Are you embarrassed about having recommended the nofollow attribute?

Not at all. Matt Cutts stated that the change in how nofollow is treated happened in the last year which means that recommending it was good for around 3 years. That seems pretty good to me. I know people still recommended meta keywords…

Also, adding the nofollow attribute was at worst ineffective. There is no penalty and it's generally a really easy thing to implement. So why not include along with dozens of other recommendations since a site is going to be updated anyway?

Nofollow has been called an unnatural change and a hack to make to a site, so why did you do it in the first place?

Unnatural or not, the online space is competitive and I believe you need to examine all of the tools available to you. If the potential reward outweighs the potential risk, that's a pretty compelling argument for me to move ahead with an idea.

And don't forget, although it was never labeled a top priority change, using nofollow was highlighted by Matt Cutts as an approved technique.

Shouldn't you have noticed the change in how nofollow is handled?

Ideally, yes. But there are so many variables being changed with the sites I work on that isolating the impact to just one change would be difficult to do. At some point you have trust previous results and the findings of reputable sources.

I think of it like what doctors have to do. They read research and rely on the findings of that research. They don't repeat every experiment before believing the results. Sure, SEO isn't quite that scientific, but the same sort of thinking holds with the idea of relying on research from reputable sources and augmenting that research with your own findings.

Why don't you recommend a site restructuring instead?

"The boilerplate recommendation to re-organize a site optimally for users and search engines is out of touch with reality."The boilerplate recommendation to re-organize a site optimally for users and search engines is out of touch with reality. People who make such recommendations are either playing it safe or have simply not worked on a site of significant size. Aside from the enormous resources needed to redesign a site, it is next to impossible to get different business units to decide on what will appear on the home page let alone work out a complete site architecture. Everyone wants their link and their copy in the most prominent place. So if a full restructuring is going to take a year, why not make tweaks in the meantime?

The nofollow at least provided the opportunity to help search engines direct users to the most appropriate destination pages despite the mess that often comes with committee-based decisions.

Aren't there more effective SEO-related tactics than nofollow?

Oh absolutely. Again, I point to the typical large company engaged in an SEO project. Getting anything done is hard enough. So you go for what is likely to be the easiest first while working on the long-term changes.

Never worked with a big company? Here's an example of how hard it is sometimes: I've been trying to get a sitemap.xml and robots.txt file uploaded to a client's web server for 3+ months. These are changes that are invisible to end-users. Can you imagine what it's going to take to make content changes!?

Do you find it odd how Google didn't relay the change with nofollow for over a year?

Absolutely. But some big thinkers have already weighed in on that including Danny Sullivan, Aaron Wall and Michael Gray.

Will you be telling clients to remove the nofollow attribute?

At the moment, no. At worst keeping it simply prevents link juice from flowing to pages that have been identified as low-quality anyway.

Will you recommend the nofollow attribute to future clients?

For the time being, no. As much to avoid having overly lengthy discussions with certain types of SEO clients.

I'd like to thank Marios for taking the time to speak to me today. For more commentary on the search engine marketing industry, check out Marios' SEM / SEO blog.

Note: Although I'm speaking as an agency SEO, I'm not necessarily speaking for an SEO agency

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

1. A gaggle of teen-age girls. All talking at the same time with no one actually listening. Not that it matters, because no one is saying anything important anyway.

2. Walking through a crowded room. You catch snippets of conversations, but can't really tell what people are talking about because you didn't hear the beginning of the conversation and you're not around when it ends.

3. A buffet. You get to listen to a lot of different people in a short amount of time, but in the end you have to admit that you would have had a richer experience had you just focused on one person.

4. Speed dating. Some people are boring right from the start while others seem interesting. Sadly, they only seem interesting for the first 140 characters but the rules say you can't stop listening to them or they'll think you're mean.

5. Scanning radio stations. You never manage to catch a conversation when it is starting, but if you scan through the tweets fast enough and long enough you can maybe piece together the list of conversation topics for the day.

6. The housing market a few years ago. You spend too much time on it, are twittering because everyone else is, and the bubble will eventually burst.

7. Birds at a bird feeder. All the fluttering about looks exciting and you can't stop yourself from joining. But then everyone disperses as quickly as they gathered and you realize people were just after a their share of the seeds.

8. Going out of your way to expose yourself to too much information in too little time. Very much like grabbing every pamphlet you can from every slightly interesting place you visit and then never remembering where you went or what the hell these leafletey things are on about. Submitted by Robert K of Creare Group.

Got another metaphor? I'll happily add it.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

The overall problem I see time and time again is that clients behave as if they don't need to really be engaged in the SEO campaign. They show up for the weekly meetings where they proceed to zone out; nod their heads in agreement like a bobblehead on a car dashboard; and set new standards for what it means to push paper. Instead, a truly involved client is one that:

Considers the impact of SEO recommendations…

… and alerts the SEO agency to potential obstacles. Or, if that knowledge is not on hand, invites others (e.g. editorial or technical staff) from the company to the meetings where recommendations are discussed. Doing so can reduce the amount of time wasted circulating SEO recommendations for review, approval, and implementation. With more than one client I've had recommendations circulating for over 3 months just because the right people weren't involved at the beginning.

Actively identifies opportunities…

… for the SEO agency to shine. No matter how good the SEO agency is, there's no chance of them knowing all of the projects and activities going on within the client's company. Having these highlighted could bring to light areas where the SEO agency can have a significant impact which is a win-win for both parties. The most common type of failure here, in my experience, is when a new site is in the works and the SEO agency doesn't hear about it until it is in the staging environment and ready for deployment.

Builds trust with the SEO agency

There aren't too many things that can as effectively kill the success of an SEO project than a client that is constantly asking for detailed justification of every recommendation. It's like asking your doctor for a summary of all of the research he's read regarding every ailment you've ever had. Sure, the SEO agency should be able to provide this information at any time, but having them do so repeatedly uses up resources that could otherwise be allocated to actually doing something productive. Establishing trust isn't necessarily easy, but if both sides don't trust each other after a couple of months into a yearlong campaign, that's a really bad sign.

Champion changes to their web site

These changes could be structural or content-based. In some cases this means the client may need to help the SEO agency argue for a change to corporate policy by bringing different parties together. I worked with one company that had a formal policy of seeking out sites that had linked to them without permission and requesting that those links be removed. Shocking, I know. The client wasn't willing to put my team in touch with anyone to discuss the negative impact of this policy and to explore possible changes.

Is willing to learn

The more a client knows, the less the SEO agency has to explain. So if a concept has been covered a few times, the SEO agency should be able to build on that concept to constantly elevate the sophistication of the SEO effort. If, instead, the client doesn't care enough to get a handle on the concepts, I can pretty much guarantee the SEO agency won't get support for more advanced techniques like building links through social media marketing. There's only so many times you can change a page's title…

If you ever land an SEO client that does most or even all of the above, I recommend you do everything you can to keep them happy. If not, watch your back because I'm going to come in and steal the perfect client from you. What? You think I'm kidding!?

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

1. No SEO Knowledge, But Eager to Learn

These are generally my favorite clients. Not because I like to be the know-it-all (although that doesn't hurt), but because clients with no knowledge are generally receptive to anyone willing to fill in the gaps. So with a list of recommendations you simply need to provide some high-level rationale for the recommendations and generally the client won't push back. If you can also turn-around answers to questions such clients have without ever showing frustration for having answered the same thing 17 times, you'll remain their favorite for a very long time.

Identifying Traits: Asks a lot of basic questions. Often the same question multiple times.
What To Do: Land this client! Don't tell anyone.
What Not To Do: Don't take advantage of the client's lack of knowledge because there's a good chance you'll regret it. A client without SEO knowledge eventually becomes one with SEO knowledge. If you're twice as expensive as everyone else, you better be providing twice the value.

2. Some SEO Knowledge, Overly Eager to Demonstrate Expertise

I can hear my SEO readers snickering now. They understand exactly what I mean by the client that knows some SEO coupled with an uncontrollable urge to convince everyone that they're experts. These are the folks that read an article, attended a conference, or skimmed through a book and feel they have grasped all there is to SEO. The problem is that their knowledge is out of date (e.g. just put your keywords in the meta keywords tag) or they haven't thought through the implications of an idea (e.g. nofollow all external links). The challenge with such clients is that any SEO recommendation that is not inline with the client's knowledge must be vigorously defended and even then a compromise with a mediocre outcome is common. And with a mediocre effort comes mediocre results.

Identifying Traits: Tells you about SEO experience during first conversation. Tries to one-up you at least once in the first 3 conversations.
What To Do: If the SEO budget is big, suck it up. If not, walk away.
What Not To Do: Don't let your ego get the best of you.

3. Unreasonable Expectations

Whether accompanied by SEO knowledge or not, there are some clients that have crazy expectations. Somewhere along the line these folks concluded that an SEO effort requires little work and/or can quadruple traffic in 30 days. If only that were the case… Many in the industry will say that these clients just need to have their expectations managed. A seemingly simple thing to do, but my experience has been that clients that are actually receptive to having their expectations managed aren't the ones that have unreasonable expectations. Know what I mean?

Identifying Traits: Asks questions along the lines of how soon before traffic will double.
What To Do: Be very clear about what success is in the contract. Sure you may double traffic, but only a 25% increase in the first 6 months is actually required.
What Not To Do: Don't agree to all of the client's demands. You will fail.

4. Limited Development Resources

These sorts of clients are often pleasant to work with except for the tiny fact that nothing you recommend actually gets implemented. In some cases, the client is aware that their lack of resources is the reason for a lack of progress and so a renewal is quite possible. In other cases, the client gets frustrated as the contract end approaches and so there is no hope of a renewal.

Identifying Traits: During the pitch, gently inquire about the process for implementing web site changes. Any mention about submitting a ticket to the web team or having to prioritize workloads is a red flag.
What To Do: Take the project, but identify goals other than ones directly connected to site traffic. For example, having the client's team "SEO Certified" is a good goal that doesn't require as much from the client as making site changes. A renewal will get you closer to having recommendations actually implemented and so eventually everyone wins.
What Not To Do: Don't point fingers at and complain about whichever team is the bottleneck. Doing so will just make you more enemies.

5. Resistant to Change

The worst clients are those that won't adapt to a changing online space. They don't want to change how they write titles, they don't want to target keywords, and they certainly don't want to get involved with social media. Umm… so why did you hire an SEO agency?

Identifying Traits: During the pitch mention a type of recommendation you expect to make. Look for any humming and hawing from the prospect about the recommendation going against corporate policy.
What To Do: Take the gig and hope your assessment of the client is wrong. Sometimes it is. Do your best to evangelize SEO within the company.
What Not To Do: Don't count on a renewal.

Have more types you want to add to the list? Send descriptions my way. If they're sufficiently different than the above, I'd be happy to give you a link in exchange. Happy prospecting to the rest of you!

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

The plugin that I've been digging into has code that randomly determines whether to inject a link into the outputted text. Not only is the insertion frequency dynamic, but so is the link that is injected. That is, the link is pulled from a web site that when queried, spits out a different link. A nice automated link building tool, wouldn't you say?

After a few minutes of requesting links from this site, it became apparent to me that the black hat has just made it easy for me to identify 18 of his sites.

So what would you do with a list of domains all being supported by black hat link building techniques? Take the opportunity to learn a thing or two? Call Matt Cutts?

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

Often times, marketers overlook the importance of a campaign?s keywords in favor of catchy creative, fancy testing techniques or their reliance on bid management software to sort it all out. Now, I?m not saying that these individual components are not important. Everything plays a role in the success of a campaign. However, keywords make up the fundamental basis of a strong campaign.

Keywords are vital because they indicate user intent. We can determine if the consumer is in the research phase looking for general information, looking for a specific product or brand and when they are ready to make a purchase. Using this information, we can effectively group the keywords into relevant categories in order to creative appropriate (and timely) ads, improving our chances of creating a positive user experience.

All too often, inexperienced markets will take a quantity over quality approach. Judging a campaign by the large number of keywords it contains does not indicate its potential for success. On the contrary, smaller, highly-targeted sets of keywords are the best way to control spend and drive ROI. Once best performers are identified, you can experiment with variations of these keywords instead of making random guesses. Keywords can also be used to beef up your other marketing channels. Successful PPC keywords can be used as content in email, mobile or banner creative.

A successful SEM campaign makes use of many tools and strategies. Start with solid keyword research and add some intuitive thought to get into the mind of your potential customer. You?ll find that using this approach from the beginning can lessen the learning curve and speed up your path to a positive ROI.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

I make it a point to log into my master analytics account and check out traffic levels for the sites I regularly work on. I typically just look at traffic changes over the last few weeks to identify problems. It takes deeper analysis to actually affect the performance of a site, but traffic is a great diagnostic metric. At the end of January, after a week long hiatus, I saw this:

Figure 1: Traffic Drops Precipitously

Some more digging revealed this wonderful graph showing a spike in 404 errors.

Figure 2: 404 Errors Spike

To confirm the issue I logged into Google's Webmaster Tools. Sure enough, about 75% of the URLs in my XML sitemap were flagged as having generated a 404. The remaining 25% probably weren't crawled during the week before I found the problem.

What's an SEO to do when a site gets de-indexed due because of accidentally issued 404 errors? Obviously the first order of business is to fix the problem. Turns out there's a funky bug in WordPress which took me about 4 hours to uncover. The much harder task still lay ahead of me. How do I get Google to re-index my site? I had 5 ideas immediately pop into my head:

1. Submit an updated XML sitemap with every date stamp set to the current date. Done.
2. Create some new content with links to the de-indexed content knowing that the FeedBurner pinging service will bring Google in quickly. Done.
3. Take advantage of the $1 SEOmoz Pro subscription I was evaluating and ask the pros there for their opinion. Hey, my head is not so big that I won't seek ideas from other SEOs. The response I got was that I need to be patient and let things play out. Probably the right answer, but I was hoping there was something I could actually do.
4. Crawl my site with a browser from a few locations and hope the AdSense ads trigger a visit from Google. A few servers and the iMacros plugin took care of this a few times a day for a few days. Note: I wasn't clicking ads, just crawling my own site. Seemed like an OK thing to do.
5. Redirect some indexed URLs to the de-indexed URLs and hope the content is re-indexed. Seemed a little shady so I passed on this one.

Google was crazy slow with re-indexing my site. Every week I saw single digit percentage increases in organic traffic. Only 4 weeks later did I know my site was back in business — a more than doubling in traffic from one day to the next along with a return to near 100% inclusion in Google's index.

Figure 3: Traffic Climbs

So while I'm pleased to have recovered, this little excursion has cost me about 5 weeks of revenue. Ugh. If only Google Analytics had alert functionality I likely would've caught this much earlier.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

Over at the UserEffect blog there's a great check list of usability tips. Someone has already done half the work. Your job is to take such lists and assess the SEO impact of each item. Then take the list and remove anything that, although may be great from a usability perspective, may distract from the SEO effort. Ideally, you can keep everything in, but if you've done SEO consulting for a while you know that the ideal is rare.

The following is UserEffect's list of 25 usability items. The headings are the same as the original list, but below each heading I've identified whether there is an SEO benefit and marked whether I'd keep it. For more detail about the usability task associated with each heading, check out the original list of 25 usability tips.

Section I. Accessibility

1. Site Load-time Is Reasonable
The reasons for extended load times would determine for me whether I'd harp on this one or not. Lengthy HTML code is worse than a lengthy Flash movie at the bottom of the page which likely won't impact rankings.

2. Adequate Text-to-Background Contrast
Unless we're talking about the old search engine spam technique of white text on a white background, this one is out.

3. Font Size/Spacing Is Easy to Read
If we're not talking about hiding content with really, really small text, this one is out.

4. Flash and Add-Ons Are Used Sparingly
Yes! Flash continues to be the bane of many SEO's existence. I'm got one client that wants to do everything in Flash. Entire sites are built in Flash so I've got just one URL to target keywords with. And of course, the Flash has all of the useful content in so it's largely devalued by search engines.

5. Images Have Appropriate ALT Tags
This is basic image optimization so keep this one. Toss in keyword-rich file names and captions to make the effort more worthwhile. Ann Smarty has a good post on image seo.

6. Site Has Custom Not-found/404 Page
This will help keep the search engine indexes clean. Not to mention that you can't register a site with Google Webmaster Tools without a proper 404 server code.

Section II. Identity

7. Company Logo Is Prominently Placed
Not a big deal on the SEO front.

8. Tagline Makes Company's Purpose Clear Answer "What do you do?"
I'd kick this one out for SEO although who in their right mind wouldn't see the value in this?

9. Home-page Is Digestible In 5 Seconds
Digestible, yes. But that doesn't mean it should be just two lines long. Keep the structure clean and use headings (good for SEO) to make it scannable.

10. Clear Path to Company Information
Not a big one for SEO.

11. Clear Path to Contact Information
Neither is this.

Section III. Navigation

12. Main Navigation Is Easily Identifiable
Identifiable and search engine friendly aren't necessarily the same here. So I guess the SEO value depends on what the recommendation is to make the navigation identifiable.

13. Navigation Labels Are Clear & Concise
If HTML text based, this is a good one for SEO. Clear and concise can also include keywords.

14. Number of Buttons/Links Is Reasonable Psychologists
If you're a PageRank sculptor you agree with this one. Rand Fishkin of SEOmoz covered PageRank sculpting not too long ago. His focus was with the nofollow attribute, but the logic applies when you're consider what links to include and exclude on a page.

15. Company Logo Is Linked to Home-page
If you do #7, you might as well make the logo a link.

16. Links Are Consistent and Easy to Identify
This might have some impact on reducing bounce rates which in turn might send a signal of quality to search engines so keep this one.

17. Site Search Is Easy to Access
Keyword research anyone? Aaron Wall over at SEOBook even suggests using this data for content creation ideas.

Section IV. Content

18. Major Headings Are Clear and Descriptive
SEOs love headings. Use the h tags and you're all set.

19. Critical Content Is Above The Fold
A keeper. You want search engines to "understand" a page too.

20. Styles and Colors Are Consistent
Search engines are color blind. Although I wonder if they're working on this. If they know a searcher is male is there more value in sending me to a site with a palette more appealing to males? Hmmm…

21. Emphasis (bold, etc.) Is Used Sparingly
I don't do a whole lot of bolding these days. I wouldn't dwell on this one.

22. Ads and Pop-ups Are Unobtrusive
Pop-ups can result in disabled ads with the AdWords program. Their impact on SEO is still an area where much speculation exists. Last year the folks at SEOOptimise posed this very question. At this point I wouldn't call pop-ups an SEO deal breaker, but trying to get rid of them could very well make some enemies with the marketing team.

23. Main Copy Is Concise and Explanatory
Explanatory is a big one. Tell the search engines what a page is about and they'll give you the appropriate visitors.

24. URLs Are Meaningful and User-friendly
Meaningful and friendly can easily mean keyword-rich so this is a good one. Another post by Ann Smarty, but this time on Search Engine Journal is a quick read about optimizing URLs.

25. HTML Page Titles Are Explanatory
It's funny that what many consider to be the single strongest on page element for SEO is at the bottom of a usability list. Definitely keep this one.

You've now become the usability's expert's best friend. After all, who else in the company are you 80% in agreement with!? If you're lucky you'll start getting e-mails asking for your opinion on usability recommendations which if they can be supported by SEO are more likely to get implemented. Similarly, you can take your SEO ideas and run them by the usability expert for help with repositioning them in a manner that will resonate with whoever holds the purse strings.

Want to do the same exercise with a bigger list? Jacob Neilson's Homepage Usability: 50 Websites Deconstructed has 113 usability tips.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

"…the web site…PortugalSpainBoth.com traveled from zero page one rankings on major search engines to 506 pages ones in nine months — all through organic search."

Hmmm…

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

My own voting patterns got me thinking as to whether anyone is actually reading the articles or if people are just voting for the authors they already like? I'm hoping it's the former. Time for a quick poll…

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

Then very recently another article made the rounds describing a process for tracking organic search visits from universal results. This was particularly interesting to me because I've yet to find rank checking software that recognizes universal results (if you know of one, please let me know). For example, every rank checking software I've tried fails to report that a #1 ranking is actually #11 because there are 10 map listings above it.

I finally got through some basic testing today with both filters. I used two sites: one that is purely informational and one that is ecommerce focused. I followed the instructions and set up new profiles and applied the appropriate filters. Here are my results from the larger dataset of the two I have.

Google Rankings

Out of 35,535 organic search visits from Google, 16 visits were from keywords on page 2 and 7 visits were from keywords on page 3. The rest were either from page 1 or the information wasn't available for Google Analytics to capture. That works out to 99.9% of the keywords driving traffic being on page 1. That shouldn't be surprising given all of the research indicating that users don't go past the first page of results and instead prefer to refine their query. In conclusion I'd say that there's little value in this filter.

Google Universal Results Traffic

Out of 42,853 organic search visits from Google, 42,853 were flagged as not originating from a universal result. This could mean that the result was from a traditional blue link or that the universal result link didn't provide the necessary information for Google Analytics to track it. That number works out to about 98.4% of visits not attributable to universal results. Curiously, the most popular universal search result is 'spelling' errors at 469 visits. Next up was what I think are map/local related listings at 79 visits.

As with the Google Rankings test, the numbers for Google Universal Results Traffic aren't too impressive. However, I think results will vary greatly depending on the site and so I'd recommend not dismissing this filter. Instead, I'd set it, let it run for a bit, and then assess potential. If at the first time around there's nothing interesting in the data, check back quarterly in case Google includes a new result type or starts to include a greater percentage of blended results into the mix.

Anyone have other Google Analytics filter ideas? Send my way and I'd be happy to test them out.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

1. Arrange with a competitor such as Best Buy to redirect the traffic to them. This has got to be worth something, no?
2. Replace every link on CircuitCity.com with affiliate links. True, this would be a great technical undertaking, but I?m sure some of the newly unemployed web developers would've pitched in their time for a cut.
3. Keep the site as is but put up some ads (e.g. AdSense). Both CPM or CPC should work.

I suppose any money coming in would just go out to investors and lawyers so maybe this would all be moot…

I'd also like to use this post to mark the shuttering of the doors to learn what there is to learn from the disappearance of the site. At the moment, Google is reporting 1,170,000 indexed pages. There's a 302 redirect in place rather than a 301 redirect or even a 404 not found. I wonder how long before Google drops all of the content.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

Note: The pink line represents the probability of spam.

1. Top Level Domain

Relatively speaking, there is more spam on .biz domains than on other domains.

2. Language

And apparently spam is quite popular with the French.

3. Compression Ratio

Repeated (e.g. keyword stuffing) words generally lead to better compression rates.

4. Visible Content

Not to be confused with hidden content, visible content in this context basically refers to the code to text ratio. Guess what? A page with a higher ratio of code is actually less likely to be spam.

5. Number of Words

Longer documents are more likely to be spam.

6. Average Word Length

Long words, generally formed by combining other words such as freemp3, result in an above average word length.

7. Number of Words in Title

This one shouldn't surprise anyone. Stuffing the keyword title is common with spammers.

8. Words in Anchor Text

Too large a proportion of text in link text is a good indicator for web spam.

9 & 10. Most Frequent Words in Corpus Common with Text

The fraction of words on a page that are contained in the set of 200 or 500 words that occur most frequently in the English portion of the research paper authors' 105 million document corpus.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

I can install a Firefox add-on to set my browser's user-agent to match that of the GoogleBot and spend the rest of the day identifying cloaking with near 100% accuracy. So what's been keeping the PhD-filled Google complex from wrapping what I can do into an automated process? I had no idea what the answer to that question was until I read through a research paper titled Cloaking and Redirection: A Preliminary Study by Boening Wu and Brian D. Davison of Lehigh University.

Cloaking in Brief

Cloaking on the web, in case this is the first time you've come across the term, refers to the delivery of content to users that is different than what is delivered to search engines. The motivation behind doing so is to obtain rankings in search engines while driving subsequent visitors to some action without providing the promised content. For example, a site may require visitors to sign up before seeing the content, but those very same visitors wouldn't ever see the content if it didn't rank in search engines. Cloaking to the rescue — show the full content to search engines, but swap in a registration form for human visitors.

Methods for Detecting Cloaking

At first blush it seems that detecting a cloaked page is a simple matter of comparing the content delivered to a search engine vs. the content delivered to a browser. Unfortunately, this comparison turns out to be a non-trivial task. Some reasons for this are that some sites:

1. Change their content frequently (e.g. news sites) so comparing two different copies would yield a false positive.
2. Rotate through content and show something different for each request (e.g. a page the profiles different people).
3. Serve "clean" versions of their content to search engines (e.g. by removing advertising). There's no malicious intent with this sort of activity.
4. Include dynamic elements such as a time stamps that make every version of the page content unique.

Back in 2003, M. Njork filed a patent for a system and method for identifying cloaked web servers. He proposed using a browser toolbar installed by users to compare pages to what was stored by a search engine. The problem with his proposed solution is that it doesn't take into account any of the 4 items above. Fortunately, I don't believe such a toolbar ever made it to the masses.

Wu and Davison, authors of the research paper I mentioned above, proposed a few alternate methods for detecting cloaking. The first looks at the terms on the page using the following algorithm:

• Capture three copies of a web page. Two by a crawler (C1, C2) and one by a browser (B1).
• Parse the HTML into terms and count only the number of unique terms.
• Compare the counts for C1 and C2 (call this NCC) along with C1 and B1 (call this NBC).
• If NBC is greater than NCC, mark the page as cloaking candidate. Note that the threshold used for what constitutes a significant difference between NBC and NCC can be changed to achieve desired level of precision vs. recall.

Another approach compares the link counts on the pages in a similar fashion as to the steps described above for comparing terms. The results revealed that link comparisons identify fewer instances of cloaking than term comparisons, but the results are more accurate.

The final method requires an additional copy of the browser version of the page bring the total to 4: C1, C2, B1, and B2. The assumption for this third method is that deliberate cloaking will return a set of specific terms (chosen by the spammer) to search engines, but never to users. So, if C1 and C2 have common terms that don't appear at all in B1 or B2, it's likely the page is cloaking. Again, a threshold would be required to reduce false positives for insignificant differences.

Unfortunately, all three of these methods are flawed (even the others say so) and will result in many pages being marked as engaged in cloaking because they fail to distinguish between "acceptable" cloaking and that which results in web spam. In addition, search engines would be required to capture 3 or 4 copies of the same page which would add to the already daunting task of crawling and storing web content.

So what do you say? Should we cut Google a little slack?

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

Blogs differ from regular web sites suggesting that the splog detection process needs to be different than what is done to detect typical web spam. With web spam, content is usually static whereas splogs typically employ an automated framework to regularly generate new content. This constant change is what enables temporal analysis of both the content and link structure which in turn reveals splog-identifying patterns or anomalies.

Why go through all this trouble? Splogs not only degrade the end-users experience, but they are a significant tax on network and storage resources. Splogs have a established a significant foothold as can be seen from some data the authors collected using primary and secondary research:

• identified 2.7 million splogs out of 20.3 million (over 10% splogs)
• an average of 44 of the top 100 blogs search results in the three popular blog search engines came from splogs
• 75% of new pings come from splogs
• 50% of claimed blogs pinging the website weblogs.com are splogs

Characteristics of a Splog

When evaluating a splog, the evaluation is done at a site level rather than at a page level. Also, if spam elements such as trackback spam on an otherwise legitimate blog don't make that blog a splog. With this in mind, here are the typical characteristics of a splog:

• Content that is generated algorithmically including random gibberish, copied snippets from other sites, and weaved content.
• No added value e.g. the content is nonsensical or is a duplicate of another site.
• A hidden agenda likely one tied to generating advertising revenue. Arguably most blogs have some agenda other than the desire to share and communicate so this item alone doesn't mean a blog is a splog.

Self-Similarity Characteristics

The machine-generated nature of splogs make them good candidates for statistical assessment. This assessment can include looking at:

1. Post Time: Two measures that capture regularity in posting time (micro) e.g. posts go live in the morning before the blogger's "real" job as well as a macro time view e.g. a large gap in posting due to a vacation.
2. Post Content: A measure of the topic drift by the blogger. Commonly a blogger will remain focused on a topic, but will sometimes write about other topics.
3. Post Links: The links on the blog can be telling. A large proportion directed to a particular domain, for example, suggests a relationship with that destination domain.

The math associated with gathering this data and developing the signatures for identifying a blog vs. splog are quite complex. For details, I recommend downloading the PDF I linked to above. However, as you can see below, the authors did provide strong evidence, in the form of visuals, that the patterns that splogs produce are distinctive.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

Spam, in the context of this research paper, falls into two categories: content spam and link spam. There has been a lot of research focused on dealing with web spam (some of which I will get to in other posts) such as:

• Propogating distrust by reversing links aka BadRank.
• Promoting trust from good sites in order to demote spam aka TrustRank.
• Using statistical analysis to identify spam since spam pages typically vary from the average page.
• Developing a SpamRank metric that uses PageRank value distribution in the in-coming pages.

This research paper describes a basic classifier (consisting of 20+ content and link-based features) which is then enhanced in two different ways by integrating additional neighborhood features.

Content Features

• Number of words in a page.
• Average length of words in a page.
• Fraction of words drawn from globally popular words.
• Fraction of globally popular words used in a page.
• Fraction of visible content. This sounds like code to content ratio.
• Number of words in the page title.
• Amount of anchor text in a page to help detect pages stuffed with links.
• Compression rate of the page, using gzip. Not sure what this one is for, but I'm guessing normal text compresses a certain amount while spam doesn't.

Link Features

• Percentage of pages in most populated level.
• Top level page expansion ratio.
• In-links per page.
• Out-links per page.
• Out-links per in-link.
• Top-level in-link portion.
• Average level of in-links.
• Average level of out-links.
• Percentage of in-links to most popular level.
• Percentage of out-links from most emitting level.
• Cross-links per page.
• Top-level internal in-links per page on this site.
• Average level of page in this site.

Global Features

• Number of hosts in the domain. The more, the more likely spam.
• Ratio of pages in this host to pages in the domain.
• Number of hosts on the same IP address. Makes you wonder about IP sharing hosts like MediaTemple, no?

Combined, the above features would provide a score for any given page with some measure of confidence that it is or isn't spam. To refine this score, the authors also included neighborhood data. That is, by looking at what sites are pointing into and what sites are pointed out to, the classification accuracy improves. Namely, that spam sites generally point to a lot of other spam and spam sites generally receive a disproportionate number of links from other spam sites. So combining the feature data with the neighborhood data results in spam score. But the authors wanted to improve on this basic classification and did so in two ways. One of the methods is decribed below, the other isn't because I couldn't wrap my head around the description. I suggest downloading the PDF if you're interested.

Relabeling

Simply put, the relabeling approach aims to flip the label of a site from non-spam to spam or vice-versa. To do this, each site in a neighborhood is given a label with a certain level of confidence. The label from each site comes about by using the feature set listed above. This neighborhood label is then compared to the site's label. If the labels disagree and there is more confidence in the neighborhood's, the site's label is switched to match that of the neighborhood. Otherwise the label stays the same.

Boiled down, this translates into your site being judged by the friends it keeps.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

In the context of this research paper, all SEOs are spammers since their activities are intended to boost rankings of a page without actually improving the quality of that page. The authors call out techdictionary.com as an example of a web spam. They also mention SEO Inc. and Bruce Clay as important voices in the web spam arena. Curious choices.

Web spam is detrimental to search engines in two ways because it:

1. reduces the quality of search results
2. increases the cost of each processed query due to the storage and retrieval of useless pages

The techniques for generating web spam have two classifications: boosting and hiding. Boosting focuses on improving rankings while hiding focuses on preventing the search engines from detecting the boosting techniques.

Term Spamming

Possibly the simplest form of spamming, term spamming centers around the fundamental TFIDF metric (term frequency / inverse document frequency). In practical terms this metric means that if a keyword appears 4 times out of a total of 40 keywords then the TF (term frequency) is 0.1 while the IDF (inverse document frequency) is 10. The TFIDF score of a page for a given query is computed over all common terms as the sum of the products of the TF and IDF values. With TFIDF in mind, spammers either aim to target a small number of keywords with a high TFIDF score or to receive a non-zero TFIDF for a lot of terms.

Page elements that make good targets for spam include the body, title, meta tag, anchor text, and URLs. Some techniques include:

• Repetition of keywords in the page elements to increase relevance for a small number of queries.
• Dumping a large number of unrelated terms to increase the number of queries (mostly long tail) that the document would be relevant for.
• Weaving which uses copied text to surround the spam keywords. Certainly wouldn't pass a visual inspection, but could trick a search engine.
• Phrase stitching which combines different snippets of content to create new content.

Link Spamming

It doesn't take long before someone new to SEO comes across articles about how links are key to rankings. So it's no wonder that link spamming exists. For spammers, links are categorized as those that are:

1. inaccessible i.e. can't be modified
2. accessible, but not owned i.e. can be modified indirectly such as comments in a forum
3. owned i.e. complete control to modify

Targeting the HITS algorithm's emphasis on hub and authority scores is a matter of creating pages that link to high quality sites to increase that page's hub score. One common technique is to mirror a directory. Using many high hub score pages to point to a chosen target can then result in that target page obtaining a high authority score. This, as you can imagine, can be accomplished with accessible and owned pages.

Google's PageRank algorithm, despite its success, is susceptible to manipulation as well. PageRank places great importance on a page's incoming links. Generally, the more links the better although there is increased benefit from "high quality" links. Enter the link farm — an artificial construction of interlinked sites that in its purest form has:

1. All available owned pages part of the link farm
2. All accessible pages pointing to the spam farm
3. All links pointing outside of the spam farm suppressed
4. All pages within the farm having some outgoing links

Aside from link farms, all methods of obtaining inbound links are fair game. For example, anyone that has successfully toyed with social media has already figured out one of the ways links can be accumulated i.e. use useful/interesting content to attract links. A spammer goes one step further to then use that link equity to boost low quality pages. Other techniques include infiltrating a web directory, posting links in forums / blog comments, participating in link exchanges, and buying expired domains.

Content Hiding

Once popular, but not particularly effective anymore, is hiding content using background and foreground colors that match. Hiding links is only slightly harder and can be achieved with 1×1 pixel images. CSS brought with it a few new tricks such as setting page elements to be not visible along with other tricks like negative indents.

Cloaking

A more sophisticated hiding technique is cloaking. Sending different content to search engines vs. visitors is what cloaking is all about. Detecting the user-agent and responding accordingly is one method, but IP cloaking is much harder to detect.

Redirection

Allowing search engines to index a page, but redirecting human visitors to another page is another hiding technique. As with cloaking, the idea is to show search engines something while showing human visitors something else. The most common techniques are a meta refresh and a JavaScript redirect. Neither are executed by search engines, but both are apparently detectable now.

This web spam taxonomy, despite being somewhat dated (the document itself has no date, but the bibliography references other papers from 2005 so it's no older than that), makes for a nice segue into a series of web spam detection posts I have in the works. Stay tuned!

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

I could sort of see search engines following fully qualified links (i.e. with http and a full path) in JavaScript code since there's a good chance those links will lead to a real page. However, the links I found were part of a concatenation of strings that required execution of the JavaScript to actually be valid. Here's what I mean:

link = 'http://' + somevariable + '/somepage.php' + someothervariable;

Google decided that it would be a good idea to check out '/somepage.php' which of course is invalid without the variables before and after it.

So what this long-winded intro leads me to is the question of what is the current state of affairs at Google (and the other search engines) when it comes to links in HTML comments? I should have an answer to that in a few days…

Update: January 8, 2009
My experiments suggest Google isn't crawling links that are within HTML comment tags.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

BrowseRank is a measure developed by Microsoft with the purpose of outperforming Google's PageRank. Such an effort shouldn't come as a surprise as there is always a better way to build a mousetrap. Even Google has acknowledged that PageRank is no longer as effective as it once was given their devaluing of it when it comes to ranking search results. More specifically, BrowseRank set out to address two shortcomings with PageRank:

1. PageRank relies on the link graph, but this link graph is easily manipulated by spammers who automate the creation of pages and links in numbers that are almost unimaginable. Of course these links are worthless for determining true page quality or value.
2. PageRank ignores the time spent on a page. That is, if a user spends 5 minutes reading a page, that page is likely more valuable than one that takes just 10 seconds to read. PageRank is primarily concerned with where a user ends up via clicking on links, but it completely misses out on the feedback available by time spent on a page.

Using a dataset of 950 million unique URLs and 3 billion data points consisting of URL visited, time visited, and whether the visit originated from a link, the Microsoft researchers determined that BrowseRank outperformed both PageRank and TrustRank. This improvement was seen at both the web site-level and the page-level. That's pretty impressive given that just three metrics were used. Improvement, in this case, means a higher ranking for pages that users actually find engaging such as MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube rather than pages that are just linked to a lot such as Adobe (e.g. to download Acrobat Reader).

In addition, BrowseRank was more effective at filtering spam because it doesn't rely on easy-to-manipulate link data (critical to PageRank) or a potentially faulty seed list (critical to TrustRank).

I think this idea of user feedback is already in play at search engines. You can see strong evidence of this just by looking at what might come of the data already being collected by toolbars. And acquisitions of social media sites which provide strong, real-time signals of user interest are surely not just plays for additional advertising revenue. More tangible evidence is apparent with Google's almost immediate ranking of hot submissions on social bookmarking sites which wouldn't be happening as fast if PageRank had to be calculated.

Can you imagine the world of SEO where links had no direct ranking value? It'd be like every link on the web suddenly had a nofollow slapped on it. Links would then return to their original purpose of providing a jump point for additional information. An equally important to question to ask is whether your business is capable of surviving with such a change.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

There are two flaws with the system that I see. Admittedly, I'm going off what I've read. I'm neither an Inlinks publisher or advertiser so I have no first hand knowledge.

1. Advertisers will not be smart about their text link usage. They'll target a small handful of key words leaving obvious footprints in their wake. Only a small percentage will actually spend money on poor links to balance out their purchases.

2. Advertisers will be at the whim of what other links the publishers accept. Even if the advertiser takes all the necessary steps to establish anchor text that is natural looking, their efforts will be in vain when the same publisher accepts other paid link offers from advertisers that are not savvy enough to hide their tracks.

I guess only time will tell…

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

We've all seen spam pages. More often than not we can point to a page and call it spam with a high degree of certainty. Our brains are good at quickly identifying elements of a page that immediately indicate it as spam. Alas, computers are less capable with such acts of intuition, but a certain category of spam can be easily and methodically classified as such.

Although numerous and beyond the scope of this research paper, some approaches to spam include:

1. Loading pages with popular, but irrelevant keywords. Commonly called keyword stuffing.
2. Synthesizing many pages each with a narrow topic focus which in turn redirect to the page that needs to receive the traffic. Commonly called doorway pages.
3. Synthesizing many pages knowing that each will obtain a minimum PageRank which can all be channeled to the key page.

The first approach is easily detected using term vector analysis. The second two are the subject of the research paper.

Using two datasets of 150 million URLs and 429 million URLs, respectively, the Microsoft researchers set out to demonstrate that spam pages exhibit statistical anomalies that could be used to accurately separate spam from non-spam pages. These statistical anomalies include:

• Length of host name. The longer the more likely it's spam.
• Host name resolutions to the same IP. The more that resolved to the same IP, the more the pages are spam.
• Host-machine ratio for links. The more outbound links to hosts that converge to a small set of IPs, the more likely those pages are spam.
• The distribution of links embedded on a page vs. those pointing to a page. This distribution should follow a Zipfian Distribution and outliers are likely spam.
• A variation in the words used across many pages while the number of words remains constant.
• A high rate of page mutation. That is, pages that change content frequently. Note that news sites, which have just a few constantly changing pages with many otherwise static pages, do not get flagged by this measure.
• Excessive replication of content across domains.

For me there are two takeaways from this research. The first is that spam detection is not just about detecting what a page is, but also what it isn't. That is, a page that isn't like others in some via a statistical measure stands out.

The second takeaway is that this paper supports the notion that there is such a thing as over-optimizing a page, but the threshold is likely changing over time. By that I mean some overly exuberant SEO may push a site out of the statistical norms and into the looks like spam bucket. At the same time, the statistical norms are in flux because as more and more sites are optimized, what is normal changes with those optimization efforts.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

Where have I been? That's the question that my readers (both of you, not including my brother) may have asked in the last couple of months. I've been where I've always been, but I've been reading much more than I've been writing. Some of that reading has been research papers of the sort put out by the International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2) or the Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (SIGIR).

One of these papers came out of Microsoft and is called Beyond PageRank: Machine Learning for Static Ranking. Ooh. Anything with PageRank in the title, must be good, right? Well, actually in this case yes. The paper was an excellent read and I highly recommend it despite it being from 2006. Because I have a memory like a sieve, I've decided to note some of the highlights for future reference.

A good query-independent ranking or static ranking algorithm is key for search engine success and provides:

1. A general indication of the overall quality of a page.
2. The ability for the search engine to quickly stop searching for results once a particular threshold of quality has been passed.
3. A clue to setting the priority for what pages should be crawled first.

It's generally accepted that Google's PageRank is the best method for the static ranking of Web pages, but the authors of this page have set out to demonstrate otherwise. Their argument is stated as such:

"There are a number of simple URL- or page-based features that significantly outperform PageRank (for the purposes of statically ranking web pages) despite ignoring the structure of the web. We combine these and other static features using machine learning to achieve a ranking system that is significantly better than PageRank (in pairwise agreement with human labels)."

Pretty bold statement, right?

I won't attempt to describe what is meant by a machine learning approach, but some of the benefits cited by the authors include:

• Multiple measures that make it hard for malicious users to manipulate (especially of the measures are kept secret).
• An algorithm that learns allows for a feature to be de-emphasized should it become subject to manipulation.
• Taking advantage of advances in machine learning field e.g. it is apparently possible to adjust the ranking model ahead of the spammer's attempts to circumvent it.

And so RankNet was born — the Microsoft researchers' implementation of a "modified standard neural network back-prop algorithm". And from it a new measure call fRank (for feature-based ranking).

The paper includes details of various experiments which are worth reading, but the gist the results is that fRank performs significantly better than PageRank despite a lack of information about the web graph. As a side benefit, fRank tends to bias pages that web users actually prefer rather than those preferred by web authors when compared to PageRank. I had to mull that one over for a while.

And what simple measures in combination beat the all mighty PageRank?

• Popularity as measured by the number of times it was visited by users over time. The MSN Toolbar provided this data. Yes, the MSN Toolbar, as with other toolbars, could very well be a factor in rankings.
• Anchor text length and number of unique words in that text. I'm not sure what length is optimal, but I guess the authors determine such a value.
• Page elements such as number of words in the body and the frequency of the most common term.
• PageRank as computed on 5 billion pages.
• Domain-level elements such as the number of outlinks on any page and the average PageRank.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.

Even if you don't own property and don't often pay attention to economic-related news, you can't possibly have missed credit woes that many financial institutions are dealing with these days. Not just in the US, but across the globe. But things in the SEM world are just peachy so why worry about such things, right? Well, having been a web developer prior to the dot-com boom and subsequent bust, I highly recommend you prepare for a day when SEM jobs became hard to come by and new contracts all but disappear.

The first thing you need to accept is that companies don't necessarily react to bad times in a logical way. The PPC folks would argue that their PPC campaigns will never be canceled because they all have a positive ROI. SEOs are no different and they would argue something along the lines that SEO delivers free traffic and so who would be foolish enough to scale back efforts? Politics, panic, fear, nepotism, and a whole host of other things can conspire against you and leave you without a job. If you accept this possibility, then hopefully you'll be open to the following suggestions. For those "old timers" out there that have seen a dip or two in their professional lives, feel free to add your suggestions via the comments form.

1. Diversify Your Skills

To make it harder for you to be laid off, you need to make yourself more useful than the next guy relative to your compensation level. The more you're paid, the more value you need to bring to the table. First and foremost, you should be GREAT at your primary responsibilities. Beyond that, having some secondary skills could go a long way to increasing your value (perceived or real). For example, if you're an expert SEO that also has some PPC experience, web development experience, or even sales experience, you're in a much better position than if SEO is all you do.

2. Get Involved

Have you been dragging your feet when assignments come up that are outside of your job description? Now is a good time to change that approach and get involved. Similar to diversifying your skills, diversifying who you work with and what you work on will make you a more valuable resource. Just be careful to not take too much on. Whining about having too much work to do and missing deadlines isn't going to work all that well.

3. Save Some Money, OK!?

This isn't so you can retire early. Instead, having some backup funds will help you avoid acts of desperation such as jumping ship just when things are turning around or completely moving out of SEM which will make your resume look weaker when the market rebounds. As is often the case with investing, hanging on while others are panicking can result in great opportunities.

4. Have a Backup Plan

A backup plan for what you can do when you can't do SEM should seem like an obvious suggestion. What may not be obvious is the quality of life bonus you get from having such a plan. When you can go to work in the morning knowing that even if you get there and management has changed the locks without telling you, you'll still be able to pay the bills goes a long way to eliminating stress that would otherwise weigh on you day in and day out.

5. Additional Income Streams

A co-worker once asked me if every SEO dreams of building web sites while sitting on a couch and making thousands of dollars via Google AdSense. I laughed and said, "yes". AdSense may not be right for you, but surely there's something out there that is of interest that you can use to earn some side money. The key is make it something that doesn't rely on others paying you e.g. consulting on the side isn't the a good choice, but running affiliate programs is. An alternate income stream probably won't disappear at the same time as your primary income stream so it'll help smooth out any transition and allow you to, as in item 2, avoid the same acts of desperation. Need an example? Check out Gyutae Park who is an SEO by day and money-making blogger by night. Need more ideas? Check out this list from the DoshDosh blog .

6. Establish Your Network Now

The more people you know, the more likely you'll be able to continue working at the things that interested you. It's important to build this network before you need something though. No one likes to get an e-mail from someone who hasn't said a peep to you for over a year, but who now needs a job. Participate in the community that piques your interest and build some equity today while things are good. That community could connect you to the right people in troubled times in a way that going through recruiters and using job boards can't even come close to equaling. In addition, if your current employer is already paying for you to go to conferences, make the most of the networking opportunities.

7. Bring in a Client

If you're at an agency, bringing in a client buys you a get out of jail card. Yes, the revenue from the new client going to have a positive impact on your employer's bottom-line, but that's not the only benefit. You'll also get an added layer of protection because ending your employment would surely become known to the client who may become less inclined to continue the newly formed relationship with your agency.

So there you have it. Seven steps to coming out on the other side of a recession in the SEM market relatively unscathed. I'd like to say that following the steps will be as easy as writing them, but that would be a lie. It takes effort to not become complacent when everything is going well.

Note: This post has been expanded from a previous post now that the bottom has really fallen out of the economy.

Related Posts

This is a post from the All Things SEM and SEO Blog ©2009 Marios Alexandrou. All Rights Reserved.