in the world of large, database-driven ecommerce websites, implementing quality seo tactics can be somewhat difficult. especially with restrictions inherent to many content management systems.

on top of that, the internal bureaucracy of large corporations prevent them from updating their own websites. Marketing and IT resource constraints wreak havoc on timely implementations.

what is a Fortune 500 company to do?

one remedy to these SEO woes is the implementation of a proxy technology solution.

what the heck is that?

it is basically a way for a site to be optimized remotely by a third party. leaving the optimization work to the experts while not touching the native site.

the proxy environment basically creates a mirror image of the native site but appends the native pages with keyword optimized content such as Title tags, meta description tags and body content.

without requiring the resources of the company’s IT or Marketing departments.

there are a few different providers of proxy solutions providing varying degrees of optimization.

what experiences have you had with proxy technologies? would you recommend it for large ecommerce websites?

in the world of large, database-driven ecommerce websites, implementing quality seo tactics can be somewhat difficult. especially with restrictions inherent to many content management systems.

on top of that, the internal bureaucracy of large corporations prevent them from updating their own websites. Marketing and IT resource constraints wreak havoc on timely implementations.

what is a Fortune 500 company to do?

one remedy to these SEO woes is the implementation of a proxy technology solution.

what the heck is that?

it is basically a way for a site to be optimized remotely by a third party. leaving the optimization work to the experts while not touching the native site.

the proxy environment basically creates a mirror image of the native site but appends the native pages with keyword optimized content such as Title tags, meta description tags and body content.

without requiring the resources of the company’s IT or Marketing departments.

there are a few different providers of proxy solutions providing varying degrees of optimization.

what experiences have you had with proxy technologies? would you recommend it for large ecommerce websites?

i have a hard time with the concept of buying links for the purpose of ranking higher in the search engine results pages (SERP) or increasing a site’s PageRank.

but i’m not so sure why or what aspect of it bothers me.

on the one hand, Google frowns upon the idea so my White Hat SEO side tells me that i shouldn’t entertain the concept.

but on the other foot i start to think of the following:

preface Google’s job, as with all search engines, is to try and organize the chaos that is “information” available on the web. trying to determine (mostly through crazy computer calculations) what results you want to see when you enter a search term/phrase. but as we all know, many times we DON’T get the results we want. it is a flawed system. but the end-game in Google’s mind is to give you the right content. end preface

to that end, if you are a site owner with quality (read worthwile) content that pertains to specific keywords but you don’t rank high for these keywords for any of a number of reasons, should you not be allowed the chance to do so? i mean, that is what Google wants, right? so why should so many non-relevant sites come up high for keyword searches just because a quality site/page may not have much link popularity or PageRank or whatever.

granted, i’m definitely opposed to link farms or crazy linking schemes that employ black hat seo tactics to create links en masse. don’t get me wrong.

but, if you have the ability to buy select links from quality, relevant, related sites in order to boost your rankings and you have quality content on your site, is that necessarily bad?

there are many large websites out there that pimp out their PageRank and viewership to advertisers every day (banner ads, etc.) for big dollars. why should this practice be considered okay but having these high PR sites sell text links to quality, relevant sites be frowned upon?

in one sense it’s the same thing, the large site is selling itself to generate a nice revenue stream. who cares if it is banner ads or Google ads or paid links?

obviously this could be abused and people could outbid each other and it could/would become an insane cost model like any supply and demand scenario. but it’s definitely something to think about.

again, this could be an abused practice, but the flip side is that is could be just what the doctor ordered with regard to getting more quality content to rank higher in the SERPs.

i’d love to know the thoughts of other SEO’s with regard to this.

i have a hard time with the concept of buying links for the purpose of ranking higher in the search engine results pages (SERP) or increasing a site’s PageRank.

but i’m not so sure why or what aspect of it bothers me.

on the one hand, Google frowns upon the idea so my White Hat SEO side tells me that i shouldn’t entertain the concept.

but on the other foot i start to think of the following:

preface Google’s job, as with all search engines, is to try and organize the chaos that is “information” available on the web. trying to determine (mostly through crazy computer calculations) what results you want to see when you enter a search term/phrase. but as we all know, many times we DON’T get the results we want. it is a flawed system. but the end-game in Google’s mind is to give you the right content. end preface

to that end, if you are a site owner with quality (read worthwile) content that pertains to specific keywords but you don’t rank high for these keywords for any of a number of reasons, should you not be allowed the chance to do so? i mean, that is what Google wants, right? so why should so many non-relevant sites come up high for keyword searches just because a quality site/page may not have much link popularity or PageRank or whatever.

granted, i’m definitely opposed to link farms or crazy linking schemes that employ black hat seotactics to create links en masse. don’t get me wrong.

but, if you have the ability to buy select links from quality, relevant, related sites in order to boost your rankings and you have quality content on your site, is that necessarily bad?

there are many large websites out there that pimp out their PageRank and viewership to advertisers every day (banner ads, etc.) for big dollars. why should this practice be considered okay but having these high PR sites sell text links to quality, relevant sites be frowned upon?

in one sense it’s the same thing, the large site is selling itself to generate a nice revenue stream. who cares if it is banner ads or Google ads or paid links?

obviously this could be abused and people could outbid each other and it could/would become an insane cost model like any supply and demand scenario. but it’s definitely something to think about.

again, this could be an abused practice, but the flip side is that is could be just what the doctor ordered with regard to getting more quality content to rank higher in the SERPs.

i’d love to know the thoughts of other SEO’s with regard to this.

so you’re interested in better optimizing your site for search engines and want to know where to start.

the first thing (well, second thing, after doing keyword research…) is to optimize the Title tags of all your website’s web pages if at all possible.

the title tag is the single most important textual element of a web page and is the identified by the search engine spiders as the key to determine what the given web page is about.

if the title tag is not descriptive or does not speak to the page’s content, you are missing the boat entirely.

the title tag also happens to be the hyperlink that shows up in the search engine results pages of Google/Yahoo!/MSN, etc. so having a title that makes sense and speaks to the web page is also important from a usability standpoint.

make sure that your titles are well thought out and explain your page’s content. center around no more than 2-3 keywords and/or keyword phrases.

then, make sure your page actually speaks to these keywords. having the body content reflect the title text brings the user experience and the bot experience full-circle.

now go out their and optimize your title tags. you, your end-users and the spiders will be glad you did.

this is for the ad agencies, creative web designers and marketing heads of the world…

i’ve had the misfortune of dealing with clients who spend large sums of money developing microsites for their customers (entirely in Flash) and then shortly before making them live, ask us to help them with search engine optimization.

duh.

if this wasn’t 2007 i wouldn’t comment as such but many of these individuals have heard of and are well aware of SEO. to the point of knowing that they have to do it for their sites.

and yet over and over again i deal with customers who think that building a single url, all-flash website is somehow going to rank well on top, extremely generic keywords.

these are highly paid individuals.

i say shame on them, but i also think: shame on the ad agencies and development/design firms for not thinking outside of the box.

am i just being too critical? does anybody else think this is pretty rediculous in this day and age?

i am all for a nice flash element on a website but please keep it to a minimum. hybrid html/flash sites can look amazing (for the designers out there) and yet still be functional and seo-friendly.

how is it that these shops just don’t get it?

who is missing the boat here?

sorry for the rant. but i guess everybody is entitled to their own opinions.

let me know your thoughts.

this is for the ad agencies, creative web designers and marketing heads of the world…

i’ve had the misfortune of dealing with clients who spend large sums of money developing microsites for their customers (entirely in Flash) and then shortly before making them live, ask us to help them with search engine optimization.

duh.

if this wasn’t 2007 i wouldn’t comment as such but many of these individuals have heard of and are well aware of SEO. to the point of knowing that they have to do it for their sites.

and yet over and over again i deal with customers who think that building a single url, all-flash website is somehow going to rank well on top, extremely generic keywords.

these are highly paid individuals.

i say shame on them, but i also think: shame on the ad agencies and development/design firms for not thinking outside of the box.

am i just being too critical? does anybody else think this is pretty rediculous in this day and age?

i am all for a nice flash element on a website but please keep it to a minimum. hybrid html/flash sites can look amazing (for the designers out there) and yet still be functional and seo-friendly.

how is it that these shops just don’t get it?

who is missing the boat here?

sorry for the rant. but i guess everybody is entitled to their own opinions.

let me know your thoughts.

some of you are aware of this technical implement known as the 301 Permanent Redirect. and those of you outside the world of search engine optimization may have no idea what i’m talking about (read on if you wish).

over time a website, hopefully, will build up or increase in what is known as Google PageRank.

this increased ranking or weight feeds that site or page’s relevance in the search world and as a result, gives that site or page a better chance of coming up in the search results for keywords (this is over-simplified of course).

now, PageRank is a pretty important thing in the search world and you don’t want to lose it (which is easy to do).

let’s say you decide to get rid of a web page or change the URL structure of your site. if you decide to do so and don’t take the right precautions, you could lose your built up PageRank. in addition, if someone is linking directly to a given page on your site and the URL has changed, that link is now broken.

but, if you change your URL structure or drop/move pages on your site, you can maintain or pass on that built up ranking by implementing a 301 permanent redirect.

it’s a simple thing to implement and is sanctioned by Google to officially pass along that PageRank.

keep this in mind if you have a site with some quality ranking built up. don’t lose it.

here’s a link to a listing of ways to implement 301’s if you need help:

How to Redirect a Web Page

cheers!

Google’s Universal Search is upon us, sort of (you’ll see it only on occasion). what does this mean for you, the end-user? what does this mean for all the seo firms out there (of which i am a part of)?

the idea is to give the end-user more quality search results that cover the gamut of available web resources: news results, video clips, images, traditional web pages, etc.

this may sound like a good idea on the surface, but i’d be willing to bet that it can be a nuisance as much as it is a service.

right now, it is still difficult to find quality search results from the search engines without the added results from Universal Search.

throwing video, news, images and more into the mix just makes finding what you’re looking for that much more difficult. especially since the engines are not exactly expert at indexing such things as video and images.

in addition, with these added results thrown onto page one results pages of Google, the type of content you are used to looking for is now pushed further down the page or onto page two of the results pages. (obviously frustrating the seo’s)

can Google optimize this process to make Universal Search the end all of search? will this just annoy the average user? how will seo’s combat the issues associated with these new search challenges?

it’s an interesting topic right now. time will tell how this will all shake out. what are your thoughts?

Google’s Universal Search is upon us, sort of (you’ll see it only on occasion). what does this mean for you, the end-user? what does this mean for all the seo firms out there (of which i am a part of)?

the idea is to give the end-user more quality search results that cover the gamut of available web resources: news results, video clips, images, traditional web pages, etc.

this may sound like a good idea on the surface, but i’d be willing to bet that it can be a nuisance as much as it is a service.

right now, it is still difficult to find quality search results from the search engines without the added results from Universal Search.

throwing video, news, images and more into the mix just makes finding what you’re looking for that much more difficult. especially since the engines are not exactly expert at indexing such things as video and images.

in addition, with these added results thrown onto page one results pages of Google, the type of content you are used to looking for is now pushed further down the page or onto page two of the results pages. (obviously frustrating the seo’s)

can Google optimize this process to make Universal Search the end all of search? will this just annoy the average user? how will seo’s combat the issues associated with these new search challenges?

it’s an interesting topic right now. time will tell how this will all shake out. what are your thoughts?