Andy McIlwain @ andymci.com

Who are you trying to please?

What are you promising?

How much money are you trying to make?

How much freedom are you willing to trade for opportunity?

What are you trying to change?

What do you want people to say about you?

Which people?

Do we care about you?

(and after each answer, ask ‘why?’)

I’m trying to find a reason for… for this. For that -thing- on his desk.

Over-compensation? Troubled eyesight? An uncontrollable urge to be “that guy” in the office?

“I got hit with a snowball!” doesn’t seem like a valid reason to pull out a gun.

Just sayin’.

Automattic have just released WordPress 2.9 “Carmen”. This new version of WordPress beefs up media management, adds a Trash feature for handling unwanted posts, improves plugin management and — as always — addresses a number of bug fixes.

You can find more information on the WordPress blog.

In this week’s Whiteboard Friday, Randaclaus give us the gift of knowledge.

With the volume of data on the web these days, it’s not enough to have great content to be compelling and link-worthy: you need to offer something of additional value, as well.

As we head into 2010, it’s time for us to become more creative!

Q. Keyword grouping can be hard. From a top level perspective, what’s your process for grouping?

Larry: Here’s a high-level overview of my strategy:

1. Start with broad keyword research. Assemble and aggregate keyword data from as many sources as possible, including Web analytics and keyword tools. Starting with plenty of keyword data allows you to test various avenues and determine which pockets of keywords perform best—it’s difficult to predict which keywords will actually end up working the hardest.
2. Form top-level keyword groups. These should be fairly broad and large. A good rule of thumb is to form top-level groups around your main offerings. So if you sell baked goods, top-level groups might include “cake,” “pie,” and “cookies.”
3. Create smaller subgroups. Each top-level group will break down into more specific groups of keywords—usually with a modifier tacked onto the offering. Subgroups under the cake group might include “chocolate cake,” “birthday cake,” “cupcakes,” etc. Do this with all your top-level groups and you’ll start to see a taxonomy, or hierarchy, emerge.
4. Keep going until your low-level groups are very small and tightly related. Pay particular attention to verbs and modifiers within a search query, which can reveal different layers of intent on the part of the searcher. The inclusion of transaction-oriented terms like “buy” and “compare prices” indicates someone late in the buying cycle. These clusters make great, highly targeted ad groups.

The entire article goes into much more depth, and can be found here: How To Group Your Keywords; Plus: Q&A With WordStream’s Larry Kim

I really like this. There’s no attempt to make the conceptual device imitate traditional print magazines. Instead, the device embraces the scrolling/sweeping motion that we’ve become accustomed to.

Source: John Battelle’s Searchblog

I was pointed to a filed affidavit (PDF) between Jenzabar & Robert Maginn as the plaintiffs versus Long Bow Group as the defendants. In short, it seems like the plaintiff is suing the defendants over trademark infringement within a site’s keyword meta tags.

What is interesting is not that there is a lawsuit about this, this is nothing new. It is the fact that the defendant cited a post by Google that Google does not use the meta keywords tag as a ranking factor or any factor at all. Because of that post, amongst other reasons, the defendant filed a motion (PDF) to strike the affidavit that Google does use these meta keywords tag and thus, they can sue for trademark infringement.

Even after that, the plaintiff submitted a third affidavit claiming Google does use meta keywords tag. I am not sure why the lawyers keep bring up the meta keywords tag, when Google specifically says they do not use them and when the defendants have clearly showed them a link to the post and quotes from the Google post.

This all seems somewhat comical to me and a big waste of expensive legal dollars. But hey, what do I know, I am not a lawyer.

You can read many the legal documents regarding this case at the Citizen.org web site.

Source: Barry Schwartz @ Search Engine Land