Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Scott McKirahan
Online Marketing and E Commerce Specialist
Online Marketing and E Commerce Specialist

Scott's posts

Post has attachment
Not sure at all how they determined that the majority of things listed in the "Trust" column are off-page SEO. Sure seems like some of them are on-page to me - like Engagement. It should probably be in the Content column.

Post has attachment
This article takes stretching correlations to a whole new extreme. Most of the website world does not live in the vacuum that the SEO community does, where everyone seems to have a website. Therefore, the "dependencies" listed at the bottom of this article are missing something that applies to most of the rest of the website world. The dependencies that Ron lists are:

- Your audience must be on social media.
- Your audience must care about your content.

The one that he is missing is:

- Your audience must have a website from which to link to you.

For the majority of website niches, the percentage of people interacting socially that also have a website that they can link to you from is far below 1%. That makes this far more of a "chicken or the egg" correlation than many in the SEO bubble world see it as.

Post has attachment
Who know what they really do, but if I was designing an algorithm that used dwell time as a metric, I would certainly make it relative to the dwell time for other pages in the SERP for that specific query. That allows the algorithm to make adjustments for things like "what is the temperature in Miami" - a query that is bound to have a very short dwell time - vs. "how to build your own solar panels" - something that would tend to have much longer dwell times. Based upon the dwell times for all pages for the same exact search query, they would have a mathematic norm for every individual search query there is. They could use dwell times to adjust sites up or down in relation to that norm.

Personally, I believe dwell time is a MAJOR part of Google's search algorithm now. Interesting article, for sure -

Post has attachment
What a load of horse[bleep]! I'm so sick of people in this industry who should know better using totally irrelevant correlations to draw ridiculous conclusions. Where is the data that shows that there was actual significant movement in the SERPs due to HTTPS and nothing but HTTPS?

A site that used to rank #1 that did not have HTTPS still ranks #1 with HTTPS. Therefore HTTPS makes you rank #1. Huh? Did a site that was ranked #8 suddenly pass all the other non-HTTPS sites and leap to #1 in any of the data that was collected? I'd sure like to see that - especialy accompanied by data that showed there was no difference in backlink accumulation and no changes in content on any of those sites.

This is the same B.S. this industry keeps trying to unload on naive clients about social having a direct impact on rankings. Chicken or egg, chicken or egg?

The majority of finance and internet/telecom websites use HTTPS. Lord, I hope so! Can you imagine your bank or brokerage firm not doing everything thy can to protect your data? No duh!

Sports and News sites are the least likely to employ HTPPS. Why should they? They are not collecting any data! Having a site that is HTTPS serves absolutely no purpose for a news site! No duh again!

Sorry Anna, SEMRush and Statoperator, you're going to have to do a heck of a lot better than this if you want to prove to anyone with a brain that HTTPS makes a difference in rankings. This type of loose correlation is like saying that rain causes clouds.

Post has attachment
Sorry, but I hate articles like this. Of course Content Is King. It's not just another component of SEO, no more important than links. Without content, what are you linking to? A blank page with no content is very unlikely to rank for a thing - even with a million backlinks. Millions of pages that have no backlinks at all rank very high, although usually for rather noncompetitive terms. It starts with content; without it, there is no kingdom.

Post has attachment
Sorry, but everything in this article defies rational thinking. Stating that it is fine for Google to dominate in ad position #1 for anything where they have a product because they are paying more for those ads than anybody else is incomprehensible to me. THEY ARE PAYING THEMSELVES! Truly a bizarre rationale.

Of course, I have no problem with it either way. It's their website; they should be able to do whatever they want with it. Making them show other websites' ads ahead of their own makes no more sense than someone telling me I have to show competitors' products on my product pages.

Likewise, I disagree with the notion that if they were doing it with organic search, that WOULD be a problem. When you are paying yourself, doesn't it amount to the same thing? When it is your site, shouldn't you be able to do anything you want with it?

This whole entitled, "it's not fair" mentality needs to stop. If you aren't happy with the way Google does things, stop using them or build your own damn search engine!

Post has attachment
Finally got around to adding a board selection table to help people choose the best stand up paddle board to buy.

Post has attachment
Finally finished writing the first, fully comprehensive review of the core #StoreCoach #eCommerce training course. This is a very detailed look "under the hood"

Post has attachment
The first in a series I will be posting throughout the week about the newest Store Coach eCommerce training course

Memo To Google - K.I.S.S.

The more people I coach about setting up eCommerce businesses, the more I am convinced that Google is only making 20-30% of the money they could be making.

Google makes every single thing so convoluted, the vast majority of small business owners simply throw up their hands and say "this is too complicated." Or, they try to set up a campaign, do it incorrectly, lose their shirts overnight and are done with Google advertising forever.

Think I'm wrong, Google? Explain why there are hundreds of other websites that have put up their own tutorials - some good, some bad (none as bad as yours, though) - about how to set up things like Google Shopping campaigns, AdWords campaigns or Google re-targeting campaigns. When other websites have to show people how to spend money with you, you're definitely doing something wrong!

To make matters worse, every six months you change the entire interface on practically every one of your properties. This means all of the tutorials that other people have written for your products have to be re-written. Some sites will continue to play the catch-up game. Others just say "screw it; I'm tired of re-writing this. Let Google fend for themselves."

It also doesn't help when you decide to rename things. What genius over there decided that renaming the Google Keyword Tool or Webmaster Tools would have the least bit of positive effect on the world or, more importantly, your business?

Do you really think the average person realizes they have to set up five different Google services just to run a shopping campaign correctly (Gmail, Merchant Center, AdWords, Search Console, Google Analytics)? That's insane!

Do yourself (and your shareholders) a favor and figure out how to make your moneymakers - Google Shopping and Google Adwords - far more simple to set up and manage. Get rid of all the extra bells and whistles and make them easy enough a monkey could understand and be profitable with those platforms. For those who enjoy all of the bells and whistles, let them access them via an Advanced Tools section that the average Joe will never use or understand. Until then, you will forever be leaving far more money on the table than you are earning.

Stop remaking things; stop changing the interfaces every time the wind switches direction; stop making instructions so complicated, you need two dozen internal links within them to explain what should all be apparent in one place. Utilize the time you are wasting on prettying up your interfaces on something real - improving the experience for the little guy who does not have the time or patience to try to figure out your business - he/she's trying to run one of his/her own! Just keep it simple. Right now, you're just being plain old stupid!
Wait while more posts are being loaded