Once you know how Google measures or evaluates your links then you will be in a better position to conduct a more effective link campaign. Before I explain the current pattern of link evaluation let’s take a stroll down memory lane to see how far things have come.
In The Beginning A link Was The Equivalent Of A Thumbs Up Vote!
The original premise of the internet was to have a bunch of related resources (websites) linking to one another in a natural pattern of progression. Thus someone on a website focusing on gorillas for example would then naturally migrate from that site to one that listed gorilla safaris. Thus quite soon links became (and still are) the standard with which to measure a website’s relevance.
The thinking behind this was that the more popular a website was the greater the likelihood that people would link to it; and since people would only tend to link to sites that offered useful information then it naturally followed a large number of links signified quality, at least that was the idea.
The Birth of Link Spam!
Soon enough wily webmasters realized that they could manipulate the linking concept to their own advantage and make a handsome profit while they were at it. Instead of waiting for people to link to their new sites (a process that could take forever) why not form link directories whereby one, for a certain fee, could amass a large number of links in next to no time at all!
Booming Link market
Getting a new website indexed by Google used to be a task of Herculean proportions. Quite often new websites would languish in obscurity for ages, but those in the know realized that the process could be accelerated. By linking a new website to an established website or webpage with a high page rank (typically page rank (PR) 7 and above) that new website could be indexed by Google within days or a matter of hours depending on the PR value of the webpage on which the link was located. However getting a link from a high PR webpage did not come cheap and it was not uncommon for webmasters to fork over $800 for a one month link on a PR8 webpage!
Debut of The Link Farm
The link market trade flourished for a while, making a mockery of Google’s system of assessing the importance of any given website or webpage. However, a lot of webmasters in a hurry to see their websites scramble up the search engine indexes could not afford the hefty price commanded by a link from a high PR webpage and thus link farms came into being.
Link farms were the poor man’s solution to the hefty priced, high value links typical of high PR webpages. The premise of the link farm was as follows: instead of paying an outrageous sum of money for one link from a high page rank website why not pay a small fee for thousands of low PR links? In essence the link farms abided along the principle of the sum amounting to greater than its individual parts!
The Obsession With The PR Band!
Google thoughtful as ever, made it possible for anyone to determine the relative importance of a website at a glance. This they did by the introduction of the PR band, a small line atop one’s browser fittingly entitled with the word “PageRank.” The pagerank band scaled from a low of zero (PR0) to a high of ten (PR10). The greater the value that Google attributed to a given webpage the higher its designated page rank. In little to no time at that little green slash (PR band) became the highly effective unofficial publicist for the flourishing link market trade.
Webmasters obsessed over the PR band even though in truth the page rank value of a webpage plays little to no part in determining the position any webpage will attain on the SERPs (search engine index results pages). However savvy marketers used the PR obsession of the day to great advantage using it as a tool to establish credibility and ultimately sell their wares to the less savvy.
However somewhat on par with the abuse of the linking system, the page rank concept soon became equally defunct. In no time at all the Google index was awash with spam sites topping its front page! Something had to give; and it did!
Fast Forward To Today…New Link Evaluation Parameters!
Oh how times have changed!
The search engine algorithms have gotten so much smarter that even blackhat SEO (shady search engine optimization techniques) these days is more trouble than its worth. With the continued abuse and manipulation of the system Google furiously tackled the issue of how to maintain website relevance and quality in its index in an increasingly spammy world.
Since its embracement by the public, the internet has seen its fair share of SEO manipulation from blackhat techniques such as multiple-blog-creation software following the debut of blogs (principle behind this system was that one could create thousands of instant one-way backlinks through the instant generation of thousands of blogs) to whitehat techniques such as the widespread dissemination of articles through article distribution software or services.
Some of these techniques still have value today while others have been effectively nullified such as the mass generation of backlinks through the creation of instant blogs.
How Google Currently Evaluates Links.
It used to be that if the PR band of your website/webpage was gray then this signified that said webpage had been banned. That is no longer the case. All new websites/webpages start off with a grayed out PR band. This band will remain that color depending on a number of factors before it turns white (indicating that the probationary period is over) and eventually transforms to green with establishment of page rank above zero.
Link Aging Filter / Link Probation Period
To counter the widespread habit of acquiring links for a short-term period, say a month, so as to get a website indexed or attain page rank quickly, Google now subjects every link to a probationary period in which time the link is identified by Google but not accorded any value. Although such a link is recognized by Google, typically it will not be registered as a link associated with the website to which the link points for a subjective period; for that to happen the link needs to mature, and the rate at which a link matures is dependent on a number of factors.
Factors That Hasten Link Maturity Or Reduce Link Probationary Period
1. Keywords: The keyword incorporated in any given link is going to determine how long that link will be under probation. The more competitive the keyword the longer will be the link’s probationary period. In reality this link probationary system has superseded the Google Sandbox, which was/is Google’s technique of ensuring that super-optimized new sites do not zoom uncontrollably up the SERPs, quickly overshadowing long established websites. With respect to the Google Sandbox concept, if a new website was/is targeting a very competitive market already saturated with millions of sites, then that new website would spend a longer period cooling its heels in the Google Sandbox.
2. Volume of Traffic Across A Link: The more trafficked a link is, the quicker it will attain full SEO-value recognition by Google. This is a relatively new system in play and basically what it means is that a heavily trafficked low PR link will bestow far more SEO influence to the webpage it points to than a little trafficked high page rank link. In essence Google has pretty much nullified the system whereby webmasters could purchase links from high PR webpages in hopes of improving the SEO status of their own site. The application of this system explains why some newer webpages attain PR before older more established webpages on the very same website.
3. Links From Topically Related Sites: A links that comes from a website or webpage that has a comprehensively topical relationship to the destination webpage will have greater value than a link that does not. For example, say your website is about internet marketing, getting a link from another website that focuses on online marketing software would definitely fall under the category of topically related sites.
4. Utilizing Different Keywords In Links: Having the same keyword incorporated within all the links pointing to your site will tend to set off red flag alerts, which means that those links are not going to attain full SEO-value recognition by Google for a longer duration. Another link strategy you should employ is to have your links pointing to some of your inner pages as opposed to all your links pointing to your home page. Having links spread across multiple webpages registers as a more natural link strategy to the Google algorithm and the premise of this algorithm tweak was to nullify the system where webmasters would purchase links from link directories.
Remember anything that appears suspicious to the Googlebot is ultimately going to decrease the effectiveness of your SEO campaign. There’re many more factors that play a role in determining how high and how fast your website will make it up the SERPs (Google of course doesn’t spill all the beans) but if you conduct your link campaign with these few tips in mind you won’t go far wrong.
Article Contents:
To get the most out of Google Adwords, first you must understand how Google works. By not taking these simple first steps, you could quite easily find yourself struggling to make a profit using Google Adwords. This is simply because Google wants to reward user that do everything by the book. So, the more that you understand Google, the better position you will be in.
Google Loves Relevancy:
So many advertisers forget what Google is all about, they forget that Google is a technology company, not an advertising company. In fact, the only department in the entire Google company that deals with paying customers is the AdWords department.
So, what does this tell us?
Google Loves Relevancy, they always have and always will! They will always be working for the end user. The users that search using Googles interface. This is where their main focus is, as it’s these users that make Google what it is. Take them away and you have nothing. In fact, it’s only because Google is all about user experience, that makes Google the number one search engine. When a user search’s for ‘Cheap Homes To Rent In Essex’ Google does it’s best to provide that user with the most relevant results.
What Does This Mean For Your AdWords Ads?
Make them relevant! Again, Google is all about relevancy, which means that they are happy to reward you for being relevant. Within the Google Adwords structure, Google will reward you by increasing your Click Through Rate (CTR) and your Quality Score (QS). It is these two factors that will determine how much you pay and your ad position.
Important Areas to Cover:
Here are a few things that you need to know about Google.
- Google WILL check your campaign manually! this is important to know because Google have a set guidelines as to what your landing page should be like. If one of the Google admin members comes to your website, and finds that your landing page is not in compliance with their criteria, then this will effect your quality score.
- Make Everything for the end users. Once again, this comes back to relevancy. If your landing page matches the content of your ad, and your ad matches the keyphrase that gets typed into Google. Then you will be seen as highly relevant.
Ok, now you understand what you should do, here’s what not to do.
- Don’t promote anything illegal.
- Weapons or Violence
- Sexual Content or Prostitution
- Drugs / Steroids / perscription
- Gambling
- Knock off or counterfeit goods
- Answers for educational tests
- scams
- AdSense Template
- Donation Site – Unless Government.
ReCap:
- Make your ads relevant to the search & make your landing page relevant to your AdWords ad.
- Avoid having AdSense & banner advertising on your landing page.
- Make everything about thee end user!
Good Luck
Jeff Spires
INTRODUCTION
The concept of the GFP matrix was developed to understand what constitutes the characteristics of a mature gluten free market and how different communities approach searching for gluten free products. This article explores the differences between Australia and the US and key European communities.
So far in the research of markets there has been a relatively straight line trend on the GFP matrix for a countries gluten free market development. That is, countries in early stages of celiac detection have had a relatively low number of gluten related searches (per head of celiac population) and a low % of their gluten free searches devoted to a group classified as âgeneric gluten free productâ searches. The second highest group is usually celiac related with one or two terms taking up the majority of searches. The other groups are often a much smaller proportion of the top 50 searches.
Group Composition:
Generic GF Product: This group of search terms all involve the word gluten and are generic in nature, such a gluten, gluten free, gluten free products, gluten free meals
Gluten Diet: These are terms that are related to the specifics of gluten free diets such as: gluten free diets, celiac diet.
Gluten Free recipe: Terms such as gluten free recipes, gluten recipe, gluten free baking, wheat free baking
Celiac related: These are terms related to information on the disease such as: celiac, celiac disease, gluten intolerance, gluten allergies
Wheat free: Terms such as: wheat free, wheat gluten, wheat allergy
Locations: gluten free stores, gluten free shopping, gluten free restaurant
GF Specific Foods: gluten free bread, gluten free pizza, gluten free cakes, gluten free muffins
It was theorised that the high percentage of generic searches was because as markets reach higher levels of development (high searches relative to population) they increase the number of generic searches. This is because they have found that in a developed market, gluten free product websites tend to be âone stop shopsâ where they can search for specific items inside of the site.
While most European communities show a very low number of gluten related searches and so are very undeveloped/ undiagnosed â the low generic search group proportion  rule doesnât hold well for many of the European countries studied. This may be because at a very low search rate there is high volatility and heterogeneous search patterns by locals, long term celiacs, newly diagnosed celiacs and foreigners. In these communities an amendment to the rule is that the high % generic searches can still exist in low search countries, however as the total generic group % increases, so does the % of one or two core generic terms inside of that groups searches, which is part of the expected GFP Matrix trend.
The trend also still holds true that in high raw search value communities there tends to be a high level of generic searches followed by the celiac group searches. And each group tends to have one or two high one or two word general terms that dominate the group.
This does not necessarily apply to Russia because its low raw search values may be artificially inflated by its low Google market share and internet penetration adjusting its search values very high. Relatively high search values in a small search population could be attributed to either very newly diagnosed voracious gluten searchers or an established diagnosed group â noting that there is a stark comparison between the Russian English speaking and Russian speaking community search profiles.
SUMMARY
Compared to countries previously analysed, the Europe communities were VERY closely clustered together on the GFP Matrix. While the % of âgeneric gluten freeâ terms ranged from 30% to near 90% they all fell within 0.2 to 0.8 searches (adjusted) per celiac per month range â except for the UK and Russia. The lower celiac search communities typically also did not have enough terms to fill the Google search term cut off of 200 terms.
While a value of ONE search per celiac per month may seem very low, it should be considered that potentially only 10% to 20% of celiacs have been diagnosed even in highly developed countries, and of those who have been diagnosed maybe only 50% or less regularly search for gluten free terms. This could mean that even for the adjusted (values increased taking into account Google market share and internet penetration) search values calculated, the celiac search values could be only 10% of the actual current average search values of celiacs. For examples, an adjusted value of 2.2 (diagnosed and undiagnosed) âsearches per celiac per monthâ for UK celiacs could equate to 10 to 20 average searches performed each month by actual current diagnosed celiacs.
In the analysis, searches were adjusted for Google market share and internet penetration to estimate the number of celiac (divide population by 100) searches per month in two communities in most European countries â local language and English. In the two highest % generic search term group communities, Germany and France, the English speaking communities used open phases such as âand gluten freeâ and âgluten free inâ rather than the standard âglutenâ phrases that local language communities used.
The UK had the second highest âper celiacâ rating for Europe at 2.2 (adjusted) searches per celiac per month. This is nearly three times any other community analysed except for Russia. It also reinforced the GFP Rule that high celiac search countries tend to have a high percentage of generic gluten free group and in particular one to two very dominant generic terms.
RUSSIA has a very low Google market share and low internet penetration. But when itâs raw gluten free foods searches are adjusted for this, the combined Russian celiac search value, Russian and English speaking communities, had a very similar celiac search value to Australia and the US. On a community basis, âRussia – Russian Speakingâ, had the highest celiac search of any country/ community so far analysed.
Russian English speaking had a total of 101 terms over 244 thousand searches in December 2008, while Russian, Russian speaking, had only 23 terms over 360 thousand searches. Like Mexico and Brazil, one of the more telling features of the Russian gluten free market was a comparison between specific gluten free foods for its local (Russian) community and its English speaking community. The Russian speaking community had very sizeable searches for food staples such as gluten free bread, gluten free cake and cookies. By comparison the Russia English speaking community had relatively sizeable searches for: pizza, beer, cakes and muffins.
For South American countries previously analysed, it was speculated that searches mainly for food staples in communities suggested a relatively low economic status while high searches for relative luxury items such as beer and pizza are often searched for by more affluent longer term celiacs within a community. While âcakesâ rated high in both Russian communities they are often considered as a social / family gathering necessity, rather than a luxury item. Again, it would appear that the English community in Russia search for more affluent items than the main country inhabits â Russian speaking Russians. There may be a correlation between learning to speak English, or being an English speaking âforeignerâ and higher economic wealth in Russia.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DETAILED ANALYSIS
UK
The largest group in the UK (English speaking) was the generic gluten free
group with 10 terms comprising 51% of top 50 searches. Of the 376 thousand searches in this group the top two terms of gluten and gluten free comprised 89% of searches.
The celiac group was the second highest group at 26% of search volumes and out of its four terms, celiac and celiac disease accounted for 94% of volumes.
Wheat free group was the third highest group. Its five terms made up 12% of the top 50 searches or 86,000. The vast majority of this groups searches were from: âwheat freeâ (49,500) and âwheat glutenâ 14,800 searches. This is consistent with the GFP Matrix rule of âhigh dominance by simple search termsâ in the leading groups – in high âper celiacâ search communities.
The fourth highest group was the âspecific gluten free foodsâ and its 13 terms made up 7% of the top 50 volumes. The top two terms were bread related (19,800) and gluten free cake (8,100).
GERMANY
Germany has a very high percentage of searches in the generic category, however it also has the lowest total number of searches per population of any community analysed in Europe. German speaking and English speaking communities in Germany also are the closest paired communities of any country. This suggests a close homogeneity for these languages in the gluten free community in Germany.
German is spoken across the country and English is taught in many schools so both languages should have relatively the same number of searches, and they do.
GERMAN, English Speaking
Has 80% of search terms in the generic group. The second highest category is gluten diet which as only 8%. In the generic group there are 18 terms accounting for 55 thousand searches out of 70,000 top 50 searches. However rather than generic terms such as gluten, gluten free foods etc the top two terms are:
âand gluten freeâ (27,100)
âgluten free inâ (18,100)
This suggests that these terms were part of some search that may have included a specific search term such as bread or wheat etc, but was not defined by Google data.
GERMAN, German speaking
The English language in Germany had a VERY similar profile to the German speaking profile. This is quite different to the two language profiles for Mexico and Brazil discussed in previous research which had very different profiles for the different language searches. The difference here maybe that whether Germans are German or English speaking, their socio economic status is similar, and so the things they search for are very similar.
Interestingly, not only is English speaking widespread in Germany, its number of gluten search terms is actually greater than the German searches. German language searches in Germany were only a total of 75 thousand for a total of 40 terms. Of these 83% of terms were generic gluten searches. HOWEVER, unlike the English searches, they did search for the most standard generic gluten free terms such as âglutenâ, rather than convoluted âand gluten freeâ terms. The second highest group in this community was âgluten dietâ with two terms accounting for 6% of total top 50 searches.
Of the specific gluten free foods the most popular was Oatmeal (2,900).
FRANCE
The French proximity to Germany might suggest a similar search profile and this is the case. Next to Germany, France has the highest % of generic gluten free term searches of all communities so far analysed and about double the amount of gluten free searches per head of population compared to Germany. That said, both these countries have nearly the lowest number of searches for the developed world (less than 0.2 searches per month).
FRANCE, English Speaking
The FRANCE, English speaking community has almost exactly the same profile and highest rating terms as Germany English speaking. Out of 91 thousand top 50 term searches, generic gluten free terms accounted for 69% (63 thousand searches). The top two terms were:
âand gluten freeâ (27,100)
âgluten free inâ (18,100)
The second highest group was specific gluten foods at 8% of top 50 volumes or 7 thousand searches. Of these six terms, the three largest were: High gluten flour (3,600), and gluten free pizza crusts and gluten free brownies â 1,900 searches each.
FRANCE, French speaking
This group was very similar to German, German speaking, in that the generic gluten terms group accounted for 86% of top 50 searches or 139 thousand out of 167 thousand. Also its top terms were the same as German, German speaking: gluten term searches were 110,000. The second highest term was the same as German English speaking: âand gluten freeâ (27,100)
Like FRANCE, English speaking, the second highest group was the specific gluten free group. At 7% this ten term group accounted for 11 thousand searches. The top three terms were: âhigh gluten flourâ (3,600), ârye freeâ and âgluten free oatmealâ â 2,900 each.
It is noteworthy that these specific food terms are food staples rather than luxuries or social event foods such as cakes or cookies etc.
ITALY
This country was analysed for Italian and English speaking people. While Germany and France had low searches per head of population and a very high proportion of generic gluten searches, Italy had more generic search terms but a relatively low % of generic terms of the top 50.
ITALY English Speaking
The generic gluten free group only consisted 32% of searches of the top 50 terms. This equates to 26 thousand of the 84 thousand top 50 searches. Even though the proportion of generic gluten searches was low, there were 18 terms in this group. The terms were very evenly spread in search numbers with the top two being: gluten free dessert(s) (9,000); with 2,900 searches for gluten free meals and breakfasts each. This means that the top three terms were not the standard searches encountered in other communities such as âglutenâ and âgluten free productsâ.
The second and third highest groups were: Gluten diet (8 terms 29% searches) and âSpecific GF foodsâ ( 5 terms 18% top 50 searches). The gluten diet group was dominated by three four and five word terms rather than the basic terms like gluten diet found in the US and Australia.
The specific GF foods group, like France, was also mostly dominated by food staples: muffins (4,400), flour (3,600), oatmeal (2,900).
ITALY Italian Speaking
This had a more âexpectedâ generic food group % of 65% (66 thousand out of 103 thousand) however the 14 terms were again dominated by terms that looked like unfinished requests:
âand gluten freeâ (27,100)
âgluten free inâ (18,100)
âof gluten freeâ (8,100)
The second highest group was âspecific GF foodsâ whose 8 terms comprised 16% of the total top 50 searches. The two highest terms were: Gluten free cookies (12,100) and âhigh gluten flourâ 3,600.
The third highest group was âGF locationsâ. Itâs 22 terms made up 12% of top 50 searches (12 thousand searches). The group had a long low volume tail with the top three terms being: âgluten free restaurants inâ 4,400; âyork gluten freeâ 2,900 and âgluten free Londonâ 1,600.
SPAIN
Had a typically low celiac search value of 1.2 (English and Spanish speaking). Its 131 terms accounted for 158 thousand searches that with relatively low Google share and internet usage equated to an adjusted value of 532 thousand searches.
SPAIN, English speaking
With generic search terms only accounting for 39% of top 50 searches, this was one of the lowest values encounte
red for core European communities. The top 50 terms made up only 71 thousand searches. While the generic group had 17 terms, the top term gluten free dessert(s) was only searched for 9,000 times.
As was the trend for several other European Countries with low celiac per head searches, Spain English speakingâs second highest group was specific gluten free foods. Seven terms accounted for 21% of top 50 searches. The three highest terms were: gluten free muffins (4,400); high gluten flour (3,600) and âgluten free oatmeal (2,900).
Similarly to Italy, this community had a high proportion of Gluten free location group searches, with its four terms accounting for 18% of top 50 searches. The top two searches were: gluten free restaurants inâ (4,400) and âgluten free storesâ (4,400)
SPAIN, Spanish speaking
This community only had 28 gluten related searches accounting for 91 thousand searches. In complete contrast to the Spanish Speaking community, the main category is the generic group accounting for a large 75% of searches (50 thousand by âglutenâ).
The second, third, fourth and fifth groups are all around 6%. Of most interest is the specific food group that has seven terms, with the top two being: high gluten flour (3,600) and gluten free oatmeal (2,900).
RUSSIA
Of all the countries analysed so far, Russia (Russian and English speaking) had the highest adjusted gluten free searches per head of population. Although in Russia Google only has about 25% market share with local company Yandax gaining over 60% share, the analysis calculations take this into account. It is this low Google share coupled with very low internet penetration (23%) that causes the combined (Russian and English speaking) search volumes to be adjusted from 604 thousand to 8.3M, and hence a per celiac search per month value of 5.9.
RUSSIA English speaking
Russiaâs English speaking gluten free searchers searched around 244 thousand times a month on Google. There was a total of only 101 search terms averaged over the previous year with the profile having a very long low tail. Of the top 50 terms, 14 were generic gluten terms but only accounted for 11% of the volumes. The top two terms were:
Gluten free dessert(s) (9,000); and âgluten free mealsâ (4.800).
The highest group was actually âspecific gluten free foodâ which accounted for 23% of top 50 searches (54 thousand) and âCeliacâ terms also 23% of searches. Of the âspecific gluten free foodâ terms the top five were:
Gluten free pizza (14,800)
Gluten free beer (12,100)
Gluten free cakes (6,600)
Corn gluten meal (6,600)
Gluten free muffins (4,400)
The third highest group âceliacâ was dominated by âceliacsâ which had 33 thousand of the groups 55 thousand searches.
RUSSIA Russian speaking
The three top groups have similar search share around 25%.
The top group was the GF specific foods which has 8 terms accounting for 26% of top 50 searches, or 93 thousand searches. The top two searches in this group are variations of âgluten free food(s)â taking 66 thousand searches.
The equal second group was GF specific foods (24%) with the top three searches being gluten free bread (49,500) and âgluten free cakeâ (22,200), gluten free cookiesâ (12,100).
The âceliacâ group accounted for 24% of top 50 searches. With only four terms, its 87 thousand searches were dominated by âgluten intoleranceâ (87,540) and âgluten allergyâ (32,500).  Â
