<script>
 (function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){
 (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),
 m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)
 })(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga');

ga('create', 'UA-XXXXXXX-X', 'marketingchip.com');
 ga('send', 'pageview');

</script>

You will need to change the onclick tracking code if you wish to track simulated pageviews for clicks on your links

Whereas with the old script you could use this script in your tags

onClick="javascript: pageTracker._trackPageview('/click/some-a
ction');"

you will now have to use this one:

onClick="_gaq.push(['_trackPageview', '/click/some-action']);"

The fully tracked simulated pageview code would like like this

<a href="http://www.marketingchip.com/some-page.html
 onClick="_gaq.push(['_trackPageview', '/click/some-action']);" >link to page < /a >

Thanks to deepbluesky.com for pointing this out.

In page analytics displays a visual representation of where users click on your website. The problem with it – and the reason no one uses it – is that it only shows the percentage of clicks to a given link independent of the position of the link itself. In other words, if you have a header navigation link to your contact page as well as a footer link to the contact page Analytics shows the same click percentage for both.

This new Analytics update changes this allowing you to see the actual click percentage on each link or button on your page. This update is currently rolling out to Google Analytics account and should be available soon.

You can read more about this on Google´s offical Analytics Blog.

How to set up the new In Page Analytics

There will be two new lines of code that will have to be added to the current Google Analytics script. Once added Analytics will automatically detect which specific page element the user has clicked on and will finally be able to display actionable in page analytics click data.

Once you have made the gravatar account and uploaded your image it will automatically appear in your author profile on your blog (can take about 5 minutes).

It’s beautifully that simple.

1) Make your author profile in wordpress
2) Make your gravatar account on gravatar.com using the same email address you used for your author profile
3) Upload your picture on Gravatar.com and complete the process
4) Select the picture on Gravatar.com that you want to use
5) Wait up to 5 minutes for the picture to appear automatically on your wordpress author bio.

Please note you must make sure you have the Show Avatars option selected in wordpress.

This option is found in Settings -> Discussion

What is a Gravatar?

A Gravatar (Globally Recognised Avatar) is an image that will automatically be used for you in many places on the web where you have used an account with the same email address.

SJQWVJEGKCTB

One June 15th if you Googled “english person” the result would be pretty bad. But this wasn´t a Google bomb. This post explains why.

There have been many manipulations of Google  search results by pranksters and of course SEO is at it´s core an intentional manual attempt to make a page rank for specific words.

The Google Bomb

A Google Bomb happens when people put links on websites with the intention of matching words with  a specific page which is not relevant. This is usually done as a joke or out of spite.

Why This Was Not A Google Bomb

No one was linking the words english person to the wikipedia entry. There are several tools on the web that can show you which other websites are linking to a page. Here are some of the free tools available:

• Bing Webmaster Tools
• Open Site Explorer
• Backlinkwatch
• Alexa
• Blekko

Anchor Text and Google

Google bombing is actually harder than ever now because  too many links with the same anchor text instantly incur a penalty to the website. Especially if these links are of questionable quality.

But have Google shot themselves in the foot with this one? By moving away from anchor text relevance they have opened up Pandora´s Box and we might start seeing a lot more strange results similar to what happened with “english person”. You also have to wonder if search quality hasn´t been compromised.  With Google´s results questionably being worse and Bing´s better are we going to witness a change in search engine dominance soon? Siri uses several search engines including Bing and Wolfram Alpha to try to find the best result (which might not be Google´s). What if other devices and browsers began using similar search aggregators? Where would that leave Google?

It seems like the Google Search algorithm either has a sense of humour or doesn’t think highly of “english people”…

Search for “english person” (without the quotes) on Google.com or Google.co.uk and you’ll get the Wikipedia definition of the C-WORD.

At first I thought this might have been an intentional Google bomb but I checked the backlinks for the wikipedia page and didn’t find any intentional links with the anchor text “english person”. I did find several links with celebrity names with that anchor text (probably why the Google algo believes the word “person” is relevant).

In the results you can also see several posts (searchengineland.com and seroundtable.com) from December 2011 where they posted about this and the post title contains the words define, english person and the C-WORD or similar. These could well be causing the relevance for the wikipedia page to rank first.

Screenshots below (aol is used to return un-personalised Google results)

Until now, when trying to do certain actions in Google Analytics they would not work on the phone, such as selecting the date range. The Flash player on Opera Mini and Dolphin Browser HD just could not handle it. All that has changed however with Ice Cream Sandwich (ICS), the 4.0 version of Android and the release by Google of Chrome Beta for Android.

The below screenshots are from my Samsung Galaxy S2 running Android 4.0.3 and using Google Chrome Beta as the browser.

Google Analytics on my Galaxy S2 - Click to enlarge

Screenshot with specific dates selected

Google Analytics working perfectly on my mobile phone

As you can see from the above screenshots, the desktop version of Google Analytics can be fully used on a Galaxy S2. I have also owned a Samsung Galaxy Note but this was before ICS and Chrome Beta so I can safely say that if you want desktop-like SEO on you mobile phone the Samsung Galaxy Note is the phone to have. The reason I returned the Note was that it was too big as a phone and I ended up buying a Samsung Galaxy S2 instead. While it´s a more practical phone, the S2 is missing that extra screen real estate that would make doing SEO on a Mobile as good a desktop. Additionally, the S-Pen made clicking and typing a lot easier. I was using Swype keyboard and the S-pen to swype making my tpying almost as fast on mobile as on the desktop.

The Samsung Galaxy Note with Ice Cream Sandwich and Chrome Beta is the best phone for SEO and provides a desktop-like experience.

The Samsung Galaxy S2or any other ICS and Chrome Android phone can  such as the Galaxy Nexus can also provide a complete SEO mobile experience that is virtually the same as using a desktop computer.

The Best SEO Phone…

To most of you none of this is life changing information, however I believe Matt really mentions the basics here which, if you’re short on time, is where you should be focusing your efforts.

You can watch the video for yourself below or you can read my takeaways from this.

What ranking signals do SEOs worry about which isn´t useful?

Answer: Keyword density

What ranking signals should SEOs be focusing on?

• Make a compelling website people will link to and remember (yeah we´ve heard this before)
• Make sure the content is crawlable (no brainer)
• Good URL architecture (oooh… my thoughts on this below)
• Make sure the site “can be reached by just clicking on links”
• Have good titles
• Make sure to use keywords people will use to search on the site

Have you got an SEO Medusa in your closet?

Google and other major search engines keep their algorithms a secret to reduce spam and while keeping spam down is a good thing secrecy also means that anyone trying to optimize a website is forced to make educated guesses as to what things actually work to improve rankings and traffic.

Thanks to sites like SEOmoz, searchengineland and others there is now a lot of quality information which wasn´t there when I started doing SEO back in 2004. But more information also means there is a lot more bad and outdated SEO advice available. I like to call bad or misleading SEO advice SEO myths and here are seven of them:

Myth #1 – Nofollow links count

I am surprised that this myth is as widespread as it is. Many SEOs strongly believe that google is counting nofollow links in their algorithm even though google have been quite transparent with their statements on how they treat links with the nofollow tag.

People have set up experiments trying to prove that nofollow links can improve PageRank and improve ramkings. The reality is that it’s difficult to detect every link that is created on the Web. Popular backlink tools only find a subset of all links that Google detects and counts which then leads to wrong conclusions.

Another reason some people believe nofollow links count is that they mistake them for social signals. Google’s lack of transparency on how they use social signals is largely responsible for the extension of this myth.

I wish someone could kill this myth with some research, I just don’t have the time.

Myth #2 – Directory links don’t work.

Directory links work and they work really well. What doesn’t work is automated directory submission to thousands of spammy directories. Manual submission to quality directories is still a great source of links

On of Matt Cutts latest videos sheds some light onto the quality standards for directories. Basically the harder it is to get into a directory the higher the link value.

Some possible directory quality factors are:

• Price – an expensive directory is harder to get into because it costs more money
• Submission guidelines, if the requirements are high and it’s harder to get listed it will be a better resource and therefore more valuable
• Niche or topical directories carry more relevance than general ones.

Directory links are a good starting point for any new website. Additionally, they can provide traffic and sales to your website directly.

Myth #3 – All paid links are bad

Paid follow links are a huge part of the cyber economy. Companies pay for links directly and indirectly be they text links, banners, directory listings, sponsored posts or affiliate links.

The line between spammy links and acceptable links is so blurry that white hat SEOs avoid any form of payment for links. While there is something commendable about being competitive without buying links you’ll be hard pressed to find a successful ecommerce site that doesn’t exchange money for links one way or another. Link buying can be effective and efficient.

Myth #4 – Content is king

Content is king is a myth. That’s right I said it. If your website is a blog or a source of news then content is king, but for your average business that is trying to get some traffic to sell their product or service content isn’t as important as it’s hyped up to be.

Having an awesome product is just as good as having awesome content. You don’t need to be trying to produce viral content in order to generate online sales for your business, nor should you have to. I’m tired of every mom and pop Internet shop being told they need a blog by their local SEO. If your new ecommerce shop has no links don’t waste your time writing blog posts, get some links first – submit to some directories and participate in relevant forums.

Even Wil Reynolds recently said “ that the “Good Guys” of SEO, the people who do the things like building great content and community are being made into two faced liars every day by Google.” in an article called How Google Makes Liars Out of the Good Guys in SEO  in which he shows disappointment with how anchor text links work so much better to improve rankings than writing quality content.

There is a great post by Ross Hudgens which goes into more detail about this.

Myth #5 – You need a Facebook fan page

Unless your brand is extremely social in nature you don’t need a Facebook fan page so don’t waste your time. Better still, don’t waste your customers time by sending them to Facebook unnecessarily.
If you think Google is interested in sending traffic over to Facebook think again. They are now in direct competition so why would they include Facebook data as an important ranking factor?

Don’t get me wrong, if you have pages or products people will genuinely like and share on Facebook then it’s a great addition, but for most it’s not a must-have.

Myth #6 – You need a Twitter account

While I use Twitter a lot more than I use Facebook (in fact I don’t use Facebook at all for SEO) I mainly use Twitter to stay up to date with the latest SEO news (which is what Twitter is for). If your business is information (such as news, blog, magazine or a movement) then Twitter is a must have. However, if your business doesn’t provide information people would want to hear about on a regular basis then you don’t need Twitter.

Having a twitter account just to bombard you customers with offers is not how you should be using twitter.
I have noticed organic ranking spikes after tweets so while twitter isn’t a must for most it certainly can be a good addition if you’ve covered the fundamentals already.

Myth #7 – SEO is dead

Searchenginewatch has a comprehensive article on this myth and I firmly believe that as long as there are search engines you will need to help them position your website. Usually, ranking isn´t enough, you must get to the top of the rankings for a particular keyword. There will always be techniques to accomplish this.

Requiring SEO to generate traffic is equally a myth. Some of the biggest sites today including the giant Facebbok, did not need SEO to be successful. Having a great website or web application might be all you need in some cases. For most of us SEO mortals though, we are working on sites that want to increase their sales from search engines.

However, paid links, either directly or indirectly, are a major part of the cyber economy without which the economic recession would probably be even worse. How many work at home mom bloggers can feed their kids thanks to paid online advertising?

Paid links work. That´s why companies are willing to pay for them. In most cases the links are relevant and useful to users. I would rather see a relevant text link on a page than have one of those giant poker or car ad pop-ups invade my screen and I´m sure you would agree.

So why are paid directory links ok and paid homepage links not? Well they probably are both held under the same criteria according the new video by Matt Cutts.

If you´re selling links make sure you hold your advertisers to the highest standards possible. If it looks spammy, don´t put the link up, if the link doesn´t help your site´s visitors don´t put the link up, if you don´t vouch for the advertiser don´t put the link up!

Are paid directory links considered paid links?