How Google Uses Twitter, SafeSearch – Matt Cutts Changes Advice
Matt Cutts posted a new Webmaster Help video in which he answers his own question rather than a user-submitted one (like usual). Specifically, he asks if there’s any advice that he’d like to change from what he’s said in the past. "I did a video back in May of 2010, that said we don’t use, for example, Twitter at all in our rankings other than as a normal web page, and the links are treated completely like normal web pages," he says. He then references a recent Danny Sullivan article which breaks down how both Google and Bing use Twitter . He notes that Google worked with him to ensure its accuracy. "It says that in some cases we do look at, for example, how reputable a particular person on Twitter might be, and we can use that in our rankings in some ways." And another thing that Cutts wanted to update… "SafeSearch, when I wrote the very first version, years and years and years ago – whenever you’re not able to crawl something – so for example, if it’s blocked by robots.txt, since people have deliberately said, ‘I would like a safe version – a family-safe version of Google, we would say, ‘oh, if we haven’t been able to crawl it, then we don’t know whether it’s porn or not, so we’re not going to be able to return it to users," says Cutts. "So, the Library of Congress or WhiteHouse.gov or Metallica at one point…Nissan, had blocked various pages from being crawled in the search engines, and so to be safe, we said, ‘you know what? We don’t know whether that’s family-safe or not, so we won’t return it’," he adds. "Luckily, the SafeSearch team has gotten much more sophisticated, and better, and more robust since I wrote the original version, so now that’s something that we might change. If something is forbidden from being crawled, but for whatever reason we think that it might be safe, now we’ll start to return it in our search results." It’s always good to set the record straight.
Matt Cutts Tweets About Bing
Everybody’s talking about Bing today since the Microsoft’s new search engine became unexpectedly available on a widescale. That includes Google, and more specifically Matt Cutts. An interesting conversation took place on Twitter today between Cutts and Betsy of the Bing account . Cutts was apparently doing a little ego searching on Bing and does not appear entirely impressed with the results. SEO Services Group has transcribed the conversation: Matt Cutts: Congrats to @bing on the launch! Sad to see this not-so-relevant result at #4 for [matt cutts] though: http://bit.ly/4a8Q1Y Bing: @mattcutts anytime you want to give feedback to @bing, we’re here. 
I’m sitting with the devs at present. ^betsy Bing: @mattcutts I know you are disappointed in ego search stuff tonight w/ @bing, but try ‘mtv movie awards 2009′ and see what you get. ^ba Matt Cutts: Ouch. The #5 Bing result for [matt cutts] is spammy too: http://bit.ly/B2r5F It’s a YouTube->WordPress autogenerated blog. 
Matt Cutts: @bing okay. First web result was from 2008 instead of 2009, even with 2009 in query: http://bit.ly/SToK1 . Google nails it. Matt Cutts: @bing but doesn’t it bother you that [mtv movie awards] on Google gives great news results and 2009 url, but w/Bing I only see 2008, 2007, ? Bing: @mattcutts Uh – the first answer folks see is the news answer, not what you circled. Apparently twilight won. ^ba Matt Cutts: @bing by the way, Twilight did rock. I’m not ashamed to say it–glittery vampires rule!! That’s about it for the conversation between the two (so far), but Cutts referenced that number 4 result again later: To me, this just looks like Cutts stepping up to market Google in the wake of Bing’s launch. Bing’s getting a lot of attention right now, and it only makes sense that Google would want to make sure they don’t go thinking its better than their own search engine. It’s about protecting the brand. Whether this is Matt’s intention or not, Cutts pointing out shortcomings in Bing’s search results is going to resonate throughout the industry. He is practically the posterboy for Google, at least among the search and tech savvy crowd. A lot of people follow Matt Cutts. A lot of people hang nearly everything on what he has to say (search-wise). Cutts has shed some light on some issues with Bing though. It’s a little early to burn the search engine at the stake. After all, it’s not even supposed to be launched yet, but after trying an ego search for myself (not something I performed in my first Bing runthrough ), I am also much happier with Google’s results. By the way, here are some more Bing findings . What are your thoughts on Bing? How do you like the search engine’s results compared to Google’s? Share your thoughts .
Scumbag Search “Proof” Trick You’ve Probably Fallen For
Here’s a trick people fall for all the time. It’s so common the really scuzzy people have a name for it – it’s called “False Proof.” It’s when they tell you something that is technically true, but completely irrelevant or immaterial. Like when a person shows you a check for $75,000 they made from affiliate sales. But they don’t tell you they spent $60,000 in advertising and have to share the rest with several JV partners. Or when a so-called search expert will say, “I’m number one out of 33 million results.” And you think, really? 33 MILLION? Then you get their software, ebook, or system, and you find out that even though you’re also able to rank number one for a term that gets 33 million results, none of it sent you any sales, or leads – and really, not much traffic either. If you don’t want to get hustled by this little trick, remember that proof has to be MEANINGFUL. If you’re in a traffic or search tool buying frenzy, paste this notice to your computer. Unless The Keyword They’re So Proud of Ranking For Is Actually a Difficult Task Even for a Professional, They’re Not Teaching You Anything You Can’t Find Out On Your Own. Unless the thousands of links they’re getting are Valuable links, it’s a waste of your time and money to get them. If the technique they’re showing you is unethical, remember you’re risking your entire business for a possible short term gain – is the possibliity of losing everything you built worth a few extra sales? If It Sounds Too Good To Be True, It’s Not Always Because You’re New to This. Most of The Time It Probably IS. Look for the Proof. Look for the Respect of Peers OUTSIDE THEIR INDUSTRY Who Don’t Benefit Monetarily From the Product’s Success. It’s fine to profit from a JV deal with a friend, I’m not saying it isn’t. I’ve done it and when I have, I’ve slept great. What’s NOT Okay is when the testimonials of friends are the Only testimonials they have. What did their peers think? What did their clients think? What do people who didn’t know them from Adam before they tried it think? If a person selling you an SEO product or search consulting is a layperson, and they figured out how to get results better than the next guy, though not on a professional level, and they say so, that is completely above board. But if they’re claiming to be a guru or expert in any way, and they’re using keyword rankings or number of links generated, or anything else to prove their results, make sure they stand up to scrutiny. Here are some things to test for: The number of results doesn’t always tell you how comparatively difficult the keyword is to rank for. If the keyword is more than 4 words long, a monkey could probably rank for it under the right conditions. Even if it is hard for a newbie, and the program will help you get to the next level of expertise, if the terms you would rank for are those that don’t send any traffic, or help you build up to terms that will send traffic, it’s a waste of time If it’s just one keyword, and not at least hundreds, if not thousands that they have gotten rankings for? They aren’t an expert. You do NOT really know what you’re doing with search until you have been able to maintain hundreds or thousands of rankings for a few years. You can get to number one by cheating in the short term – until they catch you and ban your site. Luck or cheating doesn’t make you an expert. Is the top result they have in Google or Yahoo their own site? It’s not that it’s a bad thing to get to number one using Ezine Articles or Hub Pages. It’s that you don’t control the rankings, and you don’t need someone to teach you something fancy to get that ranking.Anyone can get a popular site to rank at the top for an article they’ve contributed – there are free articles for how to do this around the Net. That’s not some coveted secret worth $97. You just use your keywords in the title of the article you’re contributing. The real trick is getting that ranking to mean money for you – just because it’s technically listed higher for you, and a link on that page goes back to your site, doesn’t necessarily mean it will help your search rankings or that the person reading the article or watching the vide will go to your site. It Can be a good technique. But knowing that doesn’t make you an expert. Now, I won’t sit here and say that every expert trying to get you to buy a search or traffic related product is full of it. There’s a lot of good programs out there that work. But the instant you’re being promised outlandish results with a minimum of effort, it’s right that your BS radar should go off. There are plenty of programs out there that work – to tell them apart, scrutinize your expert, and the results of the tool. You may be surprised at what you find. How to Increase Your Search Engine Visitors Every site needs more search engine visitors. Join Traffic Reality , where we’ll teach you end-to-end Website Promotion Techniques starting with how to get the best out of Google, Yahoo and MSN Live Search. Learn how to integrate all your promotion efforts into a plan that keeps working even when you’re not. convert this post to pdf.