Where should effort go to be highly visible in keyword searches with Google? A precise answer probably demands an evaluation of all the Google Search Engine Ranking Factors like that done by SEOmoz. However the Google search debate normally seems to revolve around Content or Links.

Mark Jackson stated quite categorically The Golden Rule of SEO: Content is King. Aaron Wall also commented that although there are those who push for linking, Content is King when you get down to it.

The debate is ongoing and there are even those who stay on the fence and declare both content and inbound linking is king.

How should you budget your effort then in trying to improve rankings in Google keyword searches? Should it be equal effort on content and links or some other ratio?

That is a false dichotomy since there is another equally important website dimension that does not even feature in this debate. Indeed if you look at the hot issues in the past two months in SEO, that third dimension has been the one the experts have been talking about. The third leg of the tripod is the website architecture. It deserves equal effort as illustrated in the following table, which is derived from a chart in an article on Key SEO Services. In this table, the Plus value is a reminder of the Upsides that can be created by working on this aspect. The Minus value indicates the Downsides if this aspect is handled poorly.

Triple Power SEO
Architecture	Content	Links
Plus – Visibility	Plus – Appeal	Plus – Authority
Minus – Barriers to search engines	Minus – Spam	Minus – Penalties
Monitor     >>     Measure     >>     Manage     >>     Improve

It is somewhat surprising website architecture gets so little air time given its importance. It can be complex but a great deal of improvement can be obtained with very simple methods. It is likely that the vast majority of websites that do not perform well in Google keyword searches suffer from website architecture problems. Yet much progress can be made with some of the most basic tools.

For example, the Xenu Link Sleuth (TM) will find broken links on web sites, which can be a major problem for the search engine spiders. It crawls the website in exactly the way a search engine spider does. Google itself provides a great deal of information through its Google Webmaster Tools website. If you have Google Analytics or Google Adsense ads on your website, then both give statistics that often pinpoint problems in the website architecture. Efforts put into correction efforts will have clear and certain results, unlike those hoped for when efforts go into content or links.

The aim of this article was to discuss the high level allocation of effort rather than to provide a compendium of website architecture problem areas and solutions. For the latter we can recommend an article by Richard Baxter, Diagnose Critical Website Architecture Issues for SEO. He also has a slide show of the presentation he gave at SMX London 2009 on the same topic. It’s very good value if you want pointers on how to put effort into this priority SEO dimension.

Post from: BPWrap

Content May Be The SEO King But Check The Palace Architecture

Related Posts

• October 10, 2009 -- Users Or Search Engines Is A False SEO Debate (10)
• August 20, 2009 -- Natural Links Bring Search Engine Visibility (9)

Summary

The SEO world continues to be shaken by the hints offered by Matt Cutts last week on the nofollow tag and PageRank Sculpting. Many seem shaken but perhaps people have made assumptions about PageRank that are not true. It is difficult to prove how things really work since Google remains cagey on what really happens. Here we offer a Null Hypothesis, a simple explanation, that people may wish to consider. This should only be replaced by a more complex view, when that can be proven to be better.

Introduction

Andy Beard is a keen observer of the Google scene and poses the key question following the Matt Cutts revelations last week: Is PageRank Sculpting Dead & Can Comments Kill Your PageRank?

Has Google in one quick swipe removed all benefit of Dynamic Linking (old school term) or PageRank sculpting (when it became “trendy”), and potentially caused massive penalties for sites nofollowing links for user generated content and comments?

Important articles he cites on this are:

• Google Loses “Backwards Compatibility” On Paid Link Blocking & PageRank Sculpting
• Google (Maybe) Changes How the PageRank Algorithm Handles Nofollow
• No Clarification Forthcoming from Google on Nofollow & PageRank Flow
• Is What’s Good For Google, Good For SEO

Not everyone is so concerned and Andrew Goodman frankly states, PageRank Sculpting is Dead? Good Riddance.

How Is PageRank Calculated

The Google website is strangely obscure on how PageRank is calculated. There are a few explanations in Google Answers (no longer supported) by others on such issues as My Page Rank and Page Rank Definition – Proof of convergence and uniqueness. Phil Craven offers a reasonably straightforward account in Google’s PageRank Explained and how to make the most of it. That includes the following:

Notes:
Not all links are counted by Google. For instance, they filter out links from known link farms. Some links can cause a site to be penalized by Google. They rightly figure that webmasters cannot control which sites link to their sites, but they can control which sites they link out to. For this reason, links into a site cannot harm the site, but links from a site can be harmful if they link to penalized sites.

The KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Sweetheart)

The problem in trying to estimate how the Google PageRank process works is that PageRank is only one of over 100 or more factors involved in how web pages rank in keyword searches. Any attempt to prove a given assumption about PageRank involves a typical statistical analysis where one tries to infer an explanation from somewhat fuzzy data. That is where the KISS principle comes in. In such a situation, we should perhaps rely on the approach favored by some great minds.

Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

Occam of Occam’s Razor

A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Albert Einstein

The Null Hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence indicates otherwise.

Sir Roland Fisher

Given the Matt Cutts suggestions that some find perplexing, what is the simplest explanation of the Google PageRank process that could explain what is involved?

The Null Hypothesis

What the PageRank process attempts is mind-boggling. It aims to attach a PageRank value to any hyperlink in the total space of web pages and their inter links. It involves an iterative calculation since the values are interdependent. This PageRank can be considered as the probability that a random surfer (human or robot) will pass down that link as compared with all the other links in the total space (graph).

As Matt Cutts reminded us last week, even if a web page is excluded by its owner using a robots.txt file, it may still get into consideration if it is included in a sitemap file or has a link coming in from another external web page. Having an extra indicator on each link indicating whether it is influential in passing PageRank would increase the complexity of the data enormously. Given that, we propose the following Null Hypothesis (See foot of article for definition of this expression). This of course could be abandoned in favor of a more complex explanation if that could be proven statistically with sufficient confidence or if Google chose to provide a more correct explanation of what is done.

The Null Hypothesis runs as follows. The whole process splits into two phases. The first phase looks at all web pages (URLs) and all associated links to determine the PageRank of each web page and thus the contributions that would flow down each link. There are no exclusions and this calculation process handles all URLs in the total Internet space (graph). Modifiers that website owners may have applied such as robots.txt files or tags such as noindex, nofollow, etc. do not get involved at this stage. For all URLs and links without exception, values such as those illustrated below would be calculated.

The second phase of the process involves how these PageRank values are then used within the search algorithms. Here whatever is specified via robots.txt or nofollow tags would apply. The PageRank contribution from nofollow-ed links thus would not be included in the calculation. Also any filtering factors that Google may wish to apply for bad neighborhoods, etc. would only apply in this second phase. The underlying web pages and links would still have a first-phase PageRank calculated but this would in no way influence the second phase results.

This two-phase approach would seem to square with what we have been hearing recently. It is offered very much as a Null Hypothesis, so if someone has an Alternative Hypothesis, we look forward to hearing it. Over to you.

Implications of this Null Hypothesis

In the mean time, if this explanation is true, some obvious considerations apply. The basic PageRank calculation is determined by the total set of URLs and links. The PageRank value for a URL is never changed by modifications that apply in the second phase. All that happens in the second phase is that some of the PageRank contributions are ignored. So the effective PageRank that a URL has in the second phase is always less than or equal to what it had in the first phase. A URL can be more prominent solely because others become less prominent.

Significant changes can only come about through influences that affect the first phase. These relate to the site architecture rather than the interlinkages. That is after all what Matt Cutts was recommending.

Footnote:
See this link for an explanation of Null Hypothesis.

Post from: BPWrap

PageRank Calculation – Null Hypothesis

Related Posts

• April 17, 2010 -- Higher Search Engine Rankings Without A Home Page (5)
• June 19, 2009 -- SEO Gets Simpler In 2009 (23)
• February 22, 2009 -- Deep Web, NOW Web – more headaches for Google (13)
• May 24, 2008 -- Someone is wrong on the Internet (0)
• December 27, 2007 -- Forget We Ever Mentioned A Supplemental Index – Google (6)

Summary

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) for blogs is often not done effectively and posts rank below where they should be in keyword searches.  One particular problem can be hanging/dangling web pages created by the blogging software coupled with inappropriate use of robots.txt files and tags.  Such hanging web pages can act as sinks or black holes for PageRank, a key factor in the Google search algorithm.  This article provides a simple explanation of the issues involved and appropriate solutions.

Introduction

"You are creating hanging/dangling pages", wrote Andy Beard in a recent comment on a post on Avoiding WordPress Duplicate Content. After an e-mail exchange, I could understand his concern.  It is a potential problem that robots.txt files could create.  As Andy wrote some time back, it is one of the SEO Linking Gotchas Even The Pros Make. 

More recently, Rand Fishkin has pointed out that you should not Accidentally Block Link Juice with Robots.txt.  Rand advised doing the following:

1. Conserve link juice by using nofollow when linking to a URL that is robots.txt disallowed
2. If you know that disallowed pages have acquired link juice (particularly from external links), consider using meta noindex, follow instead so they can pass their link juice on to places on your site that need it.

Link juice is just another term for PageRank.  This PageRank value for any web page is an important element in how well it will rank in any keyword search.  It may be one of over 100 factors but it probably is the most important in the Google keyword search process. Avoiding losing PageRank that a web page could amass is an important function that SEOs should pursue.

After doing some research, it turns out to be a somewhat more complex issue requiring an understanding of some weighty articles.  Anyone involved in doing SEO or hiring an SEO consultant should be aware of the potential problem to ensure things are done correctly.  I also realized that there was no simple explanation of the issues so this post will attempt to rectify that omission.

Research on Hanging / Dangling Web Pages

If you want to do some of your own research, before checking out the later explanations, I found the following useful:

• Dangling Pages – WebProWorld SEO Forum
• What Do SEO/SEM People Put In Robots.txt Files? – Shaun Anderson
• WordPress robots.txt SEO – AskApache Web Development
• Internal Linking – META nofollow, rel nofollow, robots.txt Confusion thereon – Josh Spaulding

Of course with search engine algorithms, things are always in evolution.  The official word on the Google website gives the following information on rel="nofollow".

How does Google handle nofollowed links?

We don’t follow them. This means that Google does not transfer PageRank or anchor text across these links. Essentially, using nofollow causes us to drop the target links from our overall graph of the web. However, the target pages may still appear in our index if other sites link to them without using nofollow, or if the URLs are submitted to Google in a Sitemap. Also, it’s important to note that other search engines may handle nofollow in slightly different ways.

That lead to the practice of PageRank sculpting, whereby people try to manage how PageRank is distributed among the web pages in a website.  More recently Matt Cutts of Google in a Q&A session at SMX Advanced 2009 in Seattle, WA, provided the current thinking on nofollow as recorded by Lisa Barone:

Q: It seems like you supported PageRank sculpting a year ago and now it seems like you don’t support it anymore. Why is that and will it become a negative indicator?

A: No, it won’t hurt your site. You can do your links however you want. You can use it to eliminate links to sign in forms and whatnot, but it is a better use of your time to fix your site architecture and fix the problem from the core. Suppose you have 10 links and 5 of them are nofollowed. There is this assumption that the other 5 links get ALL that PageRank and that may not be as true anymore (your leftover PageRank will now “evaporate”, says Matt.). You can’t shunt your PageRank where you want it to go. It’s not a penalty. It’s not going to get you in trouble. However, it’s not as effective. It’s a better use of your time to go make new content and do all the other things. If you’re using nofollow to change how PageRank flows, it’s like a band-aid. It’s better to build your site how you want PageRank to flow from the beginning.

Let us now try to pull all that together in a short number of simple explanations covering the important issues involved.

How PageRank is calculated

Google is not always completely open on what is involved in its search algorithms for obvious reasons.  The algorithms also evolve as the Q&A quote above shows.  The following is a best judgment on what is involved, but if anyone has corrections or modifications to what is shown, they are encouraged to add a comment.

The following diagram illustrates how PageRank is calculated for any web page and how fractions of the PageRank flow to and from linked web pages.  PageRank here is not the value that appears in the ‘thermometer’ in the Google Toolbar, and which goes from 0 to 10.  Instead this PageRank is the mathematical value used in the Google keyword search algorithm.  It is calculated for any web page and represents the probability that a random visitor would visit the given web page as opposed to visiting other web pages.

Here we have multiplied this mathematical value by a huge multiplier to give values that are easier to talk about.  We will use the term, PageRank factor, for this derived number.  The resulting number would normally be a value like 5.6 or 16.2 but here we have simplified yet again to round off to whole numbers.  This illustrates a typical web page (but with very few links).  Some links are external links involving other web pages on other websites (domains).  Some are internal links from web pages on the same website (domain).  The inlinks are hyperlinks on other web pages leading to this web page.  The outlinks are hyperlinks on the given web page to other web pages.

What the image illustrates is that the PageRank factor of this web page (16) is determined by the sum of the PageRank factor contributions flowing through the inlinks.  This PageRank factor then flows out via the 4 outlinks with an equal PageRank factor contribution (4) on each link.

You can imagine this particular web page as being only one among the whole set of web pages on the Internet.  For the technically inclined, we should mention that these PageRank values all are interdependent so they are developed by a process of iteration starting with starting values and repeatedly recalculating to determine what the values are. That goes beyond the scope of this article.

How a robots.txt file changes the picture

If a robots.txt file disallows this web page for crawl visits by the search engine spiders, then provided they obey the robots.txt file, they would record the values and links shown in this image. These PageRank values are the same, whether or not the web page is blocked to crawlers by the robots.txt file. The record is indexed because there is an external inlink that the Google robots are crawling and they would also note the outlink going to another domain.  The outlinks to other web pages on the same domain (internal links) would not be recorded so these PageRank contributions are lost.  In this sense the web page has become a sink or black hole for these PageRank contributions.  They can no longer contribute to the PageRank of these other web pages.

Note that the PageRank factor values on the remaining links are the same as they were when the other links were being included. Merely saying the links should not be crawled, does not necessarily mean they should be assumed not to exist. This is in line with Matt Cutt’s most recent pronouncements.

How nofollow changes the calculation

Even if this web page was not excluded by a robots.txt file, a similar effect is created if all outlinks from the web page carry an attribute, rel=nofollow.  Again this assumes that the search engine correctly observes this attribute.  If on the other hand the links are assigned a follow attribute, then the PageRank contribution would flow through to all such links.

How to get only one web page that counts for any specific content

As Rand Fishkin suggested above, if more than one web page contains the same content, you can use a meta tag on all the secondary ones to signal noindex.  Then only the primary web page is in the search database, provided the meta tags are being observed.  Coupling this with a follow attribute in the meta tag, then assures that the PageRank contributions still flow out to the other web pages.

A better approach according to John Mueller, a Google representative, is to use a Rel=Canonical Tag rather than NoIndex.  Here is how Google describes this canonical tag.

We now support a format that allows you to publicly specify your preferred version of a URL. If your site has identical or vastly similar content that’s accessible through multiple URLs, this format provides you with more control over the URL returned in search results. It also helps to make sure that properties such as link popularity are consolidated to your preferred version.

Apparently Google treats this as a hint rather than a standard so it is not fool-proof. Others see Reasons to use rel=canonical, and reasons not to.

Best Practices

As Matt Cutts recommended, given the wooliness in some of the above, the preferred approach is to develop the website architecture so that duplicate web pages do not arise.  Then one does not have to rely on the canonical tag or the noindex follow combination.  In this way one avoids the hanging / dangling web pages problem.

The exact methods will depend on the architecture. One very useful approach is to show only an initial excerpt on the blog Home Page with a … more link to the full post as a single web page. For category or tag archive pages, you can show only the titles of items so this again avoids the duplicate content problem. The important thing is to be vigilant and look out for essentially duplicate web pages as revealed by a full website scan using the equivalent of a search engine robot such as Xenu.

Post from: BPWrap

Hanging / Dangling Web Pages Can Be PageRank Black Holes

Related Posts

• April 17, 2010 -- Higher Search Engine Rankings Without A Home Page (5)
• October 16, 2009 -- Hyperlinks Get Even More Respect (4)
• June 30, 2009 -- SEO Factories Lose Their Edge (10)
• June 19, 2009 -- SEO Gets Simpler In 2009 (23)
• December 9, 2008 -- Visitors Bounce (18)

The best way to ensure a web page ranks well in Google keyword searches is to make sure it is the only one on the web that includes the content on the page. In this way you avoid several web pages all having a somewhat equal possibility of being judged relevant for the particular keyword search. This increases the chance that this unique page will outrank other quite independent web pages that cover the same topic. That’s the theory and it seems to work out well in practice.

WordPress is a great software for producing blogs but out-of-the-box the WordPress content management system produces a series of pages that all contain the same content. Just see the concerns expressed in this WebmasterWorld thread about WordPress And Google: Avoiding Duplicate Content Issues where several coding suggestions were offered to avoid the problems. More recently, David Bradley has suggested that something called the canonical link element can be the solution to Avoiding Duplicate Content Penalties.

We should quickly add that this is not an inherent weakness of WordPress alone since many other CMSs will suffer from similar problems. It is a well known problem and you can find an excellent article on how to Avoid Duplicate Content on WordPress Websites, which gives the appropriate steps to take. The most important step of all is to have the right robots.txt file.

I wondered how well people were grappling with this duplicate content problem and decided to check out some of the Technorati’s Blogger Central / top 100 blogs. In particular I thought a check of their robots.txt files would give an indication on whether they had tried to solve the problem. Here is what I found for the robots.txt files for the most popular 8 blogs.

1. The Huffington Post

# All robots will spider the domain
User-agent: *
Disallow:

# Disallow directory /backstage/
User-agent: *
Disallow: /backstage/

2. TechCrunch

User-agent: *
Disallow: /*/feed/
Disallow: /*/trackback/

3. Engadget

(empty)

4. Boing Boing

User-agent: *
Disallow: /cgi-bin

5. Mashable!

User-agent: *
Disallow: /feed
Disallow: /*/feed/
Disallow: /*/trackback/

Disallow: /adcentric
Disallow: /adinterax
Disallow: /atlas
Disallow: /doubleclick
Disallow: /eyereturn
Disallow: /eyewonder
Disallow: /klipmart
Disallow: /pointroll
Disallow: /smartadserver
Disallow: /unicast
Disallow: /viewpoint

Disallow: /LiveSearchSiteAuth.xml
Disallow: /mashableadvertising2.xml
Disallow: /rpc_relay.html

Disallow: /browser.html
Disallow: /canvas.html

User-agent: Fasterfox
Disallow: /

6. Lifehacker

User-Agent: Googlebot
Disallow: /index.xml$
Disallow: /excerpts.xml$
Allow: /sitemap.xml$
Disallow: /*view=rss$
Disallow: /*?view=rss$
Disallow: /*format=rss$
Disallow: /*?format=rss$
Disallow: /*?mailto=true

7. Ars Technica

User-agent: *
Disallow: /kurt/
Disallow: /errors/

8. Stuff White People Like

User-agent: IRLbot
Crawl-delay: 3600

User-agent: *
Disallow: /next/

# har har
User-agent: *
Disallow: /activate/

User-agent: *
Disallow: /signup/

User-agent: *
Disallow:

As you may notice, the most popular blogs seem to have a singular disregard for this issue with minimal robots.txt files. As you come down the list, it would seem that even these top blogs realize the importance of limiting what the search engine robots crawl and index.

The impetus for exploring this issue came after noticing an additional complication that results if you put An Elegant Face On Your WordPress Blog by using Multiple WordPress Loops.

This could have resulted in many extra web pages that humans would likely not see but search engine spiders would certainly crawl. Changes were made in the site architecture to avoid this. To avoid other potential duplicate content problems, the current robots.txt file for this blog appears as follows:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /wp-login.php
Disallow: /wp-admin/
Disallow: /wp-register.php
Disallow: /wp-login.php?action=lostpassword
Disallow: /index.php?paged
Disallow: /?m
Disallow: /test/
Disallow: /feed/
Disallow: /?feed=comments-rss2
Disallow: /?feed=atom
Disallow: /?s=
Disallow: /index.php?s
Disallow: /wp-trackback
Disallow: /xmlrpc
Disallow: /?feed=rss2&p

Conclusion

Getting the robots.txt file correct is one of the easiest ways of increasing the visibility of your blog pages in search engine keyword searches. Leaving two essentially similar web pages means that the two divide up the ‘relevance’ that a single web page would have. That means approaching a 50% reduction in potential keyword ranking. Perhaps the top blogs can ignore such improvements but most of us should not. Check out what the spiders may crawl by doing an evaluation of your website with Xenu Link Sleuth. We should carefully consider our robots.txt files and make sure they are doing an effective job. Is yours?

Andy Beard added a comment that he has concerns about using the robots.txt file as a solution to the WordPress Duplicate Content problem. He explained these in a post some time ago called SEO Linking Gotchas Even The Pros Make. There is much food for thought there and we will follow up in a subsequent post.

Post from: BPWrap

Avoid WordPress Duplicate Content Problems With Google

Related Posts

• May 3, 2010 -- Seth Godin Thinks Bigger Is Better (2)
• October 16, 2009 -- Hyperlinks Get Even More Respect (4)
• July 19, 2009 -- Wot No Google Local Search (5)
• May 17, 2009 -- Multiple WordPress Loops For A New Blog Look (21)
• September 18, 2008 -- Foolish Footers (11)

Or perhaps that should read – Arial Font – No – Wider. Our ever sharp-eyed readers may notice a subtle change in the appearance of the SMM online properties, in other words the website and the blogs. It is perhaps a long overdue change and indeed many others may wish to adopt this change so we offer a few words of explanation. Graphic designers will find nothing new here but this is a case where a little knowledge can be helpful.

This is hardly a new topic since back in December 2001 Mark Simonson wrote an excellent article on The Scourge of Arial.

Arial is everywhere. If you don’t know what it is, you don’t use a modern personal computer. Arial is a font that is familiar to anyone who uses Microsoft products, whether on a PC or a Mac. It has spread like a virus through the typographic landscape and illustrates the pervasiveness of Microsoft’s influence in the world.

Arial’s ubiquity is not due to its beauty. It’s actually rather homely. Not that homeliness is necessarily a bad thing for a typeface. With typefaces, character and history are just as important. Arial, however, has a rather dubious history and not much character. In fact, Arial is little more than a shameless impostor.

He then goes on to lay out the history of how Arial evolved from a font much used in print media, Helvetica.

Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, one of the most popular typefaces in the western world was Helvetica. It was developed by the Haas Foundry of Switzerland in the 1950s. Later, Haas merged with Linotype and Helvetica was heavily promoted. More weights were added and it really began to catch on.

An icon of the Swiss school of typography, Helvetica swept through the design world in the ’60s and became synonymous with modern, progressive, cosmopolitan attitudes. With its friendly, cheerful appearance and clean lines, it was universally embraced for a time by both the corporate and design worlds as a nearly perfect typeface to be used for anything and everything. “When in doubt, use Helvetica” was a common rule.

Arial is an example of a font without serifs. Serifs are those small projections that are added to letters in a font like Times Roman, which is a standard font used in MS Word. They look fine in print but do not work particularly well on a computer screen. Arial is just one example of a sans-serif font and there are now many others.

If Arial is so popular why would anyone wish to change. One reason is to stand out from the crowd. The other reason is that Arial can have a slightly cramped look and others spread out the letters a little more. This helps readability particularly with smaller letters.

Our choice is Verdana, which is now a very popular font. In consequence, the CSS style sheets now start off with the following lines of code:

The font-family line means that verdana is used if available. If not, then arial is used if available. If not then whatever sans-serif font is available is used. No surprises there.

The font-size: 0.9em; introduces a very important point. It could equally have been written as font-size: 90%; If a font-size is not specified, then each browser uses whatever it has designated as the default size for that font. Here are the default sizes for Arial and Verdana in Firefox and in this case Internet Explorer looks very similar.

In short, Verdana is slightly bigger. To have approximately the same height for Verdana as appears with Arial the font-size must be set at 90%. Here is how that appears:

The letters are spread out a little more, which gives improved visibility. This is more apparent at smaller character sizes. This is shown in the following comparison where both are half the size of the previous version.

The other spacing consideration is the distance between the lines and this is governed by line-height. More and more people seem to be moving to line-height set at 140% or 1.4em. The difference is illustrated in the following image:

As you will see, setting line-height at 100% reduces the default spacing which is equivalent to a line-height of 120%. That is now our standard – Verdana with a line-height of 140%. We hope you find that more legible and welcome your comments on any thoughts you may have on this subject.

Update
Just for balance, I should mention the very fine article by Sander Baumann entitled, Font Series: Arial is everywhere. It has some very fine examples of large signs in Arial that are really very striking.

Post from: BPWrap

Arial Font No Longer

Posts from the Archives

• July 31, 2009 -- Content May Be The SEO King But Check The Palace Architecture (14)
• May 23, 2005 -- Search Engine Optimization's Three False Truths (0)
• March 15, 2005 -- Me-Too In The Pay-Per-Click War Won't Work (0)
• November 8, 2007 -- World Usability Day 2007 (0)
• January 3, 2007 -- Will Google Start Marketing? (1)

The WordPress blogging software is quite rightly immensely popular. The Open-Source community that supports it has developed a whole raft of supporting code and applications that make it a pleasure to use.

This blog and the other SMM blogs now have a slightly different look. This is because we are now using a feature of WordPress, Multiple Loops. The beauty of WordPress is that the concepts are all very easy to understand. This particular feature will hopefully give much more reader satisfaction.

There are two elements to the change. The first is that you will now only see one blog post when you visit. Although Google tries to be helpful, it can occasionally provide more from a blog that you wish to see. Now you will see precisely the blog post that is relevant to your keyword query.

The other element is that at the bottom of this single blog post you will now see a list of the most popular blog posts as determined by our visitors. If you like what you see in the initial post then perhaps some of the other blog posts may tweak your interest.

The changes to the theme required for this new look are very straightforward. Hopefully this simple explanation will help you apply this same approach to your blog if you so wish.

The WordPress Loop

Web pages in a blog are produced by WordPress templates. These are files with names such as index.php or single.php. Within these template files, the heart of the WordPress software is code which is called The Loop. The WordPress Codex gives a more detailed explanation of The Loop In Action.

The content of all blog posts is held in an associated mySQL database. When a blog web page is displayed, the web page will show certain information for every blog post entry that fits the particular database query implied by your selection of web page. For example, if you want the most recent blog post, then the loop picks up only the information on that blog post. This is illustrated by the following image of a WordPress blog page.

When you visit the home page of the blog, you are often seeing a series of blog posts that are created via the file named index.php. The number of blog posts is selected by the blog webmaster. For example if it is arranged that the blog would normally show the 3 most recent blog posts, then this is illustrated by the following image.

When Google sends you to a single blog post to fit your keyword query then you are often seeing what a file named single.php produces by applying the loop. Normally in the index.php and the single.php files, the loop starts with the following code (note that a space has been inserted after < in the following code samples to ensure the code could be printed.):

< !-- start of the loop -->
  < ?php  if (have_posts()) : ?>

The Loop is then all the code before a final < ?php endif; ?> terminates the Loop (again as mentioned a space has been inserted between < and ? to allow this code to display correctly).

Multiple Loops

As mentioned the new feature is that we are now using Multiple Loops in the WordPress software. The following image shows what is being displayed. The first post is produced by a first Loop. The list of Most Popular Posts is then produced by a second Loop.

In order to have only one post appear in the first loop, we use a Template Tag, query_posts. This query_posts tag can modify what the Loop accesses from the database. In this case we wish to have only one blog post to appear so the first Loop starts off as follows:

< !-- start of first loop -->
  < ?php  query_posts('showposts=1');
      if (have_posts()) : ?>

The only complication here is that as entries are taken from database in The Loop, the database software maintains a count of the data that has been used. Normally other applications of the Loop will access only new data since past data has already been accessed. In order to see the posts which are of interest, we use another WordPress Template Tag as the second Loop starts to reset the count. This tag is the rewind_posts tag.

In order for the list of Most Popular Posts to be displayed, a new category, popular, has been created. When visitor traffic confirms that a blog post is popular, then it is assigned to this category in addition to whatever category may have been appropriate.

The code to start the second Loop to achieve the effect shown here is as follows:

< !-- start of second loop -->

< ?php  rewind_posts();
    query_posts('category_name=popular&showposts=-1');
    if (have_posts()) : ?>

Other Benefits Of This Type of Display

In addition to displaying popular posts for greater visitor satisfaction, this also ensures that such posts have more links pointing to them. This should ensure greater search engine visibility for these posts. In all, this format would seem to have only benefits. It will be interesting to see what reactions blog visitors have to this new format.

Post from: BPWrap

Multiple WordPress Loops For A New Blog Look

Related Posts

• June 3, 2009 -- Avoid WordPress Duplicate Content Problems With Google (23)
• March 9, 2008 -- Headlines Are For Humans, Titles Are For Robots (69)
• February 19, 2008 -- How Wordpress Blogs Are Hacked (17)
• February 7, 2008 -- Guarding Your Wordpress Blog (18)
• February 5, 2008 -- Wordpress Blog Hacked (46)

The previous two articles in this series have suggested ways to combat the ever-increasing hack attacks that WordPress blogs are receiving. In this final article, we will discuss some real-life examples and what can be learned from them. As a disclaimer, it should be noted that some hackers are very skilled and are continually improving their methods. These are anecdotes from the past and the future will undoubtedly be very different.

Typical Hacking Exploits

For specific details of typical hacking exploits, the following accounts are particularly good:

• Is your WordPress Installation Compromised? Al Gore’s is – by Stuart McKeown (12. Nov 2007)
• Matt Heaton (Bluehost and Hostmoster CEO) WordPress blog Hacked by Mick Jagger from Moscow – by Noah (3 Dec 2007)
• Blackhat SEO Spammer targeting High PR WordPress Blog – by Noah (14 Feb 2008)

The methods used in these cases are probably all the work of one hacker, by nickname goro, who may well have been one of the commenters on the first of these three posts.

We will not go into the specific details here (since they will undoubtedly evolve), but rather discuss the bigger picture associated with these exploits. In the case of the hacking done on the SMM blogs, there were some clever refinements. The mechanism inserted on the domain generated hundreds of random, unique blog post web pages, which included links to online pharmaceutical web pages. Since the websites were well ranked in Google, many of these hundreds of blog posts were served to the search engine spiders as they made their visits. After a period of hours, the mechanism then stopped. This may have been to avoid a huge spike in traffic, which would have been more easily detected.

How Google May Have Rewarded Their Efforts

During the last two or three months, Google has been giving much more rapid visibility and higher ranking to blog posts in its regular web search. In the latter part of January, blog posts appropriate for particular keyword searches would appear within a small number of hours in the regular web search. The algorithm may well be using the RSS news feeds associated with the blogs. This gave particular prominence to the blog posts generated by the hacking mechanism. They would almost always appear among the top five positions on a search for particular online pharmaceuticals and often in the first position. Presumably this gave a significant economic advantage to the hacker.

Although the hacking mechanism was removed within 36 hours, the false and now non-existent blog posts still persist in the Google index over 3 weeks later. In some cases the cached versions of the false blog posts are still available.

An interesting parallel development during this time is that Google Blogsearch now has a delay of a few days in displaying new blog posts. Until recently such a new blog post might have appeared within an hour or two, since it was triggered by the pinging of the RSS news feed. Whether this is a reaction to a large volume of blog posts generated by hackers one can only surmise.

How To Repair The Damage

Hopefully this series of articles has sensitized you to the dangers of hacking. This should prompt you to maintain a constant vigil so that any hacker intrusions will be spotted rapidly. You should also as Wayne Liew suggests regard WordPress Upgrades as a Must. The continuing improvement in security may not serve to keep out hackers but at least it may encourage them to attack an easier prey.

If your WordPress blog is hacked, it can be quite a challenge to find out what has been changed. Sometimes the hacker may have modified files deep within folders that are not normally touched in upgrading, such as the images folder or the wp-content folder. Checking the size in bytes of particular files compared with versions in the most recent backup will reveal suspicious differences. Sometimes the .htaccess file may have been modified to create additional and inappropriate mechanisms. In such cases, you’ve got to make sure that you eliminate all such additions to the website. If you have backed-up a clean version of the website recently, it might be better to take down the website and replace it with a clean version.

Related:
Blogs Take Center Stage For Marketers And For Google
How to Remove WordPress.net.in Spam Injection

Previous articles in this series:
WordPress Blog Hacked
Guarding Your WordPress Blog

Post from: BPWrap

How WordPress Blogs Are Hacked

Related Posts

• February 7, 2008 -- Guarding Your Wordpress Blog (18)
• February 5, 2008 -- Wordpress Blog Hacked (46)
• June 17, 2009 -- Opera Unite For Your Own Web Hosting (11)
• June 3, 2009 -- Avoid WordPress Duplicate Content Problems With Google (23)
• May 17, 2009 -- Multiple WordPress Loops For A New Blog Look (21)

A previous post, The Favicons Are Coming, provides a short introduction to favicons. It was written in the fond hope that Internet Explorer Version 7, in trying to emulate Mozilla Firefox as it so often does, would perhaps make favicons a robust feature of Internet surfing. In Firefox, you’ll find these small 16 x 16 pixels icon images for a given web page appear in several places, namely the address window, on a tab and also in your Favorites or Bookmarks list. They provide instant recognition of a web site and for the ones I know well are all I display in my Bookmarks toolbar in my default Firefox browser. Here for example are the ones associated with this and related websites:

Well now Internet Explorer Version 7 is officially released. After some thorough testing, the IE v.7 way of handling favicons seems no better than previous versions. You can get the sense of frustration of many others in a forum entry, Keeping The Favicon in IE Favorites, which started in November 2005 and still has not produced an answer. In The Favicons Are Coming, we paid tribute to Microsoft as the inventor of the .ico favicon file and set out the advice accordingly. It was largely correct, but here we re-present the information in a more practical fashion. The first part will detail how to make favicons work in Firefox. The second part (optional and provided only for the really keen) will detail how you can try to make them work somewhat in IE and other browsers.

Making Favicons Work In Mozilla Firefox

1. Make your 16 x 16 pixel icon image as a .png or a .jpg file. For example you might call it myfavicon.jpg Load it into a suitable place on your domain, say http://www.mysite.com/images/myfavicon.jpg
2. Add the following code in the HEAD section of any web page for which you wish the favicon to appear.
<link rel="shortcut icon"
href="http://www.mysite.com/images/myfavicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon">
3. The favicon image will appear correctly in all the places it should.

Trying To Make Favicons Work In Internet Explorer

1. The IE way involves an icon image file with the extension .ico A .ico file is not just a .bmp file renamed with the extension changed to .ico. It is a much more complex file that holds two icon images, a 32 x 32 pixel file and a 16 x 16 pixel file. You can if you wish only include the 16 x 16 pixel image. A somewhat old article, Making a Favicon, describes the process well. You normally can start with a .bmp file or .jpg file and convert it to a .ico file. The AxiomX Pixel Toolbox 1.1 is free software that will handle this conversion, usually without too much trouble.
2. You then load up the .ico image file to the root folder of the website, i.e. at http://www.mysite.com/
3. The favicon image will sometimes appear the very first time you visit a website and sometimes will persist in your Favorites list. More often it disappears after a first appearance and is replaced by the generic IE favicon. Since Firefox will correctly handle such a .ico file, this is a worthwhile thing to do if you have the time. It may also be helpful for other browsers.

How Well Will Your Favicons Work?

However much effort you put into creating and loading favicons, other browsers than Firefox may still handle favicons unreliably. For example, Opera will sometimes display them and sometimes not. It will also use the favicon.ico image in the root file if it exists for some purposes and will use the favicon identified by the HEAD link tag for other purposes. Other websites may also use favicons in an unpredictable way too. Normally Bloglines should show favicons correctly but even when viewed in Firefox will not always do so.

The favicon is such a useful identifier for those who see it that the effort is certainly worthwhile. Hopefully as time goes on, more and more browsers will come in line with the Firefox approach to favicons.

Post from: BPWrap

Favicons – How To Make Them Work For You

Related Posts

• July 25, 2007 -- Internet Explorer Dilemmas (5)
• January 20, 2009 -- A Fluid Google Favicon (13)
• June 28, 2008 -- Ultimate Simplicity For Firefox 3 Full Screen (11)