+ The pulse of the search marketing community

Greg Sterling over at Search Engine Land posts a startling (but not surprising) report that internet ad spend will surpass traditional media ad spend by 2011.

Driven by audience migration, the US Internet is anticipated to capture $61.98 billion and become the top ad medium in 2011. Traditional media will show slow, low single-digit growth while alternative media will grow at a compound annual rate of 17.4 percent during the forecast period.

WebmasterWorld members don't find it surprising either. In fact, it can be often viewed as the desire for newspapers not to conform.

The leading online newspaper consultant screamed at his clients to get into the retail and business directory biz online. They just sat there. Yellow Pages and Google took it over.

Scary thought but quite true.

The Internet is taking a chunk of advertising. Media is evolving. To stay in the game, newspapers will have to get up to speed and bring their services online.

Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

A WebmasterWorld thread asks if the incoming links in Google Webmaster Tools list the nofollowed links.

Yes. All links show up in Google Webmaster Tools, but Google Webmaster Tools does not make any distinctions between incoming links that pass link popularity and incoming links that don't.

The links in GWT are a much fuller list than the results returned from the link: operator, but Google never said that the GWT link list is 100% complete, and it isn't. Neither does that list filter out links that are not passing PR - whether that's because of rel="nofollow" or because of an decision Google made.

So it looks like the guy has to analyze every link himself.

So the best would be just to get the list of links and parse pages and see which have / do not have nofollow.

By the way, Joost de Valk has written a pretty cool Greasemonkey Google Webmaster Tools Script to give you more information about those links.

Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

What happens if you have two identical sites with thousands of duplicate pages (18,000, to be more exact) indexed on both domains by search engines? Should you combine the pages so that there's no penalty for duplicate content?

This is the question at Cre8asite Forums. One of the sites is a PR7 .com and the other is a PR6 .gov.

There's a mixture of responses for this one. Some people say that it's okay to 301 redirect all pages from the site that gets less traffic to the site that gets more traffic. Consequently, the traffic will double and the keywords will be ranked better.

But others say that you shouldn't do a thing. However, in the event that you do get penalized for duplicate content, you should have a backup plan.

What would you do? Would you 301 redirect the pages or would you casually wait until your rankings plummet?

Forum discussion at Cre8asite Forums.

Tedster, administer over at WebmasterWorld, started a WebmasterWorld thread with a proposal to remove PageRank from the toolbar.

As he explains, the PageRank score in the toolbar is an out-of-date metric that is often misconstrued by SEOs and webmasters.

Tedster said:

Enough is enough. Can't the folks in Mountain View see that this situation is nowhere near honorable or "entertaining"? Since it seems that up-to-date and accurate PageRank reporting is an extremely unlikely step for Google to take, I think the time has come for them to stop reporting ANY green fairy dust at all. Keep it as part of the secret sauce, sure, but stop teasing the public at large with funny numbers.

As I see it, PR (PageRank) = PR (Public Relations), and that's the main reason that Google keeps Toolbar PR report around. Branding. Image. Mindshare.

We have seen several PageRank scams and even sometimes buggy data, while people still anxiously await PageRank update. But we also know, PR is not the final answer when it comes to "buying links." We know that many top notch SEOs want Toolbar PageRank to go away. We once lost all PageRank data in May 28, 2005, which turned out to be an export bug - which was resolved in about 24 hours.

Of course, when talking about PageRank, we should reference Danny's What Is Google PageRank? A Guide For Searchers & Webmasters.

Now, with all that said, what do you think? Should toolbar PageRank be gone? Will that hurt Google's PR (public relations) campaigns? I bet there are cat fights in Google about this topic. It is a tough decision but ultimately, I feel PageRank should be removed from the toolbar.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

If you notice dashes in the place of the numbers in your adCenter statistics reports, then no need to worry.

In a WebmasterWorld thread, adCenterEU explained that the dashes represent that there was a timeout failure between the reporting and the database.

All you need to do is refresh the page and hopefully those pesky little dashes will be replaced by real numbers.

adCenterEU said:

If that's in the interface then refresh your page a couple of times.

Sometimes, for what ever reason, there may be a break in the connection to the DB so instead of a timeout message you'll see some dashes.

Try refreshing the page and let me know...

Forum discussion WebmasterWorld.

Google has updated Google Webmaster Tools with a link update over the weekend. Google typically does these updates monthly, around this time. There are additional reports of PageRank updates and ranking changes.

There is currently discussion at DigitalPoint Forums and WebmasterWorld.

Here is a look at our top pages, by links reported via Google Webmaster Tools:

For the past updates see:

• July 2007 Google Linkage Data
• June 2007 Google Linkage Data
• April 2007 Google Linkage Data
• March 2007 Google Linkage Data
• February 2007 Google Linkage Data

Forum discussion at DigitalPoint Forums and WebmasterWorld & Search Engine Roundtable Forums.

While doing a website evaluation for a client who hosts his website on Microsoft IIS, Ogletree noticed that Google was indexing a bunch of URLs that did not seem legitimate. These URLs were in the form of adding parenthesis between two slashes, like so:

http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/(I(id=1546973))/Default.aspx

It will take you to the same page as http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/Default.aspx.

Upon further investigation, ogletree found that if you use IIS and the .NET 2.0 framework, this will occur. A default IIS installation will not experience these strange side effects.

The problem with this is a threat to duplicate content, a concern that plagues many webmasters. As ogletree puts it, "You can also link to these new URL's and even submit them to a bunch of directories. It would create as many copies of the same pages as you like."

pageoneresults, WebmasterWorld moderator, says that there are other problems with IIS too. For example, since IIS filenames are not case sensitive, you can "wreak total havoc on someone's IIS hosted site." A scary thought indeed.

Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

Discovery ponders an interesting question at the Search Engine Watch Forums. Apparently, Google AdWords reports are not accurate due to how they itemize the data. He is seeing more reports like this:

123 Other unique queries. 69 Other unique queries. As a matter of fact the "other unique queries" line item represents nearly 70% of the reported traffic. The report is no longer effective.

Similarly, the Google ad placement report is losing its credibility:

Now we have "other", "Domain Ad" and "Error" line items. Once again, these summary line items which provide no information you can act upon, have slowly increased to represent almost 40% of the reported clicks/traffic.

This is a sentiment echoed by other users as well. AussieWebmaster, for example, puts it bluntly: "most tools seem to become less useful once bought by a search engine."

But Mel66 says that she still is dependent upon it even though it takes a lot of time.

That said, I still find Google's reports useful beyond what I get from analytics. I suppose it depends on which analytics package you use, but I find I can more easily run granular/detailed reports within Adwords than I can from analytics. However, this is time-consuming, as you mention.

I'm all for making it less time consuming.

Forum discussion continues at Search Engine Watch Forums.

A Google AdWords advertiser asks in Google Groups if there is an easy way to locate his ad. He says that he located his ad on the 55th page of ads, and that required him to press "Next" 54 times. Is there an easier way?

AdWordsPro says that advertisers should not manually hunt for their ads, but rather that they should look at their campaign statistics.

I would suggest relying on your account statistics, rather than continually searching for your ad. When you look at the statistics for your keywords in the ad group view, you will see a column for Avg Pos, or Average Position. This is a factual and accurate accounting of the average of all your ad's actual positions, for all it's appearances, per keyword, during the date range at which you are looking.

The other option is to use the ad preview page where advertisers can view their ad along with competitors' ads without accruing any impressions.

But member Emmanuel makes a good point as well. Why is he on the 55th page? That's extremely far off. Are the keywords too broad?

If your ad is at the 55th page, you're either selling a VERY common product, or advertising on too broad keywords.

Forum discussion at Google Groups.

In order to expand upon the business data within Google Maps, Google is seeking Business Referral Representatives, where Google will pay contributors to the program.

From the FAQ, there are important considerations. This offer is only available to US residents, 18 years of age or older. You must be able to complete an IRS Form W-9. Also, you should have a computer and a digital camera.

Each referral can earn contributors up to $10 ($2 for the approval + $8 for a business owner's verification). You will receive a monthly check if you earn $25 or more.

Ironically, due to previous questions on forums, Google has also clarified that you are not a Googler if you participate in this program.

Google Business Referral Representatives are independent contractors to Google, not employees. As a contractor, you'll be paid according to the terms of the program, but won't receive employment benefits such as health insurance or paid vacation.

Well, at least that's settled. :)

Forum discussion at DigitalPoint Forums.

Has anyone created any campaigns in MSN adCenter but all keywords and ads are still "pending?" That's what happened to one guy at WebmasterWorld. According to him, the "editorial review [appears to be] grinding to a halt."

adCenterEU confirms his suspicions. There is an increased volume of campaigns lately and the editorial staff is overwhelmed with the requests, it seems.

We are experiencing a large number of submissions currently and the team is working hard to ensure we get everything processed as quickly as possible.

I'll let you know when we're back to normal.

This is good for MSN, I guess, but it's not so good for the advertisers who have to wait. It is nice to see Microsoft getting so many requests, but it is sad that they cannot support an increased volume of requests. This means advertisers have to wait while their ads are being approved which may encourage them to spend more time with Google and Yahoo.

Forum discussion continues at WebmasterWorld.

Mike Blumenthal has been vigilant about uncovering and reporting abuse of Google Maps's Local business submissions. In fact, in the past week or so, he has reported a couple of cases of Google Local abuse, where companies submitted hundreds or even thousands of listings for their businesses even without having the required physical presence in that location.

Greg Sterling at Search Engine Land has a good summary of Mike's findings with Bulk Upload 'Mapspam' On Google.

Mike has been heard, and Jen from the Google Maps team responded to his concerns saying more tools are on their way.

It appears Google Maps is creating a spam fighting tool:

We're actually working on a solution right now that isn't just relying on the vigilance of folks such as yourself. To make the bulk upload / Local Business Center world better for everyone, I can't really tell you anything about what we're doing to keep these spammy listings from entering the Maps index.

That is all the information I have on this tool, I suspect we will learn more as we get closer to the release.

Jen adds that they currently do not have an easy form to use to report Google Maps spam. But the reason behind that is because "there haven't been enough reports to warrant one," she said. But if and when the reports increase in the forums, Jen promised to add an easier way to report Google Maps spam.

Forum discussion at Google Groups.

In February of this year I reported, Google Steps Up Web Page Malware Notifications at Search Engine Land, covering a Google Webmaster Central post that Google will be now emailing webmasters if they find their site is infected with malware.

Since then, I have never seen an actual report of a webmaster being emailed. That changed today. A DigitalPoint Forums thread has a webmaster who has said he received this email. Here is a copy of the email he received from "Google Search Quality [noreply@google.com]":

Dear site owner or webmaster of xxxxxxxxx.com,

We recently discovered that some of your pages can cause users to be infected with malicious software. We have begun showing a warning page to users who visit these pages by clicking a search result on Google.com. Below are some example URLs on your site which can cause users to be infected (space inserted to prevent accidental clicking in case your mail client auto-links URLs):

http://www.xxxxxxxxx .com/pm/xxxxx
http://www.xxxxxxxxx .com/index.php
http://www.xxxxxxxxx .com/info/xxxx

Here is a link to a sample warning page: http://www.google.com/interstitial?u...x.com/pm/xxxxx

We strongly encourage you to investigate this immediately to protect your visitors. Although some sites intentionally distribute malicious software, in many cases the webmaster is unaware because:

1) the site was compromised
2) the site doesn't monitor for malicious user-contributed content
3) the site displays content from an ad network that has a malicious advertiser

If your site was compromised, it's important to not only remove the malicious (and usually hidden) content from your pages, but to also identify and fix the vulnerability. We suggest contacting your hosting provider if you are unsure of how to proceed. StopBadware also has a resource page for securing compromised sites: http://www.stopbadware.org/home/security

Once you've secured your site, you can request that the warning be removed by visiting http://www.stopbadware.org/home/review and requesting a review. StopBadware and Google will jointly investigate and reply to you with our findings. If your site is no longer harmful to users, we will remove the warning.

Sincerely,
Google Search Quality Team

Yes, we have seen these warnings come up as searchers but never as a webmaster. This is a very nice added service from Google. Hopefully, it won't be abused.

Forum discussion at DigitalPoint Forums.

A DigitalPoint Forums thread asks if Google counts the links from YouTube videos.

The simple answer is no. If you look at a YouTube video that has a link in the description field, you will notice that in the code is a rel="nofollow". That means, Google and other engines will not count the link popularity from that specific link.

For example, take a look at my iPhone Popcorn Trick and view source and find "cartoonbarry.com," you should see the nofollow attribute applied here.

In addition, on my YouTube channel page you should see all links pointing to my sites are automatically 'nofollowed.'

So why add a link from these pages to your site? Well, if your video is viewed, why not leverage that traffic for your main site?

I am personally excited for Flickr to host videos, not necessarily for the link but to have all my multimedia in one organized location.

Forum discussion at DigitalPoint Forums.

MSI in a Search Engine Watch Forums thread said that he was given a report named Subphrase Matching Account Detail (SAGE) by one of his new Yahoo Search Marketing representatives.

The report, to his surprise, contained "all the words (and more) that must have generated the assists." The report can only be run by an account rep at Yahoo over a "specific time period." It will contain every single "raw search term the account took impressions on."

MSI added:

Now this report tells you all the terms, how many impressions they took, and how many clicks they took, but no conversion info (which would identify the Assists). However it does contain enough info that you can make an intelligent decision about which keywords might be beneficial to bid on directly. I am currently testing a group of keywords I got off this report.

What is so great about this secretive report? MSI explains that this is the only report that gives you a clue about what keywords generated what "assists" in the Yahoo program. But ultimately, search marketers want a report that does tell them these details straight out.

Forum discussion at Search Engine Watch Forums.