Blog

George Takei joins Microsoft for the first episode of its new podcast

George-takei
Feed-fb

Microsoft is kicking off a new podcast series focused on talking to interesting people about technology. The first episode of its Next at Microsoft podcast features George Takei.

Before he became an Internet sensation, Takei was best known for his role as Hikaru Sulu in the original Star Trek.

It was his Facebook page, however, that brought the actor and activist to a whole new fan base.

For the first episode of the podcast (which you can preview above and listen to in its entirety below), Takei talks about how he uses social media to drive social change. He also visits Microsoft's campus to record an episode of his web series and offers up his opinion on the ...

More about Microsoft, Podcasts, Tech, Apps Software, and Gadgets

By |January 9th, 2015|Apps and Software|0 Comments

How to Provide Unique Value in Your Content – Whiteboard Friday

How to Provide "Unique Value" in Your Content - Whiteboard Friday Whiteboard

Posted by randfish

Marketers of all stripes are hearing more about providing unique content and value to their audiences, and how that's what Google wants to show searchers. Unique content is straightforward enough, but what exactly does everyone mean by "unique value?" What does that actually look like? In today's Whiteboard Friday, Rand illustrates the answer.

For reference, here's a still of this week's whiteboard!

Video transcription

Howdy, Moz fans, and welcome to another edition of Whiteboard Friday. This week we're going to chat a little about providing unique value in your content. Now I've been known to talk a lot about what you need to do to get to the kind of uniqueness in content that Google wants to index, that searchers want to find, that is likely to earn you amplification and links and all the signals that you'll need to perform well in the rankings, and to perform well on social media and in content marketing of all kinds.

The challenge has been that I've seen a lot of people adopt this attitude around, yes, unique content, unique value, but merge those two and not view them as two different things and really not understand what I mean when I say unique value at all, and it's not just me. A lot of the content marketing and SEO industries are talking about the need for unique value, and they may say other words to describe that. But unfortunately, as an industry, we've not yet coalesced around what that idea means, and so this Whiteboard Friday is to try and explain exactly what a lot of these best practices and experts are talking about when they say "unique value."

Modern criteria for content

So let's start by talking about our modern criteria for content, and I have a slide that I like to show a lot that kind of displays this, and many other folks in the field have as well. So if I'm going to be producing content, I need to meet these five criteria.

One of a kind

One of a kind is basically what we meant when we said old unique content, meaning that the engines have never seen those words and phrases and numbers and visuals and whatever in that order on a page on the web previously. It's been written for the first time, produced and published for the first time. Therefore, it is one of a kind, doesn't appear elsewhere.

Relevant

Relevant meaning it contains content that both searchers and engines interpret as on topic to that searcher's query or their intent. Sometimes you can be on topic to the query, meaning you've used the words and the phrases that the searcher used, and not be on topic to their intent. What did they actually want to get out of the search? What question are they trying to answer? What information are you trying to get?

Helpful

This one's pretty obvious. You should resolve the searcher's query in a useful, efficient manner. That should be a page that does the job that they're hoping that that content is going to do.

Uniquely valuable

This is the one we're going to be talking about today, and what we mean here is provides information that's unavailable or hard to get elsewhere -- I'm going to dive into that a little bit more --

Great user experience

This means it's easy and pleasurable to consume anywhere on any device.

You meet these criteria with your content and you've really got something when it comes to a content marketing strategy or when it comes to content you're producing for SEO. This is a pretty solid checklist that I think you can rely on.

Unique value and you (and your website)

The challenge is this one. Uniquely valuable has been a really hard concept for people to wrap their heads around, and so let's dig in a little more on what we mean when we say "unique value."

So these are kind of the three common criteria that we mean when we say "unique value," and I'm actually going to show some examples as well.

1) Massive upgrade in aggregation, accessibility and design

The first one is a massive upgrade versus what's already available on the web in aggregation, accessibility, and/or design. Meaning you should have someone who views that content say, "Wow. You know, I've seen this material presented before, but never presented so well, never so understandable and accessible. I really like this resource because of how well aggregated, how accessible, how well designed this resource is."

Good examples, there's a blog post from the website Wait But Why on the Fermi Paradox, which is sort of a scientific astrophysics, "why are we alone in the universe" paradox concept, and they do a brilliant job of visualizing and explaining the paradox and all of the potential scenarios behind it. It's so much fun to read. It's so enjoyable. I've read about the Fermi Paradox many times and never been as entranced as I was as when I read this piece from Wait But Why. It really was that experience that says, "Wow, I've seen this before, but never like this."

Another great site that does pure aggregation, but they provide incredible value is actually a search engine, a visual search engine that I love called Niice.co. Not particularly easy to spell, but you do searches for things like letter press or for emotional ideas, like anger, and you just find phenomenal visual content. It's an aggregation of a bunch of different websites that show design and visual content in a search interface that's accessible, that shows all the images in there, and you can scroll through them and it's very nicely collected. It's aggregated in the best way I've ever seen that information aggregated, therefore, providing unique value. Unfortunately, since it's a search engine, it's not actually going to be indexed by Google, but still tremendously good content marketing.

2) Information that is available nowhere else

Number two is information that's available nowhere else. When I say "information," I don't mean content. I don't mean words and phrases. I don't mean it's one-of-a-kind in that if I were to go copy and paste a sentence fragment or a paragraph and plug it into Google, that I wouldn't find that sentence or that paragraph elsewhere. I mean unique information, information that, even if it were written about thousands of different ways, I couldn't find it anywhere else on the web. You want your visitor to have experience of, "Wow, without this site I never would have found the answers I sought." It's not that, "Oh, this sentence is unique to all the other sentences that have been written about this topic." It's, "Ah-ha this information was never available until now."

Some of my favorite examples of that -- Walk Score. Walk Score is a site that took data that was out there and they basically put it together into a scoring function. So they said, "Hey, in this ocean beach neighborhood in San Diego, there are this many bars and restaurants, grocery stores, banks, pharmacies. The walkability of that neighborhood, therefore, based on the businesses and on the sidewalks and on the traffic and all these other things, the Walk Score out of 100 is therefore 74." I don't know what it actually is. Then you can compare and contrast that to, say, the Hillcrest neighborhood in San Diego, where the Walk Score is 88 because it has a far greater density of all those things that people, who are looking for walkability of neighborhoods, are seeking. If you're moving somewhere or you're considering staying somewhere downtown, in area to visit for vacation, this is amazing. What an incredible resource, and because of that Walk Score has become hugely popular and is part of many, many real estate websites and visitor and tourism focused websites and all that kind of stuff.

Another good example, blog posts that provide information that was previously unavailable anywhere else. In our industry I actually really like this example from Conductor. Conductor, as you might know, is an enterprise SEO software company, and they put together a phenomenal blog post comparing which portions of direct traffic are almost certainly actually organic, and they collected a bunch of anonymized data from their platform and assembled that so that we could all see, "Oh, yeah, look at that. Sixty percent of what's getting counted as direct in a lot of these websites, at least on average, is probably coming from organic search or dark social and those kinds of things, and that credit should go to the marketers who acquire that traffic." Fascinating stuff. Unique information, couldn't find that elsewhere.

3) Content presented with a massively differentiated voice or style

The third and final one that I'll talk about is content that's presented with a massively differentiated voice or style. So this is not necessarily you've aggregated information that was previously unavailable or you've made it more accessible or you've designed it in a way to make it remarkable. It's not necessarily information available nowhere else. It's really more about the writer or the artist behind the content creation, and content creators, the great ones, have some artistry to their work. You're trying to create in your visitors this impression of like, "I've seen stuff about this before, but never in a way that emotionally resonated with me like this does." Think about the experience that you have of reading a phenomenal book about a topic versus just reading the Wikipedia entry. The information might be the same, but there are miles of difference in the artistry behind it and the emotional resonance it can create.

In the content marketing world, I really like a lot of stuff that Beardbrand does. Eric from Beardbrand just puts together these great videos. He has this gigantic beard. I feel like I've really captured him here actually. Eric, tell me what you think of this portrait? You're free to use it as your Twitter background, if you'd like. Eric's videos are not just useful. They do contain useful information and stuff that sometimes is hard to find elsewhere, but they have a style to them, a personality to them that I just love.

Likewise, for many of you, you're watching Whiteboard Friday or consuming content from us that you likely could find many other places. Unlike when Moz started, there are many, many great blogs and resources on SEO and inbound marketing and social media marketing, and all these things, but Moz often has a great voice, a great style, at least one that resonates with me, that I love.

Another example, one from my personal life, my wife's blog -- the Everywhereist. There are lots of places you can read, for example, a history of Ireland. But when Geraldine wrote about her not-so-brief history of Ireland, it had a very different kind of emotional resonance for many other people who read and consumed that and, as a result, earned lots of nice traffic and shares and links and all of these kinds of things.

This, one of these three, is what you're aiming for with uniquely valuable, and there are likely some others that fit into these or maybe that cross over between them. But if you're making content for the web and you're trying to figure out how can I be uniquely valuable, see what it is that you're fitting into, which of these themes, hopefully maybe even some combination of them, and is that defensible enough to make you differentiated from your competition, from what else is in the search results, and does it give you the potential to have truly remarkable content and SEO going forward. If not, I'm not sure that it's worth the investment. There's no prize in content for hitting Publish. No prize for hitting Publish. The only prize comes when you produce something that meets these criteria and thus achieves the reach and the marketing goals that you're seeking.

All right, everyone, we'll see you again next week for another edition of Whiteboard Friday. Take care.

Video transcription by Speechpad.com


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

By |January 9th, 2015|MOZ|0 Comments

Bing tool that translates foreign-language tweets returns to Tweetdeck

Tweetdeck-language-translation-thumb
Feed-fb

The Bing-powered translator feature that was removed from Twitter last year has quietly resurfaced — on Tweetdeck only, that is

"We've launched Bing translation on Tweetdeck to all users," a Twitter spokeswoman confirmed to Mashable in a statement. "When a user sees a Tweet that isn't in their native language they'll have the option to click the 'translate Tweet' link."

The tool allows users to translate foreign tweets into their native language. Tweetdeck is a favorite of journalists, as it can organize streams of tweets into lined-up columns. And the translator's return was a timely one: It's helpful in breaking news situation, such as ...

More about Twitter, Translation, Tweetdeck, Bing, and Social Media

By |January 8th, 2015|Apps and Software|0 Comments

‘Query’ board game plays off of Google Autocomplete, app in the works

Query-thumb-2
Feed-fb

Does a fat ... kid love cake? Why do some people ... hate cilantro? My armpits are ... always itchy.

Google Autocomplete is a veritable treasure trove of somewhat questionable — but frequently hilarious — answers to life's questions. It's why Toronto-based sisters Nikki Flowerday and Phoebe Stephens developed a board game, called Query, based on Google's predictive-search feature. What began as an in-joke and Autocomplete guessing game via text message, evolved into a board-game concept by the fall of 2012. And so, Query was born.

See also: ...

More about Google, Google Autocomplete, Gaming, Apps Software, and Lifestyle

By |January 8th, 2015|Apps and Software|0 Comments

12 Common Reasons Reconsideration Requests Fail

54adae4a06f5a0.55597466.jpg

Posted by Modestos

This post was originally in YouMoz, and was promoted to the main blog because it provides great value and interest to our community. The author's views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of Moz, Inc.

There are several reasons a reconsideration request might fail. But some of the most common mistakes site owners and inexperienced SEOs make when trying to lift a link-related Google penalty are entirely avoidable.

Here's a list of the top 12 most common mistakes made when submitting reconsideration requests, and how you can prevent them.

1. Insufficient link data

This is one of the most common reasons why reconsideration requests fail. This mistake is readily evident each time a reconsideration request gets rejected and the example URLs provided by Google are unknown to the webmaster. Relying only on Webmaster Tools data isn't enough, as Google has repeatedly said. You need to combine data from as many different sources as possible.

A good starting point is to collate backlink data, at the very least:

  • Google Webmaster Tools (both latest and sample links)
  • Bing Webmaster Tools
  • Majestic SEO (Fresh Index)
  • Ahrefs
  • Open Site Explorer

If you use any toxic link-detection services (e.g., Linkrisk and Link Detox), then you need to take a few precautions to ensure the following:

  • They are 100% transparent about their backlink data sources
  • They have imported all backlink data
  • You can upload your own backlink data (e.g., Webmaster Tools) without any limitations

If you work on large websites that have tons of backlinks, most of these automated services are very likely used to process just a fraction of the links, unless you pay for one of their premium packages. If you have direct access to the above data sources, it's worthwhile to download all backlink data, then manually upload it into your tool of choice for processing. This is the only way to have full visibility over the backlink data that has to be analyzed and reviewed later. Starting with an incomplete data set at this early (yet crucial) stage could seriously hinder the outcome of your reconsideration request.

2. Missing vital legacy information

The more you know about a site's history and past activities, the better. You need to find out (a) which pages were targeted in the past as part of link building campaigns, (b) which keywords were the primary focus and (c) the link building tactics that were scaled (or abused) most frequently. Knowing enough about a site's past activities, before it was penalized, can help you home in on the actual causes of the penalty. Also, collect as much information as possible from the site owners.

3. Misjudgement

Misreading your current situation can lead to wrong decisions. One common mistake is to treat the example URLs provided by Google as gospel and try to identify only links with the same patterns. Google provides a very small number of examples of unnatural links. Often, these examples are the most obvious and straightforward ones. However, you should look beyond these examples to fully address the issues and take the necessary actions against all types of unnatural links.

Google is very clear on the matter: “Please correct or remove all inorganic links, not limited to the samples provided above.

Another common area of bad judgement is the inability to correctly identify unnatural links. This is a skill that requires years of experience in link auditing, as well as link building. Removing the wrong links won't lift the penalty, and may also result in further ranking drops and loss of traffic. You must remove the right links.


4. Blind reliance on tools

There are numerous unnatural link-detection tools available on the market, and over the years I've had the chance to try out most (if not all) of them. Because (and without any exception) I've found them all very ineffective and inaccurate, I do not rely on any such tools for my day-to-day work. In some cases, a lot of the reported "high risk" links were 100% natural links, and in others, numerous toxic links were completely missed. If you have to manually review all the links to discover the unnatural ones, ensuring you don't accidentally remove any natural ones, it makes no sense to pay for tools.

If you solely rely on automated tools to identify the unnatural links, you will need a miracle for your reconsideration request to be successful. The only tool you really need is a powerful backlink crawler that can accurately report the current link status of each URL you have collected. You should then manually review all currently active links and decide which ones to remove.

I could write an entire book on the numerous flaws and bugs I have come across each time I've tried some of the most popular link auditing tools. A lot of these issues can be detrimental to the outcome of the reconsideration request. I have seen many reconsiderations request fail because of this. If Google cannot algorithmically identify all unnatural links and must operate entire teams of humans to review the sites (and their links), you shouldn't trust a $99/month service to identify the unnatural links.

If you have an in-depth understanding of Google's link schemes, you can build your own process to prioritize which links are more likely to be unnatural, as I described in this post (see sections 7 & 8). In an ideal world, you should manually review every single link pointing to your site. Where this isn't possible (e.g., when dealing with an enormous numbers of links or resources are unavailable), you should at least focus on the links that have the more "unnatural" signals and manually review them.

5. Not looking beyond direct links

When trying to lift a link-related penalty, you need to look into all the links that may be pointing to your site directly or indirectly. Such checks include reviewing all links pointing to other sites that have been redirected to your site, legacy URLs with external inbound links that have been internally redirected owned, and third-party sites that include cross-domain canonicals to your site. For sites that used to buy and redirect domains in order increase their rankings, the quickest solution is to get rid of the redirects. Both Majestic SEO and Ahrefs report redirects, but some manual digging usually reveals a lot more.

PQPkyj0.jpg

6. Not looking beyond the first link

All major link intelligence tools, including Majestic SEO, Ahrefs and Open Site Explorer, report only the first link pointing to a given site when crawling a page. This means that, if you overly rely on automated tools to identify links with commercial keywords, the vast majority of them will only take into consideration the first link they discover on a page. If a page on the web links just once to your site, this is not big deal. But if there are multiple links, the tools will miss all but the first one.

For example, if a page has five different links pointing to your site, and the first one includes a branded anchor text, these tools will just report the first link. Most of the link-auditing tools will in turn evaluate the link as "natural" and completely miss the other four links, some of which may contain manipulative anchor text. The more links that get missed this way the more likely your reconsideration request will fail.

7. Going too thin

Many SEOs and webmasters (still) feel uncomfortable with the idea of losing links. They cannot accept the idea of links that once helped their rankings are now being devalued, and must be removed. There is no point trying to save "authoritative", unnatural links out of fear of losing rankings. If the main objective is to lift the penalty, then all unnatural links need to be removed.

Often, in the first reconsideration request, SEOs and site owners tend to go too thin, and in the subsequent attempts start cutting deeper. If you are already aware of the unnatural links pointing to your site, try to get rid of them from the very beginning. I have seen examples of unnatural links provided by Google on PR 9/DA 98 sites. Metrics do not matter when it comes to lifting a penalty. If a link is manipulative, it has to go.

In any case, Google's decision won't be based only on the number of links that have been removed. Most important in the search giant's eyes are the quality of links still pointing to your site. If the remaining links are largely of low quality, the reconsideration request will almost certainly fail.

8. Insufficient effort to remove links

Google wants to see a "good faith" effort to get as many links removed as possible. The higher the percentage of unnatural links removed, the better. Some agencies and SEO consultants tend to rely too much on the use of the disavow tool. However, this isn't a panacea, and should be used as a last resort for removing those links that are impossible to remove—after exhausting all possibilities to physically remove them via the time-consuming (yet necessary) outreach route.

Google is very clear on this:

m4M4n3g.jpg?1

Even if you're unable to remove all of the links that need to be removed, you must be able to demonstrate that you've made several attempts to have them removed, which can have a favorable impact on the outcome of the reconsideration request. Yes, in some cases it might be possible to have a penalty lifted simply by disavowing instead of removing the links, but these cases are rare and this strategy may backfire in the future. When I reached out to ex-googler Fili Wiese's for some advice on the value of removing the toxic links (instead of just disavowing them), his response was very straightforward:

V3TmCrj.jpg

9. Ineffective outreach

Simply identifying the unnatural links won't get the penalty lifted unless a decent percentage of the links have been successfully removed. The more communication channels you try, the more likely it is that you reach the webmaster and get the links removed. Sending the same email hundreds or thousands of times is highly unlikely to result in a decent response rate. Trying to remove a link from a directory is very different from trying to get rid of a link appearing in a press release, so you should take a more targeted approach with a well-crafted, personalized email. Link removal request emails must be honest and to the point, or else they'll be ignored.

Tracking the emails will also help in figuring out which messages have been read, which webmasters might be worth contacting again, or alert you of the need to try an alternative means of contacting webmasters.

Creativity, too, can play a big part in the link removal process. For example, it might be necessary to use social media to reach the right contact. Again, don't trust automated emails or contact form harvesters. In some cases, these applications will pull in any email address they find on the crawled page (without any guarantee of who the information belongs to). In others, they will completely miss masked email addresses or those appearing in images. If you really want to see that the links are removed, outreach should be carried out by experienced outreach specialists. Unfortunately, there aren't any shortcuts to effective outreach.

10. Quality issues and human errors

All sorts of human errors can occur when filing a reconsideration request. The most common errors include submitting files that do not exist, files that do not open, files that contain incomplete data, and files that take too long to load. You need to triple-check that the files you are including in your reconsideration request are read-only, and that anyone with the URL can fully access them.

Poor grammar and language is also bad practice, as it may be interpreted as "poor effort." You should definitely get the reconsideration request proofread by a couple of people to be sure it is flawless. A poorly written reconsideration request can significantly hinder your overall efforts.

Quality issues can also occur with the disavow file submission. Disavowing at the URL level isn't recommended because the link(s) you want to get rid of are often accessible to search engines via several URLs you may be unaware of. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that you disavow at the domain or sub-domain level.

11. Insufficient evidence

How does Google know you have done everything you claim in your reconsideration request? Because you have to prove each claim is valid, you need to document every single action you take, from sent emails and submitted forms, to social media nudges and phone calls. The more information you share with Google in your reconsideration request, the better. This is the exact wording from Google:

“ ...we will also need to see good-faith efforts to remove a large portion of inorganic links from the web wherever possible.”

12. Bad communication

How you communicate your link cleanup efforts is as essential as the work you are expected to carry out. Not only do you need to explain the steps you've taken to address the issues, but you also need to share supportive information and detailed evidence. The reconsideration request is the only chance you have to communicate to Google which issues you have identified, and what you've done to address them. Being honest and transparent is vital for the success of the reconsideration request.

There is absolutely no point using the space in a reconsideration request to argue with Google. Some of the unnatural links examples they share may not always be useful (e.g., URLs that include nofollow links, removed links, or even no links at all). But taking the argumentative approach veritably guarantees your request will be denied.

54adb6e0227790.04405594.jpg
Cropped from photo by Keith Allison, licensed under Creative Commons.

Conclusion

Getting a Google penalty lifted requires a good understanding of why you have been penalized, a flawless process and a great deal of hands-on work. Performing link audits for the purpose of lifting a penalty can be very challenging, and should only be carried out by experienced consultants. If you are not 100% sure you can take all the required actions, seek out expert help rather than looking for inexpensive (and ineffective) automated solutions. Otherwise, you will almost certainly end up wasting weeks or months of your precious time, and in the end, see your request denied.


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

By |January 7th, 2015|MOZ|0 Comments