deGeyter

• Term:The Little Death
• Description: Non-indexing or temporary index drop caused by a temporary server outage or other “act of god” that prevents a web robot from finding your site or causes a web robot to ignore your site. “Now Ya See It… Now Ya Don’t”
• Credits: Jason Green

• Acronym: S.I.R.E.
• Definition: Search Index Reverse Engineering: The name of an ongoing project which began in 2004 that seeks to understand primary search engine mechanics through innovative re-engineering techniques.
• Credits: Jason Green

• Term: SEOnce (see-on-s)
• Description: A combination of “SEO” and “Science”. This term is used to describe some of the more questionable research techniques and resulting conclusions crafted by some SEO’s who are very much unqualified to do so. Search engine psuedo-science. Alternative use: “SEOntific”
• Credits: Jason Green

• Acronym: SEO2g
• Definition: 2nd Generation Search Engine Optimization: The theory and practice of an evolved SEO methodology which is based upon a solid understanding of web IR resulting from valid research.
• Credits: Jason Green

• Term: Inquirio Magnus
• Description: A nick-name that I half-jokingly like to flatter myself with from time to time. It means “The Great One of Search”.
• Credits: Jason Green

• Term: SEOBoss
• Description: Stoney’s new nick-name which is boldly written on the vanity plates for his 69′ Charger
• Credits: Stoney deGeyter

There are many more, but I’m tired of typing and so that will have to do.

I saw the boss briefly today and got a little bit of info about the SEMpdx SearchFest at which he presented on keyword research. According to the already emerging coverage of the event, Stoney’s presentation stood out to the attendees and is being met with praise. I would like to congratulate him on nailing what I already knew would be an excellent presentation.

This one’s interesting: The Salamander’s tongue actually acts with a speed that is greater than can be explained by muscular action alone.

read more | digg story