Explicitly Me - Rishi Lakhani (Rishil)

Google is playing games with you – AGAIN.

rishil — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:16:41 +0000

UPDATE: The reason for the current UK notices and Interflora’s rankings have been discovered. More information Here: http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/interflora-what-really-happened.html

I am somewhat a tin foil conspiracy theorist when it comes to google. And often my theories do prove to be right, and most times I am not far from the mark. This week, two seemingly unrelated events have triggered one of those theories.

By now, the UK SEO community would be aware that google has penalised a fairly large brand. I call this EVENT 1.

In addition, I have spoken to a fair number (10+) UK SEOs that have had this gem in their inbox:

Unnatural inbound links

We’ve detected that some of the links pointing to your site are using techniques outside Google’s Webmaster Guidelines.

We don’t want to put any trust in links that are unnatural or artificial, and we recommend removing any unnatural links to your site. However, we do realize that some links may be outside of your control. As a result, for this specific incident we are taking very targeted action to reduce trust in the unnatural links. If you are able to remove any of the links, you can submit a reconsideration request, including the actions that you took.

If you have any questions, please visit our Webmaster Help Forum.

Got feedback? Leave it here. Be sure to include this message ID: [WMT-92459]
Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 | Unsubscribe.

This is Event 2.

Notice the wording (emphasis mine):

We don’t want to put any trust in links that are unnatural or artificial, and we recommend removing any unnatural links to your site. However, we do realize that some links may be outside of your control. As a result, for this specific incident we are taking very targeted action to reduce trust in the unnatural links.

If you are able to remove any of the links, you can submit a reconsideration request, including the actions that you took.

So how are these two events tied together?

By now, if you work in SEO, you should be aware that google cannot catch all the spam that goes on, algorithmically anyway. They are getting better at it, as Panda and Penguin clearly indicate, but its not perfect yet. Add to that the “new” public belief that you can hurt a site by Negative SEO (a whole bunch of us old timers have insisted that this has ALWAYS been possible, but it’s a bit easier now).

SO what is googles best defence?

An Offence…

One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine…- From a Soviet Junior Lt’s Notebook

“The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis.” – from a post-war debriefing of a German General

And this is true of google’s latest strategy. Scare SEOs and webmasters to the point that they don’t know what can and cannot hurt them. Get them to clean up search results FOR google. And this latest bout of warnings, IMHO is exactly that.

Penalise a LARGE UK brand – send fear of god into SEOs. Check.
Send a bunch of vague link notices in GWMT to the general population. Check.
Sit back and profit.

My advice

Don’t panic.
Create a list of all your shitty links (you should be doing this anyway!)
Wait to see if there are any drops.
If there are, you should be able to isolate where the drops are and for what terms. Start clean up.
If there are drops and you cant isolate the drops, then reach out and contact via resubmission, with specific question about the links.
If there are no drops, build newer, better quality links .

Dear Inbound, Thank you!

rishil — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:59:38 +0000

UPDATE: Inbound has now reconsidered and I am happy to sign up! W00t!

Here I am : http://www.inbound.org/users/view/rishil

So we all know that Inbound.org is the beast that Sphinn used to be back in the day. And its cool, I missed the sphinn community and article discussions in one place.

But I haven’t joined inbound yet. I dont hate them. But their registration policy keeps me from being a part of their community.

inbound and twitter

You can only register with them if you do it via twitter. However:

1. Why should I give you the authority to follow new people on my behalf?

I protect my follow non follow ration. And people I don’t follow directly, I keep monitored through clever use of Lists. I don’t want to wake up one morning and have strangers tweets in my stream. Do you REALLY need access to following people on my behalf?

2. Why should you update my profile?

I mean this one makes me go WTF? Why would I even think of giving a third party application, however well intentioned, access to updating my profile? What would you even ASK for that?

3. Post Tweets for me.

The only person who has the right to spam my twitter followers is me. I don’t want people being spammed from my account. And yes, I know spam is an extreme description, and I doubt you guys would do anything like that. But still….

So I guess my loss.

Till you dampen those Twitter Authorization policies, we will just have to stay friends. I just cant get into bed with you.
dancellups

Google Algo Update – Quote of the week

rishil — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:51:43 +0000

I dont like mini posts, but this is the quote of the week as far as I am concerned:

“We sensed a subtle change in the force and we asked the force and it said Tatooine was not destroyed (these are not the algo updates you were looking for)”. ~ Judith Lewis

Background:
http://searchengineland.com/no-that-wasnt-a-google-panda-update-you-felt-142820

Link Building Has Sandbox Effect / Transition Rankings

rishil — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:00:07 +0000

I haven’t really paid much attention to SEO blogs in the last three months. Part of that reason is that I am insanely busy working on new projects that have little to do with SEO. However that doesn’t mean I don’t check or test stuff.

This post is more of an observation and a working theory, but I may be either:

Completely off the mark
Be observing that others may have reported.

Background

In the past I have created many, many sites for testing purposes. And tried various link building tactics to these. More recently, I am laying around with niche or micro niche sites, and unlike before, the strategy is to first build it, add decent content, wait for a few long tail organic rankings and then pursue link building.

In the past, I have seen fresh sites jump in rankings, especially Exact Match Domains. Over time their rankings fluctuate, but not massively. I have seen sites that took longer to index and rank as well. But the latest movement has me a bit puzzled.

The situation

The site ranks for keywords, for about a month. Add links to it, it ranks for a week or two, fairly high, site wide (long tails etc all) jump and ranks fairly high for your target Kw that the link is built for, then it disappears from the top 100. Wait 2-3 weeks and it comes back up on a stable position, sometimes higher than the initial jump, sometimes slightly lower. Long tails improve, but not to the rate of the initial jump.

I have encountered this phenomenon on four separate sites, in different niches .

Link Building Sandbox?

Such shifts and movements are common in new sites, new links etc.

BUT: One of these sites had been an EXISTING site. Over two years old. Was on page two of google for the KW target, and I just bought it and started adding content.

I then caught a break and got a link off a high property site (not bought / requested – natural w00t!).

And the site displayed the EXACT same behaviour as my other micro niche sites.

See the details below (click for better resolution).

What have I missed in the latest algo updates that could point this out? I am just calling it the “New Link Sandbox”.

UPDATE

The suspects are the Transition Ranking Patent

See here:

Summary

If your site tanks after you apply new links, DON’T PANIC.

What the F is an SEO These days?

rishil — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:22:05 +0000

Lately a lot of bullcrap is being posted about SEO and what it means to be an SEO. From PR agencies to web designers, everyone in the digital space fancies themselves as an SEO. Frankly a lot of popular magazines, sites and blogs are posting misinformation about what an SEO really does. A number of REAL SEOs and people who really understand Search Engines consistently point out that this is just rubbish information published for page view journalism.

People are scrambling to redefine SEO, and many names abound*. James Carson’s post about the whole scenario is probably funnier than mine, but I want to drill some home truths in.

Let’s try and understand what an SEO’s Job really is:

ONSITE

1. Understand what the clients objectives are from a SEARCH ENGINES point of view

An SEO should get detailed briefs from their client – what they want to rank for, why they want to rank for those keywords, and what the monetary or non-monetary value of those rankings are. This includes taking clients ranking / traffic wishes and then running them against the right tools such as the current rankings a client has, keyword analysis etc.

2. Understand what opportunities and challenges the client / clients site has from a SEARCH ENGINES point of view.

The SEO should then take data from stage one above and run a number of tests, checks and analyse whether:

a) The client’s site is built the best possible way for SEO, structurally, architecturally, and has all the relevant mark-up that SEARCH ENGINES look for.

But Rishi, Web designers do this right?

Fuck no. Some do. Most don’t. When a web designer sings the mantra of building a site for users, search engine mark-up isn’t part of the job. Neither are the correct robots directives, meta data etc etc. These are ALL HIDDEN signals that on the surface can be accessed by search engines to display on search results. A really good developer who looks at the site from not only a user / experience point of view on site, and then tries to marry that up with off-site experience, builds the site with view of following the best possible guidelines from search engines, is a designer I would be proud to work with.

b) The clients site has the right keyword targeting in place on site. If you don’t have it on site, ranking for it isn’t easy. (duh)

But Rishi, Content Marketers do this right?

Fuck no. Some do, Many don’t. A content writers job should be to get the best possible content out there. Content that is useful, interesting, funny, insightful etc. Content that can be passed around, and has a stamp on it: “I am good shit. Read Me”. That’s a pretty good mantra for a content marketer IMHO, and I would be proud as an SEO to work with one who does just that. A good content team makes an SEOs job easier.

3. Once the initial onsite, work has been looked at, and married against the clients targets etc, an SEO’s job is to look at strategy.

What should be worked on as a priority? What is the cost benefit analysis of making certain changes, does the cost of development work potentially pay off against work that doesn’t need dev work? What are the biggest threats? (for example in a case I was working, the dev team decided to block 40% of the site from search engines via robots because they built that area to create multiple sessions, which were being indexed. My recommendations were to go for a proper dev fix, and open that area up. Traffic went up 30% once we did that (in two weeks!), and further growth happened in consequent months. )

OFFSITE

The SEO has to then understand what signals about the site search engines have, and how they help or hinder a clients site from ranking.

But Rishi, a good PR firm can get a lot of links and shares! We don’t need link building!

Let’s not get it twisted. Traditional SEO is still about SEARCH Engine signals. Those signals were traditionally purely links and anchor text. Now, of course there are suspicions and tests in the wild, as well as theories that social activity around certain content and urls help them index and rank faster. I don’t dispute that.

BUT, an SEO still needs to get anchor text. While traditionally we used to hammer anchor text links, we now know that these can cause penalisation or ranking drops. So an SEOs job is to understand how google’s algorithm changes, and how those changes affect the way he or she works.

A good PR firm CAN get a lot of brand signals. But if you over do those, you can STILL cause penalties. You still need a clever SEO to guide that mix of signals. Along with other external markup, such as local listings, google plus etc etc. A PR firm that has a dedicated SEO resource, that has experience in purely SEO, would be one worth working with. A PR firm that has SEO as an “add on service” I would be wary off.

Finally

photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ramotion/5188784967/sizes/m/in/photostream/

There are many, many more avenues that I haven’t covered above. However, the CORE function of an SEO is defined by their job title: SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION. Which in detail means:

Make a series of changes on and off a client’s site in order to rank it for a set of keywords and phrases that can drive valuable traffic to it, within a cost that is either immediately justifiable, or has a longer term return on investment. The SEO should work with all other disciplines in marketing to identify and maximise opportunities, making sure that their strategy and the SEO strategy are working in line to benefit the client, and the clients objectives.

/the End.

Google Lead Generation Adwords

rishil — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:41:13 +0000

*UPDATE

So these have been around for a while! See: http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2011/10/24/adwords-communication-extensions

So Google isn’t just satisfied with killing credit card affiliates, and other traditional online marketers, they are so determined to try other affiliate money making schemes that they are now entering the lead generation business.

Check this beauty out:

Google Lead generation adverts - click for full view

The privacy policy seems a bit vague too:

Can someone at google reach out to me on this if they see this? I have £millions to spnd on THIS type of a campaign – why use middlemen? So say you were running a ppi claim lead gen business by giving away free ppi letters, would you do as well if your merchants can get the leads straight from google.

Death of the Lead generation business: Coming soon to a town near you.

We are NOT Friends.

rishil — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:09:24 +0000

I am genuinely tired of getting linked in requests from people I don’t know or have never spoken to.

Lets get one thing right:

OK so linked in doesn’t make it easy for you to connect to people and “friends” is the easiest option to connecting to someone. But using just the generic message to reach out? No.

We are not Friends! Source: Reddit

But it gets worse!

You know what is worse than the “I‘d like to add you to my professional network“?

XYZ has indicated you are a Colleague at Bullshit Company Never Heard Off Limited.

And

ABC has indicated you are a person they’ve done business with at Another Bullshit Company Never Heard Off Limited

Connecting me to you using either one of those two options is basically fraud. You are indicating that I am connected to you in some way professionally in real life. It is a lie. Stop it.

It should be easy

If you want to reach out to me and connect, here are a few things you could try:

Speak to me on twitter. It is fairly easy. Even a polite “Mate do you mind if I connect with you on linked in?”
Use the “friend” option, but customise your message with:
- How you know me
- Why you would like to connect
- Who you are!

It is that simple. Stop spamming people on linked in its supposed to be a professional network, not a Facebook type popularity contest.

As you were.

Google Search Plus Your World. S.P.Y

rishil — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:43:54 +0000

Click on Image for Full View

Google SPY World

Is the name google Search Plus Your World just a coincidence? Or a Freudian slip?

GSPYW could ALSO be Google SPY Ware.

Enjoy.

Learning from the Chrome Penalty

rishil — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:56:43 +0000

I always insist, when a public story breaks in the SEO field of big proportions, you should take every opportunity to learn from it. The Chrome paid posts debacle is actually a pretty good example, as unlike in previous situations, Matt Cutts has publicly announce EXACTLY what the penalties were. Which is all kinds of awesome to know.

A bit of background reading over at SEObook who originally spotted the story, then to Danny Sullivans breakaway post with more analysis and again Danny’s post on the announcement of the penalty. If you want, you can also read Matt Cutts response over at Google+.

What did I learn from the situation?

It’s possible to be Innocent

Despite the hype, I don’t believe that the campaign the Google Chrome team ran was to gain links. To be honest I doubt they needed them. I am with Andrew Girdwood on that (and you should read why here).

By mistake, some webmasters added those links. So what happened if this activity was caught by the manual spam team? Pretty much a penalty. So in effect, it IS possible for someone to screw up link building without realising. If you were a small business (read: NOT Google or another brand) then you would be in effect screwed.

As Danny rightly puts it:

It also raises the serious question that if Google can’t keep track of its own rules, what hope is there that third parties are supposed to figure it all out?

Now lets take another coment – made by someone on Matt Cutts post:

So if I understand this correctly, it was only 1 sponsored post (out of 400) that was passing pagerank that was against the guidelines? Since the writer was being paid to write an article about Google Chrome they decided to insert the link editorially and that’s what has generated this penalty? Would there have been a penalty applied if that 1 post had not linked to Chrome and it was just 400 paid spammy posts? The whole thing seems strange. Polluting the internet with poor content and spamming the video is ok but one link (which the author deemed relevant in this case) is not? I don’t get it someone please clarify.

The bolded sections are my highlights.

This link was not paid for.

The payment was for the hosting of the video.

The link was given by the editor. Update: Want more proof? See this post by Dave Naylor on Unruly Media and how they send out campaign requests. If I was Unruly Media, I would be fuming.

As an advertiser, you HAVE NO CONTROL over what someone puts up on their site over and above what you have paid for. So did Google, in effect, unfairly punish themselves just for good PR? The mind boggles.

A Single Link and a Singular Penalty Example

Matt Cutts said:

In response, the webspam team has taken manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome for at least 60 days. After that, someone on the Chrome side can submit a reconsideration request documenting their clean-up just like any other company would. During the 60 days, the PageRank of www.google.com/chrome will also be lowered to reflect the fact that we also won’t trust outgoing links from that page.

So Google penalised itself. The chrome main page dropped out of the index for its most profitable generic “browser” and its most appropriate brand “chrome”.

However, the page https://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=95346 ranks for Chrome instead.

Now call me a conspiracy theorist, but I CAN understand why the original Chrome page ranked for “chrome” . Not sure why the support one does though.

Chrome Backlinks via Majestic SEO

What Should then?

Personally I see this page now supposedly the stronger one – of course, I haven’t investigated the value of other internal Google links, nor the value of each link. And I admit my view is very simplistic.

I guarantee you, if such a penalty was applied to ANY other site for ANY brand term, NOTHING from that site would rank. Interesting to see a PAGE specific penalty in this way.

Or is that NOT a page but a subfolder?

Why use Google Chrome

Aha! It IS a subfolder specific penalty, because I am pretty sure ONE of those pages ranked for “Why Use Google Chrome”.

Oh wait! SEMrush confirms that at their last crawl, their recorded ranking position 1 for that term was http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/more/index.html

In fact, if you dig into the above SEMrush data a bit deeper, you will see that a common high volume query was: “what is google chrome”. Guess who ranks at the no. 1 position for that?

No. It’s not a Google property, but the Wikipedia page I highlighted above. Which makes me wonder if that support page which now ranks for Chrome has been manually promoted or is it just that the next best page from the domain surfaced?

Let’s go back to SEMrush and check previous US rankings for “Chrome”:

Support page ranked or not?

Ha! According to SEMrush data, that page did NOT rank in the top 20 results. Yet here it is. At position 1.

Let’s pull out a screenshot Danny Sullivan has of the US results for “Chrome” just to verify.

Danny Sullivans screenshot

Now a disclaimer: The Support page DID in fact rank in the UK. (see screenshot below).

Support page in the UK

What does this teach you?

The penalty isn’t PAGE specific as some people are saying – it’s to the whole subfolders – which in effect are now being treated as subdomains as well – we knew that they made this change for recognising internal links in the past year. But as I demonstrated, the penalty is to the whole subfolder / subdirectory.
The surfacing of the support page – if you have penalty on a particular page / folder / directory of a site, you CAN rank again for that KW as long as you have another section of your site dedicated to ranking for the same KW. In theory at least. Especially if that KW is a “brand” signal.

Manual Penalties Exist, and Always Have.

Often I hear when Google is being taken to task over some legal issue about them artificially pushing up or down certain results, we have had quotes saying that Google cannot control the flow of the organic algo. However no one seems to mention these penalties, which can be applied – which means that though they may have no manual control of the UP switch, they do in fact have control of the DOWN switch – which has the same effect as the UP switch if you demote everything slightly.

This to me constitutes control over the organic placements. I think it’s time everyone started reading more about Foundems Search Neutrality Campaign. Like I said on a recent post in Econsultancy:

“…serious investigation by capable organisations on the Google Monopoly of the search market and its anti-competitive behaviour to various niches.

I don’t think it’s fair that Google is allowed to bring out products and services that are simply clones of businesses it’s been taking money from to market, and using its data to build and market their own services.”

Some Other Takeaways That SEOs Should Be Aware Off

On Matt’s Google Plus post, a bunch of interesting questions have been asked, some of which have been answered well by John Mueller ( a googler I really respect) – which I am pulling out because they are worth recording somewhere other than a random Google plus post.

Would another site’s page be “banned” from Google search, not just demoted in pagerank?

Generally speaking, we only remove pages or sites from the index if there are significant issues with regards to our webmaster guidelines with the website itself. As mentioned in http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66736

“Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results.”

there’s also a blog post on this topic at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/information-about-buying-and-selling.html which covers some of the possible negative effects.

Would another site’s root domain get demoted, not just the offending page?

As mentioned in http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/12/tips-for-hosting-providers-and.html

“We try hard to be granular in our actions when protecting our users and search quality, but if we see a very large fraction of sites on a specific web host that are spammy or are distributing malware, we may be forced to take action on the web host as a whole.”

In a case like this, it’s easier to be granular since it’s based on a very specific action.

Now that Google knows how innocently a good site can get caught up in a mess like this, will the ability to “plead your case” be opened up a bit before demotion?

You can always explain what happened in a reconsideration request. As Matt mentioned, it’s important that you document your efforts in getting any known issues cleaned up in your reconsideration request.

There’s more on reconsideration requests at http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35843 .

I realize it’s not often that the community at large will find and diagnose an issue with a website in this way, but if you’re unsure of what your site has run into, you can always post in our webmaster’s help forum to get more input. While you may not always get answers from Googlers there, the replies there will often point you towards issues that can be resolved, and in many cases, in the right direction.

How to Get a Celebrity to Endorse ALL your Products on Google

rishil — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:17:05 +0000

You see, I love finding interesting gaps in Google, both Organic and Paid Search results. I haven’t often spoken about Paid search manipulation, although it does exist, from arbitrage to brand manipulation. However I always love it when I spot something new, that could have been an innocent mistake, but could be used to pervert the normal run of PPC ads. And I spotted one today that made the mental clogs whirr.

Better Click Through with Celebrities

Ok, let’s say that your products were always endorsed by celebrities. And that you could manipulate them into doing this, almost free, with the thanks of Google. Would you? I know I would. Just imagine, Justin Biebers millions of fans seeing his face on your PPC ads, thinking that he endorsed your site! I bet sales would go up. Or what if Oprah’s face turned up on your ads for weight loss programmes? Jackpot!

Well, it’s not as impossible as you would imagine. A simple flaw in Google’s +1 and Adwords algo could enable you to pull something like that off.

Google Plus? Adwords?

As an SEO, you most probably know that if anyone from your network that shared a link via Google Plus, or “plussed” a link, they would show up on your ordinary Google searches. See for example a Google search for “Webmaster Tools”. Cool, Matt Cutts shared that page.

Matt Cutts Shared This

With this next screenshot, you can see that Matt has more than 150K people with him in their circles, which means they will most probably see him when they search for anything endorsed by him. Fair enough right?

Matt Cutts Circles

However, at some point this year, Google has opted adwords and adsense sites into the Google Plus program. Which means, that if anyone plussed a particular page, those pluses will ALSO show up on adwords. Regardless whether they are organic pluses or paid search pluses.

Aaron Wall Did Not Plus This

As you can see below, Aaron Wall could be considered a celebrity within the industry of SEO, he has over 10K followers on Google Plus (and 18K plus on twitter) . You would consider his recommendations worth a look and anything he has to say about SEO, most definitely worth a read.

Aaron Wall Circles

So imagine my surprise when I saw:

Aaron Wall +1 Fleece Blankets

I could’nt help myself and sent that tweet off to Aaron, whose reaction, understandably was summarised in the following tweets:

interesting tidbit there. I did a + on US site, but not on all pages nor internationally. And after removing the + it still appears

that is just another Google #scam … you +1 one site & the ad claims you +1′ed A SPECIFIC PAGE on a different site no less #scam

that Google ad flat out #lies , it claims I personally endorsed a page I did not. I hope they do this on a celeb n get sued

Google’s brand bias again. Just because I recommend registrar x’s domains doesn’t mean I like their junk no-value SEO package

You know when you start merging stuff cross domains in weird ways it is cloaking or spam. but Google can falsely merge u & its fine.

Google doing that garbage is no better than the acai scammers using Oprah … in aggregate it is actually probably far more harmful

btw, am not faulting eBay on this, as every marketplace has some junk, but this scam’s engineered by Google to increase ad clicks

keep in mind Google’s verbiage “name x recommends THIS PAGE” … not “THIS SITE” or “A SITE FROM THIS COMPANY”

someone will probably put up a scam SEO package on Google pages & collect the @mattcutts endorsement. then move it into sales copy

Take Away from Aarons Tweets?

He DID plus eBay.com, and NOT .co.uk. Google merged it to the .co.uk domain.
He later REMOVED his plus. Google ignored the fact.
He plussed the root domain. Google indicates that he plussed the SPECIFIC Ad Page.
Its false endorsement, manipulated by Google.

For the past few years, both Aaron and I and quite a few other SEOs are spotting disturbing behaviour by Google. see this post by aaron for example – Schema or Scam?

Can You Use It?

Well, I haven’t tried it yet, but I know that Aaron DOES NOT recommend SEO DVDs from eBay, nor does he recommend make money DVDs from eBay. But that doesn’t stop Google from telling me he does!

Aaron Wall +1 SEO DVD

How could you use it?

Imagine being a brand or a retail site. Then creating a strong, promotional and flattering page about your celebrity target. But DON’T allow access to that page without a Google Plus – so they have to plus the page. Now get a few fans tweeting / messaging the celebrity to check the page out. In order for them to access the page, they would have to hit the Google Plus button. They look at the page, either form an opinion, or don’t. Pointless to worry about that.

Now run Google Ads. Hopefully, if the flaw in Google Adwords and Google Plus still works, you have the celebrity endorsing almost every PPC advert…. Sit back and collect cash.

Now go off and Plus this page…

Update: Bing does the same with your Facebook likes…