• Disavow link tool announced at PubCon
  • Plain text file using popular modifiers (site: domain:)
    • Use site: to disavow an entire domain otherwise list full path of each URL
  • In general SEOs were leery about using the disavow tool, Google crowdsourcing quality via SEOs.
  • Post-Penguin Google update Jim Boykin suggests anchor text distribution to be at least 50% branded or generic variants.
  • Jim Boykin said with the current state of SEO it’s best to fully target the long tail 1K+ keywords sometimes but going heavily after money terms is a “recipe for disaster”.
  • One of Google’s most recent updates is targeting commercial intent link building.  Company name + generic keywords are good, just not exact match anchors unless it’s an established brand like Cheap Flights. An example of a branded variant is “As Seen on Top TV Stuff”.
  • Read patent #8046350 (commercial intent/EMD patent) and how it affects SEO.Anchor text distribution – if top 5 are all money keywords it’s extremely unnatural and will likely be penalized. If majority of your links go to homepage that’s a bad thing. Make sure that sites with very high homepage percentage vs. internal distribution gets corrected. Watch out for too many links from the same C-block. Too many links from homepages is a bad thing & sitewides.

Conversion

• Updated Chrome autocomplete code released at PubCon
• E-mail address field example: <input type=”text” name=”field1” x-autocompletetype=”email” />
• Expected to highly increase conversion of Google Chrome users
• http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/01/making-form-filling-faster-easier-and.html
• Action: Audit sites for autocomplete best practices & future development

Google Authorship

• To get away from backlinks for rankings this is expected to be Google’s way of ranking better content
• Those who use it will be more easily trusted. Those who don’t won’t receive the benefits
• Over time authors will become subject matter experts on a particular subject and their relevant content will perform better than less known/authoritative authors writing about the same topic
• Greg Boser, Aaron Wall, & Jim Boykin seemed to be the most experienced with authorship.
• Action: Attach G+ profiles to WordPress authors so our content performs better

Mobile

• m.domain.com for mobile sites – Google handles better in general
• Click to call is a huge opportunity that most mobile marketers are ignoring completely
• Action: Review for mobile optimization
• http://www.howtogomo.com/

Great set of tools:
http://www.internetmarketingninjas.com/tools/#seo

Here is the animated doodle:
Art Clokey Animated Doodle

The two services are different — Google is all about making your TV Web friendly, while Apple sounds more like taking your iTunes video library to the next level. There’s still a lack of info on how Apple plans to integrate the subscription model but that could be huge as many can’t afford to pay individually for every episode or movie they want to watch.

Google seems more interested in integrating their products into an interface that might allow for them to reach audiences that they haven’t been able to reach previously. Overall what that means is I think they’re focusing on a more usable experience, who wouldn’t want to use it for checking e-mail, & social networking (including Google+ ?)

If Google+ gets added to Google TV I’d be curious as to whether Google+ will record what videos you or your friends like & how they’ll use/integrate that data into the search results.

Thanks to SoldierKnowsBest on YouTube for this Google TV vs. Apple TV comparison:

Cable TV & Satellite providers worldwide should have their eyes wide open as this will likely lead to people ditching expensive service contracts for less-expensive “web tv”, gee I think the last time I said that phrase was in 1998. Microsoft’s WebTV sure was ahead of its time– Did anyone besides me own one of those?

I think during the holiday season this year we’ll see an influx of set-top boxes & TV advertising from both sides as the battle for control of internet TV gets ugly.

Update 8/30 – Adding Google TV commercial:

First and foremost, Google publicly admitted that a main motivation for the acquisition was the access it would grant Google to the wide array of patents Motorola owns, patents which now can be maintained to help deflect competitors from exploring and parsing out Android technology and functionality for their own OS systems and mobile devices.  The importance of this was highlighted by the sale of thousands of Nortel Network patents to Apple and Microsoft among others this past July, to the tune of $4.5 billion.  With innovation and ingenuity perhaps the biggest competitive advantage in the ongoing mobile and tablet wars, it was a no-brainer from Google’s standpoint to purchase such a large folio of patents so that the company could further entrench its Android system from exploration by competing companies.

However, an equally significant aspect of this deal that is perhaps a bit less talked about is Motorola’s significant control of the development of set boxes for cable outlets, a realm that Google has publicly talked about wanting to focus on for future innovation and development.  Specifically, Google has talked about meshing internet into the basic television experience by designing a new type of set box that would allow for complete integration of web browsing and connectivity with a basic cable set box, one that could potentially be offered through another huge fish, Comcast.  Potential developments could include the integration of Google’s all-powerful search engine with TV listings and guides; creating the capability for interaction with Google Plus, allowing viewers to recommend shows and videos to friends and family by utilizing the “+1” already made popular through Google search results; and finally, it represents a potentially new market untapped by major competitors like Apple or Microsoft that would allow Google to set the market standard.  Of course, major questions surrounding cost, availability, and actual functionality of this type of set box remain, but the prospects and innovative power of Google’s brain trust are not ones to be counted out, and certainly had to be another major catalyst for the acquisition.

As was mentioned before, there are a few potential roadblocks and red flags to this deal, first and foremost being Google’s potential evaluation against antitrust laws because of its burgeoning control over the mobile industry in the U.S.  With the company already holding a near 50% market share, there are concerns that with further partnership with Motorola, Google could approach a market share in the realm of 75-80% that would allow it monopolistic control over the wireless industry (and further wireless innovative developments, especially regarding web browsing).  Also, there are concerns from other hardware manufacturers like HTC and Samsung that have partnered with Google on previous Android phone releases like the Nexus One.  Google has guaranteed that Motorola Mobility will remain an independent entity in regards to development contracts, required to bid along with other hardware manufacturers for future Nexus bids.  Whether this will be upheld remains to be seen.

No matter how you look at this deal, Google comes out looking like a winner with another trophy on its ever-growing mantle, one that allows it to remain a titan rivaling Apple and Microsoft for dominance in the ever-exploding tech industry of the 21^st century.  If Google can unveil an innovative set box to integrate its web-browsing and ad network into the home television experience, on top of the increasing market share it will command due to its control of Motorola Mobility patents, the folks at Apple and Microsoft might have a bit more to worry about in the future.  For now, the market and gadget-lovers everywhere will watch in anticipation on the projects Google and Motorola will unveil in the near future, and see where the bar gets pushed from there.

Google has had their eye on Motorola for quite some time: http://www.ginside.com/2007/865/google-partnership-roundup/

Doodles are known as the decorative changes that are made to the Google logo to celebrate holidays, anniversaries, and the lives of famous artists and scientists. Whether it is the beginning of Spring, Albert Einstein’s birthday, or the 50th anniversary of understanding DNA, the doodle team never fails to find artistic ways to celebrate these unique events.

As a follow to an earlier post, we’re sharing Matteo’s work as well as some of state finalists on the Doodle 4 Google contest.

2011 Doodle 4 Google winner:

Space Life
Matteo Lopez (California)
Monte Verde Elementary School

State finalists:

• Grades K-3
• Grades 4-6
• Grades 7-9
• Grades 10-12

Don’t Pick On Nature
Celine Leng (California)
U.S. Arts Center

Save The Ocean!
Izabellah Chan (Florida)
Page Private School

Alanna’s Orgonc Hydroponic Garden
Alanna Mayer (Michigan)
Ryan Elementary

Encourage participation in next year’s Doodle 4 Google Contest.

In addition, Google Docs Motion was also released.

But of course, it’s just this year’s April Fool’s joke

Here are a couple videos, with discussion from both sides.

In this second video, Matt is said to be the “cause for so much spam” in Google. Wow, that’s a huge blow.

What are your thoughts about Bing and Google? Do you think Bing is copying Google?

Announced just recently, the Google Shopper app – which has been out for Android since November – is finally out for the iPhone!

 <

You can get it from the App Store today!

Just under two years ago, in July 2009, Google announced the ability to sell or rent property through Google Maps.

Why is the real estate feature being removed? Lack of use. The feature just didn’t get as much pick-up as they had hoped.

This can be true for any Google product they put out.

For example, Google shut down Lively back in 2008 because it wasn’t getting the traction they had planned on.

This is a wise decision as with any business, you shut down or close the features/products/services which aren’t getting enough traction or generating any revenue directly or indirectly.