<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title> &#187; Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.nehmedia.com/category/google/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.nehmedia.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:06:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Google Caffeine vs. Google Decaf- Do They Taste the Same?</title>
		<link>http://blog.nehmedia.com/google/google-caffeinated/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.nehmedia.com/google/google-caffeinated/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:37:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lauren Eynon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Engine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Decaf Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Caffeine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indexing System]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keywords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matt Cutts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Merger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nehmedia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yahoo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wp2.dev2.nehmedia.com/?p=518</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google Caffeine is getting quite a bit of buzz lately. It seems as if everyone is talking about what it is and what it will mean for the future of search. Google invited “power-searchers”  (or interested regular searchers) to test drive the new indexing system at www2.sandbox.google.com.
Even with the public testing and feedback there is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google Caffeine is getting quite a bit of buzz lately. It seems as if everyone is talking about what it is and what it will mean for the future of search. Google invited “power-searchers”  (or interested regular searchers) to test drive the new indexing system at <a href="http://www2.sandbox.google.com/">www2.sandbox.</a><a href="http://www2.sandbox.google.com/"><strong>google</strong></a><a href="http://www2.sandbox.google.com/">.com</a>.</p>
<p>Even with the public testing and feedback there is still some mystery surrounding how far this new indexing system will go- will it be limited to search, or will it be applied across all of the Google online structure? For, now we don’t have those answers but we do know what Caffeine is and how it will change (or not change) your search results. </p>
<p>Google has stressed the fact that most users (i.e regular users) won’t notice any major differences- even though these changes are major (MAJOR). In fact, Caffeine basically is  a complete and total re-write of Google’s indexing system. The motivation behind these changes is to give the searcher, &#8212; power or regular, &#8212;  a much better overall search experience. Caffeine will give you faster, more accurate, and more comprehensive results- at least those are the goals. </p>
<p>If you go to <a href="http://www2.sandbox.google.com/">www2.sandbox.</a><a href="http://www2.sandbox.google.com/"><strong>google</strong></a><a href="http://www2.sandbox.google.com/">.com </a>and give Caffeine a spin (like I did)  you will notice some of these goals have already been met. I entered “Nehmedia” (of course) as my search term and my results returned within .05 seconds- I also tested this on Decaf Google (aka www.google.com) and my results were returned in .08 seconds. I also tried a more frequently searched term “Shoes;” Caffeine returned the results in .18 seconds and Decaf Google returned my results in .23. Conclusion: Caffeine is faster than the Google we use today. </p>
<p>Another interesting aspect of Google Caffeine is that this new indexing system is going to make your time from launch to index much quicker,.Meaning: the time between when you submit a document to be indexed and the time it is made searchable should be much shorter- which is pretty fantastic for those of us in SEO.</p>
<p>Also very important to note from the SEO standpoint is that it seems (to me at least) that a lot more emphasis is going to be put on keywords. The top results have the <strong>exact</strong> words you searched for and in the order you searched them in.</p>
<p>More emphasis is also put on recent activity and content. When I searched my name on Caffeine, the Facebook results were at the top. In Decaf Google, the top results were a mix of articles containing my name. I can only deduce from this that websites with more recent activity are pushed to the top of the results. This could have a huge impact on SEO; if we want our clients websites to be highly ranked we are going to need to regularly add content or make changes to the site. Caffeine will also return more search results than normal Google so your search becomes more comprehensive- they are making it very hard <em>not</em> to find what you are looking for. News is changing as well. Caffeine focuses on real-time updates and has set in place an algorithm to make sure that as news is updated, so are you. </p>
<p>Many people have been wondering what set Caffeine into motion and a lot of whispers (and yells in some cases) have been speculating that it was the recent Yahoo-Microsoft merger. Not so, says <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/">Matt Cutts</a> (and he would know). In fact, according to Cutts, Caffeine has been in the works for months and the timing is coincidence.</p>
<p>I believe him. It would have been nothing short of a miracle for engineers and technologists to have created this as a reaction to BingHoo (or whatever you want to call it) and have it up and ready for testing so quickly. Pretty impossible, even for Google. Nevertheless, it is competition- and fierce competition at that. Even if it wasn’t meant as an answer to the merger, it is an answer to it. </p>
<p>For regular searchers, Caffeine won’t mean too much of a difference in results. As Cutts said, the changes are “primarily under the hood”.  Google will still return relevant results- just faster and more comprehensive results. Power searchers and those in the “know” will notice some significant changes though, and SEO needs to take note of them because it will effect our methods and strategies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Matt Cutts blog: <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.nehmedia.com/google/google-caffeinated/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Color is the L in Google?</title>
		<link>http://blog.nehmedia.com/content-strategy/what-color-is-the-l-in-google/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.nehmedia.com/content-strategy/what-color-is-the-l-in-google/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:24:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lauren Eynon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Content Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Page Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Engine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copywriting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Engine Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wp2.dev2.nehmedia.com/?p=491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Think about it. How many people can answer that question with certainty? I look at the Google logo hundreds of times a day and yet I couldn’t answer that question with 100% confidence. I thought the answer was red…it’s green. The thing that struck me the most about this question is how little attention is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Think about it. How many people can answer that question with certainty? I look at the Google logo hundreds of times a day and yet I couldn’t answer that question with 100% confidence. I thought the answer was red…it’s green. The thing that struck me the most about this question is how little attention is paid to the content of a website &#8211; even a website you see everyday. </p>
<p>A little known SEO fact: Many search engine optimizers operate under the idea that no one is ever going to read website content. Quite a shocking revelation considering how often we stress the importance of <a href="http://www.nehmedia.com/services/content-strategy">quality content</a>. It might seem like we are battling windmills we believe to be giants by working so arduously to create meaningful, keyword-focused, valuable content that we don’t believe anyone will read, yet, there is a certain genius to it. Let me explain. Yes, content is extremely important- excellent content is vital because search engines read it and it is a significant aspect of ranking. When bots crawl your site they are looking for keywords and content- and you will be ranked accordingly. If you have no content on your site, you don’t have a hope of generating traffic. If anything, search engine optimizers aren’t being foolish, we are being realistic. We know that content is non-negotiable for search engines and even though we don’t always think people are reading it, quality content is vital for people as well. Even though most people rush through a wesbite, find what they need and rush out, it is still important to have plenty of valuable and informative content for those users who actually want to read it.  It can be so easy for an SEO copywriter to  write only for search engines- it is a habit we all fall into time and again, but we can’t forget that the Internet is for people, not search engines.  This is why your page structure is important, you need to balance the need for  quality content that some visitors want with other visitors need for fast navigation. Hence the use of bold type and large buttons amongst text. You can direct hurried visitors attention towards what it is they are most likely looking for without sacrificing what search engines (and some people) like- which is content.</p>
<p>These are just the realities of SEO, you need solid content but you can’t expect every bit of it to be read by anything other than a bot. Even with that reality to consider you also have to be mindful of who the Internet was created for- man not machine. Bascially what I’m trying to get across is that even though you might not expect anyone to read your content other than a search engine you should still be writing for people- because at the end of the day people are what drive the Internet, not search engines. Does it matter what color the L is in the Google logo? No, what matters is that Google provides valuable content that people find helpful and informative- don&#8217;t forget this (even if you forget their color scheme.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.nehmedia.com/content-strategy/what-color-is-the-l-in-google/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are You Smarter than a Search Engine?</title>
		<link>http://blog.nehmedia.com/google/are-you-smarter-than-a-search-engine/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.nehmedia.com/google/are-you-smarter-than-a-search-engine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lauren Eynon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Engine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expert SEO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Masked Keywords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonscript Tags]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimized Keywords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Optimization Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Rank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spiders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yahoo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wp2.dev2.nehmedia.com/?p=443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The short answer is no. However, this hasn&#8217;t stopped thousands of websites from trying to outwit Google, MSN, and Yahoo. It can be very tempting to take short cuts on the road to higher search engine rank- very tempting- and very foolish. Search Engine&#8217;s have the most skilled professionals and advanced technologies monitoring websites specifically [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The short answer is no. However, this hasn&#8217;t stopped thousands of websites from trying to outwit Google, MSN, and Yahoo. It can be very tempting to take short cuts on the road to higher search engine rank- very tempting- and very foolish. Search Engine&#8217;s have the most skilled professionals and advanced technologies monitoring websites specifically to prevent being cheated. There can be no doubt about it, no matter how intelligent you are or how cleverly you have hidden content or keywords to achieve higher rank, Search Engines will discover you and they will make your website disappear in a matter of minutes.</p>
<p>There are some who would have you believe that all top ranked sites cheat in order to be number one. This couldn&#8217;t be farther from the truth. Websites with top ranking are at the top because they employ expert SEO companies that use Search Optimization Software. They have <a href="http://www.nehmedia.com/services/keyword-targeting">optimized keywords</a>, and <a href="http://www.nehmedia.com/services/content-strategy">quality content</a>- that is why they are highly ranked. Be this as it may, there are still plenty of people trying to cheat the system. Some use masked keywords to achieve a (very) short term ranking. Masked keywords are words that you have incorporated into your website that don&#8217;t actually have any relevance to what the site is actually about. Some instances of this are using celebrity names, political events, or top news headlines in order to lure people to your site. This will probably work for a very short while, but all those customers visiting the site weren&#8217;t actually looking for it in the first place and were only attracted to it because of misleading keywords- they will leave your site immediately and never return. However, losing face with customers will be the least of your worries, because when a Search Engine discovers you have been cheating them, they will ban your site from all search, permanently.</p>
<p>Another popular method of scamming (and it is a scam) Search Engines is using noscript tags to hide content that the customer doesn&#8217;t see but the Search Engines do. Noscript tags are supposed to be used for alternate content in the event your site content doesn&#8217;t appear or a script is not executed. Instead of properly using noscript tags some websites fill them with high ranking keywords/content that has absolutely nothing to do with their site. The Search Engines spiderbots read this content and assign the site a high rank- at first- it doesn&#8217;t take long for the bots to recognize the farce and immediately erase the website from memory. Let me stress there is no coming back from this, no excuse in the world will save you from being banned. If you cheat a Search Engine, they will enforce the harshest of consequences- without asking questions.</p>
<p>The lesson? Do not even attempt to fool a Search Engine. You won&#8217;t ever be able to outsmart them and the repercussions could be devastating to your business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.nehmedia.com/google/are-you-smarter-than-a-search-engine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
