editandolaweb.com Blog

I stumbled across this quite by accident. I knew it was there because I’d seen it before but I forgot about it until today.

So I did some checking to see if it still does work and based on my limited test it appears that it does.

What I’m about to explain to you may not only help get sandboxed sites indexed and ranking quicker, it can even make the site owner a little money.

I’ve been blogging for a few years now. I started it as a hobby and the blog I had was actually a blog before there were blogs. In other words I was blogging with a regular website.

Then a friend turned me on to Movable Type. It is a software which allows me to automate the publishing of content on my website.

I was having problems getting my website/blog indexed by Google back then this was about 3 years ago.

It was also around this time that I heard of a new program called Google Adsense (https://www.google.com/adsense) in which one could place code on their web pages that would display ads, and the website owner would earn money on every click.

I thought what a cool idea so I immediately applied for an account. 48 hours later I was placing ads on my blog.

Shortly after this while reviewing my server logs I noticed that I was getting Google referrals! That’s right, within days of placing the ads on my site, it had been fully indexed by Google and it was actually ranking quite highly for terms related to the content I was posting.

I couldn’t believe my luck. Here I thought all I was going to do was make a little money on the side yet I found that the Adsense may have actually helped get my site indexed.

Remember, this was before the Sandbox, but it was a time when link popularity ruled the web. But since it was only a hobby I wasn’t worried about building links. Because I already had a few loyal readers, I wasn’t trying to position this site.

Flash forward to December 2005 and a friend asks me to help him set up his own blog. Actually he wants two of them each with their own topics, and both very different in nature.

I consult with him and on February 1, 2006 we register two new domains for him.

He proceeds to build out his blogs and as he’s doing this I suggest placing ads on them. At the time I wasn’t thinking that it would help with indexing, just another way to increase exposure of the ads to generate more revenue for me and him.

We agree to split the money and he places the ads on the two new sites.

I didn’t think much of it until his visitor traffic started going up. He also placed Google Analytics code on the sites and gave me access to them so I could take a look to see where all this traffic is coming from.

Turns out, he’s getting a few Google organic referrals.

Imagine that two brand new sites, with no incoming links, but somehow they have managed to sneak out of the Google Sandbox in 3 weeks?

Imagine my surprise, considering I have another site that I started over a year ago, and have been dutifully building content and links, yet I can’t get it out of the sandbox. In fact, the current Google cache is of pages that no longer exist, and haven’t for months.

My explanation, however out there it seems to be is that somehow the Google Ads have allowed the site to bypass the sandbox and move into the index almost immediately.

The first Google organic referral came last week, just two short weeks after the site was tagged with the Google Adsense code. Since then, both sites have received a handful of Google organic referrals.

Based on this very small and somewhat limited test case, my gut is telling me that one way out of the sandbox and into the SERPs is to apply for and install Google AdSense onto your site.

At the very least you’ll make some money maybe not a lot, just a few dollars a month (Google only pays out in $100 increments mind you, so it may take a while to get that first Google check) and the best case is that you’ll bypass the sandbox, get indexed quickly and even start driving organic referrals to your site.

Like I said, this isn’t anything near a scientific study but it seems pretty clear to me that what has helped these two sites become indexed so quickly are the ads.

So if you’re stuck in the sandbox, perhaps applying for AdSense is a good idea.

I know I’m going to be placing ads on my other site to see what effect (if any it has). My guess is that within a few days it too will start ranking.

Most people who search on the internet have a favorite search engine. In fact, the majority of internet users choose Google.

Do you fall into this category? If so, are you taking advantage of everything Google offers?

If an internet search means you go to www.google.com and simply type 2 or 3 words into the search box, hoping to find what you’re looking for, you aren’t even scratching the surface.

How Can You Get Better Results?

Google is the number one search engine for good reason – their results are generally the most accurate. Even so, there are ways to pinpoint what you’re looking for even more effectively.

You have two options when it comes to fine-tuning your searches – you can use the Google Advanced Search screen or you can use “modifiers” in the main Google search.

Option 1: Google Advanced Search

When you go to www.google.com, there is a little “Advanced Search” link to the right of the main search box. If you click on that, you’ll get the much more detailed Google search, where you can make very specific requests.

The first four sections, highlighted in blue, are some of the most important. Here you can specify any of the following:

1. All of the words – this will give you results with all of your search words, but not in any particular order. They can also be anywhere on the page.
2. The exact phrase – this will give you results with exactly the phrase you enter. The phrase must appear on the page exactly the way you enter it.
3. At least one of the words – this will show results with any one or more of your search words on the page.
4. Without the words – this will give you results that don’t include your search terms at all.

These four sections can be used independently or combined to work together.

For example, you could search for the exact phrase ‘free virus software’ without the words ‘trial’ or ‘tryout’ if you’re looking for free virus software but don’t want trial versions that will expire after a short time.

As another example, you could use option #3 (at least one of the words) if you’re looking for something but don’t know exactly how to spell it. Put a few possible spellings in and it will find pages with any one or more of those spellings.

The rest of the sections on the Advanced Search page are pretty self-explanatory. One that I will point out is the Domain option. You can specify a website and either search for something only on that site, or anywhere but that site.

If you’ve found an interesting website that doesn’t have a search function of its own, you can use this to limit Google to searching that site for whatever you’re looking for. In fact, the Google search is often better even if the site does have its own search function.

You can also use it to find other references to something you might have read on a particular website. If you search for it and exclude the site you saw it on, you’ll find other references to it that you can cross-check.

Option 2: Using Modifiers

Modifiers will let you use all the advanced features without having to go to the Advanced Search page every time. These modifiers can just be entered in the standard Google search box to get the same results as the advanced options.

There are quite a few different modifiers that can be used, but some of the most useful are as follows:

Putting “” around a phrase will search for the exact phrase. Searching for free antivirus software will show you pages with those three words anywhere on the page. Searching for “free antivirus software” shows you pages that contain that exact phrase.

Putting a – before a word is the same as the advanced option “without the words.” So, to use the example used earlier, searching for “free virus software” -trial -tryout will show pages with that exact phrase, not including the other two words.

Using site: followed by the domain name of the website you want to search will only return results from that particular website. For example, searching for “virus protection” site:computer-help-squad.com will only return results from the www.computer-help-squad.com website.

Again, these can be combined so -site: will return results from any site except the one you specify.

How to Figure Out the Modifiers

The easiest way to see how to use modifiers in your searches is to try some searches with the Advanced Search page and see how Google formats them.

Using our example again, if you enter ‘free antivirus software’ in the “with the exact phrase” box and the words ‘trial’ and ‘tryout’ in the “without the words” box, the search that Google runs looks like this:

“free virus software” -trial -tryout

If you play around a bit with the advanced searches, you’ll see how Google formats them for you. Next time, you can just enter them yourself in the standard search box instead of going to the Advanced Search page.

Once you get the hang of these options in Google, you’ll find that your searches get even more accurate because you can filter out the stuff you don’t want.

I’ve noticed that most SEO articles focus on what to do after you launch your site. Those that do deal with preparing your site for launch usually discuss on-site SEO like keyword research and meta tags. What tends to be neglected is the advantage that you can gain by getting your site indexed before you launch. With a little planning and a few hours of work it’s easy to be indexed by Google, Yahoo, and MSN before your site goes live.

The key to getting your site indexed in the big three is getting links pointing to it from sites that are already indexed. When the search bots crawl those sites they will inevitably find the link to your site and your site will be added to their index. Follow these five steps a month before you launch and you’ll be a step ahead of the game.

1. Register your domain name. You’d be surprised how many people wait until the last minute to do this. The sooner you register your domain, the sooner you can get some quality links pointing to it and get it indexed.

2. Put up a home page. Make a coming soon page with your logo, information about your site, and expected launch date. You can also add a form for people to sign up for email updates about your site. This starts building your email marketing list before you even launch.

3. Start a blog and sign up for Feedburner. Put up a blog at www.yoursite.com/blog. It doesn’t matter if you use WordPress, Blogger, or whatever blog platform you prefer, just make sure you host it on your site. Make a few posts about your site, what people can expect when it launches, and why your site will be unique. After your first post, sign up for a Feedburner account at http://www.feedburner.com/. Under ‘Publicize’ in your account make sure to sign up for ‘Ping Shot’. This will notify blogging directories of your posts which hopefully will result in a few links to your site.

4. Write a few articles and submit to directories. Regardless of what your site is about, there is certainly a topic relating to your site that you could write an article about. For example, if your site is going to sell fitness equipment, you could write an article about how to build a home-gym. Or if you are going to rate and review new cars, you could write an article about how to shop for a new car. After you’ve written and proofread your articles, submit them to article directories like Ezine Articles (http://www.ezinearticles.com/) and iSnare (http://www.isnare.com/). Be sure to include a description of your new site and a link back to it in the resource box. Again, this should result in a few links to your site.

5. Get a link from an indexed site. Steps 3 and 4 should result in some links from indexed sites which should then ensure your site to be indexed. But it can’t hurt to get a few more on your own to be certain. When I launched my last site, I linked to it from my personal blog, which I knew was indexed. If you don’t have that option, you can ask someone with a blog or site related to yours to mention it. If you can’t find anyone willing to do it for free, you could offer them some free advertising on your site when you launch in exchange for the link.

Getting yourself indexed before you launch gives you a head start on your SEO and will allow your site to have a more immediate impact. Why wait until you launch? Get started a month early and you’ll reap the benefits when launch day rolls around.

Since AdWords was launched in 2001, Google has expanded to image ads, video ads, and print ads, and has frequently been rumored to be entering radio and television. While many think that television ads (ala Spot Runner) could be Googles next major move, they may be neglecting a potentially larger opportunity: in-game video game advertising.

Earlier this year Massive Incorporated, a video game advertising network, announced a landmark deal with Major League Baseball and 2K Sports to provide dynamic advertising in the popular video game Major League Baseball 2K6. According to their press release, Massives Network and technology allow MLB Advanced Media and 2K Sports titles to leverage dynamic advertising for ever-fresh brand messaging in their games, mirroring the rapidly changing and expanding advertising opportunities in the live action sports industry.

Why Should Google Care?

The Entertainment Software Association put U.S. sales of video game hardware and software at $7.3 billion back in 2004, a figure that rivals Hollywood box office revenue. In-game video game advertising is nothing new for the booming game industry large companies have been buying static advertisements in games for years. What is new is the expansion of online gaming into the mainstream. Once reserved for only PC Gamers, console gamers have now discovered a whole new world of competition over a broadband connection.

In a recent interview with TechNewsWorld, EAs John Schappert, who oversees the largest interactive game studio in the world, was asked about in-game advertising: In-game ad integration is a growing business where we see both advertisers and consumers looking for more. It’s an additional revenue stream that is still small, but growing. There’s the potential for scalability in this area with dynamically-served ads. It’s still in the early stages [in terms of] how in-game ads will grow in significance.

Starting with Microsofts Xbox and Sonys PS2, and continuing into the next generation of online gaming with Microsofts Xbox 360, Nintendos Wii, and Sonys PS3, it has become a virtual certainty that nearly all gamers will be playing while connected to a broadband connection. With that broadband connection comes an advertising opportunity thats hard to ignore.

Is History Repeating Itself?

The potential flaw in what Massive Incorporated does is that their ad network still only includes the large advertisers. Massives website gives no specific information regarding how to purchase advertising, only mentioning that blue-chip advertisers can work with their veteran sales team to start an account. I think its safe to say that small businesses arent their target market. So while they are implementing dynamic ads, those ads are still only affordable to larger businesses. Anyone familiar with internet advertising can see the potential for history to repeat itself.

Way back in 1996, long before Overture (now Yahoo! Search Marketing) and Google AdWords, a company called DoubleClick pioneered website advertising. Their downfall, however, was that they required a formal sales contract, limiting their potential client base to only large companies. Overture and AdWords made it easy for the small advertiser and small site owner to participate in their ad networks, essentially opening their service to anyone on the web. Several years later, one would think that Google is keeping a watchful eye on whats going on over at Massive Incorporated. Massive may be the first to enter the market, but its hard to ignore the fact that the small business owner remains shut out. Could Google make Massive the next DoubleClick?

How Would Google Do It

Theres no doubt that with the best programmers in the world Google is capable of developing and improving upon the technology that Massive has. Its also not hard to imagine advertisers paying per thousand impressions (PPM) for their text or image ads to be shown in specific games, much like they do now for specific sites. The tough part for Google, however, would be the distribution of those ads.

As opposed to signing up websites to display their ads by copying some code on to their site, Google would have to work with game programmers throughout the development process. This would be much more time consuming and would be a much larger risk for Google. In the same way that Massive signed the contract with 2K, Google would have to sign large contracts with game developers and work with them for several months to integrate their ads.

This enforces the fact that the main difference between what happened with DoubleClick and what could happen with video games is that it would probably be more work for Google to distribute their ads over multiple channels (i.e. more games). Since each game is programmed differently, there is no game equivalent to the JavaScript used in all AdSense ads. Every game would need to be tailored to Googles ad network individually. Difficult: yes. Impossible for Google: no way.

When Will They Do It?

In my opinion its not a matter of if, its a matter of when. The potential revenue from the gaming industry is too big for Google to ignore. Oh, and if you still arent convinced, consider this: Microsoft, one of Googles main competitors, also produces the Xbox 360. If Microsoft decided to integrate their newly launched adCenter into Xbox games, would it really surprise anyone if Google countered by announcing a deal with Sony or Nintendo to integrate in-game dynamic advertising for the PS3 or the Wii?

You have most likely seen Google AdWords, even if you dont realize it. Its that list of sponsored links that runs down the right side of your computer screen when you Google a word. Youll often see links at the top in a little blue box as wellweve all seen em.

So what is Google AdWords?

Google Adwords is simply an online advertising solution that companies who have a web presence can use to drive more traffic to their site.

At-a-glance:

1. Google sells the space along the top and sides of their search engines to site owners interested in getting more exposure.

2. Site owners bid on keyword(s) that relate to what they have to offer.

3. When people perform a search on Google using that keyword(s), the site owners ads display as text-links in a column next to the organic results.

How Will Google Position Your Ad?

One of the things that set Google AdWords apart from their competitors is the way they rank their sponsored ads. Most search engines let you bid on keywords. He who bids the most per click wins the top spot. Period.

With AdWords, the amount you bid is only one factor. Google also takes into account the relevance of the text in your ad and the number of times your ad is clicked on and gives you a quality score. If your quality score is high enough, you can actually bump off the guy above you who pays more per click, but whose ad gets clicked on significantly less than yours!

Writing Effective Ads for Google

Frank Travisano, president of http://Linkateer.com, a leading Search Engine Optimization company says that when you are writing an ad for Google, selecting the right keywords is critical. Since you are paying each time someone clicks on your ad you dont want a lot of misguided shoppers visiting your site and running up your tab.

Travisano advises, Target your market as specifically as you can. In other words, if you have a pet food store that offers organic, all-natural pet food; advertising for pet or pet food is not necessarily focusing on your target audience. Your target is consumers who are looking for all-natural, organic pet food. So your keywords need to reflect this.

It is over two years since a paper was released the basis of TrustRank,, yet even today, over two years later, hardly anyone outside of the core internet marketing world have clue what it is. The original concept was simple and in fact only a few lines.

Combating Web Spam with TrustRank. Technical Report, Stanford University, 2004

Web spam pages use various techniques to achieve higher-than-deserved rankings in a search engine’s results. While human experts can identify spam, it is too expensive to manually evaluate a large number of pages. Instead, we propose techniques to semi-automatically separate reputable, good pages from spam. We first select a small set of seed pages to be evaluated by an expert. Once we manually identify the reputable seed pages, we use the link structure of the web to discover other pages that are likely to be good. In this paper we discuss possible ways to implement the seed selection and the discovery of good pages. We present results of experiments run on the World Wide Web indexed by AltaVista and evaluate the performance of our techniques. Our results show that we can effectively filter out spam from a significant fraction of the web, based on a good seed set of less than 200 sites.

Original document http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/2004-17

I will try to explain in laymans terms what this is all about.

First of all you will need to understand about hubs and authority sites in the eyes of Google. Sites and pages are clustered by Phrase and topic as part of the Google web mapping. Within these clusters Google will identify its current hubs and authorities. Hubs being sites that link out to many of the sites within that cluster, and authorities are the sites within that cluster that receive more links to it than the others.

Google will Have already manually have rated these sites with regard their content, the sites they link to and their trustworthiness.

A prime example would be the BBC. They have a strict set of guidelines that editors must adhere to with regard linking to sites on the web. They also have strict guidelines set in place and overseen by government appointed bodies. These seed sites will be given a trust factor which can then be carried (or voted) to other sites, (like page rank) through their links.

Most niche trusted sites will carry links to similar content, or links to links on similar content. E.G. Reuters might run a news line, which is picked up by the BBC who rewrite and cite the original Reuters report. CNN might cite the BBC version which is more developed. ALL these sites are interlinking, and all are trusted sites. They might all also link to a website that originally carried the white paper/ allegation/ content.

So lets put it into practice.

I release a niche altruistic website that is well received. The news gets picked up by the BBC who link to it. Various other news sites pick up on it and also point links to my niche site. In time other charity and educational sites link to me, as well as church sites etc. Many of these sites will be either seed trusted sites or linked to by seed sites. The closer the site which links to me is to the seed site, the more TrustRank my altruism site will get, the further away the less.. By default, if my TrustRank hits a level (caused by numerous site that have inherited TrustRank from votes), I might well become a trusted hub myself, making links from my site very valuable (in terms of TrustRank not monetary, although this will also be the case, but no one will know the TrustRank to know the value)

If you want to see a crude version of trustrank in action then look at the voting system on a forum.

If someone with a red (negative) reputation votes for you (good or bad), it doesn’t affect your reputation, because in the eyes of the system they are not trusted because others who ARE trusted have said so. While a vote (good or bad) from someone with many squares of reputation can lift you up on high, or condemn you to the fiery furnace, while votes from those with one or two squares of reputation will count, but not for much. This is a simplified form of TrustRank.

It is my belief that TrustRank will compound so that the sum of the whole will be greater than the parts. so if a site got links from a seed site it would be worth x, but a site with links from two seed sites could be x +y + compounded trust value.

Below is a graphical representation of how it might work, but I have for simplicity not added the compounding value, and have used round numbers. Google PageRank uses a whole number of 1 as a base for each page, and a voting value of .85 of the PageRank value. (This being the result of the .15 dampening factor applied to all pages when determining the value of outbound links from a page).

http://www.umbrella-consultancy.co.uk/tr1.jpg (address of image)

That is my take on TrustRank. So the old adage of build quality content that people will want to link to, means more than ever now.

One last thing, in life there is balance, for every shard of light there is dark, for every white Stetson, there is a black one. If some sites ARE trusted, either by seed or approval of seed, then some will NOT be. It is therefore possible, that links from un-trusted (due to being TrustRank unknown) sites, might not get any link benefit to pass on? Just a theory.

Google has a competitive advantage. In fact, one might even say it has a franchise in web search. I wouldnt say that. I mean, Google does have a franchise; but, it doesnt have a monopoly on web search and never will. There are real problems with Googles model that are often overlooked. It does a poor job of finding certain sites that are difficult to describe in keywords. For this reason, there may still be a market for web search in the form of specialized niche directories and in some of these social search engines (e.g., Stumble Upon) for many years to come.

Im not suggesting any of these services will be as successful as Google; Im sure they wont be. I am simply pointing out that there is a difference between a need and the means by which that need is satisfied. Even as the dominant search player, Google will only have a franchise on the means (keyword search); it will not have a franchise on the need (finding stuff on the web). Also, Google can not, at present, rightly be called the dominant search player. There is no dominant player in search. Google is the leading search player. It is also the catalyst for many changes in search. But, it is not yet the dominant player in search the way McCormick (MKC) is the dominant U.S. spice producer.

Looking at McCormicks franchise is actually a pretty good way of evaluating Googles. Why do I say McCormick is the dominant player (domestically) in spice, but Google is not yet the dominant player in search? There are a few reasons.

McCormick has a 45% share of the U.S. retail spice market. Its closest competitor has a 12% market share. We may differ about exactly how the web search pie is carved up. But, I think we can agree that Googles share of the market is less than 45%, and that at least two of its competitors have a share of the market greater than 12%. So, Googles position differs from McCormicks in two material respects (already). Google has a smaller slice of the pie, and the search market is less fragmented than the spice market.

The spice market is an upside down funnel. The few producers are at the top. They feed their products through three distribution paths: retail, industry, and restaurants. In each case, the shape of the upside down funnel remains intact, because the widening happens at the very end. The ultimate consumer of McCormicks product doesnt get to choose from all available spices. His choice is always indirect. He picks a grocery store, a food product, or a restaurant. Then, must choose from the spices that particular supermarket chooses to carry, or the restaurant he frequents chooses to use (and/or make available).

In search the storys a little different. There is still something of an upside down funnel shape in search. Although, it is less pronounced than it was a few years ago. Search results are fed through dependent sites that searchers visit. But, it is the searcher who chooses the dependent sites. A few of these dependent sites account for a large part of all searches. That is very different from the spice market, where no supermarket or restaurant chain accounts for a large part of all spice consumption none even comes close. So, the searcher has a much bigger role in choosing his search provider than the spice consumer has in choosing his spice provider. Even though it is true you are sometimes searching without knowing Google is the search provider, the situation is nothing like it is at McCormick. When eating a meal you arent thinking about McCormick. Quite often, however, you are using a McCormick product. Whether it was in that package of spices you used to cook a meal at home, or in that manufactured food product, or in the dish you ordered at the restaurant, you are a consuming a McCormick product.

What matters as far as the investor is concerned is that the ultimate consumer of McCormicks product rarely makes an active, unfettered choice to consume that product over all other competing products (or even many competing products). The closest he comes to making such a choice is at the supermarket; though even there, the decision of how much shelf space to allocate to each companys products was made for him. To use Google, the first time searcher must make an active, unfettered choice.

Finally, there is the matter of infrastructure. This consists of two parts: production and distribution. McCormick has an existing production infrastructure which is helpful as far as costs are concerned, but isnt especially valuable. It could be duplicated by a new entrant with deep pockets. McCormicks distribution infrastructure is almost impossible to duplicate. It is worth far more than it cost McCormick to create it. Prying McCormicks customers (situated at the narrow of that inverted funnel) away from the companys products would not be easy. This distribution infrastructure gives solidity to McCormicks spice franchise in the U.S. In some instances, it will also help McCormick aboard (as some of the companys customers are expanding globally and will be inclined to stick with McCormick in their overseas operations).

Googles production infrastructure (the algorithm and the index) is easy to duplicate and will become even easier to duplicate in the future. There isnt much of a barrier to entry here. Google may currently offer the best search service around, but there is no reason to believe this will always be the case. Distribution is very often the most valuable part of any franchise (it is usually the part that is hardest to duplicate).

So, the natural question is: in the world of search, if you build it will they come? Will the best search engine always attract the most searchers? Probably not. Thats good for Google, because it wont always be the best search engine. Google has a great brand. Whatever value is in Google comes from that brand. That brand is what will keep searchers from flocking to the inevitable newer, better search engine.

All of Googles revenues are ultimately dependant upon attracting searches. Getting those searches requires two things. First, millions of people must make the active, unfettered choice to search Google. Then, those millions of people must keep searching with Google. The brand is the key to step one. The service is the key to step two. Search customers are sticky. But, they probably arent as sticky as we think. Its very easy to take immediate action on the web (just click a link). Switching away from Google isnt like switching away from Windows.

That leaves the brand. True, when you think search, you think Google. But, is that brand worth $120 billion? No and neither is Google.

Yahoo Search Marketing (searchmarketing.yahoo.com) has recently announced its advertisers of a new policy to be implemented as of March 1st 2006, concerning the use of trademarks within their products and services *.

Under the new policy, no reference to a trademark can be made (except for ads placed by the trademark owners themselves, obviously), and consequently no bids can be make for keywords containing such trademarks. Exceptions refer to usage of trademarks in non-competitive ads, such as those made by re-sellers, or in informative (and still non-competitive) ads.

The previous policy allowed references to competitors’ trademarks and comparisons as long as they were “objective and informative” – the formulation makes me cringe, as it is clearly troublesome trying to evaluate ones objectivity when speaking of business competitors. As for the “informative” side of it the probability for someone to actually PAY for an ad to be informative of someone elses product/service, thats as believable just like the existence of Santa Claus.

It is really good to see Yahoo making a big step forward in regulating abuse and misuse of trademarks, even though that probably translates in some revenue loss for them, by having certain advertisers migrate to a “friendlier” place such as Google. According to Google’s policies, “[...] advertisers may select trademarked terms as keywords or use them in the content of the ad. As a provider of space for advertisements, Google is not in a position to arbitrate trademark disputes between advertisers and trademark owners. As stated in our Terms and Conditions, advertisers are responsible for the keywords and ad text that they choose to use. Accordingly, Google encourages trademark owners to resolve their disputes directly with the advertiser, particularly because the advertiser may have similar ads on other sites. However, as a courtesy to trademark owners, Google is willing to perform a limited investigation of reasonable complaints.”

The question is why would Yahoo change its policies and apparently offer Google an even bigger bite from the SEM cake? It is way too early to say now, and their official explanation is not entirely believable: Yahoo states to have had the users’ best interest in mind, by providing them with a better experience when searching terms that contain trademarks. Though this would make a laudable initiative with a good PR potential, experts know the search market is driven by large publishers and advertisers and not by the little surfing guys. Numerous speculations can be made: threats of large legal actions from trademark owners, pressure from certain groups of interests are among the most vehiculated ones.

However, a more plausible one is that Yahoo makes preparations for a much larger scale movement destined to influence the market in a manner we cannot anticipate just yet.

Until further industry news, there’s one thing to rejoice: from now on, no “better than Botox” ads on Yahoo and their partner sites!

* – the products and services covered by the new policy are: Sponsored Search, Local Advertising, Search Submit, Product Submit, Travel Submit and Directory Submit.

You spend a lot of time and effort to build out and market a site. You are getting a lot of traffic, but the site isnt profitable. What now?

Making Money On A Site That Bombs

There is a nasty little secret related to Internet businesses that most people either do not want to know or simply ignore. The secret is that some businesses are just not going to be profitable on the web. There can be a variety of reasons, but the simple fact is all the traffic in the world may not make your site profitable. This brings up the issue that should be discussed at the beginning of the process, but rarely is.

Should every business have a site? Yes. Should every business go hog wild trying to market their site on the web? No. A fundamental question that must be considered at the beginning of site planning is whether the site should be active or passive. Active sites are designed to be profitable in and of themselves. Passive sites are designed to simply create an online presence for the convenience of customers a digital business card if you will with directions, phone numbers and so on.

For example, the site for an artist is typically going to be a passive site. People usually do not search for random art. They search by an artists name. Paying for marketing, thus, makes little sense. Instead, the best option is typically to put up a site emphasizing the artists name and showing his or her work. If a proactive effort is desired, listing the art on EBay is probably the best option.

Regardless of the path you take, nothing is worse than finding out your site is bombing. Despite your best efforts, there simply seems to be no way to make a profit. Perhaps Google has opened a similar service and you are getting stomped. Perhaps people simply do not buy online what you are selling. Alas, there are a couple of steps you can take to try to rescue something from the situation.

The first step is to consider repositioning your site. Instead of trying to sell something, you can always become an information site. Essentially, you drop the sales pitches and just offer useful information. When you take this approach, people tend to start returning to your site when they need more information, to wit, you get the much cherished return visitors. If you become a credible resource, you may be able to save the day.

If you convert to an information site, the second step is to make some money from it. If you have decent, free traffic coming to the site from search engine rankings, you should give some thought to Google Adsense. Adsense is a program whereby you put ads from Google Adwords advertisers on your site. When someone clicks the ads, Google gives you a share of the bid price. If you have a couple thousand visitors a day, you can make some decent money. In fact, many people are shocked at just how much they make.

At the end of the day, you really havent lived until you have built a site that bombs. Instead of heading to the window ledge, take a deep breath and consider your options. Google Adsense is one way to pick up the scraps and recover some of your investment. Over time, you should be able to make back your money and more.

Copyright 2006 Sharon Housley

Anti-Google sentiment is on the rise. Web pundits have tossed around monopoly theories and privacy advocates have warned of a day of reckoning. While Google has made friends on Wallstreet, it has disappointed the technical evangelists who were once its fiercest followers. Google has grown into a big scary company and web watchers are expressing their concerns about the information Google gleans from their various services.

Google Analytics is free, no one can beat the price, but what is the real cost? The cost is your data. While not terribly important when analyzed alone, when aggregated with other information Google has access to, it could be damaging. Data mining has made the collection of data meaningful. It has become easier to find patterns and trends in large volumes of data.

While any of that information independent of other data, might be non-threatening or irrelevant to someone doing analysis, when combined with other data Google has access to, it can paint a very clear picture of how, not only individual companies are performing, but the aggregate data could possibly paint a picture of how entire business sectors or industries are performing.

The big question is how will Google use this information? Will it affect search engine ranking? Will it influence keyword costs?

Paranoia? Lauren Weinstein doesn’t seem to think so, her blog post entitled “The Dark Side of Google” http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000108.html , paints a very clear picture of the danger of a single entity possessing all of the data.

According to a recent USA Today article “In just seven years, Google has emerged as one off the most influential companies of the 21st century, a multinational whose recent forays into classified ads, book publishing, video, Wi-Fi and telecom make its data empire ever more powerful.” The article goes on further to quote Jeff Chester, head of the digital Center for Digital Democracy saying “Google could easily become the poster child for a national public movement to regulate data collection”.

Lets take a look at Google’s new analytics tool. As a reporting tool, Google Analytics offers good features and functionality. Google Analytics tells publishers who their website referrers are, what pages visitors are viewing, the length of the visitor stay, what items are purchased. Google Analytics data can be used to develop new technologies, and optimize pay per term influence ranking.

Google wants to make money, and like it or not, data is a commodity. Google will likely use the data from their various ventures to develop new technologies and personalize content. Conspiracy theorists believe that the Google’s aggregate data will also be used to optimize the fees charged for pay-per-click, influence organic ranking or worse yet sold.

Unbeknownst to many users, privacy advocates say that Google’s technology give Google the ability to collect enormous amounts of data about interests and online habits of web surfers. That said, Google’s growth will continue to motivate privacy advocates and those in the technology field behind the Attention Truste movement to work together, to improve how personal information and subscription information is used online. I expect we will see a lot of energy and effort in this arena.

Lets face it, Google wants to make money; no, now that they are public they *need* to make money and like it or not, data is a commodity. Whether Google will use your data or not is still to be determined, but the fact remains they can if they choose to. Google’s storage capacity, is as deep as its pockets, meaning that it is far ahead of competitors. All of this has motivated privacy advocates and eyes are on and will continue to be focused on Google and the type of data they are capable of collecting.

Copyright 2006 Sharon Housley

Anti-Google sentiment is on the rise. Web pundits have tossed around monopoly theories and privacy advocates have warned of a day of reckoning. While Google has made friends on Wallstreet, it has disappointed the technical evangelists who were once its fiercest followers. Google has grown into a big scary company and web watchers are expressing their concerns about the information Google gleans from their various services.

Google Analytics is free, no one can beat the price, but what is the real cost? The cost is your data. While not terribly important when analyzed alone, when aggregated with other information Google has access to, it could be damaging. Data mining has made the collection of data meaningful. It has become easier to find patterns and trends in large volumes of data.

While any of that information independent of other data, might be non-threatening or irrelevant to someone doing analysis, when combined with other data Google has access to, it can paint a very clear picture of how, not only individual companies are performing, but the aggregate data could possibly paint a picture of how entire business sectors or industries are performing.

The big question is how will Google use this information? Will it affect search engine ranking? Will it influence keyword costs?

Paranoia? Lauren Weinstein doesn’t seem to think so, her blog post entitled “The Dark Side of Google” http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000108.html , paints a very clear picture of the danger of a single entity possessing all of the data.

According to a recent USA Today article “In just seven years, Google has emerged as one off the most influential companies of the 21st century, a multinational whose recent forays into classified ads, book publishing, video, Wi-Fi and telecom make its data empire ever more powerful.” The article goes on further to quote Jeff Chester, head of the digital Center for Digital Democracy saying “Google could easily become the poster child for a national public movement to regulate data collection”.

Lets take a look at Google’s new analytics tool. As a reporting tool, Google Analytics offers good features and functionality. Google Analytics tells publishers who their website referrers are, what pages visitors are viewing, the length of the visitor stay, what items are purchased. Google Analytics data can be used to develop new technologies, and optimize pay per term influence ranking.

Google wants to make money, and like it or not, data is a commodity. Google will likely use the data from their various ventures to develop new technologies and personalize content. Conspiracy theorists believe that the Google’s aggregate data will also be used to optimize the fees charged for pay-per-click, influence organic ranking or worse yet sold.

Unbeknownst to many users, privacy advocates say that Google’s technology give Google the ability to collect enormous amounts of data about interests and online habits of web surfers. That said, Google’s growth will continue to motivate privacy advocates and those in the technology field behind the Attention Truste movement to work together, to improve how personal information and subscription information is used online. I expect we will see a lot of energy and effort in this arena.

Lets face it, Google wants to make money; no, now that they are public they *need* to make money and like it or not, data is a commodity. Whether Google will use your data or not is still to be determined, but the fact remains they can if they choose to. Google’s storage capacity, is as deep as its pockets, meaning that it is far ahead of competitors. All of this has motivated privacy advocates and eyes are on and will continue to be focused on Google and the type of data they are capable of collecting.