Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The Enterprise SEO Guide To Response Codes

Response codes impact every page, image and file on your website.

A visiting search engine bot figures out what to do based on those codes. Incorrect response codes can cause:

  • Indexation problems;
  • Duplicate content;
  • Site performance problems;
  • All manner of other site higgledy-piggledy.

Enterprise SEO is all about big, site-wide wins.

Response codes are just that: They’re easy to set up. They have a broad impact. Seems like a slam-dunk to me.

And yet, when I checked 1,000+ large sites—’large’ meaning ‘more than 5,000 pages’—only 30% got their response codes right.

Thirty. Percent.

With that, I dust off my response code tutorials, and write this quick guide to response codes for enterprise website developers, SEOs and anyone else who will listen:


The Big Three Response Codes


There are three response codes you want to know the most about:
  • 404. Page not found. If a file simply doesn’t exist, your server should deliver a 404 status. You can use a 410 response if you want Googlebot to retry the bad URL less frequently.
  • 301. Page permanently moved. If you’ve permanently removed one URL and replaced it with another, use a 301.
  • 302. Page temporarily moved. If you’ve removed something and will be putting it back, use a 302.

There are others: 200 means ‘OK’. Hopefully, you’ve got that one squared away.


Page Not Found Responses


Most important: If a browser or bot visits your site and attempts to load a file that does not exist, it should get a 404 response.

404 is how a server says “Uh, that file isn’t here.” It’s not a bad thing. It’s the right answer when someone clicks a broken link, or a page is just gone.

You can get tricky with redirection if you want to try to preserve link authority of a deleted page. But the default answer for a missing page should be 404.


The problem: Many sites deliver 302 temporary redirect, 301 permanent redirect or, even worse, 200 ‘OK’ response codes. This leads to massive site duplication and terrible crawl efficiency. Visiting bots spend their time crawling worthless content.

Possible causes and solutions:
  • .NET loves to take over control of 40x errors, replacing them with a 302 redirect to a friendly error page. That’s nice. But totally wrong. Turn off .NET’s 404 handling and let IIS take over, instead. You can still have a friendly error page.
  • A misguided developer may have thought that redirecting all ‘not found’ errors to your home page helps users. It doesn’t. It’s totally confusing, like going into a revolving door and coming out at some random location. Provide a friendly 404 page that explains something went wrong and provides options.
  • Someone may have set up a redirect page that uses a javascript or meta refresh to then reroute visitors to a ‘best guess’ page. See the previous item—same problem.
  • If your site’s on PHP, it may be using header('location: /'); die();. Try something like header("HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found");, instead.
  • Your site just delivers a 200 ‘OK’ code no matter what. I have no idea why you’d do this, but I’ve seen 100-200 sites that do. Change it.
A 410 response is OK, too. It causes Googlebot to more quickly remove a URL from the index, and to retry the URL less often. You can read up on 4xx codes, and just about every other status code, on the W3′s Status Codes definition page.

What Kind Of Redirection?

Redirects are a powerful SEO tool. They let you consolidate authority in the right places. But you have to do ‘em right.

A 301 code tells a visiting bot or browser that the page it’s loading is gone, forever, and the URL of the replacement page. Use this to consolidate authority and resolve basic canonicalization issues.

A visiting search bot will transfer some of the authority of the old URL to the new one. It will also eventually stop visiting the old URL, replacing it with the new one.

A 302 code tells a visiting bot or browser the page it’s loading is gone, but only temporarily. A visiting bot will keep returning to the old URL, checking to see if the page is back.


The problem: As near as I can tell, large sites randomly mix 302 and 301. They lose authority in some cases, and force bots to crawl permanently-removed content again and again.

Possible causes and solutions:
  • IIS 6 and earlier didn’t have a nice, clear button that said “Make this a 301 redirect”. Instead, you must check “A permanent redirect for this resource”. By default, that box is unchecked. So the default behavior is a 302, temporary redirect.
  • You’re writing redirection into your Web application, but you left out the status code. Some servers are configured to default to a 302, temporary redirect if you don’t set the status code to 301.

It’s Not That Hard

No matter how complex the server infrastructure, getting the big three response codes —404, 301, 302— right makes for sitewide wins. If you’re running a big site, look to your response codes. Get ‘em right. It’ll boost SEO, performance and user experience.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

7 Quick Tips to Keep Your SEO On Track in 2012

Once again, we've rounded the corner on a new year and many of us find ourselves re-evaluating our performance throughout many of life’s facets, whether it's how much we exercise or how well we eat. Just as we would to continually yearn to better ourselves, we have to take a moment and reevaluate what we’re doing to continually achieve within organic search visibility.

Taking a look at your overall SEO strategy from time to time is a great way to slow down, breathe, and see if you're still on track for SEO success. Any long-standing effort in life deserves an evaluation from time to time.

No SEO success is realized without solid benchmarks. It's important to continually compare progress to past dates to assess improvement.

A new year provides a great point to review year-over-year data to get a big picture of SEO success without the rigors of seasonality and other factors that can mar short-term analysis. Beyond assessing numbers and percentages, it’s also a great time to assess overall strategy, assess where SEO is going, and adjust accordingly. Plus, it’s nice to get away from all those numbers every once in a while!

It’s a New Year…Time for a Review of Your SEO Campaign!


mad-max-car


So, you’ve spent the last year building that “sports car” of a site. In actuality, many of you have been trying to stay abreast with the fast moving world of SEO and find yourselves looking at something resembling more like a "Mad Max" vehicle. For those of you who aren’t Mel Gibson fans, I’m alluding to the fact that you have added to a site little by little and as new SEO opportunities and trends emerge you find yourself looking at a site pieced together that isn’t so pretty.

I must admit that I’m guilty of this from time to time. I’ll take a look back and see that we have added a link, page, content snippet, etc. here and there and when I take a look at the big picture I have multiple links to the same page on a given site page, over-usage of keywords, or – even worse – lack of intended keyword focus on site page. You’ve been so busy monitoring the day-to-day worries of rankings, traffic, 404s, 301s, duplicate content, and on and on and haven’t doubled-back to see what the compilation of your team’s efforts are portraying.

So, how do we review our SEO strategy and ensure we stay on track?

1. Site Mission and KPIs

Revisit the mission of the site/company as well as the KPIs for the site. We know where we want to go with the site, are we still on track.

2. Review Annotations in Google Analytics Timelines

Hopefully you're extremely organized and have notated all changes and implementation dates for SEO initiatives and don't have to fish through email for hours.

3. Look at Your Link Profile

Utilize a tool such as Open Site Explorer and review your overall anchor text counts. Have you gone hog wild in the last year with non-branded keyword anchor text and forgot about branded linking?

4. Assess Top Keywords

Review Google Webmaster Tools and assess the top keywords and their variations found on your site. This helps to provide a holistic view of what Google’s understands your site content to represent.

5. Review Internal Page Links

Stay in Google Webmaster Tools and review your most heavily linked internal pages. You might be surprised that you have unknowingly added certain page links across the site in navigation etc. over the last year and now these are showing as more important than other key site pages.

6. Are You Ranking for the Right Keywords?

Now, head over to your site. Review your targeted keywords, the intended pages for which you want to rank for, and the pages that actually rank for the terms. That is if it does continue to rank.
Ensure that if you’ve added additional content, whether it’s text or images, that it still helps to support the keyword theme of the page. Have you added internal links into the copy whose anchor text may be too similar to the respective page’s keyword theme, confusing search engines? In other words, don’t link from the bicycles page to a product page with the anchor “bicycles.”

7. W3C Validation

You have had a year of designers/developers making continual changes to the site. If you haven’t been continually monitoring this, run a W3C validation to ensure your code is still clean as well as page load tests to assess any page elements dragging down load time.

Summary

Granted, this quick spot check of your SEO strategy doesn’t ensure SEO domination in the new year, but you may be surprised that it can show from a 30,000 foot view that too many small steps to the left or right can leave you far off the path in your journey for SEO success. Now, hopefully you’ve cleared your head of any SEO insecurities and you have more time to get back to your other New Year resolutions!

Source: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2136668/7-Quick-Tips-to-Keep-Your-SEO-On-Track-in-2012

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Google+ Passes 62 Million Users, Estimated To Hit 400 Million By End Of 2012


A flurry of activity has circled Google+ as of late, and the effects are beginning to show. TV commercials, enhancements and cr oss promotion on Google products have helped Google+ flourish in the month of December. Paul Allen, the self proclaimed “Google+ unofficial statistician,” has pinned the Google+ user base at 62 million as of December 27th.


This is lift of 12 million visitors within the month of December, and has Google+ posed for the largest month-to-month volume increase since October 1st. This means that nearly 1/4th of all Google+ users (24%) have joined in the month of December. Google+ is now growing by approximately 625,000 users a day.

Google+’s growth in 2011:

  • July 13 – 10 million
  • August 1 – 20.5 million
  • September 1 – 24.7 million
  • October 1 – 38 million
  • November 1 – 43 million
  • December 1 – 50 million

Allen also has some staggering estimation for the continued growth of Google+. The estimate for Google+ users at the current growth rate is 293 million users by the end of 2012, but Allen is bullish on these numbers. He estimates the acceleration will continue and predicts Google+ will end 2012 with over 400+ million users.

                                                   Image Courtesy of Paul Allen

If these numbers are remotely accurate, 2012 should be quite prosperous for Google’s newest foray into social media. All information and Google+ stats courtesy of Paul Allen.

Source: http://marketingland.com/google-passes-62-million-users-estimated-to-hit-400-million-by-end-of-2012-2193

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Delicious Gets A Mini-Makeover – Updates To Design, Usability & Media

The popular bookmarking site Delicious rolled out a new look this week. A major change to Delicious occurred in September, and the new look helps to enhance the new changes and is a byproduct of user feedback.

Delicious was re-purchased by its original founders in April, and has been working on major feature upgrades since the transition. The new enhancements are geared to make content discovery easier as well as improve the look of the site.

Cleaner Design

While the September design helped to give Delicious the visual push it required, some elements were still outdated. The new look helps keep the look clean, consistent and modern.



Delicious stated the following about the new design:
Giving Delicious an interface flexible enough to add new features moving forward was a strong consideration. It required us to take into account overarching themes like how content types get presented (stacks, links, actions, and so on) to minute details like a consistent button style.

Better Discovery With Stacks

The largest improvement to Delicious this year has overwhelmingly been the addition of user-created stacks. These elements allow users to group (or stack) similar content together in an easy to consume format. This week’s improvements have helped to make browsing stacks and finding information even easier. A new navigation bar has been installed that makes browsing by topic easier:


A new change has also been implemented for users who are browsing stacks. More focus has been placed on images and video as the new layout resembles a newspaper format:



The Delicious team has been hard at work lately, with more to come soon. The lead designer and senior software engineer released the following statement about the recent changes:
Delicious has been a work in progress since the beta re-launch, with our attention primarily on completing the migration from Yahoo!. We’re focused now on innovating Delicious to empower web discovery, and actively building the team and dedicating the resources to make it happen.
So stay tuned for more improvements, enhancements & marketing opportunities from the revived Delicious team.

Source: http://marketingland.com/delicious-gets-a-mini-makeover-updates-to-design-usability-media-1602

Friday, December 2, 2011

Do As I Say, Not As I Do: A Look At Search Engines & SEO Best Practices

Now that the holidays are upon us, we all probably could use some cheering up. So I thought I’d have some fun with our favorite search engines: Google, Yahoo, Bing, YouTube, and Blekko.

At Nine By Blue, I have been developing software that automatically checks sites for technical SEO best practices. Normally we run it on our clients’s sites to quickly check for issues and monitor them for any future problems.

But I was curious to see what I would find if I pointed the software at some typical pages on the search engines’s sites and then compare their implementations with the technical SEO best practices that we typically recommend.

Below is a list of some of the issues that I found in no particular order.

Disclaimer #1: This list is intended to point out how difficult it is to fully optimize a site for SEO, especially large-scale enterprise sites. I’m not claiming that I could have done any better, even if I had full control of these sites.

Disclaimer #2: Yes, I’m aware of Google’s SEO report card, but I have never read it because it is too long. Also, I didn’t want to be influenced by it.

Use a Link Rel=Canonical Tag On The Homepage

Most of the sites that I reviewed had many different URLs that lead to the home page. This can be because of tracking parameters (i.e. http://www.site.com/?ref=affilliate1) or default file names (i.e. http://www.site.com/index.php), or even duplicate subdomains (http://www1.site.com/).

Because of this, I always recommend putting a link rel=canonical tag on the home page. This ensures that links to these different home page URLs all get counted as pointing to the same URL. I also recommend adding this tag for any other pages that might have similar issues.

I was surprised to find that Bing was the only site that had a proper link rel=canonical tag on the home page.
YouTube also has a link rel=canonical tag, but it was pointing to an improper URL “/” instead of the full URL “http://www.youtube.com/”.

Avoid Duplicate Subdomains & 301 Redirect Them To The Main Subdomain

With a few exceptions, I have been able to find a duplicate copy of the sites that I review.

I have a list of typical subdomains — like www1, dev, api, m, etc. — that will generally turn up a copy of the site. Other duplicate copies of a site can be found at the IP address (i.e. http://192.168.1.1/ instead of http://www.site.com/) and by probing DNS for additional hostnames or domains.

These duplicate subdomains or duplicate sites have a negative effect on SEO because they make the search engines crawl multiple copies of your site just to get one copy. It can also cause links intended for a particular page to be spread out among multiple copies, reducing the page’s authority.

The best way to fix this is to use a permanent (301) redirect to canonical subdomain’s version of that URL. If that isn’t possible, then a link rel=canonical tag pointing to the canonical subdomain page will work almost as well.

For example, an entire duplicate copy of Bing.com is available at http://www1.bing.com/. Compounding this is the fact that the page has a link rel=canonical tag also pointing to http://www1.bing.com/ and all the links on the page point to www1 as well.

Other subdomains, such as www2 through www5 and www01, all properly redirect to www.bing.com with a 301.

Blekko has an old, pre-launch copy of its site at http://api.blekko.com/. (Here is their old executive page.) Fortunately, this subdomain has a robots.txt file that is preventing it from being crawled. But these pages, like the old executive page at http://api.blekko.com/mgmt.html is also available at http://dev.blekko.com/mgmt.html and the main subdomain at http://blekko.com/mgmt.html.

It would be better to 301 redirect these URLs to the current management page at http://blekko.com/ws/+/management than to leave multiple copies of them on different subdomains.
YouTube redirects its duplicate subdomains www1 through www5 to www.youtube.com, which is in line with best practices. Unfortunately, it redirects with a 302 (temporary) redirect rather than a recommended 301 (permanent) redirect.

Use Permanent Redirects From https: URLs To http: URLs IF They Don’t Require SSL

Another type of duplicate copy of a site that I usually find is the SSL/https version of the site. https is appropriate for pages that require security, like a login page or a page for editing a user profile, but for pages that don’t require security, it is a source of duplicate content causing crawl inefficiency and link diffusion.
The recommended solution for this is to redirect pages from https to http whenever possible.

Our software detected duplicate https copies of most pages, including Microsoft’s help pages, the YouTube about pages, Google’s corporate page, and even the Google webmaster guidelines.

The duplicate content issue with the Google webmaster guidelines page (and the other Google help pages) is compounded by a link rel=canonical tag that points to either the http or https version of the URL, depending on URL is requested.

It is important to make sure that the link rel=canonical tag always points to the intended canonical version of the page, so be careful when dynamically generating this element.

A request for https://www.bing.com/ results in a security warning (shown below) due to a mismatched SSL certificate. This is common for sites using Akamai for global server load balancing.

It even pops up for https://www.whitehouse.gov/. I’m not aware of a way to get around this issue, though I would love to talk with something at Akamai about this.

Use Robots.txt File To Prevent URLs From Being Crawled

Sites generally have different types of pages that they don’t want to have search engine’s index. This could be because these pages are unlikely to convert or aren’t a good experience for users to land on, like a “create an account” or “leave a comment” page. Or it could be because the page is not intended for Web browsers, like an XML response to an API call.

Bing’s search API calls, which are made to URLs starting with http://api.bing.com/ or http://api.bing.net/ can be crawled by spiders according to the robots.txt file. This can be devastating to crawl efficiency because search engines will continue to crawl these XML results even though they are useless to browsers.

A search on Google for [site:api.bing.net OR site:api.bing.com] currently returns about 260 results, but based on analysis I have done on clients’ Web access log files, it is many times more URLs than these have been crawled and rejected.

Use ALT Attributes In Images

Images should always be given alternate text via the ALT attribute (not TITLE or NAME as I have seen on some sites). This is good for accessibility issues like screen readers, and it provides additional context about a page to search engines.

Though many images on the pages that were checked had appropriate alternate text, I couldn’t help but notice that Duane Forrester’s image on his profile page didn’t. But he is in good company because Larry, Sergey, Eric, and the rest of the Google executive team don’t either.

Avoid Use Of Rel=Nofollow Attributes On Links To “sculpt PageRank”

A rel=nofollow attribute on a link tells search engines not to consider the link as part of its link graph. Occasionally, I will review a site that attempts to use this fact to control the way that PageRank “flows” through a site.

This technique is generally considered to be ineffective and actually counterproductive, and I always recommend against it. (There are still valid uses for rel=nofollow attributes on internal links, such as link to pages that are excluded from being crawled by robots.txt.)

None of the search engine pages I checked were using rel=nofollow attributes in this way with the exception of the YouTube home page.

In the image below, nofollowed links are highlighted in red. Links to the most viewed and top favorited are being shown to search engines but general music, entertainment, and sports videos are not.

Return Response Codes Directly

A URL that doesn’t lead to a valid page should return a 404 (page not found) response code directly.
If an invalid URL is sent to Bing’s community blog site, it will redirect to a 404 page. Here is the chain:

  1. The URL http://www.bing.com/community/b/nopagehere.aspx returns a 302 (temporary) redirect to
  2. the URL http://www.bing.com/community/error-notfound.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/community/b/nopagehere.asp, which returns a 404 (page not found) response.

The recommended best practice would be for the first URL to return a 404 directly. If that isn’t possible, then the redirect should be changed to a 301 (permanent) redirect.

Yahoo’s corporate information pages do something interesting when they get an invalid URL.

A request to http://info.yahoo.com/center/us/yahoo/anypage.html, which is not a valid URL, correctly returns a 404 (page not found) response.

But the 404 page contains an old school meta refresh with a time of one second that redirects to http://info.yahoo.com/center/us/yahoo/.

A 301 redirect to this page is the recommended way to handle these types of invalid URLs.

Support If-Modified-Since/Last-Modified Conditional GETs

I am a big fan of using cache control headers to increase crawl efficiency and decrease page speed. (My article on this topic is here.)

I found it interesting that out of all the URLs that were checked only a few Google URLs supported If-Modified-Since requests and none of the URLs supported If-None-Match.

Periodically Check Your DNS Configuration

As part of a site review, I like to use on-line resources like http://intodns.com/ and http://robtex.com/ to check the DNS configuration.

DNS is an important part of technical SEO because if something breaks with DNS, then the site will go down and it isn’t going to get crawled. Fortunately, this rarely happens.

However, I have reviewed sites that had their crawling affected by DNS changes. And I have reviewed several large sites that had their DNS servers on the same subnet, essentially creating a single point of failure for their entire business.

As expected, all the search engines had no serious DNS issues. I was surprised to see that two of them had recursion enabled on their name servers because in some rare instances that can be a security risk.
My recommended best practice is to run these types of checks at least once a quarter.

Conclusion

These are a few of the issues that were found that I commonly see or think are important. There were others, but they were relatively minor or subtle things like short titles, duplicate/missing meta descriptions, missing headers, and too many static resources per page.

Normally, I would have access to Web access log files and webmaster tools, which allows our software to check a lot more things.

I hope this gives you some ideas for things to check on your own site. And I hope that when you find something that you realize that even the search engines have their own technical SEO issues from time to time.

Source: http://searchengineland.com/do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do-a-look-at-search-engines-seo-best-practices-102698