Posted by Cyrus-Shepard
Google gives, and Google takes away.
Even so, it came as a surprise when John Mueller announced Google is dropping authorship photos from most search results.
This one hits particularly hard, as I’m known as the guy who
o… Continue reading → Posted by SimonPenson
The way we consume content is changing at a faster pace than at any time in history.
While the shift from print to digital was seismic from a structural perspective, things have not stopped moving ever since.
The growth of mo… Continue reading →
Posted by gfiorelli1
Sometimes we don’t need to travel to exotic linked data sources to discover treasure troves of precious information about our audience’s desires, aspirations, fears, and complaints.
Be aware that I don’t mean that extracting useful information about our audience is easy – that would be trivializing the audience targeting work – but I mean that nowadays, thanks to the social nature of the web, it is much easier finding valuable sources from where retrieving information than just ten years ago.
For this reason, as I already said in my previous post, I asked the editorial team at Moz to let me analyze one year of Moz Q&As, with the purpose of identifying what the community was most frequently talking and asking about, and what they discussed most often, and so trying to paint a better portrait of the community itself. Finally, I wanted to offer the Moz team insight that can help them offer a better experience to the users.
I don’t know if was able to understand the “100 most asked questions,” as Rand asked, but the method I used, and that any of you can refine, is the correct one for offering that kind of list.
The first thing I did was extract from the Moz database the following information related to questions published in the Moz Q&A between May 1, 2013, and April 28, 2014:
From the database extract, it was not possible to retrieve other very important information, such as:
You are probably asking, “What is the real category?”
In the case of the Moz Q&A, the “real categories” are those that include the actual categories. They are a upper taxonomy level, which is shown to the users when they are asking a question, but not when filtering the questions:
The “real categories” are necessary information, because they help organize the questions into very recognizable macro-topics.
In order to quickly and easily understand topics, I decided to use Wordle to create word clouds. Wordle has the great option of letting you hide words that complicate your analysis, letting you focus on the relevant words.
Finally, to understand what the questions were that really mattered to the Moz community in the analyzed time-frame, I followed these simple consecutive rules:
I didn’t take into account the number of thumbs up of the question as metric for the simple reason that very rarely is a question thumbed up. My decision would have been different if I was also taking into consideration the answers.
For a more refined analysis, then, I’d recommend also considering the number of “Good Answers” and the presence or absence of a “Staff Endorsement.”
What other tools did I use for conducting my analysis? None but Excel.
Between May 2013 and April 2014, 26,775 questions were published in Moz Q&A, but if we eliminate the duplicates from those that were published in more than one category, there were 11,555 unique questions published.
First problem: Which number should I consider in my analysis? The raw number of questions or the one including the duplicates? The answer was easy: the raw number.
The reason is that it is impossible to understand what a user was considering to be the “main category” when publishing their question in more than one category; therefore any choice I would have taken would be totally subjective and so void the analysis;
In certain cases, though, I preferred checking the de-duplicated list as well, in order to confirm my first impressions.
The word cloud is quite clear. The Moz community is:
This is even clearer if we see how many questions have been asked during the 12 months I analyzed:
We can easily see how “The SEO Process,” which includes all the categories directly related to SEO in the Moz Q&A, stands far above all the others.
If we hide the “The SEO Process” questions, we can better understand what the other macro-topics Moz users are interested in are:
Q&A is also the space where Moz users can publicly ask questions to the Help Team about the Moz Tools, and that specific nature of this category explains why “Moz Products” is the second most-popular topic in the Q&A.
Then, two different but equally important points emerge from this graphic:
Be aware, then, that the decrease in the number of questions we see in the charts is not due to a diminished interest about SEO by the users, but—as described in my previous post—to the design of the Moz.com site in comparison to the old SEOmoz.org one.
The SEO Process category comprises seven subcategories.
On-Page / Site Optimization (3,967 questions) and Technical SEO Issues (4,118 questions) are almost tied in the first position, which is clearly indicating to us how classic SEO still is the most important source of doubts for the Moz community.
A reason for the success of these categories, confirmed by the third position of Intermediate & Advanced SEO, could also be the increased difficulty of technical SEO, which has a steep learning curve—especially for the new generation of SEOs coming from the marketing/communication fields and not engineering/computer science.
Content & Blogging, which could be considered the “content marketing” side of the SEO Process, is only fifth, after the supposedly dead Link Building.
The Vertical SEO and Keyword Research categories are the last ones, and while we can consider Keyword Research somehow as a smaller topical niche by comparison to much wider ones like Technical SEO, it’s quite surprising to see how questions about vertical searches (news, videos, images) are not so common. Sure, Local Search, which was the most important vertical, now has its own macro-category (Local Marketing), but nevertheless I was quite surprised.
In this Wordle related to The SEO Process category, I omitted the word Google, because it was dwarfing all the others in the word cloud, making the analysis difficult.
Looking at the word cloud, it is almost obvious that Moz users are especially concerned with these topics:
User are coming to the Moz Q&A in order to find help for their penalized sites (drop, dropped, penalty, disavow, problem, manual…) or because they have understood their site is at high risk of penalization, or because they really have to make explicit its indignation.
I want to start with the Link Building subcategory because it is a very good example of what I’ve just said above.
I removed the words “Link” and “Links” for better visibility of all the other words.
It’s interesting seeing how the questions tend to be about penalty issues (Penguin, Penalty, Ranking, Disavow, Unnatural, Spam, Anchor…), about outdated tactics (Press Releases, Directories…) or risky ones (i.e. buying old domains with strong link profiles) and substantially blaming Google for letting other sites (especially competitors’ sites) rank well even if they have a supposedly spammy link profile (or because it is “killing” every link building option).
What doesn’t emerge from the word cloud is the frequently viewed and commented questions about tools, usually link analysis tools for Penguin recovery (i.e. Link Detox, Cognitive SEO).
In general, the sensation is that the users asking questions are usually new to the link building practice. A constant trend, though, is evident: people ask for creative help because they are working on so-called boring niches, or because they are dealing with niches usually dominated by spammy link building practices. This trend should make all us reflect when writing about link building, because we tend to write as if everybody was dealing with big brands and big budgets, when clearly it is not so.
Another useful exercise is seeing how very specific topics return over and over in the Q&A. Obviously, for this very granular kind of analysis, it would be better to also have the question in the dataset, and not only its title.
Let’s take “Penguin” as an example:
The spike we see in October coincides with the rollout of Penguin 2.1, and confirms the importance of Q&A for feeling the pulse of our audience almost in real time. For this reason, using tools like Fresh Web Explorer for monitoring our keywords’ mentions in our own Q&A is essential in order to spot hot trends and eventually creating very timely content.
Finally, there’s a word that I totally missed and that, IMHO, should be one of the most relevant ones in the words cloud: outreach. And there are very few questions and discussions about strategy, too, which is making me very sad.
This is the king of all the categories of the Moz Q&A. And it is quite ironic, because if in the SEO-blog world technical SEO is losing visibility for other topics, at the end of the day the most common questions asked by SEOs are about the most classic of the SEO subjects.
But what are the topics that worry the Q&A users the most?
Duplication issues, and the related canonicalization issues, seem to represent a big portion of the SEOs’ worries when it comes to Technical SEO. Another classic cause for concern is a site’s migration.
And, clearly, SEOs are worried about optimizing their site for Google (I feel sorry for Bing, but this is the real world).
The presence of “Links” and link-related words is partly caused by the liberty given to users to publish questions up to five categories, therefore many questions that should fit almost exclusively in the Link Building subcategory are present also in the Technical SEO Issues one.
That said, there are also a good bunch of questions related to internal linking, especially in relation to information architecture, budget crawl management and no-indexation of duplicated pages.
We can also find quite a few questions about “Why is my site not indexed by Google?“
A smaller but relevant amount of questions surround Technical SEO issues generated by the most common CMS platforms (Wordpress, Magento, Drupal, and Joomla), and, apart from Wordpress, this is the kind of topic that is not taken into much consideration in the Moz and YouMoz blogs.
Finally, classic evergreen topics are htaccess and regular expressions: Maybe Moz could think about a specific cheat-sheet or even creating an htaccess generator better than the ones already available online.
The quality of the questions and answers, then, is higher than the Link Building one, even if it is still big the number of “newbie” kind of questions.
The engagement level of the community is greater, too, and good examples of this engagement can be found in this question about a migration gone wrong or this less-silly-than-it-seems question about the use of the meta keyword tag. Both are confirming how the biggest part of the Moz Community is still composed by SEOs.
The On-Page / Site Optimization is the second most-used category in all Moz Q&A, but this data is strongly influenced by the fact that users tend to categorize their questions in both Technical issues and SEO On-Page / Site Optimization.
For this reason, in order to better understand what exclusively can be attributed to this category we must de-dupe the questions. The result is something like this:
The topical landscape we see is showing us how users still tend to think of on-page / site optimization in terms of keywords and related keyword-centric topics (i.e. Title tag).
Quite surprising is seeing how a hot topic like semantic search is barely present; we almost don’t see words like schema, semantics, structured data et al.
If we analyze our Q&A sections to finding new ideas, then this “absence” should aim us toward creating better and more understandable content about semantic search, so as to educate our audience and be consistent with our mission.
A special mention must be made for infinite scrolling, parallax design, and SEO for Ajax in general, which are topics that can be discovered as relevant to the community only if we consider metrics like page views and number of comments.Their popularity and level of of engagement, then, is confirming to us that there’s a space in the Moz Q&A for really advanced SEO questions; the problem is keeping them from sinking into a sea of basic SEO questions.
The questions present in this category represent how SEOs look at content: as a method of ranking better.
This could lead to a discussion about how much SEOs have really understood the importance of Content Marketing (and blogging) as an inbound tactic for making your site/brand relevant for the users, and hence able to earn popularity, shares, and links, and not just another SEO task for ranking better on Google.
That’s not to say that the Moz users aren’t aware of the real meaning of Content Marketing, but they still struggle to understand its effects on SEO. Good examples of this attitude are found in these two questions:
All this also explains why the most popular questions are related to the SEO technical side of content optimization:
Or, to content creation for link building (i.e. guest blogging, good or bad?)
These are the Cinderellas of The SEO Process category.
This is due to their very specific nature. A nature which is very clear to all users, and that means that we don’t find replicated topics like duplication or canonicalization, even if they still are present.
In the case of keyword research, questions tend to be very specific, the most popular usually being about tools ( like this question) or keyword mapping (like in this other example).
Vertical SEO, instead, is particularly interesting because it effectively maps what the most common vertical the Moz users are dealing with is:
The dominance of Local Search is evident, and it justifies:
Video Search, with questions mostly about video hosting and YouTube optimization, is the second vertical for importance and frequency, followed by Images Search. News search, instead, is almost absent, with just one question that explicitly asks about that topic!
It should not surprise us that Web Design is the second most asked-about online marketing discipline. Aside from the timeless love/hate relationship that SEOs have with web designers, the evolution of Google and the increasing importance of correct web development for SEO performance explains it.
In this word cloud I purposely deleted words like Google, Design, and SEO in order to better see the real topics users discuss in this subcategory.
We see two trends:
Site speed and performance optimization emerges as a third topic if we examine the questions more deeply.
Generally, though, again we see SEOs asking questions and many times they categorize as Web Design questions that they also asked in some of the subcategories of The SEO Process, which may indicate to us that many users are convinced that, for instance, the duplicated content issues are somehow related to a poor design of the site (when, maybe, they should look more at information architecture).
I think the correct name for this category should be “SEO tools:”
If we look at the questions, and take into consideration also views and answers, what we see is that the vast majority of questions are directly related to the SEO process.
We have questions about Google Webmaster Tools, keyword tracking, Google Analytics (and others analytics needs, such as tracking phone calls, or alternative tools), the Google Places dashboard, and so on.
The only Online Marketing discipline that emerges with some force in this SEOed landscape is Adwords. Instead, we have a very small and dispersed presence of questions about tools for Social Media (which comes third as topic) and other Online Marketing areas.
Is this a sign that SEOs:
The remaining six online marketing subcategories generated fewer questions than the three previously described (1,019 vs. 1,291 questions). Moreover, many of their questions could be considered duplicates from other categories.
Some of these Online Marketing subcategories, then, generated less than 100 questions:
A special mention, though, must be given to Paid Search Marketing and Internet Advertising:
We easily see how AdWords is dominating the attention of the users, but we should not forget the emerging importance of Native Advertising or Social Advertising for Link Building purposes.
It would be interesting matching this interest in AdWords with the data collected by the Industry Survey Moz did few months ago. In fact, we could probably notice how many SEOs also offer PPC services or (in the case of in-house SEOs) have AdWords as one of their tasks.
Again, the predominant SEO nature of the Moz users emerges.
Aren’t we saying all the time that SEO and Inbound Marketing are data-driven Internet Marketing disciplines? Yes, and search marketers are aware of the importance of measuring and testing, but nevertheless this category has only 1/7 of the questions that “The SEO Process” has (2,127 questions vs. 16,015).
Five subcategories are present:
The evident decline of Reporting over time made me wonder, could the reason behind its decline in interest be due to the fact that Moz users were asking questions in this category about the Moz Pro / Moz Analytics reporting functions? Once Moz created a better Moz Product category in Q&A, almost all those questions disappeared from Reporting.
The chart seems to confirm and reassure us that the users of the Q&A are data-driven folks. But is it telling us the real story?
The answer is: not really.
This word cloud is clearly telling us that “analytics” is a synonym of Google Analytics for the Moz users.
Moreover, the great relevance of the word Traffic should alert us. In fact, if we examining the Analytics questions one by one, we will discover how very frequently users refer to Google Analytics just because it was the tool that showed them a loss in organic traffic. Users, then, tend to publish these questions also in some of the most popular subcategories of The SEO Process category.
Again, the freedom given to the Moz users is making difficult to retrieve unique information on a subcategory level.
Difficult, but not impossible. If we want to find questions that are completely devoted to Analytics, then we must focus on the word Tracking. Doing so, we find the most interesting questions, mostly about Google Analytics implementation issues (how to set up goal with event tracking, Ecommerce GA implementation issues, custom URL tracking, etc.).
All these questions hardly find an answer in other sections of the Moz site, but clearly they manifest a need. Maybe is it time for creating a very practical Google Analytics Implementation Guide or Cheat Sheet?
Personally, this is my favorite Q&A category. Why? Because in it we can find questions about international search, alternative search sources, and a space for discussing the most advanced trends in search and everything related to audience targeting.
We could define it as a category devoted to strategy, but that doesn’t forget to translate it into concrete tactics.
Unfortunately not so many Moz users feel the same enthusiasm: In these 365 days, they asked only 1,319 questions in this category, half of them limited to the “Search Engine Trends” subcategory:
What are the Search Engine Trends Moz users discuss?
Personally I already imagine the answer, but let’s check to see what the word cloud tells us:
Looking at the word cloud, something doesn’t add up here. Where are Hummingbird, Knowledge Graph, MyAnswers, semantics, and patents? Instead of those terms, we see: ranking(s), drop(ped), bad, traffic, update, penguin, duplicate and semantically related words.
If we look directly at the questions, what we observe is how Search Engine Trends is practically a synonym for penalties, and—let me tell you openly dear Moz community members—penalties are not a Search Engine Trend.
Only three questions about Knowledge Graph have been asked in 12 months. Four about Hummingbird (two of which by people convinced Hummingbird penalized their sites!). A topic like Personalized Search—which should be talked and asked about here—is completely absent.
Something is wrong here. Probably the Search Engine Trends subcategory is just another category users classify their questions for because they have this option. Or, maybe, Moz (and I count myself in) still has not being able to create the right awareness about the importance of being constantly updated about how search engines are evolving.
Or Moz users simply are more interested in finding immediate answers for very practical needs; and if it is under the aspect of tips and tricks better.
This subcategory is substantially different. In this case, almost all the questions are really on topic and very specific, as is made clear by viewing the word cloud:
Topics like localization vs. simple translation, the correct implementation of the hreflang annotations, keyword research for multi-country sites, and how to deal with social media for multinational businesses, all are present with a many grades of difficulty.
I am surely biased, but the International Issues subcategory is the best example of what a Q&A category should be: clear in its nature.
I must admit that when I saw the word cloud of Alternative Search Sources I laughed a lot:
GOOGLE?! Alternative search source?!
In seriousness, apart from this obsession with the Big G, it’s interesting to notice the presence of Bing, Yahoo, and the very few questions about Baidu, Yandex, and Naver (only two!). It’s clear that Moz users are spending 99% of their time on Google and only allocate a very tiny amount of time to other search engines. It is also clear that SEO outside of the classic American-focused search engines is not something they are concerned about (probably because they are not dealing with it).
Finally, if you return to the chart with questions asked in the Research & Trends category, it is interesting to see the strong decrease in questions about Behavior and Demographics. Why? Because people aren’t really asking questions about those topics, and the biggest percentage of the questions classified as Behavior and Demographics are what I’ve defined as “duplicates” of other categories.
Community is a Q&A category mostly meant as a space for discussing topics about the inbound marketing industry, not one where people ask for help.
Seeing that the only topic within Community that really matters to the Moz users is White Hat / Black Hat SEO is quite depressing, but it reflects the worries SEOs have for practices like Negative SEO or penalizations for spammy link building tactics that have been used in the past.
And those same topics dominate the other subcategories, which are not formally about spam, link penalizations, and negative SEO:
It’s certain: we can find words like Mozcon and Articles, but they are just few words between many not relevant ones.
If I was Moz, I would seriously reconsider this category.
The Business Development has a very multi-faceted nature where the common denominator is the practical life of a search marketer. This being the nature, a subcategory I wish were here is one about how to deal with clients:
The questions present in this category, then, seems to suggest that it’s a category mostly used by independent SEO consultants or owners of small SEO companies.
This may explain why only 504 questions have been asked in Business Development.
But, despite the small number of questions, this is the category with the highest ratio of answers per question: 4.47
Local Marketing is a relatively new macro-category; it was created on January 2014.
Despite being new, it has been able to attract the attention of the many SEOs specialized in Local Search:
Local Strategy, Local Listings, and Website Optimization for Local Search are the most-used categories, and this interest is also reflected in the word cloud:
What surprised me was (finally!) seeing “schema” present in the word cloud.
It turns out that how to use Schema for local search is quite a hot topic that is able to create great engagement, like in this question.
A Q&A section, at least in Moz’s case, is also a place a company can use for offering customer service.
Aside from the obvious benefits, a great advantage of using Q&A for this purpose is that the company itself can collect useful data about their own products perception, weakest points and needs the users are expressing.
Initially, the support side of the Moz Q&A was limited to two categories (Moz Products and Pro Application), but during this last twelve months Moz rationalized the questions creating a taxonomy based on the different areas of Moz Analytics (Search, Social, Links, and Brand Mentions) and stages of learning the tool. Finally, specific Q&A categories were created for all the other tools owned by Moz (Moz Local, OSE, Followerwonk, APIs).
The chart above speaks for itself: the tools users are most concerned with are the ones more strictly related to classic SEO functions:
What a clear confirmation of what has been repeatedly said in this analysis: Moz users are SEOs, maybe adopting inbound marketing as a way of thinking, but ultimately SEOs.
For this reason, we can say that the partial return Moz is doing onto focusing again more on SEO practitioners, even if under the inbound marketing philosophy, is very well justified by the composition of its audience.
And what its audience is telling about its products to Moz? This:
Moz subscribers’ concerns, doubts, and desires are mainly directed toward pure SEO tools:
Not that other inbound marketing facets of Moz Analytics are not considered useful, but they are not considered as essential as the SEO ones.
One thing, though, clearly emerges from analyzing the Support Q&As: the strength and participation of the Moz community itself. In fact, the biggest percentage of the answers given to these questions are from Moz users.
The analysis of the Moz Q&A tells us many interesting things about the Moz community:
The analysis—to conclude this gigantic post—is telling us something we all need to reflect on: inbound marketing still hasn’t put solid roots in the minds of search marketers, and despite what the biggest majority of the Moz community says publicly, it seems it’s still thinking in terms of the old classic SEO.
Image credit: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Terry Gilliam – Universal Pictures
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!
Continue reading →
Posted by Carson-Ward
Insufficient credibility undermines digital marketing, particularly among SEOs who now produce or promote content as part of their job. People won’t share content that isn’t credible; they know the things they share reflect on them and impacts their own credibility. While the importance of credibility gets mentioned in passing, little has been said about how to actually build it, until now.
You build credibility by signaling to the reader that you can be trusted. The signals of trust can come from the author, the site, and from within the content itself. Each signal will appeal to different types of readers in different contexts, but they come together to make content that is credible enough to share.
Rand mentioned credibility in his Content Marketing Manifesto as one of the things we need to build familiarity, linkability, and trust. Several studies have also shown credibility’s critical role in promoting and sharing. So, let’s build some credibility.
Expert credibility comes from having knowledge others do not. People want experts they can understand and trust, especially when trying to understand complex or ambiguous topics like new technology, engineering, advanced science, or law.
A Syracuse University study found “insightful” content was most correlated with users’ estimation of a blog’s credibility. You can’t offer interesting insight on a subject you know very little about, so obviously you need to be an expert or hire one.
Unless your expert has breaking news, he or she needs to provide quality analysis and opinion to add any value. Most successful non-news content is opinion and/or analysis, whether verbal, graphical, or textual.
If you’re creating video or text content for your site, the expert should also be able to clearly express complex subjects in a way readers can understand and follow. If he can’t then get a content writer to interview the expert and relay the information.
Do not try to give your opinion as an expert in a field where you’re not one. It won’t work.
We’ve all read non-expert content on subjects where we’re knowledgeable. We know what expertly-written content looks like and can easy detect pretenders. If you pretend to be an expert and get one little detail wrong, you’ll blow all your credibility with the people who actually understand and influence the discussion. They won’t link to or share that piece of content and they may never share any of your content again. Don’t take that risk.
Rather than trying to fake expertise, try finding experts and incorporating their expertise into your post. Journalists have long understood this tactic. Even journalists who are experts use quotations from other experts in both news and analysis pieces. The front page of the Washington Post’s technology print section is usually littered with quotation marks and according-tos.
People running blogs can easily get a quote from someone knowledgeable enough to have an opinion that matters. Experts with strong opinions usually want to share them.
The Syracuse University study and this University of Pennsylvania study show that passion is key to judgments on credibility and sharing. Readers don’t just want an expert who can explain things; they want an expert who cares.
Experts who know what they’re talking about tend to have nuanced and sophisticated opinions about subjects they understand. Don’t undercut that understanding with a shallow piece of content. Expert pieces should be deep and thoughtful.
Legal experts who really care about Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission simply wouldn’t take the time to write a bland essay on what the ruling said and how it might impact the future of politics. SEO experts don’t want to report on the fact that Google penalized guest post networks. They care, and want to explain why it’s good or bad.
Expert opinion shouldn’t be confused with argument, and it doesn’t require you to start a firefight with anyone who’s taken the other stance.
Cite the sources for all your expert insight. Citing expert sources is the most obvious way to back up your claims and gain trust. Often citing a source is as simple as linking to the webpage from which you got your information.
Don’t use weasel words like, “it has been said,” or, “many people believe,” to skirt the citation responsibility. Experienced writers and editors instinctively close the tab on any content attempting to unnecessarily blur their sources.
Sometimes, instead of breaking news, you can add to it with data. Data lends credibility to your post in a unique way because with numbers, your sources and methodology are more important than the author’s history and popularity. The data, if it’s compiled and analyzed correctly, speaks for itself.
For example, when the CableTV team heard about the potential Comcast/Time Warner merger, we knew simply sharing the news would be a waste of time. Every major news outlet would easily drown out our site, and opinion pieces where popping up everywhere. Instead, we crunched some numbers, comparing U.S. Census data with coverage data, producing a coverage and population analysis people could see and understand. A few large news organizations used the data in ongoing analysis, Reddit’s founder (Alexis Ohanian) shared the post, and roughly 60,000 people ended up seeing it.
JavaScript libraries and HTML 5 tools are springing up everywhere to help non-technical users visualize data in interesting ways. Mapping examples include SimpleMaps (used in our post), MapBox, Google Fusion Tables, etc. Graphing and other data options are all over, but this site is a good place to start. Compile data in-between writing stories related to your niche with Census data or any of these data sources so you’re ready to go when news hits. For more tips, Kane Jamison always has tips on data-driven content marketing, including the presentation below:
Hierarchical or rank-based credibility comes from a person’s position or title. High-ranking members of an organization have a better chance of being taken seriously simply by nature of their perceived authority, especially when the organization is well-known.
People lend more credibility to an article written by an unknown CEO than a writer they don’t know—even if the writer knows more about the topic than the CEO. For better or worse, people are simply influenced by official job titles and standing within hierarchy.
Your definition of what’s important may vary. Almost everything on the popular 42floors blog is written by a founder, while CEOs of larger companies will probably have less time and less interest in regular blogging.
I know – I’m the guy who wrote guest posting had gone too far. Google thought so too based on its latest round of penalties. I believe, however, the lack of credibility and expertise in many guest articles was a major cause for Google’s (perhaps disproportionate) response to guest blogging networks.
Don’t waste an executive’s time on small unknown sites no one would ever read. Instead, consider pitching an article written by an executive or other well-known figure to well-known sites. Trulia is a good example with high-ranking members adding guest posts for Google, The Wall Street Journal, and interviewing with sites like Business Insider. Moz, of course, is another place to see founders adding posts and video frequently.
If you want your content to be shared, make your authors experts in both title and in truth. Changing titles for title’s sake may sound stupid, but titles like managing editor, [subject] correspondent, [subject expert], or even [subject] writer have more gravitas than a plain “author” or “contributor.” Think about what the title says to a person reading your content (or email). The flip side: writers should actually be subject-matter experts.
You should also re-think giving quirky titles to everyone, as they can hurt credibility. I can’t imagine the Wall Street Journal quoting a “digital ninja” or “marketing cowboy” in their story – unless that story is about job titles.
You can also make use of another person’s position to lend credibility to your content. This works especially well if you’re looking for insight into a recent news event. Quotes from company executives, government officials, and other high-title positions give you something unique and show you’re not just another blogger summarizing the news built on someone else’s journalism.
When someone trustworthy shares something with positive sentiment, we immediately trust the shared item. The referrer lends his or her credibility to the referee. The Moz audience will have no problem understanding referent credibility, as it’s the primary method Google uses to prioritize content that seems equally relevant to a user query. People also rely on referent credibility to decide whether a post is worth sharing. Those referrals build more credibility, and viral content is born. How do you get some referent credibility to radiate onto your content?
This post will receive some measure of credibility simply by being published on the main Moz blog. Anything on or linked to from well-known sites and authors receives referent credibility.
You’ll commonly see “as featured on” lists or testimonials from recognizable personalities. Testimonials from anyone at Google or Microsoft with an impressive-sounding position could go a long way for a B2B product. Referent credibility is the reason celebrity endorsements work.
Leveraging referent credibility in a press push generally works well if your company is involved in something newsworthy. Consider requesting and using quotes from relevant and well-known people in press releases or even outreach emails if you’ve done something worth announcing.
Analysis pieces are a little trickier: pointing out past coverage can lend some credibility to a blog post or press release, but it can also look a little desperate if done incorrectly. High relevance and low frequency are key. A good offline analogy is that person who mentions that time they met a celebrity every chance they get, whether it’s relevant or not. Name-droppers are trying (too hard) to build credibility, but it’s actually just sad and annoying. The same celebrity encounter might actually generate interest and credibility if it’s relevant to the conversation and you haven’t told the story to death. Feel free to talk about times well-known people shared or endorsed you, but make sure it’s relevant and don’t overdo it.
When a well-known person shares your content, more links and shares often follow. Find credible people, see what they talk about and share, and then try make something great that appeals to them. This idea has already been covered extensively here on Moz.
People make associations between one trait and another, creating a Halo effect. For example, several studies (1, 2, 3) have found that attractive people often receive higher pay and are seen as more intelligent, when in reality there is no correlation. Users do the same thing with websites, so making your website look and feel like other credible sites is important.
Don’t run in and steal the Times’ CSS file. I’m pretty sure that’s illegal. It’s also probably not going to work unless you’re running a national multi-channel newspaper. But you should be aware that people associate design elements on a site with the credibility of the site. You can help or hinder your credibility through web design in hundreds of ways. Start by looking at legitimate sites and incorporating some of their design elements into your own. Then check out some untrustworthy and unknown sites to see the difference and determine what to avoid.
Obviously you want your site to be unique, but be carefully unique. If you stray from trusted convention, know why you’re doing it. Maybe you want to kill hamburger icons on mobile – just make sure you have a well-considered alternative.
Split tests tend to focus on conversion and sales, and too often the blog/news design gets dragged along for the ride. Given the importance of content and sharing on visibility, testing the impact of site elements on sharing should be as important as the tests we do on sales funnels.
You can test different design elements as they relate to sharing by creating posts and pages with a page-level variable and a canonical tag back to the original post. Always test URLs with variables against other URLs with variables to account for site owners manually removing them. This setup may also be useful for testing different content promotion channels and methods.
Tracking results externally requires a different URL. You may use a modified URL rather than a variable, but only for single-page tests. Note that results will be a little erratic with variables people might remove, but trends will still emerge.
You have probably read a news article and wanted to share it, but then looked for a more reputable source to post to Reddit or Twitter.
Sometimes I’ll share content from a site I’ve never heard of, but usually I want the content I’m sharing to come from a site with a name that evokes trust. Everything in this article goes into a decision on whether to share, but domain name is a surprisingly large factor. When I post an article, I don’t want the first response or comment to be something snarky like, “Oh, according to goodbusinessnews4u.com – sounds legit.”
Domain will also impact click-through on social networks and social sharing sites. A couple years ago I wrote about choosing the right domain for your branding strategy, and I think its message still holds true.
Domain name will also influence what content seems appropriate. You don’t want people asking, “Why is highspeedinternet.com writing about cooking recipes?” Make sure content strategy aligns with your domain and branding strategy.
You must have credibility in your writing if you want your content to be shared. Follow these simple tips:
Just ask Ian Lurie what he thinks about stock images. When I wrote “How Google’s Algorithm Silences Minority Opinions” I had the image in my head of Googlebot placing a gag on a user. Thankfully one of CLEARLINK‘s talented designers had a better (and less aggressive) idea:
A Google logo would have been easy, but boring. The custom image added a strong visual to the argument, emphasizing key points: a computer algorithm silencing a person, the person not caring too much. It also sent the associative message to users that the site is legitimate enough to use unique images.
Most of us can’t get custom illustrations or photographs for each post, but you should consider it for high-investment pieces or pieces you think have a good shot at success.
Unless you have inside information on a rumor or are willing to burn your credibility going forward, your content must project credibility. Smaller sites and lesser-known brands have the most to gain by understanding how users and journalists make judgments on credibility and working to improve those factors. You don’t necessarily need to employ every strategy and tactic, but the best coverage and links will always require a high level of credibility.
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!
Continue reading →
Posted by EricaMcGillivray
We’re gearing up for all of you to land in Seattle for MozCon! It’s just around the corner, July 14-16th, and as we do every year, we want to make sure you have a great time and get a chance to explore our city. (Or to just find a tasty place for dinner after a long day of learning.)
If you haven’t bought your ticket for MozCon, do it now! We’re quickly selling the last few tickets, and are over 93+% sold out. Buy your ticket today, and sign up for a 30-day free trial to get your Moz Subscriber best deal. (If you cancel because Moz Pro isn’t for you, we’ll see you at MozCon regardless.)
This year, we asked Mozzers to name their quintessential Seattle place. They came up with a bunch of favorites, from breakfast spots to parks and more. Here’s what they had to say:
“Delicious hamburgers and fries. It’s cash only, and there’s almost always a line. How Seattle.”
–
Joel Day
“The best burger north of
Father’s Office in Santa Monica and always a solid taplist.”
– David Mihm
Editor’s note: Quinn’s Pub is also on our MozCrawl agenda.
“I’m based in Mozlandia, and I love coming to Seattle and experiencing this great city. Gum wall is a truly gross tourist trap—actually, careful, you could indeed get trapped—and in the heart of tourism central, Pike Place Market. Still there’s a charm to such an offbeat (though heavily touristed) spot.”
–
Peter Bray
“Pie Bar = pie + booze. An array of whiskies. Local and craft beers on tap. Fresh pies, both savory and sweet, made daily. If they would let me move in, I’d just live there.”
–
Jess Stipe
“Ah-mazing food! Not bad for happy hour. Broccoli blasted – need I say more?”
–
Stefanie Riehle
“Petit Toulouse in Queen Anne is the quintessential Seattle favorite when it comes to Cajun/Creole food. Petit Toulouse does not fail to impress every time I have been there. The atmosphere is superb and the food is out of this world. Additionally, I would recommend the buttermilk beignets after a good meal.”
– Marcin Narozny
“I feel like it is the secret Cap Hill restaurant that only the neighborhood tends to frequent. The service is always great; the ambiance is always perfect for whatever occasion you are celebrating (romance, friendship, new boots, hunger); and it’s a great place to sit at the bar, order a great glass of wine, and read by yourself. It’s just good.”
–
Leah C. Tyler
“This is the best pizza in the whole city. The community-style tables make for great conversation with strangers next to you. Great food, good beers. So fun.”
–
Nicelle Herron
“If you’re looking for pizza and are not into the odd California-style pizzas, this place has the best New York-style pizza in Seattle. Right off downtown, it’s the first pizza joint I found in Seattle and is still the best IMHO.”
–
Phil Hildebrand
“You really get a feel for the Seattle landscape. Seeing the Space Needle, Gas Works Park, floating homes, wooden boats…all from a kayak on the water. Nothing better.”
–
Jackie Immel
“Some of the best food and drinks you’ll find in the city (and that’s saying a lot), and their patio in the summer is amazing.”
–
Rand Fishkin
“It’s great to hang out in the sun and watch the boats go through the locks, plus the fish ladder is fun and free! The added bonus is that you’re in Ballard so there are about fifty awesome breweries and bars at your fingertips.”
–
Jamie Seefurth
“The proprietor here makes her own blends of spices, and everything is freshly ground or grind-at-home. Best spices. Try the Advieh – yum!”
–
Lisa Wildwood
“Matt Lewis of the Where Ya At Matt? food truck started a brick and mortar restaurant, and it is good. Very good. With a updated French Creole menu, he has taken it to the next level, and we locals love it. Keep in mind, it’s a bit of a trek from downtown, but there is plenty to explore throughout the rest of Fremont making it well worth the trip.”
–
Ben Simpson
“You can see the Space Needle, Puget Sound, Mt. Rainier (on a clear day), and the Great Wheel. Such an amazing view!”
–
Chiaryn Miranda
“Fresh ingredients, dishes perfectly made, and an amazing chef’s choice option.”
–
Megan Singley
“Whether you need a pick-me-up in the morning or after some late night fun, Biscuit Bitch serves delicious Southern-style, with unique Seattle flare, biscuits and all the toppings you could want. I love their Bitchwitch sandwich. Just be prepared to eat it with a fork. They also have gluten-free options. Also make sure to use your favorite location check-in service and get a free sticker.”
–
Erica McGillivray
Looking for more options? Don’t miss our mega post from last year, Rand’s personal recommendations, and Jon Colman’s Seattle coffee guide.
Seattle’s Waterfront, photo by Rachel Sarai, creative commons licensed
We’re always discovering new places to eat and enjoy in Seattle, and here are few that have opened up since last year’s MozCon:
There are tons of great Seattle events happening around MozCon. Here are a few, plus some special deals just for MozCon attendees.
Want to see the MozPlex for yourself? We have office tours!
Come visit the MozPlex and see where all the Moz magic happens. Plus, you’ll get some fun swag.
Looking for a meetup? Dana Tan has organized a list of meetups around MozCon.
Meet not only fellow marketers around MozCon, but those with similar interests and passions to you.
Soccer fan? See the Sounders FC vs. Portland Timbers
The Pacific Northwest’s biggest rivalry is on Sunday, July 13th at 7:00 p.m. Get Low-Upper Deck seats (normally $25) for $18. Make sure to join our MozCon Facebook Group and make plans to see the game with other MozCon attendees.
More of a baseball fan? See the A’s vs. Mariners on Sunday, July 13th at 1:10 p.m.
With the link above, get a special discount on Main Level tickets: normally $43-48 and now $25, just for you!
Need a ride around town? Uber has some Seattle deals.
All UberX rides are 25% off for the summer, and if you’re a first time Uber customer, use the code SEAMOZ14 and get up to $30 off your first ride. Code expires 7/30/14.
Want to see some local music? Don’t miss GeekGirlCon’s annual concert, featuring local nerdcore acts, Sunday, July 13th at 6:30pm.
Come out an support a Settle nonprofit and enjoy the nerdcore rap of Shubzilla, DJ K91, NY artist Sammus, local trio Death*Star, and Jonny Nero Action Hero, who mixes beats with his Nintendo gaming systems.
Love to run? Run or Dye 5k is Saturday, July 12th in nearby Lake Stevens.
You can even run with fellow attendees as Dana Tan’s organizing a group to run and have some fun.
Interested in exploring some of Seattle’s neighborhoods and cultural celebrations?
Can’t get enough beer? Head over to the peninsula for Bremerton Summer BrewFest, Saturday, July 12th.
No one loves beer more than the Pacific Northwest (okay, maybe Bavaria…), and if you’re looking for local brews, this is your best bet.
Wish to experience Etsy offline? Go to Urban Craft Uprising, Seattle’s largest indie craft show, for their summer edition, Saturday and Sunday, July 12th and 13th.
Shop local and find the perfect Seattle gift to bring home for your loved ones or yourself.
A foodie and staying after MozCon? The Bite of Seattle, the Northwest’s premier food festival, is Friday through Sunday, July 18-20th.
It’s a great way to try out a ton of different restaurants from around the area. I’m sure a few are on our must-eat lists.
Who doesn’t love local 4-H fairs? The King County Fair is Thursday through Sunday, July 17-20th in nearby Enumclaw.
Check out the mutton busting, 4-H exhibits, fried food, and the rides.
Hope you can find some fun and time to explore Seattle. Don’t forget to buy your MozCon ticket before we sell out!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!
Continue reading →