It appears that the enhancements to the Google search results continue unabbaited. Do a search for a broad keyword such as pizza on Google and your increasingly likely to see a local result as part of the results page

Localised results with Google SERPS

The results currently appear below the fold, in the example below the results were below the video search results. Further searches were run for:

1. Golf Clubs
2. Cinema
3. Movie
4. Football (not soccer)
5. Advertising Agency

This would appear a fairly widespread test from what I have seen thus far, and it will be interesting to see whether this remains a permanent part of the Google search results page. It could really throw the cats amongst the pigeons should it stay about, pushing local search optimisation into the mainstream of many organisations SEO and blended search campaigns

This is perhaps one of the more left-field posts I am likely to write this year, however with much of the debate at present focussed on Matt Cutts comments on the recent Forrester comments on sponsored conversations it seemed somewhat apt. The paid links debate and the solution developed by Google in particular has long been debated within the industry, by both black hat and white hat SEO’s alike – however I would suggest that most search marketers would agree the current remediation (of the single nofollow) is not fit for purpose in the modern day environment.

Given the boom in search engine optimisation over the last couple of years, it is slightly naive in my opinion to believe that the nofollow attribute is going to be used in the way it was designed for. SEO is increasingly a results driven business, and as such is increasingly competitive in nature. As a white hat SEO, there is always the ‘Anakin Skywalker’/dark side conflict going on, as supposedly unethical practises are missed and rewarded by the search engines. Organic search has never been a quick turnaround channel and as such, the process of managing such a process is increasingly difficult.

One of the main issues is establishing intent. Intent in terms of link acquisition is not something that can often be definitely identified, (certainly it is easier to identify some more than others) however there is no way a search engine (or search engine robot) can in *most* cases 100% say that a link is definitely a paid link. As such, I can’t see how you can make a decision (on a whim) that could potentially cost an organisation (or individual) hundreds/thousands/millions (delete as applicable) of pounds.

I have always felt the one brush fits all approach is limited in scope and certainly given the number of potential linkage channels, is certainly not scalable, particularly given the drive towards a semantic web. Many of the current management protocols are based on decade(plus) old technology, which in IT terms is a significant period of time, in which time the internet (and internet behaviour) has changed significantly.

Given the emergence of XFN relationships I can’t help thinking that a more logical and applicable framework couldn’t be developed which took into account different facets of the current online environment, perhaps providing a level of context to the search engines currently beyond the straight nofollow that currently exists.

I will admit much of the rationale above is fairly raw in my own head, however I can’t help thinking that Google need to readdress the way they deal with link relationships whether they be paid links, social media (lets not forget Twittergate), or sponsored conversations in order to provide itself a scalable long term solution.

[This blog post contains the personal thoughts and musings of Peter Young, and not necessarily those of his employers]

From a client perspective, its a minefield out there, with numerous agencies touting search engine optimisation (SEO) credentials, and in the UK, as with many other countries the level and scope of these services varies significantly – from specialist boutique search marketing agencies to digital specialists to full service agencies.

The main problem however is often what constitues SEO in many of these cases. Whilst awareness of SEO and what is good SEO has increased significantly over the last three years or so, there are still a number of services out there which offer nothing more than on-page good practise, without any mention of good content, syndication, link acquisition or the like. Its an observation I have unfortunately had to make on a number of occasions to organisations and realism is often misaligned to their expectations and thus often results in disappointment and disillutionment in the SEO process.

Modern day SEO is a complex undertaking. Gone are the days where search marketeers could get away with tweaking site copy and developing meta tags – today Geo-Targeting, personalisation and the integration of multiple channels are all considerations of the modern day Search engine optimisation specialist. As such the remit of mere on-page optimisation is only a quarter of the job. Gone are the days where search marketeers simply tweak a number of on-page factors such as meta tags.

Don’t get me wrong, physical on-page optimisation of aspects such as title tags, alt tags and the like still have their part to play in best practise optimisation, however they are no longer a major factor in the SEO process, and I would suggest modern day SEO has become a more holistic marketing undertaking, underpinning and enhancing many traditional channels. These days, search awareness can be achieved via the distribution of online PR, the seeding of a campaign via a social media platform such as Facebook. Stumbleupon or Twitter or the development of a channel on Youtube. All are assets that can be optimised online, and work outside of the framework of the main website itself.

As such as and advertiser you need to be thinking multi-faceted. Brand optimisation for many brands is an easy win, and remains one of the remits where some wins can still be achieved via primarily on-page optimisation techniques. As a direct response channel this is probably the biggest win for many larger organisations. However for many organisations, non-brand remains the biggest traffic driver, and with competition often far higher in these areas, success requires a more comprehensive and allround optimisation process.

Don’t get me wrong a site needs to be search engine optimised, however this needs to be put in context. Optimised does not necessarily mean success, unless you are willing to integrate other facets into a holistic search optimisation process and provide your site, with the support mechanisms it needs. If you are thinking search engine optimisation, it is imperative you think beyond just the mere nuts and bolts of your website.

At the end of the day , having a search engine optimised site is just half the story, a bit like having a car without an engine…

Maybe I should have expected given the nature of the newspaper, however it is always disappointing to see this type of stuff written (regarding SEO) in public forums with big followings. In the Penland and Sommerlad series on the Mirror blog, Nick Sommerlad discusses a ‘new businesses’ email received a company called Leadbank offering him their ‘ethical’ SEO services, and report to have “achieved over 90000 1st page positions and over 27000 number one positions for our clients across all industries and on all major search engines.”. To be honest (on a personal note) any company that throws those figures in a new business email deserves to be flamed publically (my rationale being you can have all the “desert snowman Vietnam” type terms in the world, but ultimately one ’secured loan’ result is far more impressive).

This leads me onto the second point. The company above got flamed not for the above, but for the fact they didn’t appear in the first page (or even the next four) for the term ’search engine optimisation’. I would add at this point – perhaps controversially that anyone that does choose a company for the reason they are top of SEO or search engine optimisation is taking a chance – use it as a research tool to find potential search partners however don’t base a business decision of it.

I will use the top five of the current Google results for ’search engine optimization’ as an example. This isn’t an outing session, so I certainly won’t be mentioning any names, however there are two organisations tactics in their whose tactics are a likely to come awry at some point due to the questionable nature of particularly their link acquisition. I would also add there are a number of good search (and SEO) agencies that do not come in the first couple of pages of results for terms such as SEO but have delivered a number of quality projects and campaigns.

However if you are looking what should you do , I would suggest a REACH type approach is probably worth taking.

R – Research. Probably the most important thing you can do. If you don’t have a miniscule understanding of what SEO is or what is involved, you are more expose. Further to that research the market, place like SEOVendor (from Andy Beal) and SEOMoz both have areas which which you can look at potential search partners, and publications such as NMA in the UK have both the editorial and the marketplace section which will give you an idea of players in the market.

E – Evaluate. Do a bit of homework on them (don’t just look at whether their first page for SEO, Search Engine Optimisation etc). Ask them for examples of their previous work, and results achieved for their clients. I would suggest the old saying ‘cobblers shoes’ applies to a lot of agencies, hence why I would always suggest you looking at client results rather than previous results. This to me means too much time on your hands ….

A – Ask questions. Don’t ever go into a SEO contract blind. My favourite clients are the ones that ask questions right from the beginning. I personally often find an educated client is more likely to buy into new ideas or changes far easier, as they understand the rationale and timescales. The types of questions you should be asking should be along the lines of

• What sort of results can I expect and can you give me potential timescales. Here I would be looking for two answers. One – any mention of guaranteed results and I would generally run a mile. Two, Significant results in Google in a very short time period (ie We will get you top in four weeks), I would always be wary of.
• What happens if I can’t implement something you recommend. Are you going to carry on sending it through, or not doing anything. Any decent agency should work with you, and any limitations you may have – or at the very least explain the implications
• Ask for references and testimonials. Who better to ask than people they have previously worked with – oh and actually follow these up
• How do you develop links. Do they undertake any paid linkage for seo purposes only (if you are Ok with taken a chance with paid links that is your own prerogative – however it is worth understanding the role and thus the risk)
• Expect them to ask questions. SEO is a two way thing. It shouldn’t be a case of just going away and giving you a list of high trafficked keywords. At the end of the day, you (as the client) understand your product far better than we do, however we know how we can get that product found, so it needs both parties to work in harmony. Make sure you know answers to questions such as Average Order Value, Target Cost Per Lead/Acquisition etc. This will ultimately help you get a solutions that is targeted towards your requirements.
• Ask about KPI’s. A campaign without KPI’s is just flying blind – they should have an objective whether this is ROI or traffic led.
• Tracking. What tools does your agency have in place to measure the effectiveness. Have they got any ways of deduping data so you get a clearer channel breakdown. Is their any form of search path analysis in place?

C – Contracts. Make sure you understand your contract. Many agencies don’t work to defined long term contracts, others do. Thats not to say there is anything with being tied into a longer term contract, but just make sure you have some caveats (built into the contract), should contracted hours not be done, or agreed KPI’s not be hit. It is possibly worth understanding as well as to what happens when you leave, going back to the examples above, should you leave I would suggest the vast majority of your linkage is likely to disappear as well.

H – Have an understanding of whats happening. Don’t let the evaluation process end, when you sign the contract. Make sure you understand what your agency is doing for you via regular reports and reviews (monthly should do). Take an interest in the SEO campaign – theres nothing worse from an agency perspective than merely just being thrown something with little or no client support. Te best campaigns have total client buy-in = and with search becoming more and more intertwined with more traditional marketing (lets use PR which can be used for SEO purposes) buy in and involvement is more important than ever.Flip side to this, make sure your agency is pro-active, and suggesting things which are suitable for you.

Like any sector, there are good search agencies and their are bad search agencies. However if you do your homework, and take an interest in your SEO you will be very surprised at how effective it can be.

SEO in any ones book, seems to be in a purple patch. Certainly in the UK it appears to have gained traction into many mainstream organisations, and is now part of my FTSE 250 and Fortune 500 organisations marketing strategies. However it unfortunately is still tainted by a dark undercurrent of black hat SEO’s and link spammers which continue to create some negative association with the profession – whether that is justified or not justified is another question.

However it is a couple of posts that have been made that have got me thinking, namely Rand Fishkin’s 8 ways to buy links without ‘buying links’ and Chris Hart’s ‘What if SEO was spelled TSA’

Indeed Rand’s post is indicative of just what a different beast SEO has become. ‘Traditional’ forms of marketing such as Online PR play a far more important role in SEO than ever before – not just from a linkage perspective, but also in terms of branding and standalone traffic acquisition tools – with social media bringing a facet of marketing not previously available to marketeers (either online or offline) to the table.

Just look at metrics for measurment these days. Gone are the days when rankings were the only way to measure SEO success. Blended search has certainly created food for thought here – as well as new channels for savvy marketeers to exploit. ‘SEO’ is far more tactical than ever. Online Brand Reputation for example should have ‘SEO’ at its heart, with brand exposure and coverage more important and high profile than ever.

Surely we (as search marketeers) have evolved from merely optimising for search engine rankings alone. Is search engine optimisation therefore the best term to describe what we do?  The term ’search engine optimisation’ appears to have been around for around 11 years or so now (one of the earliest references I can find is fom David Stoddard from Frontiernet in August 1997) – however Danny Sullivan gives a great breakdown of this on the Search Engine Watch Forums. I would suggest SEO has changed significantly since then – lets face it Google was nowhere near the beast it has become, search marketing industry still in its infancy and social media just a glimmer on the horizon.

In the absence of any suitable replacements, bar ‘digital asset optimisation’ (coined by Lee Odden in 2007) it appears it is still here for a while, however one can’t help thinking whether SEO 3.0 could see a new beginning, and potentially a new name?

[ This post from Peter Young's blog contains only his personal opinions. ]

This is a slightly off kilter conversation following a post I read on the Vertical Leap blog today, regarding ‘SEO for £35 per month????’. . It certainly does remind of earlier SEO ventures, where the likelihood of coming up against said competitors was far higher, however I think it helps to lookat why and where this perception comes from.

Now I may be reading between the lines here (and no offence meant here Gina), however I would suggest the organisation in question here is reasonably small, certainly not FTSE 250. Certainly my experience within the marketplace would suggest awareness and perception of SEO is greatest in startups/smaller organisations and the larger enterprise level organisations, with a middle tier that often garners a mixed response (I would add at this point – and at the time of writing I have absolutely no physical back up for that comment bar personal experience). So why does this perception exist.

Whilst the marketplace is becoming more digital/search savvy there is a lot of ignorance/lack of awareness out there as regards what search and in particular SEO can do and where it fits in. With such a wide range of services available – and lets face it a lack of benchmarks on which to base a decision – it can often be difficult to seperate Joe Bloggs from Enterprise level SEO organisation.

There is also the issue of web development company vs search specialist. Many web development agencies these days offer SEO services as part of their remit. Whilst I think they are personally well placed to do so, I unfortunately also have experiences of a very one sided service, certainly more focussed on search engine friendly design, rather than search engine optimisation, persay – however that is a personal sidenote.

Read a forum or blog, and you are bound to see some reference to shady goings on, or SEO campaigns that haven’t worked. Whilst SEO has come along way from the ’snake oil salesman’ perception it had, it still has some way to go, and I would certainly say this is more the case the further down the enterprise ladder you go.

With larger organisations, it is often the case that terms of business and SLA’s are in place, and rewards are higher both for said organisation and the search agency. Whilst it is not always the case, it is very much a enterprise service with the associated time dedicated to the account. That point alone is bound to get some feedback – however let me caveat that.

How on earth, is a good job meant to be done on a site for £35 a month. On a minium wage that would equate to around 6 hours a month. Now he is going to have to source links (or alternatively outsource -which would take up around half that budget if he outsourced cheaply overseas), so your looking at a minute amount on which to develop a campaign.

I don’t mean to be rude but – How can a proper job be done on that amount of money. And if you do decide to use said vendor, how can you be suprised if it doesn’t deliver the quantifiable results you wanted instead of some obscure 5 word phrase that no man ever has or ever will search for?

In a modern day search landscape where search isn’t just about optimising your meta descriptions and keywords, where rewards are so much greater, and competition so much more fierce – is it really worth taking a chance and basing such a potentially lucrative decision merely on price. In a landscape where link acquisition is far more complicated (who had used nofollow to not pass linkvalue 2 years ago – or didn’t use either directories or paid links as part of their link building strategies), on-page is not a case of meta tags, but a mix of technical and content based optimisation (lets think geotargeting for a start here), SEO is far more complicated, and far more lucrative than ever. Just look at the stats, In April 2008, over 31 million UK adults (15+) searched on the Internet thats:

• 93% of the UK ‘Net population
• 4.1 billion search queries
• 10 searches per usage day
• 30 visits per month
• 5 searches per visit

Thats a huge potential marketplace

I once had a trainer say to me, you will never lose a sale on price. If you do – you just haven’t sold well enough. I would turn that comment round, and say – If you base a purchasing decision solely on price – then you havent considered your options well enough – and you run a far higher risk of that decision not being the right one.

[ This post from Peter Young's blog contains only his personal opinions. ]

No, your eyes do not deceive you.

Google has released its very own guide to SEO, the aptly named ‘Search Engine Optimization
Starter Guide’. Developed by Google’s very own search quality team, it goes into a lot of the on-page SEO considerations such as:

• Title Optimisation
• Page Naming
• Navigation
• Content
• Page Structure
• Image Optimisation
• Robots Management

All in all a decent starting point, however it is interesting to see one major aspect of modern day SEO missing or more precisely hidden and not at all prominent.

Surely some more detailed referencs to linkage, and the role it plays in the optimisation process. The only real references to ‘promotion’ in the document are:

Good practices for promoting your website
• Blog about new content or services – A blog post on your own site letting your visitor base
know that you added something new is a great way to get the word out about new content or
services. Other webmasters who follow your site or RSS feed could pick the story up as well.
• Don’t forget about offline promotion – Putting effort into the offline promotion of your
company or site can also be rewarding. For example, if you have a business site, make sure
its URL is listed on your business cards, letterhead, posters, etc. You could also send out
recurring newsletters to clients through the mail letting them know about new content on the
company’s website.
• Know about social media sites – Sites built around user interaction and sharing have made
it easier to match interested groups of people up with relevant content.
Avoid:
-  attempting to promote each new, small piece of content you create; go for big,
interesting items
-  involving your site in schemes where your content is artificially promoted to the
top of these services
• Add your business to Google’s Local Business Center – If you run a local business,
adding its information to Google’s Local Business Center will help you reach customers on
Google Maps and web search. The Webmaster Help Center has more tips on promoting
your local business.
• Reach out to those in your site’s related community – Chances are, there are a number
of sites that cover topic areas similar to yours. Opening up communication with these sites is
usually beneficial. Hot topics in your niche or community could spark additional ideas for
content or building a good community resource.
Avoid:
-  spamming link requests out to all sites related to your topic area
-  purchasing links

Source: Google Search Engine Starters Guide

Whilst it does refer to a number of methods of acquiring linkage to the site, I can’t help thinking this may provide a slightly lobsided view of the importance of off-page in the SEO process to beginners. Yes on-page is important but lets face it MoneySupermarket would be nothing without the million odd links it has pointing to it, neither would Tesco etc etc, and thus anyone reading this could be forgiven for thinking merely implementing such tactics without any offpage would give them a reasonable chance of competing (which on non-competitive terms/sectors – such as rarest baseball cards – may be the case – but not likely when we are talking casino, car insurance or the like). I guess the real worry here is many DIY-SEO’ers may (continue) to look at SEO as merely an on-page exercise with little consideration to the promotion/off-page aspect of the process.

I will finish with the fact It is a good document, and certainly worth a read (would suggest if you are a intermediate to expert SEO there is very little you will get out of it). Its not really going to tell you anything amazing, however it is good to see Google out there, and at last having more of a say in SEO.

There have been a number of these top ten tips recently in various guises, so given the new blog I thought it time we started the Ten Tips section to the blog, where we will cover a range of topics from SEO, Tools, PPC and the like

First up however is Search Engine Optimisation ( SEO ), as that is whereand the two other Pavilion Communications lads have our heritage.

1) Do you Keyword Research properly

Probably the most fundamental part of SEO. Good keyword research is essential before going ahead with any campaign. Research should be focussed around:

• Relevance – The amount of misfocussed campaigns out there is staggering. Yes the main focus is often about getting traffic into the site, however SEO is often used as a direct response tool rather than a brand awareness tool (and hence tactical usage is going to be affected accordingly) – and thus your use of keywords should reflect this. High volume often means generic phrases and loss of relevancy. This is not to say don’t go after them – but keyword choice should be based on ROI, rather than just traffic.
• ROI – Mentioned above – however a good target keyword list should include a combination of generic and product/service specific. To use the process of conversion for a recent LCD TV I purchased. Initial searches focussed around what LCD/Plasma TV’s I could buy. This involved searches such as plasma tv, lcd tv with little or no consideration for brand. By the next stage of my buying stage – I knew I wanted a 37′ LCD, meaning that the focus of my search was that much more focussed, and the propensity to buy that much higher.By the time I puchased a shortlist had been decided on, and we ultimately decided on a
  Toshiba 37XV555DB- 37″ Widescreen 1080P Full HD LCD TV – With Freeview.
  By this time my propensity to buy is at its highest. However by having visibility at all points in this buying cycle I am increasing my chance as a TV vendor to sell my product to you (all other things being equal). It should also be noted that 36% of searchers associate top listings in search engines with brand leaders – so whilst there is a direct response angle here – it is worth noting the brand angle here.

2) Tailor your SEO round your requirements

Possibly could have put this one in the option above, however its a question I often ask clients – that is.

What do you want to get out of your SEO campaign ?

• Increased conversions
• Increased traffic
• Increased rankings

Yes increased rankings can and often do result in increased traffic, however this may not necessarily result in increased conversions – thus the motive behind any SEO campaign needs to be established early in order to guide the SEO activity in the right direction

3) Understand the channels at your disposal

Blended Search (or universal search) has significantly increased the amount of different assets at a marketeers disposal. New channels such as

• Video
• Images
• PR
• Products
• Books
• Finance
• Flight information
• Local Search/Maps
• Merchant Search

are all part of the mainstream SERPs and thus should be considered alongside your traditional search engine optimisation activity. The activity of integration optimising with these channels in mind has been dubbed digital asset optimisation or DAO

These channels are often used in particular contexts for example

• Maps results are often returned on geographic searches -’advertising agency manchester’ will return MVMediagroup or Mediavest Manchester as one of the searches.
• Products results will be returned on more specific product searches. For example LCD TV, Toshiba TV etc. These results are pulled from the Google Products section of Google and are populated via XML feeds
  

  Google Products Page

• Video/Image results often returned on more generic or Brand focussed terms. I used to do some work with Lexus Cars and this was one area where considered during initial planning in particular.

These results when included in the SERPs have a considerable effect on user behaviour, as highlighted during the Enquiro research from earlier this year (Gord Hotchkiss (one of my favourite bloggers). However it is not just the effect these have had on CTR and SERP behaviour, but also the effect it has on time spent on the Search engine results pages themselves. Time spent on blended search pages can be up to 3x times higher effectively meaning your landing page starts on the SERP’s themselves.

4) Know what your competitors are doing

This can be important in a number of ways.

• Know what your competitors are focussing on – you will have a steer on where potential keyword opportunities may exist.
• Understand where there activity is focussed. Generally I would suggest most campaigns have a weakpoint whether it is the on-page or the off-page activity. Understanding where these factors lie will give you an indication of where, where and how much activity needs to be focussed.
• Understand if they have any weakpoints. If your competitor is using blackhat/greyhat techniques its best to understand this now – and plan accordingly..

5) Benchmark, compare analyse and re-optimise

Possibly going more long term on this one – however at the start of your search engine optimisation campaign

• Benchmark your current performance – this gives you a basis for future analysis (dont forget to logout for these – or at least have a commonality for measurement
• Set KPI’s and try and stick to them.
• Analyse your performance against your benchmark and KPI’s.
• Adjust your campaign accordingly if required.
• Be creative – if your campaign has stagnated be creative try new channels or alter the focus

Above all enjoy it. Search Engine Optimisation is not a short term win – it takes a long time, however if you do the initial steps well, you give yourself a far better chance of succeeding

E-Consultancy recently conducted a study suggesting the UK SEM market was due a slowdown in the coming twelve months, something I covered in the post ‘UK market set to slow‘. To recap,  the report it stated that

It estimates the £2.75bn spend this year will include £2.42bn going into paid search, which is a 23% increase on last year.

The remaining £330m comes from spend on search engine optimisation, which will increase 32% on last year.

One of the things that stood out in the report was that SEO was seeing a higher proportion increase than Paid Search, something which I have seen reflected in the interest in the SEO products both at Pavilion Communication and more recently at MediaVest/MVi.

Further to this, I ran a quick query through Google Insights for Search, comparing the following

• SEO + “Search Engine Optimisation” + “Search Engine Optimization”
• PPC + “Paid Search” + “Pay-Per-Click”

with the following results.

You will notice that despite starting significantly behind Paid Search in terms of ’searches’ in 2004, however by 2008 SEO has caught up considerably and indeed has overtaken Paid Search searches by late Q2.

Given our UK connections, we went on to run this on the UK market as well

SEO vs PPC in the UK

The result was staggeringly different. Within the more mature UK market this trend happened as early as 2007, with SEO taking the lions share of searches since thenm.

This is likely to be as a result of a maturing UK market (something that was mentioned in the E-Consultancy report), where paid search costs have meant that some markets are no cost-prohibitive in terms of any significant return on investment. In a market where SEO can provide a cost effective alternative many organisations are now moving some of their budget accordingly.

It would be interesting to see what other people have found within the sector, particularly those from SEO’s outside the UK.

The recent Google/Twitter spat that has got much coverage in the SEO community over the last couple week or so, particulary from search marketeers such Sugarrae (otherwise known as Rae Hoffman) and Michael Gray (Graywolf)

Following on from this was a post from Quadzilla over at BlackHatSEO.com examined the possibly of black hole SEO (A phrase I have to be honest I do quite like). According to the blog a ‘black hole site’ is

“A black hole site is created when an tier 1 authority site ceases to link out to other sites. If a reference is needed, the information is rewritten and a reference page is created within the black hole. All (or virtually all) external links on the site are made nofollow.

The first example of a black hole site was the wikipedia. The internal links formed a network that passed link juice from one page to another allowing obscure articles with no external links to rank number 1 in the SERPs. This #1 ranking begets natural links from external links. When a webizen wants a quick reference, they consult Google and link to one of the top results. This causes more link juice to flow into the black hole and the body’s trust becomes more and more massive over time.

1. Link juice flows in, but it can never escape.
2. External Sites lose link juice at the expense of the black hole.
3. The relative link juice mass of the black hole expands exponentially”

This to me raised an interesting scenario. I am not privy to what happened with the Twitter/Google situation however one thing is clear – that Twitter have indeed created what Quadzilla termed a blackhole. If indeed Google did ‘influence’ this decision it does raise some interesting thoughts of what it could be life moving forward.

One of the fundamental parts of Google’s algorithm is the reliance on linkage to determine relevancy and influence. Search marketeers cottoned onto this fact and subsequently used this to influence the search engine rankings. It was further to this that Google erm… highlighted the use of the nofollow attribute in order to ‘control’ the benefits potential links could pass, and give webmasters a way to control ‘webspam’. Now one may (rightly or wrongly) argue that this is a case of throwing the baby away with the bathwater, however to be honest some degree of moderation was required, and I would suggest used in moderation and in the right context (such as the one Matt Cutts uses in his nofollow post) is a highly useful tool.

I would though add that the overuse of the nofollow attribute raises a completely different concern. (There is no doubting that sites/services such as Twitter would be nothing without the general public helping raise its profile – and I would suggest many SEO’s have been central to this. However in this context I would suggest there were better ways to control the level of webspam and exploitation.) What would happen if nofollow became a standard tactic, and webmasters decided to hoard internal weighting to themselves. This potentially could have a similar effect to that of paid linkage – in terms of the inbalance created by this lack of linkage between sites. Many websites are already highly guarded regarding ‘leaking’ PR from their websites, utilising advanced redirects aimed at minimising PR loss, and subsequently influencing relevancy as a result, by not giving credit where credit is due.

Surely there is a possibility this sort of activity influences relevancy as much as paid links do?

I can’t help but feel that whilst nofollow has been effective in controlling linkspam, there is a limited timespan to the reliance on this to manage linkage. Obtaining prominent rankings within organic search results is a fundamental part of many organisations marketing campaigns, and whilst this commercial interest in natural search remains, there will be a ‘pushing’ (and stepping over) of the mark (or testing of the boundaries), in order to obtain these key commercial wins.

[ This post from Peter Young's blog contains only his personal opinions. ]