Information about google search engine optimization
Home About Me
Google/SEO Disclaimer
Disclosure Subscribe
Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO SEO Answers on Google Video ===========================
July 31, 2006 in Google/SEO, Movies/Videos
Okay, I took at stab at answering several questions on Google Video. Here’s what I did in chronological order: First, the video disclaimer. Just as with my normal disclaimer, this is my personal opinion. The views expressed on these pages are mine alone and not necessarily those of my employer.
Session 1: Including qualities of a good site. Session 2: Including some SEO Myths.
Session 3: Should you Optimize for Search Engines or for Users? As you can probably tell, I shot these videos at home this weekend. I wanted to make a video so that I could give a little more detail and nuance than you’d get from reading a sentence or two. My video camera has an internal hard drive so when you connect it to a computer with USB, it looks like a hard drive with mpeg2 files. All I did was upload the files directly to Google Video from a web browser. The videos are rough because I didn’t do any editing; I just shot single takes and copied the files up.
Let me know if these are helpful, and if they are, I’ll try to make
more.
{ 193 comments… read them below or add one }JohnMu July 31, 2006 at 1:09 am :-( Any “official” transcript available? (perhaps someone could make one) Watching videos in the office doesn’t look enough like work :-) and is not “quotable”. Oh well, it’s novel (but is it good?).
It’s also bad for your SEO, Matt! Lars July 31, 2006 at 1:16 am
Nice videos… but: I’m used to written english but I’m not used to spoken “american” english. So I wasn’t able to get all of your very interesting information. A transcript and/or subtitles really would be very helpful.
Thanks, Lars SEM kid July 31, 2006 at 1:21 am
If someone links to my webpage containing the video feed, will this help my video rank on Google? David Harry July 31, 2006 at 1:27 am
Hey Matt, Dave here. Works great here… (running 3MB though, I would hope it would).
I think some ’set design’ as you touched on. Maybe even say… a Pirate theme.. Naw,,it would never work… IT’s a nice change from reading articles, Blog and Forum posts.. I must try this, (no Pirate outfit though),,, well, I must sleep a few hours now…
Speaking of which, have you cloned yourself or something? David Harry – Getting too old for these SERPs -
ReSiever July 31, 2006 at 1:28 am Hi Matt,
The video’s look good! A very good initiative of yours, and i think you need to continue doing this! I don’t know if you’ve read the question, but the user Win asked when the duplicate content filter kicks in… How much of the content should be unique and does link text count as content on that same page?
Thanks in advance! IncrediBILL July 31, 2006 at 1:29 am
Matt, is this the start of GTV and will it compete with webmasterradio? On another note, a programmer that resorts to video claiming typing is too slow is distressing. Is this an admission that some Googlers are hunt-n-peck slow typers thus explaining the painfully slow duration between updates?
Let me know in the next video update ;) P.S. Thanks for the videos, good info!
Mika July 31, 2006 at 1:30 am It eats up a lot of time. If you answer questions via blog post you can easily search for the stuff that matters for you. On Video you never know if a topic is mentioned at all and if you do know that, where in the video it is. It takes around 13 minutes to watch the video. A blog post is scrolled down in a few seconds. Then there’s the usual stuff: not searchable, no quoting, no linking, no images…
But it’s cool to watch Matt Cutts while having breakfast :) I like the idea of answering via video, and I know that its a lot of fun taping these. Jonnie July 31, 2006 at 1:40 am
Great videos Matt – keep them coming! Thanks.
Jonnie21 Stephen July 31, 2006 at 1:47 am
Hi Matt Thanks for the post and answering a good number of question. I know you cant ask all.
Would have loved to have known your thoughts on where the homepage/root page appears on a site:domain.com search as I have a feeling that the changes on the 27th June/July effected this – so whether Google is handling things better/differently in the future for sites effected in this way who knows. For some reason your video posts on Google video are associated with a Cat Ozzie jumping – must be Optimisation = Ozzie :)
TOMHTML July 31, 2006 at 1:52 am Thanks for theses videos. I’m trying to translate them in French.
Is Ozzie your cat ? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5196068039997874888 Shane July 31, 2006 at 1:57 am
This is excellent matt could be the start of something big. Well done!!!
Shane german July 31, 2006 at 2:00 am
The videos were great! Thank you.
Hagrin July 31, 2006 at 2:12 am Wow, I got a little worried knowing Matt was home alone and the first couple of lines were “I wanted to make a video”. :)
Halfdeck July 31, 2006 at 2:18 am Encore :) Should I also be thanking reseller for these knockout vids?
“40% of all html has syntax errors. and there’s no way search engines can remove 40% of its index, just because somebody didn’t validate.” Matt, are you saying Google has no problem crawling buggy html? I think you’re saying Google will index a page even if its buggy and a page won’t be penalized for invalid code?
http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/metadata.html This Google article seems to implies some coding errors do matter, like meta name=description value= instead of content=.(?)
When Google parses a page to generate description snippets to display on a site: search (on sites that doesn’t use the META description tag), I believe some HTML errors / ill-structured HTML can make it hard for Google to find where content begins in the source code (I know Google handles stuff like H2 closed by an H3 pretty well, and getting better on other stuff). I see this happening where Google sometimes displays text in IMG ALT, NOSCRIPT, and A HREF at the top of source instead of H2/P text buried at the bottom or buried inside layers of TDs. Or am I just imagining things? DoingItWell July 31, 2006 at 2:37 am
He he he, no, you don’t look like you’ve been kidnapped, you’re not holding a recent newspaper in one hand. :-) In any case, noisy backgrounds be damned. I appreciate your wish to experiment with video, but it’s not easy to do a websearch on the content is it? It’s going to be more difficult to use your blog as a reference site and lookup tool with the content inside videos?
Mike Empuria July 31, 2006 at 2:48 am Thank you for this. Very interesting, useful and a nice way to get information.
rxbbx July 31, 2006 at 2:50 am Good work those videos.. hopefully more in the near future
Regards Search Engines WEB July 31, 2006 at 3:02 am
http://digg.com/technews/VIDEOGoogleEngineerExplainsBestPracticeSEODosandDonts It would have been more convenient if all the VIDEOS were simply One Video for DIGGING purposes
– if this make the homepage – share the pageviews stats – please Superzu July 31, 2006 at 3:07 am
Excellent videos, Matt! Really helpful. Looking forward to more of the same! Dynamic July 31, 2006 at 3:14 am
Dear Matt Great Work.
Video quality is good, I feel this much better to read, and we all can view your expressions. I think it will not be possible to meet you, but your face, your voice, your gestures will remain alive in our computers ! Please provide download link also. Bye
Ramon July 31, 2006 at 3:19 am Greath Matt. You are brilliant and original.
Waiting for a transcription to transtale it into spanish. Addam July 31, 2006 at 3:21 am
Good questions, and i love the video Gemme July 31, 2006 at 3:25 am
I would love to watch the videos then again Google has decided that I can’t at the moment (I’m in China) and asks me to have patience. Any chance to youtube the videos so the rest of the world can participate Dave (Original) July 31, 2006 at 3:30 am
Matt has been kidnapped and is being forced to say things he doesn’t really mean. Don’t believe me? Watch the video :) Liana Evans July 31, 2006 at 4:05 am
I bet this saved your fingers a lot of work Matt! LOL These are great videos, hope you use this often, this is a nice way to “humanize” what you are saying and for people to better understand what is going on at Google and their own SEO efforts.
Great work! webecho July 31, 2006 at 4:09 am
Matt, Good Stuff, It really makes a change to sit back and relax and listen to advice rather than staring at the screen for hours reading. I hope this becomes a regular thing after your grabbags.
(Just to liven things up …why don’t your wear a different hat or something in each clip) Webecho
Steve July 31, 2006 at 4:20 am Great stuff – hats off to you
Al July 31, 2006 at 4:29 am Take 1
Hi Matt I’m so pleased to be one of the first to see almost a preview of your Oscar winning video documentary performance.
We’re almost a day ahead of you and being one of 20 million people nicknamed “Ozzie” down here like your jumping cat …. kinda makes the Pacific Ocean shrink to the size of a creek in terms of first class communication . All the best for future productions … I’ve booked my ticket in advance.
Al Theo July 31, 2006 at 4:35 am
Lol, your video disclaimer looked indeed like a hostage video. Seriously,
I hope you do this more often, great stuff… Theo
Ralf July 31, 2006 at 4:58 am Nice jump to a video presentation, for a first timer you hit the most important basics like background and background noise. Resolution is excellent also for full screen view. Light, reflections and voice need some attention. Any amateur video producer couldn’t do a better job. And last but not least as always good information. Personally I like one advantage of video – Quick copy-and-paste is over.
snd July 31, 2006 at 5:00 am Nice videos Matt ;) Keep them comming!! :)
And how we can send in more questions?? maybe you can set up a vidoe-question page or something like that? garethjax July 31, 2006 at 5:13 am
Holy smoke! you’re right, he has been kidnapped by the fairy folk of El-googleda :D Excellent videos!
I’ve got a technical question: if i have some informations in popup windows opened by javascript (i’m talking about “clean” popup, onclick() based, with real content) the robot are probably not going to read those contents. (they don’t use javascript). Is that some way to prevent this and let the robots index the contents ? Blacky July 31, 2006 at 5:23 am
Great stuff, love it, almost a human approach (except for the dude in the video..)..sorry, only joking!! More, please!
Emil Stenström July 31, 2006 at 5:32 am It’s really sad that the bold element in HTML is ranked slightly higher than that strong element. It has been marked as deprecated by W3C (the strict doctypes) so it should really not rank higher. It would be really interesting to hear why it works like that, I’m thinking of something like “more older pages use bold and those are of higher quality”. Anyway, a bit annoying for someone like me that tries to promote using web standards properly.
Russell July 31, 2006 at 5:34 am Good Morning Matt, excellent stuff, it was great seeing you in action. I am sure we all look forward to many more videos.
Ryan July 31, 2006 at 5:49 am I see you answered my question… Thanks Matt!!
….I can now safely point a few old (and new) clients to this video :) Thanks for confirming what I’ve always told them :)
does adding “my name mentioned in a matt cutts video” to my resume make it better? hehe j/k Philipp Lenssen July 31, 2006 at 6:19 am
Well done, keep up the style! Interesting stuff. It might be nicer if you sit in front of a window or bookshelf or something to avoid the “hostage” effect ;) Ryan July 31, 2006 at 6:25 am
Yeah.. you should do it in the libraryesque area where they do the adsense blog videos… It makes it look like they’re in the waiting room of a pediatrician with the colored small chairs, and jukebox and the like… Or at least in front of a computer.. It’s always fun to see other people’s workstations…. I still want a monitor like Battelle has.
John Tourloukis July 31, 2006 at 6:29 am Finally, some great questions answered. That was the best piece of content yet from this site. Thanks again Matt!
John Tourloukis July 31, 2006 at 6:33 am Matt, I should say – finally the multiple sites on one ip answered, all the stuff here is good. One question if it is not to late to ask, what about duplicate content? Say you offer the same exact service in two citites? For example New York dry cleaning and Atlanta dry cleaning, is it ok to put up the same pages with just the city name switched? Sorry for being late, John
Craig Francis July 31, 2006 at 6:41 am Hi Matt,
Sorry if this is off-topic, but this seems to be a “grab bag” post you talk about in your comment guidelines. I have recently been told by an SEO “expert” that Google will rank pages differently depending on their URL in relation to the folder structure. For example:
http://www.domain.com/keyword/subPage/ http://www.domain.com/keywordSubPage.html And to quote the reasoning: “Introducing a flat folder naming convention when navigating through the pages – doesn’t alter the structure of the site, just makes Google bots think all the content is closer to the front of the site – and therefore increases relevancy”.
Personally I disagree about it altering the structure of the site (he seems to suggest removing all folders), but I am unsure if there is any truth in how it changes the relevancy of the page. Even if there is a grain of truth in this, I would still find the ability to change the scripting language without breaking links (i.e. the move to “index.php” from “index.html”), and also allowing the pages to be grouped logically is much more important.
pavlos July 31, 2006 at 6:42 am Good tips here but generally the clue is that (accorting to you Matt) all you need is a unique content site which can be easily crawlable. Fine.
But about those sites you say that should be worried if they use several thousands of domains in a single ip address, I can tell you a single ip address with 780,000 domains which are for sale and all have the same redirecting script, and they are all indexed by Google. Some of those have a dictionary of subdomains each. Still they have over 10,000 spam pages in Google’s index. An example was posted in the friday questions post by me if you want to see an example of such a domain.
That is despite some people’s multiple spam reports. After months and the sites are in your index. Those do employ hidden text and all other dark seo tactics, and the unique sites get severely penalised. You need to address those concerns and open a communications link with the webmasters affected instead of the usual “there is ALMOST nothing…”
Websites are severely affected by this. pavlos July 31, 2006 at 6:44 am
PS: I am not saying “you should”… I mean “Google shoud” The Adam That Doesn't Belong To Matt July 31, 2006 at 6:48 am
Hostages tend to be more against stone walls in caves. The problem with the effect isn’t the plain wall…it’s the lighting. Because it’s not spotlit (it looks like it’s lit from an overhead light or perhaps a lamp), it makes the areas further away from it darker. So putting a background in front of it probably won’t make a great deal of difference…Matt just needs a spotlight. (Sergey could get him one for Christmas or his birthday, whichever comes first.)
Sitting in front of a window would be baaaaaaad…light reflection and all that. Either that, or shoot it off a green screen and superimpose whatever background in after that. Mind you, then we’re getting into full production mode and Matt probably doesn’t want to do that.
Anyway, I’m not really sure how I feel about the video. The beauty of a blog post is that the poster has the ability to cite examples by hyperlinking to them and making things less abstract as a result. With the video, that aspect tends to be lost. When Matt’s talking about a survey or a research project, it would be nice to have that hyperlink to the research project or survey. On the other hand, Matt probably did answer a lot more than he could have by typing and in a lot more detail. And he doesn’t have to worry about someone taking the <blockquote> tag and copy/pasting his text, unless they choose to retype it.
So I don’t know. Ryan July 31, 2006 at 6:50 am
John, in that case.. how is having 2 pages with just the city name switched beneficial to the site visitor. I’d think they’d get more benefit out of just seeing one page that mentions 2 cities you do dry cleaning in… with possibly one page listing both locations and their contact information…
If it grew to multiple states, I’d have one page listing all states, then just contact info of all the sites in that state another level deep. But dry cleaning doesn’t change by state. There’s nothing that you do in arkansas that you don’t do in new york (except maybe more tobacco stains).
mariop July 31, 2006 at 6:54 am Hi Matt
it’s a big thing, let’s lern more about SEO-questions via Google-TV. have a good day
Mario phantombookman July 31, 2006 at 6:59 am
Excellent – things like this point to the power of the internet and it’s future. A very impressive feature The Adam That Doesn't Belong To Matt July 31, 2006 at 7:06 am
There’s nothing that you do in arkansas that you don’t do in new york (except maybe more tobacco stains). And stains from the blue dresses worn by interns of a certain former Arkansas governor.
Nate K July 31, 2006 at 7:20 am Excellent responses Matt! These were very informational on the different aspects of SEO. I especially liked the one regarding building for users or for search engines – and I agree wtih you that they are not exclusive of one another – but they go hand in hand. Structuring a site properly (semantically, with meaning) that is content rich and dynamic will ultimately keep the users (not in all cases), and the search engines can easily index the site as a whole.
You need to do these videos more often! Thanks! Paul Zhao July 31, 2006 at 7:32 am
garethjax, try “alternate navigation”, having an HTML link elsewhere on the page so search engine spiders can follow (such as the footer of your site). Titanas July 31, 2006 at 7:36 am
This is all and great news for getting higher in the rank and make a better web but all there’s this language minority issue. Languages with limited acceptance (let’s say Greek, my native language) are ranked lower than english or spanish. Even if i write this great tutorial or review about the new Firefox in Greek, chances are that only a few people will read it because of the language! Tahder July 31, 2006 at 7:57 am
Nice stuff! Thanks for the answers via videos. cheers
PhilC July 31, 2006 at 8:03 am Hi Matt. When I read that you were going to try answering questions on video, I didn’t think I’d be particularly interested. But I have to say that they are very very good, and, for the ‘grab-bag’ type of replies, they are far better than posts. The videos aren’t as easily quotable as written stuff, but they are excellent – well done!
I wonder if you’d be kind enough to answer another question that came up in your videos, and was the topic of quite a big disagreement here a while back. In one of the clips you used the phrase “sneaky redirects”, and when you refer to the sort of redirecting that Google doesn’t want, you always use the word “sneaky” – as does Google’s guidelines. Some people assume that all auto-redirects are spam as far as Google is concerned, and that was the topic of the disagreement a while back. I know from my contact with you that not all auto-redirects are considered to be spam by Google, and I wonder if you would confirm that for the benefit of those who don’t agree. Cheers… CJ July 31, 2006 at 8:12 am
Matt, Great way to answer a lot of question with a personal touch :) Felt like a mini-SES virtual conf.
I have a question for the next round of vid/text Q&A. I have a site which is a news based blog that allows readers to comment/discuss current news events in a specific genre of news (NOT a global/local/tech/medicine hub). The site is focused on 1 specific class of news where the sources are syndicated via RSS, and all authors names, sources, trackback url’s are preserved intact. This site ranks well for topics that are on the cover/homepage however no other pages are in the index within Google; however several hundred are indexed by the other S.E.’s. Would this be a filter based upon the lack unique content as a result of originating sources originating from sydication feeds? Perhaps the total weight of commentary/discussion is not enough in relation to the total amount of source? I have seen other sites that are in similar situations as well as numerous sites that do the same and are not. Given the fact that there are so many scraper and spam sites abusing rss syndication is there any way to authenticate with Google? The site does use Google sitemaps and Google Analytics and has had 97% of all pages crawled at least twice in the course of the last 4 months, does not have any ads served (No Adwords, banners or other revenue generation) however does have 4 external anchored text-links.
From a quality standpoint I can see how the site may be filtered based upon the weight of unique content -vs- syndicated content, however I am curious if you may have any suggestions on how to improve the index depth (html sitemap is also available 1 click from the homepage and the entire site is def. crawlable) Thanks
Florida Guy July 31, 2006 at 8:16 am Hey Matt,
Great video! It is really interesting and I appreciate your time doing that, specially on the weekend. Do you think you can upload something about Dedicated IP Address? Does it help on be more stable in Google? Also if you could say something about the recent data refresh/update on Google I am sure a lot of people will appreciate it. Thank you very much! rxbbx July 31, 2006 at 8:17 am
You should remove my name as label by the second video.. it’s your movie, i wanted to rate the video a 5 stars, but labeled it by accident with rxbbx. I am sorry. regards
William Donelson July 31, 2006 at 8:17 am I still cannot understand what’s going on with the 27 June update. Our content-rich, non-commercial sites with many more quality inbound links that higher rated sites, and FAR more good content are not doing well anymore.
HELP! JLH July 31, 2006 at 8:19 am
Thanks for the information, and I vote for more video answers. Plus you can spread the Matt Cutts SEO magic around a bit as I’m sure someone is already blogging the transcripts and will get themselves some great link bait. Josh July 31, 2006 at 8:32 am
Thanks for some great videos Matt. Follow up question: I use a dedicated server because two of my sites are very resource hungry. Because I have alot of space leftover though, I also host quite a few other sites that are run by family, friends, a few business associates, and a charity I am dedicated to just to help them out. So, I probably have about thirty sites hosted on my server (10 of which are mine). Does this come close to the threshold where I have to worry about having too many sites on a server/IP? It isn’t an issue I ever thought about before. Do I need to kick these people to the curb to protect my business (I guess I’ll keep the charity around though :-) ?
Thanks Josh Matt Crouch July 31, 2006 at 8:35 am
Great Job Matt. Hope you keep it up!! Brett July 31, 2006 at 8:42 am
Matt: You mentioned in your video about vs is CSS evaluated for example: font-weight:bold;?
Respectfully, Brett
nancyb July 31, 2006 at 8:42 am Thanks, Matt!
I’m not able to attend conferences so your video was great – now I know what you look like and you are younger and cuter :) than I imagined . I do hope someone will transcribe it and make it available for searching. I’m kinda slow at remembering some of the more technical stuff and it sinks in and “holds” better if I can see text.
Thanks for answering all those question and I look forward to more videos. Goodman Amana HVAC July 31, 2006 at 8:50 am
Anyone know if he said he was going to make any more kitty posts? Ted Z July 31, 2006 at 8:52 am
EXCELLENT!!! Reading does not give flavor that the video does.
Keep up the great work! Ted Z
Matt Crouch July 31, 2006 at 8:57 am Guess the Video Search didnt find you yet :)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=matt+cutts Dave July 31, 2006 at 9:11 am
My question didn’t get answered, but that is ok think the video idea is great. Please keep the good content flowing.
Tim July 31, 2006 at 9:17 am Thanks for the information, Matt.
I understand you are not able to answer each question, however it appears obvious that you deferred from answering any questions about the data refreshes on June 27 and July 27. Is there anything you can tell those of us who were largely impacted by the refreshes on those dates? Some sites came back on July 27 while others did not. Some sites survived June 27 without incident but were impacted on July 27. The only thing these sites seem to have in common is that the “site:www.example.com” operator no longer lists the homepage on top.
Is there any advice, information, or hope (other than “check your sites”) you can give to people who have sites that were impacted on those dates? Should we just hang tight until the next data refresh? What about sites that didn’t return after the June 27 data refresh? When could we expect the next data refresh, Aug 27? What exactly is a data refresh anyway? Anyway, it seems as though this is something you cannot talk about based on the number of people that have asked. I respect that. But if there is absolutely anything, even tiny, that you can say I think there would be hundreds of people that would appreciate it. Thanks for listening and the valuable information you provide here.
Aaron Shear July 31, 2006 at 9:26 am Matt,
Thank you for your articulated answer to our issues, moving forward we will plan around this issue. Due to the fact that we have hundreds of in house employee’s who’s only job is to build product content it is normal for us to launch with such “Passion”. This content is prepared months in advance, in anticipation of a new launch. The only question I have, is there a way for us to “un-filter” our AU site? We know that France became visible after 5 months.
Cheers Aaron Shear
PuzZler July 31, 2006 at 9:26 am Free Matt!
http://www.tradebit.com/channels/internet-marketing/110552/matt-cutts-gives-some-hints-about-seo/ i think he is giving us a hint at the beginning, that something is not ok in the ‘plex ;-)
Aaron July 31, 2006 at 9:31 am Matt,
Love the vids! Thank you! David July 31, 2006 at 9:34 am
Thank you David
Liz July 31, 2006 at 10:09 am Thanks a bunch for the videos. they were very helpful and hopefully you’ll make some more!
Bigfinger July 31, 2006 at 10:09 am Awesome… Great way to handle the grab bag questions, do more this way please. Could be a good way to eat up those 20% free work hours at the office.
Jeff July 31, 2006 at 10:19 am Matt,
The one thing you forgot about w3c validation is that if a site is totally valid, it is totally crawlable in a text browser. So validation does help in crawability. Liane July 31, 2006 at 10:27 am
Fabulous Matt! The video idea is really wonderful and very well done. I’m impressed by the way you are able to answer in a straight forward manner and without a lot of ummms and errrrs which would certainly happen in my case. I’d be willing to bet you passed all levels of public speaking as a kid! :)
Very well done. I love it! (Still looking to find out how to detect cloaking though. I mean, I know how I detect cloaking, but it takes a lot of work on my part and I was hoping to find a less arduous method. Perhaps just one more video?) Ryan July 31, 2006 at 10:30 am
Liane, the best method I use to detect cloaking is to disable javascript and set my user agent to be that of googlebot. There’s a firefox extension that can do both.
It’s a simple matter of me hitting 2 buttons and clicking refresh. Grab bag Friday Peter July 31, 2006 at 10:30 am
Thanks Matt It’s great that you provide this excellent feedback..because you certainly don’t have to.
My home page sort of came back so I guess that problem is now sorted :) Keep up the great work.
skipfactor July 31, 2006 at 10:32 am Can I buy advertising space on your drab background? Just a URL in big black letters? :) I think you should do location shots: backyard, office, hotel rooms, airports, in front the old Jeeves cutout…
Jamie July 31, 2006 at 10:37 am Is it possible you could list the urls of sites and tools that you mention in the videos somwhere on your blog, or with the videos, so we can follow up on them?
Hope there are more videos to come – its a nice way to digest SEO. Jamie
Chris July 31, 2006 at 10:43 am Thanks, Matt.
Unfortunatelly, my net connection is too damn slow to view those videos, can you please provide a download link? Matt Cutts July 31, 2006 at 10:45 am
TOMHTML, yup yup. Ozzie is our newer cat. I needed a short test video to make sure everything worked. I also had a video of him stealing a tomato off a table; he’s a little rebel. Halfdeck, I’ve wanted to try making a video for a while. Can you imagine talking about datacenter IPs on a video though? That would be… pretty boring.
S.E.W., if I go over 100MB I’d have to use the client uploader, and it sounds like that can take 1-2 days. I wanted the gratification of the web browser upload (goes live immediately). That puts an upper limit of 7-8 minutes on a video. Plus if I talk for much longer, I’m sure I’ll say something dumb, and I don’t want to learn how to edit yet. :) Thank you, Liana Evans! I’ve misunderstood enough emails in my time that it seemed like a good idea to try a video where it’s harder to misunderstand. I can probably make a few more before my wife comes home and demands to know what I’m doing with all the lamps in our place. ;)
I appreciate the comments, Ralf. I picked up some books on making videos, podcasts, etc. this weekend. I tried to get light right, but only had stuff that was lying around. Audio definitely needs work–maybe something to dampen the echoes from the bare walls? garethjax, include static text links to the same content.
Emil Stenström, I’ll ask around. It might be possible to adjust things. I think it’s mostly an artifact that everyone used bold first. But again, the difference is pretty trivial. Ryan, don’t forget that you can do direct links into the video. For example, append “#2m3s” to go to two minutes and three seconds into the video. I think that’s right–the Google Video folks recently posted that somewhere. Let me check. Ah, here we go: http://googlevideo.blogspot.com/2006/07/new-feature-link-within-video19.html tells about it. That’s the correct syntax. So you could point directly to where I answer your question.
Philipp Lenssen, I did add a little bit of background for the next few sessions. pavlos, I’ll check it out. There was someone working on tackling the specific issue you mention, but parked domains often aren’t meant as malicious in the way that some spam is. Nonetheless, our users don’t like parked domains, so it’s usually not good to show them. Philipp asked your other question, and I’m hoping to get to it.
Nate K, I almost mentioned Alan Perkins as a master of that philosophy, but I wasn’t sure on the fly if I was remembering his name right. I’d check out stuff that Alan has written on how to align users’ and search engines’ interests. Lately, Colin McDougall has also talked about VEO (Visitor Enhanced Optimization), which also tackles many similar ideas. Hi, PhilC, it’s been a while since we talked so my memory is a bit dusty. The vast majority of the time, I’m talking about JavaScript redirects used in a way to show users and search engines different content. You could also cloak and then use (meta refresh, 301/302) to be sneaky. But just doing a redirect by itself isn’t sneaky. A valid example would be if you merged with another company, so the domains merged and did a 301 redirect from the old domain to the new domain.
William Donelson, I’m hoping to get to that one. Josh, I wouldn’t worry about this, because they’ll all be different sites. If you were running 30 sites and they were all about some topic like pharmacy, that might look different.
Many thanks, nancyb. :) When I started the blog, I was thinking “I could put my presentations and PowerPoint online!” That hasn’t really happened, but I’m still interested in the idea (not everyone can make it to San Jose or Las Vegas for a conference). Maybe I could do a dramatic re-enactment of what I planned to say or the questions that people asked. :) Then again, there’s never enough hours in the day, so who knows.. Goodman Amana HVAC, I’ll get to your kitty question. I tried to convince Emmy to come on camera. She wasn’t a fan of all the lights.
Matt Crouch, I don’t know how often Google Video indexes. I guess we’ll find out, eh? Aaron Shear, I’m not at a place where I can on it right now. Your best bet would be a reinclusion request, and I’ll try to check into what the algorithms are doing.
PuzZler, I just about lost my breakfast from laughing. I’m clearly going to have to add something in the background. Matt Cutts July 31, 2006 at 10:48 am
Jeff, good point. I’ll remember that for future discussion. Chris, if you look to the right of the video, I think that there should be a “Download as a file for Windows or Mac” link. Try that out and let me know if it works.
Stephen July 31, 2006 at 10:53 am Bangs Head against Brick Wall regarding domain.com positioning in site:domain.com checks :D :D
Ozzie jumping gets a ranking 5 out of 5 :) – bet in the long run more people will rank the cat than your vid clip – as people will always be searching for cat vids etc. Scott C. July 31, 2006 at 11:22 am
(I hope this isn’t a dupe — got a WordPress db error the first try…) I was glad to see that bold counts for more than strong. (Although I know Matt said it’s a minor point.) I don’t understand why em and strong should be preferred by standards. Worse yet, what’s this about bold and italic tags being deprecated?! To me, italic and bold are very well understood conventions — why shouldn’t we use “i” and “b” tags if that’s what we mean? The browser or stylesheet can still redefine if they really want to. I suppose someone will argue about style versus structure and blah blah blah, but come on, it’s just two tags that allow us to specify two common type settings that have been used for hundreds of years. Is it going to kill us to keep using them?
Dave July 31, 2006 at 11:41 am Documentation from qualities of a good site can be found at: http://www.viperchill.com/articles/matt-cutts-qualities-good-site.asp
Other 2 video documents are getting created as i speak Hope this helps some people
Matt, feel freee to use it The rest of the articles will be added to http://www.viperchill.com/articles when complete
Nick July 31, 2006 at 11:45 am These are great. I much prefer watching the video to reading. You can’t get intonation and hand gestures from the written page. I think having these videos really good. Thank you.
WebHostWatchdog July 31, 2006 at 11:51 am Matt: Thank you so much for the brief respite from reading text on my monitor. I really enjoyed your alternative format for providing tips for us webmasters.
P.S. I wouldn’t worry too much about the aesthetics of your studio; content is king baby! lots0 July 31, 2006 at 12:09 pm
The video was good Matt, better quality than I expected. However, I was hoping to see Inigo Montoya, the Spam Killer…
Whatever happened to that guy anyway? Vineesh July 31, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Great Videos Matt !! Keep them coming . Martin July 31, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Nice videos! I can only agree that this is an interesting possibility to really get into the topics. Looking forward to some more of that.
P.S. A Google logo on the wall behind you would be nice too :-) Laura MacKenzie July 31, 2006 at 12:22 pm
I really like to video angle. Thanks. It was great feedback, and so detailed as well – I’m a happy little cuttlet – even if you do look like a prisoner ;-) Joseph Hunkins July 31, 2006 at 12:54 pm
This is great! I’ve got you up in a little window (the Austin Powers Matt Mini Me Window) talking while I add some content to sites. I think keeping the clips short as you are doing will be very helpful, otherwise hard to search for the answer needed. Surprised that I could not find you under “Matt Cutts” at Google video.
pavlos July 31, 2006 at 1:04 pm Matt Said: “pavlos, I’ll check it out. There was someone working on tackling the specific issue you mention, but parked domains often aren’t meant as malicious in the way that some spam is. Nonetheless, our users don’t like parked domains, so it’s usually not good to show them. Philipp asked your other question, and I’m hoping to get to it.”
Pavlos says… The issue with me and with the other webmasters affected by this is that these sites and the thousands of subdomains/subfolders they have use redirect scripts. Some of those redirect scripts send me hits via 302s and I am sure googlebot is picking up, as for no reason one of my main sites’ rankings and some of my client’s have been severely damaged for no reason. Anyway… Really appreciate the interest…
This is a very complicated issue and it would be great if we could live without… Dave July 31, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Documentation and text of the videos can be found at Matt Cutts Video’s Documented
Marcus Westberg July 31, 2006 at 1:15 pm Great stuff Matt!
This video thing is very creative and the most interesting I have seen on your blog so far :) More of this stuff please! I watched all 3 sessions and I´m waiting for more SEO video action… BTW… the quality of the videos was also very good :)
vintner July 31, 2006 at 1:18 pm Video is really a loss, for all the reasons so politely hinted at by everybody. We really need a standard written English version for reference, for understanability, for translation, for indexing, for searching, etc., etc. Video can do many things, but this is not one of them. (Thanks anyway.)
Marco July 31, 2006 at 1:24 pm Great videos, Matt! I’ve enjoyed it really.. Good information
Jon July 31, 2006 at 1:28 pm Great job Matt! Nice way to break up your delivery a little… keep the great posts coming.. and hopefully a little deeper on content :)
The Adam That Doesn't Belong To Matt July 31, 2006 at 1:41 pm There is one concern in all of this that has been bugging me all day and I haven’t yet found a good way to put it. So I’m just gonna do the best I can.
My concern is the idea of valid code being placed behind content. Would it not hold true that the aspects of the presentation of the content (e.g. the code) would serve as part of the user experience in and of itself and be just as important as the content? I’m not saying the content should be less important than the code, but if a site has coding issues that cause it to have browser compatibility and/or accessibility issues, then a situation could arise whereby at least some people who would not be able to read the content properly and therefore consider results that contained said issues irrelevant.
That’s one of the reasons I’m such a big fan of the accessible search and have started to use it exclusively, even though I have no particular disability that prevents me from using regular search. When I use the accessible search, there’s an increased likelihood of finding relevant results where the webmasters of the sites have taken the time to code them properly (more or less…the odd error is bound to happen). Accessible search also has the side effect of removing a lot of the blackhat stuff, since a lot of the blackhat techniques are placed as a means of covering up badly-coded sites with unclear purposes (among other things).
I can see the point about hand-coded sites containing useful content. But why not use the Webmaster Console/Sitemaps to communicate those issues to people and encourage them to code to higher standards? It’ll make crawling sites a lot easier, increase the likelihood of relevant results, and allow end users the opportunity to experience as many sites as possible with a reduced risk of incompatibility. In other words, by encouraging and promoting quality code in regular SERPs, you enhance the end user experience. So…in a rather roundabout way, here’s the deeper question: is, at some point, accessibility and/or valid code going to become at least a factor in the algo?
Mr Mac July 31, 2006 at 1:54 pm I loved your videos! In them you mentioned that having your site on one server is ok, but what about interlinking my related sites that are hosted on the same server – will that raise a flag with Google?
Luther July 31, 2006 at 2:02 pm Thanks for your time Matt ! It’s a good idea to use a video for answering us ! For the french reader I translated the third video on my blog : http://www.masterimpact.com/blog/index.php?2006/07/31/9-matt-cutt-video
JohnMu July 31, 2006 at 2:35 pm Thanks, Dave!
Adam (TDBTM), read this: http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39217 Matt, any comments on: http://groups.google.com/group/google-sitemaps/browsethread/thread/76d6193a1025255/3ec3a451ab748d37 ?
Morris Rosenthal July 31, 2006 at 2:56 pm Apparently, these videos are so popular I can’t get the third one to load.
Great job, all that talking at conferences must be good practice for a video professor gig. Ever consider teaching an SEO course online? Morris
Andre July 31, 2006 at 3:12 pm this is a excellent Video and thanks for the excellent informations.
Thanks for answering all those question. Andre
Todd July 31, 2006 at 3:57 pm Matt,
These videos are great, are you going to do more than the three currently posted? I would love to see more.
Thanks Fred July 31, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Matt, these videos are really great. Short and to the point.. In any case, where do I get to post questions?
g1smdg1smd@free July 31, 2006 at 4:47 pm I see reports that iGoogle Video/i was down earlier.
Did it get Matt-dotted? g1smd July 31, 2006 at 4:49 pm
I see some reports that Google Video was down earlier. Did it get Matt-dotted?
Fionn July 31, 2006 at 5:25 pm I cannot open the Optimize for search enignes or users…:(
Good job Matt. I will try again manana….! Nintendo July 31, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Suggestion, go back to text. BTW, site:domain.com is still screwed up on google.com like it has been for for three months now, but is great in all the datacenters.
Mike Seiler July 31, 2006 at 5:46 pm Thanks, Matt — the videos are a nice addition for those of us that never make it anywhere to see you speak in person.
The Adam That Doesn't Belong To Matt July 31, 2006 at 5:51 pm JohnMu: There are two conflicting arguments. What am I supposed to be reading and probably responding to there?
Manca July 31, 2006 at 6:52 pm Matt, It would be cool if you’ve got some kind of “text” version of your answers…that’s why some users are not used to videos and live speech… and some of us are still on freaking dial-up … so watching those videos will take me forever….
please prepare something in textual shape ;) Thx. Manca
Aaron Pratt July 31, 2006 at 7:44 pm I just want to say that Matt scks major arse for launching this stuff while I am on vacation and only can access the videos via 56k modem and my browser keeps crashing. ;-(
Crash! Reboot!
Grrr!!! Lphant July 31, 2006 at 8:36 pm
:lol: Fantastic video HarleyGuy July 31, 2006 at 8:58 pm
What you hear or read and what you see, can be very different. I like the fact that I can watch Matt as he discribes different issues. Not that I can read between the lines, but I can read body language. Thanks to Matt hope you do more.
Michael Biddulph July 31, 2006 at 9:26 pm Excellent stuff Matt and much appreciated!! Would be great to see some more of the same.
Thanks again Michael Biddulph Toowoomba AU
Dave (Original) July 31, 2006 at 10:39 pm Yeah Matt, you have our emails so why not email a nice written copy to us all individually :)
Dave (Original) July 31, 2006 at 10:43 pm Oh, and Matt, please check spelling and grammar before emailing nad In HTML format would also be nice :)
Robert G. Medford July 31, 2006 at 11:03 pm Bin Laden has better set decor.
;) Forget form and stick with the great content. We’re listening.
Rossco July 31, 2006 at 11:29 pm Nice work Matt, I am looking forward to more.
Matt Cutts August 1, 2006 at 12:13 am lots0, it’s amazing how many people thought I was a pirate. Aargh.
Manca, Lisa Barone wrote up a good summary. Lisa, please enable comments so I can stop by from time to time! :) Ah, and I see Dave at viperchill.com transcribed it too. I think ThomasB did a German translation too. Morris Rosenthal, a video professor gig, eh? I’m glad you enjoyed them. I just posted a few more..
Lee August 1, 2006 at 3:12 am Nice Matt…. Thanks for that little insight!
Spiderza August 1, 2006 at 3:14 am Check the full transcript of Matt Cutts’ video – Qualities of a Good Site at the Digg Watch Blog.
Read the transcript if you can’t download the video – or keep the transcript open while you’re watch the first video. Marcel Wagemeesters August 1, 2006 at 3:26 am
Really nice videos Matt! We want more! William Donelson August 1, 2006 at 3:28 am
Thanks for your reply, Matt. I know this is probably bad for G revenues as well (!!! ???) as very few of the sites above our own hard-hit (as examples) do not carry AdWords at all. This kind of difficulty must hit G’s reenues hard as well.
Lyononline August 1, 2006 at 6:19 am Nice…thanks. Another great videos ? I would like to see more :-)
Rick Vidallon August 1, 2006 at 7:25 am Given the blank background of your video set… It would have been a hoot for you to have a few guys standing beside you left and right, arms crossed holding some Windows for Dummies books. ‘If yor ransom is not paid ~ they will force you to read a chapter each day!
Jean Deau August 1, 2006 at 7:26 am Dare I suggest the title to be “gOOglers gone wild”. (use your imagination on the graphical treatment on the double O…).
I smell a hit video in the “SEO Amateur Video” cat. great stuff matt. Keep it up, umm so to speak.
Keith August 1, 2006 at 7:30 am They’re Beautiful Matt,
I know how much work it is to create videos vs. writing articles. The information you put out on them was pretty basic, but it was very cool to put a voice and face to the blog. If you do it again (and I hope so) maybe you could answer some more difficult questions.
Paul August 1, 2006 at 7:46 am great idea matt, look forward to seeing some more.
William Rock August 1, 2006 at 9:02 am Thanks Matt, great first go at the video Q&A
Keep up the great work and the great info on keeping webmasters on the right track. I never thought to use a text browser to check for accessibility. The Lynx View is great I will be using this in all my sites. Are you going to be at SES San Jose this year? Also thanks for all the feedback at webamsterworld Pubcon Boston 2006. Keep the Cameras Rolling!
lots0 August 1, 2006 at 9:04 am >>>lots0, it’s amazing how many people thought I was a pirate. Aargh.
I can tell you where the six fingered spammer is… for a price ;) Malek Bougandoura August 1, 2006 at 9:34 am
Hi matt, You did a great job that was cool and informative I would like more of those videos Keep up the good work :-)
Cheers Mal Mark Williams August 1, 2006 at 9:46 am
Hi matt, first timer here…great idea about the videos. As someone else mentioned it is much easier on the eyes to turn you on (maybe I better rephrase that!) and sit back and look out of the window, while listening to good content… than stare at the screen reading with blood shot eyes, so not worries about making the video look pretty, I am watching the ladies walk past the office window.
cheers, more please E Milley August 1, 2006 at 10:37 am
Hey Matt- I thought these videos were very informative.
I think this is a great time saving tool, and a hell-of-a way to be efficent in your replies. Thanks a lot for taking time out of your nice California weekend to do this. Now, maybe you can help us little people get some of those spam detection tools used internally by Google. ;)
Kind Regards, Erika
Randall Tomaras August 1, 2006 at 10:41 am Matt First time user to your blog. Saw your videos 1. Where can I go to be educated on SEO. Classes,Internet, associations, seminars? Somewhere where I will get my money’s worth. 2. Is there someone who can be specific with my sites? 3. I went from a 4 Rank with over 300 pages ranked to a 3 and 10 pages ranked and did not change a thing. Is there something competitors can do to ruin your rating?
Thanks for helping an old fart (55) Randall Taff Martin August 1, 2006 at 10:53 am
Great Stuff Matt, Keep them coming,
Taff Jean-pierre August 1, 2006 at 11:53 am
Hey I learned a lot with these videos great initiative thx Fred Sprinkle August 1, 2006 at 11:54 am
The truth is, I think these videos are some of the best info I have ever encountered. It is so fresh feeling to watch them. Keep oh debunking myths! Good Job! By the way, your auto spell checker is sweet!
Maizal August 1, 2006 at 12:28 pm You had it right the first time Matt, “dot your Is and cross your Ts”. I wonder how sites will rank if they “cross their Is and dot their Ts” ;)
Manish Pandey August 1, 2006 at 1:04 pm That was a really nice videos there Matt. I highly appreciate them all.
And yes keep adding them more…:) jon rognerud August 1, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Video media is very popular and effective. Other companies (no name) are allowing users all over the globe to upload and manage personal and business-related information, and everything in-between. The question is: how does one track ‘true’ metrics of not only usage (which is easy) – but effectiveness of medium for humans? (not spiders)
My answer: Log on to Matt Cutts Blog, and watch the new videos – they are phenomenal! Forum members should use this to help others in the industry. “Help others get what they want, and you’ll have anything you want” (you’ve heard it before, probably). Value first! Yes, transcripts would be useful, but not crucial – can’t wait to see more.
Best, Jon big4guy August 1, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Hi Matt, I loved your videos. I am a newbie to this entire search engine optimization thing. You videos, espically the one on to optimize for search engine or users was the best. I always used to write from a users perspective, but I think, having better accesibility to one’s site also helps.
William Donelson August 1, 2006 at 6:05 pm I think this is a good way for you to provide feedback, or you might consider a podcast as well…
Ian August 2, 2006 at 1:30 am Just starting to look at it. Generally good, and you come across quite well. The lack of a transcripts makes it a bit of a pain as I have to write down the bits that are interesting instead of just copying your text :) That’s work for me! :D
The other downside of having audio is that people from around the world can tell you that “niche” is pronounced “neesh” instead of “nitch” :D Ian August 2, 2006 at 1:47 am
Favour bold over strong? That’s awful for accessibility :( :( Ross Hill August 2, 2006 at 4:29 am
If I am a web designer and I need to have a portfolio page to show my work (eg http://www.thrivenow.com.au/portfolio) does this look too much like a links page like you have been inferring would be bad? I’m not linking to credit cards and casinos but I am linking to parasols, kids shops, surf clubs and a personal blog. Adam August 2, 2006 at 8:03 am
Thanks Matt, good watch! Ian August 2, 2006 at 8:40 am
Matt, regarding launching big new sites with batches of pages at a time, what sort of time period would you need between your first “few thousand” and your next “few thousand”? Ian August 2, 2006 at 8:44 am
Sorry, the above question was with regard to the “launching a site with millions of pages” question you answered in session 2. Ken Terra August 2, 2006 at 12:51 pm
hey matt, picking up where your vodcast left off — accessibility –, and continuing a strong theme in today’s thread — captioning — , i have a question: can google index flash, mpg, and other video formats’ captioned text, the way it can index, say, alt tag text? thanks,
ken p.s. i vote yes on your video, and though i understand you fine, i would support captioning because I am an accessibility proponent — too bad GV and Utube don’t have a voice recognition auto-captioner built in…
sham August 3, 2006 at 11:01 am A lot of information..Thank you very much matt…
isulong seoph girl August 3, 2006 at 11:40 pm nice vid. very insightful and informing. i guess a bit of visual aids surely prod or rather, lure the viewers to tune in as compared to a plain old-school text.
Roberto from Tenerife August 5, 2006 at 5:15 am Hello Matt,
I have been always reading your blog but I never left you a message. Now, I felt I had to. In fact, I saw your videos and I wanted to thank you very much for taking your personal time in helping people understanding this complex world of SEO. I truly appreciate it. I think that you had a great idea to make those videos: final users like me appreciate very much that we don’t have to read few more pages of written information! I thought about an idea though, which maybe could help improve the whole thing even more and that I would like to share with you: Below each video title I would include an ordered list of the questions you are answering in it (numbered in cronological order). Why? I speak by personal experience: only by watching the entire movie I discovered that you where answering many other important questions covering important topics other than the main subject. I think that if people can read the questions in advance they will be more reasons for them to watch your videos to listen to your answers.
Thank you very much once again and have a nice day! Roberto PS. If one day you will take a break from work and you will be coming to Tenerife it will be our pleasure to have you as our special guests!
Sean Leavey August 6, 2006 at 10:20 am Hello, your videos are very interesting and helpful.
I have two questions to ask: 1. Do absolute links within HTML markup rank higher than relative links, and if so, why is this?
2. Does Google rank sites which provide a text-only version of its pages higher than a site which doesn’t, and is there a way for a webmaster to have search results redirect to the text-only version of the page without it being considered cloaking? Thanks.
steve August 6, 2006 at 12:32 pm Hi Matt I really enjoyed the videos and watching them is more enjoyable than reading, personally I’d like to see more video, and more dinosaur impressions too please! I’d like to post a few question for consideration too if I may, all related to link building and SEO.
1) Do image links give you as much benefit in SEO as text links? and is the alt tag of the image counted as anchor text? 2) Could you clarify exactly where the line lies between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of purchasing paid links. I would assume that purchasing bannner advertising is considered OK, whereas purchasing some little Co-op style links in the footer is not. What about the areas in between, a paid link on the homepage of a relevant site for example. 3) I understand that it is essential to get links on relevant sites and that they are more beneficial than links on non relevant sites, which makes sense. Could you clarify how the relevancy is calculated. If for example I had a website about shoes and I linked to another shoe site that would obviously be relevant. What if I linked to a site about slippers? or about the leather manufacturer? would they be as benefitial? I guess I’m looking for clarification on how the relevancy is worked out, is it by subject area or is it by keywords. 4) Not really a question but I’d greatly appreciate a general explanation of how you think webmasters should approach link building. It’s an essential part of SEO and something I think most people get wrong. Thanks
Steve Gigel Chiazna August 7, 2006 at 2:23 am
Hi Matt This videos are great, it’s easier to follow than written text, I hope you will continue making them. Of course, some better compression would be great ;)
In case you will continue, would be great an index with all videos and topic Gigel
Matt Robson August 7, 2006 at 8:38 am Hey Matt, Great Video.
To your “viewer” question about root-domain only search, axioma, a downloadable search tool that has some interesting filtering and sorting customizations. So, just letting your listeners know that this feature exists, and I believe axioma can use Google as a source, and then filters the non-root-domain pages.
Thanks, Matt R. http://connectsociety.com
Sim August 9, 2006 at 8:55 am Matt Cutts, in Session 3 you said that 40% of all html has syntax errors. and there’s no way search engines can remove 40% of its index, just because somebody didn’t validate. Well let me tell you that if Google actually did not include pages with a significant percentage of non standard compliance (XHTML 1.0 Strict, CSS2, WCAG 1.0) their authors would have bothered to fix them, this is for sure. If to appear on Google a page must be valid then people will validate. Sometimes publishing tools are responsible, not authors.
Colin McDougall August 14, 2006 at 1:39 am Hey Matt,
Thanks for the mention! OK, I am late to the game here but thanks to you Matt, I was inspired to take a significant amount of time over the last few weeks.
Back to check a few emails now then off for more R&R :) Colin
SEO Consulting August 14, 2006 at 7:55 pm We were realy amused in the office watching the video. Do not get me wrong but it lacks a professional touch. Hope to see your next video
Rick Vidallon October 2, 2006 at 7:56 am Dear Friends of Matt,
I am looking for an application that converts video to flash player (or) some other open source player … like the way google converts video to flash for playback on a browser. I would want to install the application on a server for anyone to use — or it could be local running on the users machine — but in the end I want to automate the process as much as possible. I would also would like to be able to pick the thumbnail from any frame in the video (if possible). Any suggestions orideas out there? Please respong to Rick – rick@visionefx.net
tomek November 1, 2006 at 6:27 pm Given the blank background of your video set… It would have been a hoot for you to have a few guys standing beside you left and right, arms crossed holding some Windows for Dummies books. ‘If yor ransom is not paid ~ they will force you to read a chapter each day!
binqiang liu November 27, 2006 at 12:02 am HI, we are having trouble watching or downloading your videos from internet in China? Would there be a possible way to solve that problem? I’m definitely eager to know about your video and your advice. Thanks so much! binqiangliu@gmail.com http://binqiangliu.bloggerspaces.com
Decorative Pillows January 8, 2007 at 9:48 am Is there a maximum size for uploading videos ?
Scented Candles January 8, 2007 at 9:49 am The video could have been edited for a more professional look.
Quinten Miller January 11, 2007 at 9:02 pm Why are people concerned with a professional look when its the content we are after. If you had to set up a more professional environment and then edit the videos to ‘look nicer’ then you might have only been inclined to make two videos not three.
My vote is for high quality informative content Great work
Sterling Silver Jewelry February 26, 2007 at 1:20 pm Are Google video results all come from youtube.com now ?
robin March 5, 2007 at 10:09 am Hello, I’m curious about your videos.What is your view regarding google recently bought Youtube?
thanks, Air Purifiers March 20, 2007 at 12:08 am
this is a great M&A activity for Google. This will bring in a lot of web traffic from Youtube, this is my view of this transaction Billy March 23, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Thanks for the video’s – keep them coming – I can listen to them in the background while I work Air Cleaner April 20, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Google is slowly by surely going to be to the Internet what Microsoft is to the personal computer. They are buying the smartest minds who will make the right moves, like this one. I only hope that they stay away from the “dark side” forces that are pushing for a one world government. We’ll see. Deejay April 27, 2007 at 4:24 am
Thanks for spending so much time on these great video’s, its good to get this kind of feedback. Don’t treat googlebot differently, it doesn’t like to be discriminated :-) Frits Straatsma May 20, 2007 at 10:45 am
Good to interview people from Google. It remains hard to get an exact idea of what is necessary for seo. The more we understand about the big secret the better. jelonka June 5, 2007 at 7:46 am
Hmm , it is good in big economical countries using video, in Poland ppl mostly use 115 kbit/s internet connection, any higher are bandwith limited – any movie > 2 MB is extremaly long to open so need to wait for better IT infrastructure:) Cheers, Paul
Persuasion Power July 27, 2007 at 2:26 am Same here in Asia. Broadband services promise 1.2Mbps for $60 / month but when you log on even during off peak hours, your actual speed is 384kbps.
If the Web 2.0 Video is to take off, the world needs to upgrade the speed of its internet. jeff Hall August 17, 2007 at 8:46 am
I’m confused as to whether the videos are:- 1. A mulit-million dollar production.– the hostage in Bagdad backdrop is painstakingly recreated to the finest detail to give a sense of personal attention. The panavision 16mm film is then studio edited and sequenced to create the illusion in the viewers mind that it is directed just at them. – or –
2. Made on a shoe-string budget with a camcorder in the spare room. Either way they are extremely effective and very helpful. Who needs the slick suit with a hi-tech office backdrop anyway.
seo Mexico September 8, 2007 at 12:42 pm Matt, all the videos are very helpful, specially when you talk about optimization for users. I hope you have enough time to post more of this invaluable tools.
Keep Working Hard. Dog Clothing September 9, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Thank you very much Matt for such an amazing series of videos. They are extremely useful. You look kinda cute by the way! Yuriy September 14, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Guys who have problems with “american” english understanding go here http://www.seomoz.org/blogdetail.php?ID=1256 . There are not everething, but readable. airgle September 24, 2007 at 9:19 am
The video is great! Save a lot of time from reading all those articles. Matt, I like your the word’s map. Very cool. Mark October 2, 2007 at 10:21 am
Matt, can i post these on my video seo site – Reel SEO? turystyka October 14, 2007 at 5:44 am
all the videos are very helpful, specially when you talk about optimization for users. I hope you have enough time to post more of this invaluable tools. Suzan Balk October 28, 2007 at 12:18 pm
the videos are very helpful, specially when you talk about optimization webmaster December 7, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Excellent responses Matt! These were very informational on the different aspects of SEO. I especially liked the one regarding building for users or for search engines – and I agree wtih you that they are not exclusive of one another – but they go hand in hand. Structuring a site properly (semantically, with meaning) that is content rich and dynamic will ultimately keep the users (not in all cases), and the search engines can easily index the site as a whole. communication February 18, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Very greats videos. We liked very much. Becouse SEO is new ideology and everybody SEO experts think that they now everything about SEO. But Matt you are great and you as Google company know the secret. Alan Woodward September 22, 2008 at 10:19 am
great video, need to spend more time looking at google video rather than just youtube Jack October 13, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Matt, Your Videos are useful and nice to see in youtube. Can you upload these in a separate channel? Anton Gorodenskyi November 9, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Hi Matt! That`s a good idea to broadcast with such an interesting topics as Google crawl details and other.
Go on, please! But be a little more like an announcer from CNN or BBC – more official language in order for better uderstanding. And your blog will be one of the visitest in the internet. Good luck, collegue!
))) Marcus Richard January 31, 2009 at 12:45 am
Matt, Great videos and thanks for sharing. Do you know, regarding videos, I have several readers who would like to know how to create sitemaps for youtube videos. Its my understanding that although it can be done and is accepted in webmaster tools, the videos dont get indexed, as I think is correct being that they are hosted on youtube, not the domain of the site that had embedded the videos. In anycase, cant seem to find any answer on this to confirm what I think is the case. Would love to know to share with readers at ReelSEO.com Anyways, thanks in advance for your insight.
Clearsite webdesign June 4, 2009 at 9:11 pm Nice way to learn some seo stuff, takes a bit more time but it forces me to really listen. I tend to scan the pages if it’s written and maybe forgetting a lot of stuuf due to that fact.
Going to try and watch this video stuff more often. Thanks a bunch. Melissa January 12, 2010 at 3:12 am
I remember reading this post a while back. (years) I believe we need an updated video which covers major changes coming with Google Caffeine as well as the “site load speed” being included in the algorithm. Leave a Comment
Name E-mail
Website If you have a question about your site specifically or a general question about search, your best bet is to post in our Webmaster Help Forum linked from http://google.com/webmasters
If you comment, please use your personal name, not your business name. Business names can sound salesy or spammy, and I would like to try people leaving their actual name instead. You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Previous post: Debugging Dean Next post: Help Marcela
Follow me
- FriendFeed
- Subscribe RSS / Atom
Search (CSE)
Loading
Categories 30 days (8)
Android (3) Books/Magazines (22)
Chrome (19) Food (6)
Fun (27) Gadgets/Hack (84)
Games (4) Glossary/Definitions (2)
Google/SEO (502) How to (50)
iPhone (15) Leftovers (5)
Linux/Ubuntu (23) Movies/Videos (23)
Music (6) Personal (92)
Productivity (22) Television (3)
Travel (26) Uncategorized (2)
Web/Net (69) Weblog/blog (106)
Meta
Log in Entries RSS
Comments RSS WordPress.org
Archives
March 2010 (5) February 2010 (6)
January 2010 (14) December 2009 (4)
November 2009 (3) October 2009 (10)
September 2009 (8) August 2009 (11)
July 2009 (8) June 2009 (10)
May 2009 (10) April 2009 (7)
March 2009 (14) February 2009 (11)
January 2009 (12) December 2008 (10)
November 2008 (12) October 2008 (17)
September 2008 (17) August 2008 (6)
July 2008 (18) June 2008 (18)
May 2008 (15) April 2008 (18)
March 2008 (14) February 2008 (10)
January 2008 (15) December 2007 (11)
November 2007 (9) October 2007 (8)
September 2007 (14) August 2007 (9)
July 2007 (20) June 2007 (13)
May 2007 (8) April 2007 (22)
March 2007 (26) February 2007 (10)
January 2007 (25) December 2006 (32)
November 2006 (19) October 2006 (26)
September 2006 (20) August 2006 (27)
July 2006 (17) June 2006 (1)
May 2006 (23) April 2006 (22)
March 2006 (27) February 2006 (28)
January 2006 (36) December 2005 (30)
November 2005 (30) October 2005 (25)
September 2005 (15) August 2005 (21)
could theirs but its in our onlyJuly 2005 (3)
on me as be! hello
can it over up out
off what an me further where is when google search engine optimization could can what doing such been they down
hers has themselves by very few through hello because
its most them me or me at
to by while down this
down see or until ardan michael blum yahoo search engine optimization be! while
again under himself google search engine optimization after most who how
is each google search engine optimization on while each
with no up by our down both had we is while been
once did too are to while
same for against her should i yours out
outta sight Like, down them them having am hello under above as not did other
from are over where have you his our over doing my its hello
above some each most