Brandable Domain Name Site Launched

Since the pengpocalypse hit last year I’ve been working on selling real estate and just started a job in the insurance field as well. In an interesting spinoff of the SEO interests I started buying and selling short brandable domain names like whenzy, inbold, etc as a great little side business. I have been listing on Brandbucket but they’re a highly selective list that’s very too the personal taste of the owner. I think I have great taste as well and some cool domain names as well so I launched Nameperfection as my own startup and brandable domain name site. Check it out for some interesting site names or good sites for an ecommerce play like or

My Local SEO book is out!

My local SEO is finished and published on Amazon Kindle. Webcentric Local Business Marketing: How to market your business on the web and beyond…, features and in depth treatment of Local SEO and discusses all the lessons I’ve learned marketing my law practice, real estate business, and client sites. I discuss outsourcing and the best work to do to save yourself money. I also discuss how to evaluate marketing opportunities. The book is ideally suited for the local business owner who wants a great framework to analyze internet marketing opportunities and avoid getting ripped off. It’s also not a ripoff at only $3.50 for the kindle edition.

I used Fiverr to do the table of contents, cover, kindle editing and proofreading for about $100, an excellent example of the outsourcing techniques I discuss in the book.

Tax Day Whoopsie Update 2012

Around Monday I noticed that two of my largest on oldest sites appeared to have disappeared from any results above 100. This was concerning but possibly due to some blog network experimentation that the effects had appeared to be wearing off.

I checked around and this was apparently not an isolated phenomenon with warriorforum, traffic planet, and blackhat world all birthing substantial panicky threads on the subject. Indeed there was one blog calling it the death of SEO update with comments of glee from white hatters basking in the validations of finally after years being proved correct. There was also much blaming of Panda and other explanations which honestly no one could point to substantive reasoning though one person had fingered shared hosting account which might have turned out to be fairly closed. The two
affected sites were on shared hosting along with one other site that still had good results.

Late today I checked and my sites had all recovered. There was an intriguing mention on Google webmaster forums someone pointed out that indicated it was some sort of mixup where the gnomes watching the algo took the day off to do their taxes or something. Some of the comments indicated it was shared hosting but I didn’t see a confirmation by the Google employee who apparently wasn’t aware of a major update.

It is possible this was some sort of bad implementation of the upcoming overoptimization “penalty” (I actually didn’t hear it called a penalty). Expect to see more craziness in the coming weeks. Yesterday, I saw the homepage of ezinearticles ranking 6 for “memphis real estate”.

Evidence in SEO

Serious SEO Investigator!I’m a product of a scientific and evidence centric education. SEO’s main discussions occur on forums and between people seeking to rank sites. There are very valid reasons to be secretive about projects and results. In addition, SEO is a black box in that the actual ranking factors and methods aren’t actually divulged by the search engines.

In nearly every forum discussion someone will make a statement and at some point someone will ask for evidence. This is where it gets tricky. What is evidence? Some demand taking two brand new sites with the same urls and applying two different linking methods and then comparing the results over a period of time. This is great, but impractical and the rankings change. Citing your own and clients site is good too, but the internet is inherently bad information. People also make assumptions like they should be seeing immediate results from methods, which since SEO can involve significant age components on many levels is really bad for giving out valid generalizations.

Similarly citing to Google’s official mouthpieces can be a very good source of information or very misleading. Google’s or any search engine interest is in good public relations and in getting good results. Actually saying you can manipulate your rankings is obviously not good PR and the search engines are coming from a history of people misdirecting you to porn sites and nigerian style scams. They can however be great for verifying hypothesis, however. If lots of people are floating an idea and then Google announces they cracked down on something in a specific way you have fairly decent information. Likewise, some people like to analyze Google patents (which are ridiculously complicated descriptions of fundamentally simple ideas that shouldn’t be patentable), and then write an article about how this or that changes search which is stupid because you can’t say if they’re even using the patent and if they are how important it is. However, if you’re discussing search results and something your seeing fits with what you’ve read then it should add projected validity of the analysis. One of the easiest tipoffs that someone hasn’t ranked any or more than a handful sites is that they say things like “Google is really smart” or “Google says this” and then act like that simple reasoning justifies entire and expensive course of actions. (usually involving paying them serious fees).

Recently, there was a serious dropoff in some sites that had been ranked for a long time, that was much discussed. Eventually, consensus came to be it was related to various blog networks being deindexed. Certain individuals who offered linkbuilding services diagnosed the problem as anchor text overoptimization (ie building too many links to one keyword) and suggested helpfully their own service to build links to different anchors. This was clearly not the case if one bothered to examine search results. I examined top results for about ten markets around the country for real estate and determined that most sites still ranking were 80% in 1-3 keywords so that couldn’t be it.

Any person who makes a determination of a major issue without examining SERP’s (search engine rankings ) and the backlink profiles is blowing smoke. There’s a ton of easily verifiable information about sites around. Social media stats are available. Testing is nice but straight up curve fitting to available data is very valid.

Overall, SEO is about getting valuable rankings in search indexes. I don’t believe anything without comparing and contrasting serious and in depth analysis. SEO involves interactions between competing sites, onsite factors, links, and social media. Don’t believe any analysis that discuss a multiple potential factor and keeps in mind that there can be multiple answers and multiple questions. Every drop and penalty isn’t necessarily related, Google really is smart and can pursue multiple projects at once, not just Panda.

Hello world!

I’m really suppose to delete this post. It’s one of the little tips I’ve learned over the years. People believe that it can mark out a low quality site to Google. It think that’s a bit paranoid. It’s a good dated reminder of what your site is about. You should type in some of your own thoughts and content.

I’m starting this site for a Local Seo consultancy. I’ve ranked my own sites very well and think I can help others. I wouldn’t expect a large number of posts. Blogging is nice but not the be all end all. I am working on a local seo book that should be out soon. Blogging lends itself to time based information but for more in-depth analysis I think the book or ebook format is far superior and has better structure.