A Beginner’s Guide to Google Suggest For Marketers and SEO

Google Suggest is the name of Google’s auto-complete function. If a user enters a letter or a word in Google’s search field, they are automatically shown associated terms in a dropdown menu. These suggestions are generated based on the most frequently searched terms. If a user enters the word “car”, for example, associated terms like “carmax,” “cartoon network”, “cars” and “car credit” are suggested.

This function helps users save time and may also provide them with additional information about the topic they are researching. Google Suggest is not only a useful function from a usability perspective, but it’s also essential for businesses and figures of public interest.

There are several potential risks and opportunities associated with Google Suggest, both from a marketer and a user standpoint.

How Did Google Suggest Emerge?

Pretty much everyone who searches online comes into contact with Google’s autocomplete algorithm. The feature has been around for 5 years and is mostly taken for granted nowadays. Most people, among them – unbelievably – search engine optimizers, neglect the following questions:

• How can I use Google suggest to my advantage?
• How could it potentially be harmful to my client?

Before we answer these questions, first lets explore how the Google Suggest function works.

Basically Google’s auto suggest function aims to improve the usability of its search engine. Suggestions help the searcher save time entering long phrases like “Samsung Galaxy S4”. Thanks to Google Suggest, that term can be chosen after “Sams” is entered.

Another helpful aspect of the auto complete function is the checking of search terms for spelling mistakes. If the user enters “hairdesser” in the search mask, the search engine giant offers the term “hairdresser”.

Search Rate, Search Manner, & Search Frequency of Google Users

Here Google tends to be transparent. Official statements by the search engine giant stated that previously entered search phrases do influence the auto completion. For example, if “holiday mallorca” is often entered in the search mask chances increase that “holiday mallorca” will be suggested to another user when he or she enters just “holiday”.

There are a couple of other elements which are also considered. Although these “objective” factors haven’t been made public by Google, other aspects like the search frequency can easily be identified. When the interest for media events like Prince William’s and Kate’s wedding gradually fades, these search suggestions – e.g. when “wedding” is entered – are displayed less and less often. Constant terms like “plan wedding” on the other hand rise in popularity again after the furor of a big event has died down.

What Else Plays an Important Role for the Google Suggest Function?

Although it should be self-evident, for the sake of completion, the language used and the place where the search query is entered also play a role. In earlier iterations of the algorithm only the country was used, but now Google has been successfully differentiating between individual cities of a country. This has to be taken into consideration for SEO, since different search results are displayed depending on the place, and these are even dealt with preferably. The following example makes this aspect clear:

Although the term “shopping basket” has a higher search volume than “shopping center london” the local search term is preferred if just “shopping” is entered in the Google search mask. Figure 3 makes clear that Google even differentiates between single districts in Berlin.

However, these suggestions only seem to emerge if the user has entered his or her location in the settings and already did multiple search queries. Otherwise, the suggested terms are broader with the actual location being the first suggestion, no matter if it was determined in the settings or not.

It is important to note that when changing the settings one can only choose locations that do exist in the respective country. In order to get search results from other countries one needs to change the settings on the country-specific Google cover page. In order to verify our thesis, changing the location should lead to other suggestions in local searches.

Figure 5: Changing the location in Google’s search settings

And in fact, if we search for “shopping center” in google.co.uk, no districts are suggested, even if “London” was chosen as the location. The suggestions are identical to those that appear if no location was entered at all. Consequently, at google.com, the same terms are suggested no matter if with or without location (e.g. New York). Depending on the different Google cover pages (co.uk / com), however, we get different suggestions.

Figure 6: No districts are suggested in google.co.uk …

Figure 7: … and neither in google.com

One can therefore assume that it is the multitude of local search queries responsible for the search suggestions. After all, in the previous examples no city-specific districts were suggested but rather a thematically larger bandwidth of terms, even if those consisted mainly of different cities.

When it comes to mobile search, another phenomenon can be seen: Even though we searched with google.co.uk and chose London as our location, the first suggestion is “shopping center berlin” (our actual location).

Figure 8: Mobile devices know our actual location

Since smartphones always know where we really are, getting local search results from other locations seems to be impossible – contrary to stationary devices. Instead, local search suggestions always display a person’s present location – no matter what the settings are. It is very likely that this will be the case on stationary devices in the near future, too, and local search results will noticeably enhance Google’s suggestions.

Why then, for some search queries are no suggestions are displayed at all? This is due to the fact that Google follows strict guidelines when it comes to pornography, copyright violations, violence, and similar negatively charged terms. So the search engine provider automatically filters out terms that can be classified into the above-mentioned problem areas. On the other hand, it can take some time until breaking new is validated by Google and implemented as suggestions.

Chances and Risks for Reputation Management

Nowadays, how an enterprise is perceived online and in public strongly depends not only on a professional position, but also on internet users. Thanks to Twitter and Co., information and reviews spread like a virtual wildfire. Today companies are dependent on the opinion of a huge and partly anonymous crowd. This has effects on the auto completion of Google Suggest, for example as a result of usage of certain search terms over the course of time.

The problem example is this: Sometimes, Google associates a brand with fraud or other negative terms. Since search behavior and search frequency affect Google Suggest, this phenomenon can be explained by short-run trends. For example, if a well know blogger writes a scathing (not necessarily true) blog. When this happens, potential clients can be turned off of the brand.

On the other hand, these same mechanisms can have positive consequences for a company. If terms like “experiences” and “opinions” are suggested after a brand name, this can lead a potential customer to read positive reviews and signal that others are interested in the brand.

Chances and Risks in Affiliate Marketing

An interesting train of thought how Google Suggest can have positive influences on the business model of an affiliate shop owner is the following:

Let’s assume a Google user searches for an online shop to get information on the latest events, etc. If this online shop offers vouchers and other users have searched for these vouchers before, the user will be suggested a combination of the chosen shop and the word “voucher”. This gives the user a whole new idea since he could even save money during the purchase! Affiliates who rank high for a voucher term in connection with a brand can be happy about this suggestion by Google. On the other hand, another shop owner may lose important traffic because of the suggestion.

Risk: Distracting the Searcher

The next example goes one step further. If a Google user searches for “credit card” , he has already made the decision to get one. However, while searching he stumbles upon the term “credit card free”, his intention might change. Therefore, the searcher ends up searching for free credit cards instead of a particular company he was initially interested in.

Unjustified Brand Advantages?

The following figure illustrates another risk, respectively, or an advantage for some companies:

Figure 9: When searching for “car”, the first suggestion is “carmax”.

Here the question emerges: To what extent is this suggestion justified? On the one hand, these brands’ websites are a good suggestion because they are often searched for. On the other hand, these suggestions influence the user and could cause distortion of competition. Consequently, one could question whether this was Google’s initial intention.

Furthermore, even if just the letter “e” is entered in the search mask, certain brand names appear. Although the searcher might be looking for something completely different, the fact alone that a brand is mentioned amplifies its level of awareness and potentially makes the user resort to these brands in the future.

Figure 10: Brand names are displayed after only one letter was entered

Conclusion

One of the most important results is the fact that Google Suggest influences the user. This happens consciously – “I’ll just take a look at what Google is suggesting to me” – as well as unconsciously. One reason is that the completion function has become a normal and even integral part of the Google search for most people. The above mentioned examples gave situations in which the auto completion function clearly influences our search behavior. It has become clear that this can be an advantage for some companies and a disadvantage for others.

In a Nutshell: What is The Difference Between Online, Inbound, Social Media, and Content Marketing?

There might be some confusion as to what the differences are between online, inbound, social media, and content marketing. Let me tell you briefly what these four marketing efforts are not, then I will let a “friend” explain what they are and illustrate how they are related.

Online marketing is not being a sleazy dude who tries to sell stuff on the web.

Inbound marketing is not scheduling trains, planes, and other public forms of transportation.

Social media marketing is not hanging out with kids on Facebook and retweeting stuff I think is cool.

And  content marketing is not driving traffic to people’s sites.

Meet Wilby. Wilby is a character created by a one-time animator in Japan for and of me. I wish he had made him slimmer but considering what he had to work with, what can I say?

The Wilby matryoshka doll can illustrate the difference between online, inbound, social media and content marketing efforts:

Online vs. Inbound vs. Social Media vs. Content Marketing

Online vs Inbound vs Social Media vs Content Marketing

Online Marketing

The all-inclusive activity that happens on the Internet with the intent of bringing visibility to a website and making a connection with the searcher and product/s or service. The goal can be sales, visibility, branding, or maybe just buzz. Sometimes called Internet Marketing.

Inbound Marketing

The science of pull versus push marketing. The intent of inbound marketing is to attract readers or buyers to a target site by hook or by crook … but indeed preferably by legitimate hook. Inbound marketing happens within the sphere of online marketing.

Rule of Thumb – it is cheaper, more time efficient for would-be buyers to find you than it is for you to find them.

Social Media Marketing

When the efforts of the marketer take on legs or a life of its own in social networks. Sometimes referred to as “going viral”. Or when the social media marketer does his/her darndest to make their content go viral. The best way, however, is for the social networks to be attracted to the content/website of the marketer so much so that there is a natural (organic) grass-roots like compulsion to share the information with others in their online networks.

Content Marketing

NOT the smallest nor the least significant component. Content is at the core of all great marketing efforts. Quality content is the soul of all effective marketing campaigns. Excellent content begs to be shared. Social networkers do not need to be asked, coerced, prodded or even poked. In fact pushing content, driving content is contrary to getting best results. Rather social networkers who find something really cool race to be the first to let someone know what it is they have come upon. The result being the sharer and those in their network are intrigued and attracted to what else this content creator has to offer. That’s not good marketing, that’s SUPER marketing.

All of this happens online.

Conclusion

Do your content right and your content will be the little piggy that goes to market for you.

Too often there is an attempt to manipulate search results, which equal shady SEO efforts. Sometimes over-emphasis is placed on the perfect page with the thinking ‘if I build it they will come.’ Good luck with that. One ideal landing page still has a 1 in a trillion possibility of being found. A poor inbound strategy indeed. A better strategy is to churn out as much good quality content as possible, consistently over a long period of time. It really is that straight forward.

Using Content Marketing to Build Brand Trust

Content marketing is now bigger than ever and has been rapidly embraced by the majority of agencies and in-house online marketing teams across the globe. Content creation was recently ranked as the single most effective SEO technique and marketers have jumped on it. The problem however, is that people are rushing into this new online strategy before thinking about why they are really doing it and how they are going to use it to achieve their objectives.

Of course there are the obvious reasons for developing a content marketing strategy, including making sure you come across as a thought leader in your industry by providing regular up-to-date content on industry news. There is also the point of telling your own brand’s story through content that you put out in your news section and the ability to promote your brand’s products and services in a more engaging way.

Having a well thought out content marketing strategy is all well and good, but without a trusting audience who are loyal to your brand you almost need not bother. As individuals, we are aware that the connection and trust we have with a company plays a large part in whether we are then likely to work with them or buy from them.

The Foundation

Content marketing is all about creating and sharing free content that is valuable to your audience and will attract new customers and retain existing ones. The content your brand needs to be sharing should be related to your industry so that you can help and educate others, this will encourage people to trust you and once you have their trust then they will work with you.

Over 2 million blog posts are published every day, which means that readers these days have a huge choice of what they read and that’s before you consider all the content sent through social media channels such as Twitter and YouTube. With a high level of content overload, it is important to make sure that your content marketing strategy makes you stand out from the crowd.

Too many content marketing strategies focus on quantity over quality, but really it comes down to making sure the content you produce is going to build a trusting relationship between the brand and the audience.

Customise Your Content

A huge 61% of consumers said that they felt better about a company that delivered custom content and would be more likely to then buy from that company. This demonstrates just how important it is to be creating unique content that is directly suited to your industry and audience.

Custom content is about really demonstrating to your audience that you have them in mind with every blog post you write or every video you create – make sure you have fully analysed your audience and that you are working to their interests. If you know the majority of your audience want to read your content via email or want to watch it on a video, then make this option available. This will help build trust just by the fact that they will be regularly seeing content aimed at them.

Promote Content Wisely

While content promotion is crucial to ensure what you’re producing is being seen, there is a very fine line between making your audience aware that you have created something new for them and spamming them with links to your latest blog post.

Find out which channels your audience is most active on and promote your content through them. For social networks such as Twitter, there are tools available that will tell you what days and times your followers are most active and when previous content you have promoted has been successful. Using this information you can then schedule content at the most beneficial time without pushing it out too often.

Engage, Engage, Engage

Trust is built through communication and as a brand it is very important to make sure you are regularly engaging with not only your audience, but also influential people within your industry – 36% of people trust brands more when they have a social presence. Don’t send automated replies and comments to those who reach out to you, send them a nice thank you message if they have shared your content, or offer them advice if they have a question related to your industry.

Make sure that you are easy to find. Where you can, promote your social media channels and forms of contact available to your audience. Being open about how people can engage with you will really encourage a high level of trust. Demonstrating yourself to be a personable brand will give your business a human touch and reassure your audience that there is a person behind all the blogs and social media accounts and that person really is interested in them, not just purely for sales reasons.

Analyze & Strategize

Once you have set out your content marketing strategy and implemented it for a certain amount of time, the most important thing is to then go back and analyze its success. What might sound like the best strategy ever may not actually work for your brand and may need reworking.

The type of content you initially thought might interest and engage with your audience might actually have no effect, so there is no point in continuing down that path. Once you have analyzed your results it’s time to re-strategize. If a certain style of content is receiving a high number of shares and engagement, then focus on producing more content like that, don’t waste time on the pieces that aren’t working.

Trust is not usually something that is given to a brand over night, it takes time and effort to build, but it is totally worth the hard work. When brands and consumers have a trusting relationship everything else will slide into place – sales and conversion rates will grow and brand promotion will happen more naturally.

When The Best SEO Move Is To Kill The Site

The contents of the following column are based on real circumstances. Certain elements have been changed to respect the privacy of each site.

Imagine there are two websites. Here are their basic profiles:

Site One is an e-commerce company and website launched in 2013 that sells nutritional supplements, based in Atlanta, Georgia. They sell to anyone in the US and are heavily dependent on PPC and organic search traffic for their revenue. Due to their insanely high monthly PPC spend, they have also been link building since the day the site launched.

They hired a local SEO firm to do their link building which then (secretly) out-sourced the link building work to a third-party company. At first, things were working great. Their site started ranking well in Google for a number of money terms, only to drop and then vanish completely from the top 100. The site received notification of a manual penalty from Google.

A review of the backlink profile of this site shows it does not have a single link from any site in the Atlanta area. It does not have links from any reputable health, fitness or training blogs. It has paid product reviews and hundreds of anchor text forum links, is part of a link network, and is listed in several hundred directories that most of us have never heard of. 

Site Two is for a Summer Camp for special-needs kids, also located in Georgia. The camp itself was founded in the 1980s and launched a website in the early 2000s. They, too, hired an SEO firm to help them (a different SEO firm than the one Site One hired), and that SEO firm did the work themselves.

This work included conducting outreach to many kids’ organizations and businesses in the Atlanta metro area as well as in Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, and Alabama, which is where most of their campers come from. Their SEO firm ended up merging with a larger SEO firm, and the camp stopped working with them due to increased cost. The camp then hired the same SEO firm as Site One above. Within six months, Site Two received notification of a manual penalty from Google.

A review of Site Two’s backline profile showed paid reviews and hundreds of anchor text forum links. The site was part of a blog link network and was listed in several hundred directories that most of us have never heard of.

However, Site Two had something else. From the work done by the first SEO firm, they had links from sites such as the Down Syndrome Association of Atlanta, Atlanta Parent, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Autism Speaks, Chattanooga Parent Magazine’s special needs camps directory, and at least 50-75 more links similar in theme and credibility to the ones I just mentioned.

Again, both sites have received a manual penalty. They no longer receive any appreciable traffic from Google.

If you were to consult with both of these sites, what would your recommendations be? More to the point, are the sites salvageable from a Google rankings perspective? Would it be possible to get the manual penalties lifted? Is a reconsideration request worth the time and effort to pursue?

Now What?

For most of us, the answer to the above scenario is fairly obvious. The new nutritional supplement site with zero credibility in its backlink profile (Site One) has a long, long road ahead of it if it ever hopes to receive organic search traffic again from Google.

This road would involve link takedowns, detoxing and disavowal, as well as a content initiative that would actually be worthy of earned links — and that’s all before you can be sure any of it will work. The fact is, some sites are just too far gone to waste more time, money and resources to salvage. I would say that Site One has nothing to salvage, anyway. Kill it.

Site Two is a different story altogether. Here we have a long-standing organization in Atlanta with a 12-year-old website that has attracted many highly credible links, and then made a mistake in hiring an SEO firm that did not have their best interests in mind. The new SEO firm polluted a pristine link profile with junk — enough junk to cause a manual penalty.

My advice to Site Two is that it’s definitely worth it to try to salvage and repair the damage done. I believe they could see their rank restored and reclaim the high positions they once had before the bad links appeared.

If both sites were cleansed of the toxic links, Site Two would still have highly credible links pointing to it, while Site One would have nothing credible pointing at it (because it never did).

This particular example is much easier to evaluate and make a decision about than others. One site was nothing more than a new pure-play e-com site in a highly-competitive niche, while the other site was the online representation of a well-known and highly-credible business that had been in existence for many years, with an established website that had earned many great links.

If only every manually penalized site was as easy to evaluate!

Time To Say Goodbye?

The decision to kill a site can be a painful one, and on more than one occasion I’ve looked at a backlink profile and advised that killing a site was the best move. I have also advised some sites to engage in salvage efforts.

Like so many questions related to links, there is no perfect answer. Numerous factors enter into the equation, perhaps most important of which is history. What was there before the junk arrived? What links will remain if others can be removed?

Nobody can tell you with 100% certainty that a site can be salvaged. It might be worth seeking the help of a third party who is comfortable and experienced with analysis of large backlink datasets.

And, I take no pleasure in reporting that of the many site histories and backlink profiles I’ve studied, in almost two-thirds of the cases I advised that the best move was to kill the site.

#LAUNCH Festival: Marketing Entrepreneurs Chasing the Dream

“The best place to launch your startup, raise money and learn about starting a company.” So goes the tagline for Jason Calacanis’ Launch Festival in San Francisco, which kicked off yesterday.

The annual 3-day startup competition showcased all walks of entrepreneurial life: tech founders seeking funding and airtime while vying for attention from VCs, angel investors and seasoned entrepreneurs who were there to check out the goods and kick the tires.

While wearable technology, gaming and B2C plays were prevalent, there was plenty to be had in the internet marketing sandbox, such as analytics platforms and both fledging and re-born social networks.

The atmosphere at the conference seemed buzzy and hopeful, the crowd perhaps still feeling the aftereffects of last week’s $19 billion Whatsapp acquisition bombshell. Attendees bounced between two demo stages and a demo pit.

The event got off to an odd start, as attendees were greeted by enthusiastic protesters outside the venue. The picketers were highlighting a labor dispute with a conference vendor, and in a brilliantly effective move, created a cacophony with drums that nearly drowned out the opening speakers Travis Kalanick, CEO of Uber, and Calacanis.

It was rumored that Calacanis paid off the protestors to cease and desist, as the drums went silent towards the end of Kalanick’s talk.

Panelist judges such as Sherpa Foundry’s Tina Sharkey, the iconic Mark Pesce and tech media pundit Kara Swisher of re/code offered critiques and succinct advice for founders who had been picked to demo their ideas on the main stage; the latter often squirming while being asked hard questions about their target markets, business models and chosen technology.

What others are saying about Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp

When Facebook acquired internationally-popular messenger WhatsApp for a total of $19 billion, the tech world was abuzz with reaction, jubilation and speculation.

We talked with several analysts and experts to get their take on if WhatsApp was the right purchase for Facebook — and at the right price.

Thorsten Trapp, CTO of Tyntec, gave some insight into WhatsApp’s international dominance. He noted that WhatsApp has forced mobile operators to lose billions of dollars in lost SMS fees:

The fact that WhatsApp in Europe has a huge penetration in users opens it up to this huge userbase. Internationally, they are very big as well, and the reason is they are a substitute for SMS. WhatsApp cannibalizes SMS. In Europe, SMS messages are paid per SMS. It’s just within the last year or half year that they were included into phone plans, but way too late. In the U.S., this situation is very different. SMS messages were included into the plan very early on. The dominant reason of using WhatsApp isn’t there (in the U.S.). So this explains why it’s weak in the U.S. International messages were ridiculously expensive, and in Europe, you have a lot of borders.

Kevin Scott, Co-Founder of the Addo Institute, feels that this is a gutsy move for Facebook:

They’re trying to attract younger people, and they’re trying to attract people in the developing world. We did a high school leadership program last fall. Just like so many businesses, they’re trying to get their customer constituencies to share. We tried to get them to share on three platforms — Twitter, Instagram, Facebook. When we said Twitter, kind of a neutral response. When we said Instagram, they cheered wildly. When we said Facebook, there was either silence or they booed. This younger generation is increasingly tough to reach and Facebook knows that WhatsApp is a way to get into that market.

Arnie Chaudhuri, the co-founder of Chaatz, and a former Facebook mobile developer, feels that the price is right for the social network:

There’s no doubt that one of Facebook’s primary objectives is to connect the world and acquiring WhatsApp is key to their strategy. There are still billions of people out there using feature phones that they can ultimately connect, driving incredibly user engagement numbers. There are multiple companies trying to reach them, ours included, but no one has truly been able to do this yet. WhatsApp gives them a huge opportunity in terms of penetrating markets where they’re not currently and makes the $19 billion a worthy investment if they can eventually connect even half of those billions.

There are a few aspects that make messaging apps so valuable. The high level of engagement and active returning consumer base helps to make them very appealing. From a product and human psychology point of view, messaging apps have a high pull factor drawing the user in. Usually when there is a notification, the user immediately drops everything else to turn their attention to the message. Additionally, the time a user spends per day on these messaging apps is more quality than simply browsing . And finally, there’s the cost factor. WhatsApp and plenty of other messaging apps are free and allow people to connect with others from all over the world, vs. the limitations that traditional SMS might have.

Keith Trivitt, Director of Corporate Communications, Matomy Media Group, is also a fan of the acquisition:

Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp sends a clear message of where Mark Zuckerberg views the company’s path to sustained success: mobile, mobile and mobile. The fact that WhatsApp is a mobile-only service, and that 70% of its users are active on the service daily, aligns well with Facebook’s mobile push, which requires a highly engaged, active user base accessing the social network across multiple devices all day long. For advertisers and marketers, the WhatsApp acquisition makes a lot of sense. Facebook has been steadily introducing innovative ad-targeting solutions that have turned the social network into a hybrid engagement plus direct-response ad platform. With its acquisition of WhatsApp, Facebook should be able to provide advertisers with even more targeted and real-time mobile-only ad solutions.

Molly McCarty, the Social Account Manger for 3Q Digital, discussed with Inside Facebook what this move means for the mobile ad industry:

Facebook is very clearly the dominant social network, and they will do whatever needs to be done to maintain that presence. Their most recent demonstration of this, is their recent acquisition of WhatsApp for 19 billion dollars. Currently,WhatsApp does not have any sort of advertising on its platform and only costs its users $1 to use. Zuckerberg made it clear that advertising is not his primary focus with WhatsApp. He does not plan on immediately testing ads, like was done with Instagram. Instead, the goal is to grow WhatsApp and once it becomes more widely used, Zuckerberg and Team will possibly shift their focus to monetizing the platform. Until then, the goal is to continue to increase the connectivity of the world.

When The Best Move Is To Kill The Site

The contents of the following column are based on real circumstances. Certain elements have been changed to respect the privacy of each site.

Imagine there are two websites. Here are their basic profiles:

Site One is an e-commerce company and website launched in 2013 that sells nutritional supplements, based in Atlanta, Georgia. They sell to anyone in the US and are heavily dependent on PPC and organic search traffic for their revenue. Due to their insanely high monthly PPC spend, they have also been link building since the day the site launched.

They hired a local SEO firm to do their link building which then (secretly) out-sourced the link building work to a third-party company. At first, things were working great. Their site started ranking well in Google for a number of money terms, only to drop and then vanish completely from the top 100. The site received notification of a manual penalty from Google.

A review of the backlink profile of this site shows it does not have a single link from any site in the Atlanta area. It does not have links from any reputable health, fitness or training blogs. It has paid product reviews and hundreds of anchor text forum links, is part of a link network, and is listed in several hundred directories that most of us have never heard of. 

Site Two is for a Summer Camp for special-needs kids, also located in Georgia. The camp itself was founded in the 1980s and launched a website in the early 2000s. They, too, hired an SEO firm to help them (a different SEO firm than the one Site One hired), and that SEO firm did the work themselves.

This work included conducting outreach to many kids’ organizations and businesses in the Atlanta metro area as well as in Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, and Alabama, which is where most of their campers come from. Their SEO firm ended up merging with a larger SEO firm, and the camp stopped working with them due to increased cost. The camp then hired the same SEO firm as Site One above. Within six months, Site Two received notification of a manual penalty from Google.

A review of Site Two’s backline profile showed paid reviews and hundreds of anchor text forum links. The site was part of a blog link network and was listed in several hundred directories that most of us have never heard of.

However, Site Two had something else. From the work done by the first SEO firm, they had links from sites such as the Down Syndrome Association of Atlanta, Atlanta Parent, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Autism Speaks, Chattanooga Parent Magazine’s special needs camps directory, and at least 50-75 more links similar in theme and credibility to the ones I just mentioned.

Again, both sites have received a manual penalty. They no longer receive any appreciable traffic from Google.

If you were to consult with both of these sites, what would your recommendations be? More to the point, are the sites salvageable from a Google rankings perspective? Would it be possible to get the manual penalties lifted? Is a reconsideration request worth the time and effort to pursue?

Now What?

For most of us, the answer to the above scenario is fairly obvious. The new nutritional supplement site with zero credibility in its backlink profile (Site One) has a long, long road ahead of it if it ever hopes to receive organic search traffic again from Google.

This road would involve link takedowns, detoxing and disavowal, as well as a content initiative that would actually be worthy of earned links — and that’s all before you can be sure any of it will work. The fact is, some sites are just too far gone to waste more time, money and resources to salvage. I would say that Site One has nothing to salvage, anyway. Kill it.

Site Two is a different story altogether. Here we have a long-standing organization in Atlanta with a 12-year-old website that has attracted many highly credible links, and then made a mistake in hiring an SEO firm that did not have their best interests in mind. The new SEO firm polluted a pristine link profile with junk — enough junk to cause a manual penalty.

My advice to Site Two is that it’s definitely worth it to try to salvage and repair the damage done. I believe they could see their rank restored and reclaim the high positions they once had before the bad links appeared.

If both sites were cleansed of the toxic links, Site Two would still have highly credible links pointing to it, while Site One would have nothing credible pointing at it (because it never did).

This particular example is much easier to evaluate and make a decision about than others. One site was nothing more than a new pure-play e-com site in a highly-competitive niche, while the other site was the online representation of a well-known and highly-credible business that had been in existence for many years, with an established website that had earned many great links.

If only every manually penalized site was as easy to evaluate!

Time To Say Goodbye?

The decision to kill a site can be a painful one, and on more than one occasion I’ve looked at a backlink profile and advised that killing a site was the best move. I have also advised some sites to engage in salvage efforts.

Like so many questions related to links, there is no perfect answer. Numerous factors enter into the equation, perhaps most important of which is history. What was there before the junk arrived? What links will remain if others can be removed?

Nobody can tell you with 100% certainty that a site can be salvaged. It might be worth seeking the help of a third party who is comfortable and experienced with analysis of large backlink datasets.

And, I take no pleasure in reporting that of the many site histories and backlink profiles I’ve studied, in almost two-thirds of the cases I advised that the best move was to kill the site.

How Facebook’s News Feed Now Lets Brands Ride The Coattails Of Other Brands

Facebook has announced a change today that means users will begin seeing posts about Facebook pages they follow, even if those posts are made by pages they do not follow. It all comes down to Facebook tagging, and it’s a way that one brand can extend its audience with a tagged shoutout to another brand.

Consider this example that Facebook has shared, of how the new system works:

In this example, the Facebook user follows Houston Rockets basketball player Dwight Howard’s Facebook page. That means they see some of the updates from Howard’s page, ones that Facebook’s news feed algorithm decides are relevant to show.

Now look here, a close up of that post:

The post the Dwight Howard follower is being shown doesn’t actually come from Dwight Howard. Instead, it’s from the Bleacher Report’s Facebook page (as the top arrow points to). Because the Bleacher Report “tagged” Dwight Howard in its post — made a Facebook link to the Dwight Howard page, as the lower arrow points to, Facebook’s new system now considers it relevant to anyone who follows the Dwight Howard page.

In short, any post from one brand that tags that page of another brand (be it a person, company, service or anything with a Facebook page) effectively gets a shot at tapping into that brand’s Facebook followers.

It’s not a free-for-all. Facebook says it will look to see how closely the audiences of both pages seem to be, when deciding whether to extend one brand’s reach to another’s followers:

We look at many factors to make sure the most relevant stories appear in News Feed, including which posts are getting the most engagement (such as likes, comments, shares and clicks) across all of Facebook. We also consider which posts are getting the most engagement from people who like both the Page that posted and the Page that was tagged.

For example, if many people who like Dwight Howard also like the Bleacher Report, it suggests that these two Pages are connected. If we see that people who like both the Bleacher Report and Dwight Howard are liking the post above, that’s an indication that it may be relevant for people who only like Dwight Howard.

As marketers, this is a great reminder to take the time and properly tag other pages as there may be extra visibility coming your way. For more information on Facebook tagging, see its help page here. And for more about the change, see the official release from Facebook.

Quixey Offering Deeper Search Results Inside Mobile Apps

Quixey, which describes itself as a search engine for apps rather than an alternative app store, has announced deeper “functional search” within apps. Previously, Quixeyallowed app discovery by keyword or category, delivering users to the “front door” of relevant apps. Now, Quixey will surface information that “lives inside of apps.”

Quixey offers web-based app search across platforms, an Android app (no iOS app today) and powers app search for a range of partners including Ask, Skyfire, Dolphin Browser, DuckDuckGo, StarHub, Sprint and others. The company’s CEO Tomer Kagan told me there are other partners not yet announced.

Kagan is essentially positioning Quixey as a general alternative to Google when it comes to in-app search. Yet Google is also trying to get to the same place. Last October Google announced app indexing to enable content discovery from within Android apps only.

The screenshot immediately above is a Quixey provided search result for the query “how to bake a cake.” It shows specific content and references to cake baking within multiple apps. The Quixey Android app doesn’t yet reflect these new search results. They’ll be rolling out in the near future however.

Quixey says that its deeper, functional app search will also empower developers and allow them to present their content as desired, not in terms that are dictated by app stores and major search engines. The company said this morning in a blog post, “[W]e’re also opening a new developer program that will help developers champion this approach to the web and search, and help them build their apps so they’re searchable and indexed. Developers can sign up at developers.quixey.com.”

The functionality and content are needed and I believe desired by consumers, for whom app discovery remains a challenge. However for Quixey the challenge is generating awareness and usage. Its growing partner network helps but when it comes to app search and discovery Google Play and the Apple App Store remain the dominant sources for consumers.

The positioning of Quixey as a search engine and not an app store alternative will likely help differentiate the company and gain new usage.

LinkedIn Becomes Only American Social Network In China With Launch Of Simplified Chinese Beta

Yesterday, LinkedIn was able to do something that Facebook, Twitter and Google haven’t — launch a beta Chinese social site dubbed. The professional network has been active to Chinese users for more than a decade now, but the Simplified Chinese site will be the first foray into capturing the masses of the Chinese professional population. LinkedIn hopes that this China-focused plan will bring 140 million new professionals onto the service.

The current number of Chinese citizens using the English language site is only 4 million users. The additional hundred-plus million would have a drastic affect on LinkedIn’s overall numbers as they sit at 277 million global member to date.  This Chinese push is in conjunction with Sequoia China and CBC and part of LinkedIn’s commitment to create locally relevant products on a global scale.

Additional functionality in the Simple Chinese beta includes the ability for users to integrate Sina and Tencent in to import Weibo accounts and also the integration with WeChat accounts. Since this is a true beta launch, some advanced functionality like Groups are not available.  Additionally, users can switch their language to Simple Chinese todayl by simple tweaking their account settings.

For LinkedIn’s full stance on their  Chinese plans see the blog post from Jeff Weiner, CEO at LinkedIn, or the official launch blog post from LinkedIn.