contact us google

I really wonder how Matt and company figure that one in terms of relevance to the query.

First the basic widget code, I’ll call it Quick Glossary :

the preparation

scope

I want my widget to only show on single posts, and only if the post has tags :

layout

I want a double column layout with the term (tag) linking to the tag page, and the definition itself only part visible, with a fancy [more] link like on Facebook.

First some css for a double column data list :

and then some jQuery : I want the whole definition on the page but only part visible to the reader. Viralpatel list a nice cut and paste jQuery snippet. That requires I add a class “more” to the DD element, and add some css for it and for the link :

I put the extra CSS script in it’s own function :

…and make sur the jquery script only loads when thr query is loaded :

…and proceed to generating the output, the data list :

the output

Straight forward, using DL as list container, tagname and description as list of DT DD elements, with an added class=”more” to the DD description as hook for jQuery.

You can edit your tag description under Admin-Posts-Post Tags menu.

Now my main widget function is :

Activate the widget, drag and drop it from Admin-Appearance-Widgets menu and it is a Quick Glossary, if you want to play with it, code is overhere as zip.

Before we start :

google scraping is bad !

Good People use the Google Adwords API : 25 cents for 1000 units, 15++ units for keyword suggestion so they pay 4 or 5 dollar for 1000 keyword suggestions (if they can find a good programmer which also costs a few dollars). Or they opt for SemRush (also my preference), KeywordSpy, Spyfu, and other services like 7Search PPC programs to get keyword and traffic data and data on their competitors but these also charge about 80 dollars per month for a limited account up to a few hundred per month for seo companies. Good people pay plenty.

We tiny grey webmice of marketing however just want a few estimates, at low or better no cost : like this :

Suggestion autocomplete is AJAX, it outputs XML :

< ?xml version="1.0"? >
   <toplevel>
     <CompleteSuggestion>
       <suggestion data="senior quotes"/>
       <num_queries int="30000000"/>
     </CompleteSuggestion>
     <CompleteSuggestion>
       <suggestion data="senior skip day lyrics"/>
       <num_queries int="441000"/>
     </CompleteSuggestion>
   </toplevel>

Using SimpleXML, the PHP routine is as simple as querying g00gle.c0m/complete/search?, grabbing the autocomplete xml, and extracting the attribute data :

I made a quick php script that outputs the terms as a list of new queries so you can walk through the suggestions :

The source is as text file up for download overhere (rename it to suggestit.php and it should run on any server with php5.* and simplexml).

In the old academic literature system, a statement is accepted as valid and needs no proof if the proof is delivered in a previous thesis, and peer review authorized. The reference to the document is often placed in a footnote.

HTML which part was meant to host the global academic lit library has the A HREF anchor reference performing that function.

Sergey Brin of later Google turned it entirely around implying the quote gave the source document authority on the subject matter, the more links the higher the authority.

That omits the peer review that actually authorizes a document and will only do so if all quotes are correct. A statement that is true in one school or filosofy can be entirely untrue in another filosofy in the same field so it depends on what ‘school’ a thesis belongs to if the quote is valid. If the quoted document is of another school, the statement is quoted out of context. Peers tend to know that so they will not authorize a document that could cause a duality, the same statement accepted as both and untrue in the same school.

At least, that is what I comprehended of it.

Nevertheless, the pagerank system will only run on an HTML web type, and requires a web that approximates academic lit lib standards. Hence the Google inclusion guidelines, that resemble best practice for university webmasters 20 years ago, as well as the necessity for loads of URL stalking Search Quality Raters who part mimick that peer-authorization. O

So, what works best to optimize your rank on the result list ?

Anti-academism.

Get a high authority site (aka a university) to give your splog a keyword-rich link. Or get thousands of links of low ranking domains like linkfarms and directories. It is all anti-academism.

If you can actually put your link and articles up other peoples domain, that works even better, then Googlebot might think the other site owner put it there.

So wikiPedia in the end is the all time hit of the web in Google Search, the biggest FFA article directory on the web and systematic antithesis to the academic lit library. Anyone can be editor, anyway can add a page, and it even has these red links that point to an empty page with a free for all request to write just anything. So the new page can also become an authoritative document, that all people can quote and is judged by Google as the #1 Quality Result for searches on these keywords. And if you think you know better you can just rewrite the page.

Google link theory 101.

Panda’s…

Latent Semantic Indexing

Queries, or concept searches, against a set of documents that have undergone LSI will return results that are conceptually similar in meaning to the search criteria even if the results don’t share a specific word or words with the search criteria.

LSI Test

O my friend, Panda is something that has to be surpassed. In {speculation|guess|supposition|surmise|surmisal|possibility|hypothesis} and keeping silence shall the friend be a master: you should not wish to see everything. (Nietzsche, Also Sprach Zarathustra)

 (source : semanthesaurus)

Let’s see if the Panda gets it.

1.0 Welcome to the Search Quality Rating Program!

As a Search Quality Rater, you will work on many different types of rating projects. These guidelines cover just one type of search quality rating – URL rating.
Please take the time to carefully read through these guidelines. The ideas presented here are important for other types of rating. When you can do URL rating, you will be well on your way to becoming a successful Search Quality Rater!

Cool stuff over at SeoKindle, the Google quality rating guidelines.

The document got leaked three weeks ago, it doesn’t contain anything spectacular but next time you tell people not to do something stupid, you can say it’s cos Google said so.

Here’s an excerpt from Eric Enge interviewing Matt Cutts. In the entire interview Eric Enge focusses on linkjuice. When he mentions the PDF, Matt Cutts indicates he does not want to talk about pdf and pagerank. He does encourage us to prefer html versions over pdf’s.

Eric Enge: What about PDF files?

Matt Cutts: We absolutely do process PDF files. I am not going to talk about whether links in PDF files pass PageRank. But, a good way to think about PDFs is that they are kind of like Flash in that they aren’t a file format that’s inherent and native to the web, but they can be very useful. In the same way that we try to find useful content within a Flash file, we try to find the useful content within a PDF file. At the same time, users don’t always like being sent to a PDF. If you can make your content in a Web-Native format, such as pure HTML, that’s often a little more useful to users than just a pure PDF file.

Let’s look at Google Search : if you type inurl:.pdf in Google Search (something Pat Marcello also mentions on his seo news blog article on pdf links) you get a list with pdf-documents, for instance The Not So Short Introduction to LATEX2ε which has PR6 assigned.

It shows PDF files are indexed (as Matt Cutts indicates), but more important, they have a pagerank. If so, the pdf document receives linkjuice. Experience of other seo’s shows GoogleBot does not follow or index links in pdf documents (V7N). If the links in the document are not indexed or followed, it does not pass on the linkjuice, it forms an importance sink and you loose linkjuice.

That makes me wonder how Google handled these PDF’s and how that affects the assignment of importance and indexing of the content.