Handsome Logic

After purchasing RoomDiffuser.com and parking it, I decided to explore some affiliate storefront scripts to measure the performance of some Commission Junction merchants over regular domain parking. Kirsty suggested I try AffiliStore, which generates a full site using a datafeed from any number of affiliate networks.  You can also simply generate your own CSV and use that as the feed.

AffiliStore is free, though you have to pay to remove the link to Position Gold Ltd. that appears in the footer of your site by default. Apparently, they worked out a deal with AffiliStore to place this link with the anchor text “Search Engine Optimisation” on the free installs of the script. However, Position Gold Ltd. isn’t in the first 100 results on Google for this phrase. Not surprising, since it’s pretty much the same as sponsoring a WordPress theme with spammy anchor text.

The script was easy to use and the tables were easy to modify. By default, URLs are dynamic and ugly. But, there are some easy checkboxes and fields within the admin to generate search engine friendly URLs (eg: reed diffusers) and modify page titles. Also built in are an XML Sitemap generator and reciprocal link directory (which you can turn on or off).

AffiliStore’s website doesn’t offer any additional skins and the demo sites linked to haven’t done much to modify the design. Anyone with working knowledge of CSS should be able to modify the template files, though. Even if you don’t know CSS, some simple changes to the image files can spruce up the design a bit.

An easy way to search for sites using the AffiliStore script is to simply search Google for the text that Position Gold Ltd. placed in the footer of each free installation. There’s also a support forum on AffiliStore.com where members often post their own sites.

The script makes good (not great) use of heading tags, but the code is bulkier than is necessary in some parts.  By far the biggest pain in using this script was preparing the datafeed, which I blame more on CJ than AffiliStore. Once the feed was thinned out and formatted properly, AffiliStore took it like a champ.

As for editing the design, if you’ve clicked the link to the store I set up then you already know I haven’t taken it too far. Frankly, it’s ugly as sin. More than anything I was testing the script for possible use for larger future projects.

As a quick fix, AffiliStore works great. But for longer-term sites, there’s still no substitute for a custom job.

Google has come under fire on more than one occasion for providing non-nofollow links to partners, despite their own crusade against paid links. Most notably, a post on the Google Checkout Blog highlighted Google Checkout merchant GolfBalls.com with a direct link to their website using valuable anchor text:

Google was taken to task over this by Michael Gray, Aaron Wall and others.

Why?

Google acknowledges that purchasing links as an advertising strategy is a natural part of web economics. According to Google, any sponsored links should be identified through the use of the rel=”nofollow” tag to remove the link’s ability to pass authority.

The controversy stems from the fact that they often provide links to Google Checkout merchants, Google Analytics users, and other partners without using the rel=”nofollow” tag. Hypocrisy to be sure.

But do Google’s own outbound links actually pass authority?

In looking through Google’s official blogs and their outbound links, I came up with a few theories and examples which suggest they do NOT…

Theory #1: Google Checkout’s “Places to Shop” links do not pass authority

Google Checkout maintains a Places to Shop page that serves as a directory of their merchants. The image links at the top of the page are just regular HTML, but all text links are javascript pulled from a Google Spreadsheets document:

<script type=”text/javascript” charset=”utf-8″>
document.getElementById(’stores’).innerHTML = ‘<p style=”color: #666;”><b>Loading the list of Google Checkout stores…</b></p>’;
</script>
<script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://spreadsheets.google.com/feeds/list/o13419680420574654320.
1842429693010805565/od6/public/basic?alt=json-in-script&callback=
listMerchants”></script>
<script type=”text/javascript” charset=”utf-8″>
if (document.getElementById(’message’)) document.getElementById(’message’).innerHTML = ‘The store list is currently being updated. Please check back in a few minutes.’;
</script>

These links could have been published just as easily without using Javascript. Most of these links are either the name or domain name of the site, but using the ones that are not, we can see that these links are passing no value (if even being crawled at all).

Example 1: The link for “CSN Stores” goes to http://www.luggage.com/asp/partners.asp, but a Google search for “CSN Stores” does not return that luggage.com page anywhere in the first 100 results.

Example 2: The link for “Mystic Sales” points to http://www.skinmystique.com/ but again, a Google search for the phrase “Mystic Sales” does not return SkinMystique.com in the first 100 results.

Both of these pages are indexed, and neither of these are competitive search terms. Does it many any sense that an inbound link from a PR8 page wouldn’t even put these two sites on the map for these terms? Not unless no juice is flowing or the links aren’t being crawled at all.

This suggests that Google has deliberately removed their own page’s ability to pass link value by using Javascript for these links.

This raises the question on whether or not the outbound links on the Google Checkout Success Stories page are passing value. Since they all use either the company name or the site’s domain as the anchor text, it’s anybody’s guess.

Theory #2: Golfballs.com’s link is weak or discounted

The link on the Google Checkout blog to Golfballs.com uses the anchor text “Titleist Pro V1 Golf Balls” to link to an interior product page. However, this page ranks LOWER in Google for that exact phrase than any of the other 11 “Pro Shop Featured Product” detail pages on Golfballs.com

Of all 12 product detail pages linked to from their “Pro Shop Featured Products” page, the one receiving a direct link from a PR6 page on Google’s own PR7 blog ranks the LOWEST. They’re barely outranking findarticles.com.

Does THAT make any sense? Not unless no link juice is flowing.

Theory #3: The Google Checkout blog passes link value only to Google sites

Outbound links on the Google Checkout blog (and probably other official Google blogs) to other Google pages DO pass value.

Example 1: Last month, a post on the Google Checkout blog used the anchor text “holiday page” to link to http://www.google.com/checkout/promotions/donations.html

That page now ranks #3 for a search on “holiday page”. With almost no content, and the word “holiday” only mentioned 3 times total, the page ranks #3 out of over 41 million results.

Now because the blog’s content gets republished, there ARE a few other sites out there linking to this page with that anchor text. None nearly as powerful as the original link though.

Example 2: In a post from October, the Google Checkout blog uses the anchor text “summer promo” to link out to http://www.google.co.uk/checkout/promotions.html

That page also ranks #3 for a search on “summer promo“. Not a hugely competitive term, but the page that is ranking doesn’t say “summer” or “promo” anywhere on it, and is actually a page about Christmas shopping.

Some other searches that return Google pages inflated by the anchor text of links from Google blogs include…

-”data feed of products” #2 out of over 7 million results

-”recent survey” #6 out of over 18 million results

Why not take credit?

If Google is now (or has always been) discounting the value of their own outbound links without the use of rel=”nofollow”, why would they not take credit for it?

1. Using a rel=”nofollow” tag to link out to one of their own customers/partners would indicate that either A.) Google is not comfortable vouching for their own merchant partners, or B.) these partners actually purchased a link from Google.

2. Swiss army cat skinner (oh I can’t wait to rank for that). What’s that mean? Well, since Google makes the rules, they have plenty of ways to abide by them.

Some of these, like manually discounting their own outbound links without use of nofollow tags, are not available to webmasters. In other instances, like in the link to eMarketer found on the Inside Adwords blog, Google simply filters the link through their own url redirector (http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.anysite.com).

3. Lastly, to suddenly add rel=”nofollow” tags to these links could easily be seen as Google buckling under the weight of critical industry bloggers. This is probably the least significant reason, though no less valid. Google can not afford to admit fault, especially to people who vehemently oppose their own paid link policies.

Conclusion

Of course these are only theories, and do not prove that Google’s official blogs do not pass outbound link value to non-Google pages. The fact that Google Checkout’s “Places to Shop” page doesn’t pass juice to the majority of its outbound links is easily explained by their use of Javascript.

The question is, why did they use Javascript for the text links? Why didn’t they use HTML for the whole page? Why didn’t they use Javascript for the whole page?

Why is their most publicized “sold” link to Golfballs.com barely getting that page into the top 10 SERPs, while nearly irrelevant Google pages soar to top spots for anchor text used on Official Google blogs?

Curious indeed.

In a recent post, I outlined the basics of how to use reviews to leapfrog your competitors on Live.com. I also promised a post with some details on the network of trusted review sites that Live.com pulls from and how it ranks their trustworthiness.

Live.com does not publish their own reviews, but instead pulls snippets and star ratings from other review sites. Some of these sites are user-generated reviews, some are editorial reviews, some are both. Some will allow anonymous reviews and some will not.

Most importantly, the star ratings only transfer and count towards your review rating on Live.com for some of the sites.

These are the sites, as far as Live.com is concerned, where your site should be listed and reviewed.

Live.com pulls its review content from the following sites:

1. Citysearch.com
2. Yelp.com
3. Judysbook.com
4. Dine.com
5. Menupages.com
6. Frommer’s

Now, you can take that list and go ask everyone you know to start posting reviews on your behalf, but if you choose not to read the guide below you’ll be wasting a lot of time.

The sites in this list which allow anonymous reviews are, predictably, not trusted by Live.com. Therefore, the number of stars given to a business on these untrusted sites do not transfer to Live.com’s reviews pages — only a snippet of the review transfers. For whatever reason, star ratings from Frommers also do not transfer. The good news is that reviews from untrusted sites are not figured into the average star rating of a business.

Translation: If your business has three 5-star reviews from Live.com trusted sites and ten from untrusted sites where the stars don’t transfer, your rating average is calculated using only the three reviews from trusted sites.

1. Citysearch.com

Review Type: User & Editorial

Anonymous Reviews: No

Trusted Site: YES

Citysearch is a division of media monster IAC. They purchased local reviews startup Insider Pages back in March to use their reviews to compliment Citysearch’s offerings. It’s important to note, however, that posting a review on Insider Pages does not mean it will appear on Citysearch. Live.com does not draw from Insider Pages, so if getting reviews on Live.com is your goal, stick to Citysearch.

2. Yelp.com

Review Type: User Only

Anonymous Reviews: No

Trusted Site: YES

Yelp.com is one of the latest Web 2.0 darlings of local business reviews. Accounts and listings are free and stars given in reviews transfer their weight over to Live.com. Yelp has been a curse for some businesses though, who have found that the Yelp crowd is more prone to nit-picking and negativity than glowing endorsements. Remember that you and your SEO consultant are not the only people who are going to be posting reviews of your business on these sites.

3. Judy’s Book

Review Type: User Only

Anonymous Reviews: No

Trusted Site: YES

Judysbook.com has the lowest traffic of the sites in Live.com’s trusted reviews network, but this doesn’t make their reviews any less valuable. The site is not nearly as robust as Yelp.com or Citysearch, but their star ratings do transfer over to Live.com and are not as frequently utilized as their higher-trafficked competitors.

4. Dine.com

Review Type: User Only

Anonymous Reviews: Yes

Trusted Site: NO

Dine.com is a restaurant and eatery review site whose content is used by Live.com in the form of review snippets. The star ratings do not transfer, and therefore do not count towards the overall rating of a business on Live.com. Positive reviews, however, are still valuable both to Live.com searchers who read the snippets and to Dine.com visitors who read the full reviews.

5. MenuPages

Review Type: User Only

Anonymous Reviews:Yes

Trusted Site: NO

MenuPages is another restaurant review site and only accepts / publishes reviews of businesses in New York City. Due to their policy of allowing anonymous reviews, snippets transfer to Live.com but star ratings do not.

6. Frommers

Review Type: Editorial Only

Anonymous Reviews: No

Trusted Site: NO

Frommer’s is a well-known travel guide along the lines of Fodors and Lonely Planet. Their website publishes editorial reviews of local attractions for travelers, but star ratings do not transfer to Live.com. Not an issue, really, unless your spouse happens to work at Wiley Publishing or you manage to bribe an editor.

As you can probably imagine, restaurants and other dining establishments are the most commonly-reviewed business type. This has no bearing, however, on what local searchers will be looking for when using Live.com maps. Think about how many types of businesses you’ve asked for a referral to in the last year… Salons? Plumbers? Auto repair?

If you’ve made it this far down the post, I’d like to hear your opinion:

Do you think the added trust generated by the openness of local business review sites makes it worth the risk of negative reviews (from customers or devious competitors)?

Does the value of this added trust (as opposed to on-site testimonials controlled by the business owner) outweigh the risk?

This is going to be a relatively short post because I’m not in a position right now to start taking screenshots and I don’t think they’re neccessary.

Many moons ago, the web interface for Google AdWords had a Copy/Move utility under “Tools”. Using this tool, you could copy and move keywords and ads from one location in your account to another without erasing their performance history on Google’s end.

The tool was removed from the web, but the same can be done using AdWords Editor.

To copy keywords or ads, it’s simply a matter of copying and pasting (Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V) them in AdWords Editor. Moving them (and erasing them from their original location in the process) just involves cutting and pasting (Ctrl + X).  When finished, just post the changes.

Also, it’s worth noting that you can change the match type of a keyword in AdWords Editor without creating a new keyword, and thus retaining the history of the original keyword.

No drawn-out post, just a collection of tidbits picked up my my conversations with the AdWords Editor team (yes, this as all from their mouths).

Google’s local search and map listings have been getting a lot of attention from Search Engine Roundtable, Mike Blumenthal and Smaxor’s blog (as featured in my 11 Blackhat Blogs You Can’t Afford Not to Read). In addition to pointing out an gaping vulnerability, this coverage also shows the appeal and value of local search listings.

But it’s important to remember, especially in local search, that there is life beyond Google.

What makes Live.com’s maps tick?

Live.com’s map search results are powered by Microsoft Virtual Earth, which is the steroid-freak cousin of Microsoft MapPoint. MapPoint was a very popular solution for websites needing location-based search functionality with accompanying dynamic maps. As with many Microsoft products, the introduction of more robust, less expensive alternatives chewed away a significant amount of MapPoint’s market share.

The way MapPoint ranks search results is by their distance from the user-defined home location. In the event that the home location is not an address, MapPoint finds the center and measures from there.

Center of what?

Think of every person who goes to a search engine and types in “My City, ST pizza”. That’s not a complete address, is it?

Let’s take, for example, my old home of Clifton, NJ. In MapPoint, a pushpin is inserted in what MapPoint considers to be the center of Clifton and measurements are made from there.

See the little blue pushpin?

Keep in mind that measurements do not take into account navigation of streets and highways or topography. Six miles is six miles whether it’s over a freeway or across Mt. Everest.

Similarly, Microsoft Virtual Earth (which powers Live.com maps) uses the same method to identify the center of an area and measure outwards. Here is the center of Clifton, NJ according to Virtual Earth:

Maybe a little tough to see since the streets aren’t as clearly labeled in the first screenshot, but you can still tell that both maps have identified the same center for Clifton.

So the question that presents itself if this:

What is a pizzeria owner to do if they are not the closest to this point in the map?

Move the shop? Annex more of the bordering city? Bribes?

Nay.

If you look closely at that last image, you can clearly see that the marker for result #5 is actually closer to Virtual Earth’s center of Clifton than result #4.

Sure enough, when looking at the listings next to the map, the miles show the same phenomenon:

Looking at this screenshot, we can see that Chris’s Pizza (is that apostrophe in the right place?) is actually closer to “Clifton” than Mario’s Restaurant & Pizzeria.

What we can also see, is that Mario’s has 4 reviews associated with their listing. Chris’s’s’s has none. And that is how the leapfrog is done.

Within a certain distance range, which I’d imagine varies on the total area included in your search and the distances separating the results, reviews that Live.com has associated with your listing will not only bridge the distance gap, but allow you to overtake listings that (according to VE) are actually closer to the home point.

Which review sites feed into Live.com vary by the type of business, but if you’ve got 5 minutes and a computer, there’s nothing stopping you from finding which sites Live.com considers authoritative review sites for your business. Simply click on the reviews for other businesses that already appear for searches you’re interested in and see where these reviews are coming from.

Make damn sure that the address of your business is the same across all of these local sites. May be a problem for… say… property managers, if all of the units in your complex have unique street addresses.

From what I’ve seen, the number of steps listed in driving directions (you know, turns and stuff) do not play a part in ranking your listing. This of course goes right back to what I was saying about 6 miles being 6 miles across a map, regardless of terrain or street navigation.

Most of the leapfrogging I’ve witnessed has been over distances of less than a mile. However, I live in New Jersey where everything is built on top of everything else and a 5 minute drive to the highway means you live in the sticks.

I will tell you this, though:

Quantity and quality both matter. I’ve seen search results on Live.com where a business over a mile closer to the center of a search area was leapfrogged by a greater-distance competitor over half a star.

Yup. Both had the exact name number of reviews, but that half-star difference in the 5-star review system was enough to leapfrog a competitor that was over a mile closer.

Now that Microsoft is aggressively pushing their mobile maps, local search marketers need to get busy collecting compliments. Frankly if you haven’t been collecting them already, you’re going to be holding onto the poles in the local search marketing bus.

Coming Soon: Live.com’s Trusted Review Network