Ross and his guest co-host, Scott Van Achte, discuss the past few weeks of search engine and SEO news. This diverse episode ranges in content from Google suspensions and how to set the opening date for your Google My Business listing, to a “Brave” new ultra-private search engine on the horizon and a couple of excellent SEO questions from our listeners.

 

Noteworthy links from this episode:


Transcription of Episode 402

 

Ross: Hello, and welcome to SEO 101 on webmasterradio.fm episode number 402. This is Ross Dunn, CEO of StepForth Web Marketing. My standing co-host is my company’s senior SEO, Scott Van Achte. How’s it going today, bud?

Scott: It’s going super good. Spring is around the corner, the weather’s slowly starting to warm up. I’m ready to get out of this cold stretch.

Ross: Yes. To anyone who’s not in the Victoria area, we’re really quite wimpy because we really haven’t had much cold. We don’t even get freezing very often, maybe at night.

Scott: My nine degrees celsius is cold for me. That’s all I care about. It may not be -30 like some people or whatever that is in Fahrenheit, but I don’t care. I want it warmer.

Ross: Exactly. We have a ton. It’s been a while since we’ve been able to do a new show. We’ve had some great guests on, and really appreciate them coming on board. We’ve got some more coming, some really good ones. I won’t give it away, but over the next couple of months, some of them are booking quite far ahead—even into April, but they’re coming.

Anyway, let’s jump into some news. Google promises it won’t just keep tracking you after replacing cookies. For those who don’t know or haven’t been keeping an eye on all this, it’s pretty big. John Carcutt mentioned it and actually asked John Miller about it. John Miller didn’t know anything about it, which is a bit shocking but I know he’s got a lot on his plate. I’m sure you can only imagine how much he needs to know, and can only know so much.

Anyway, Google Chrome is going to be removing the ability to save cookies. That is going to be a post-cookie world, as John Carcutt likes to call it. What this means is pretty big for advertisers. It’s going to be a huge loss in terms of the ability to target and track people from site to site, that’s the main thing. You can only have first-party cookies. Only third-parties are going to be removed, first-parties still work but it won’t track after you leave the person’s site.

Google, for their ad purposes, is going to use cohorts. Essentially, they’re going to group you with other people with similar interests as this generic, anonymous block of people with these particular interests, that do these certain things, and that’s what you’re going to be able to advertise to.

Obviously, they’re not going to shoot themselves completely in the foot and take away their bottom line, but it’s going to be a big change for many, many, many companies. I don’t even know how much it’s going to affect us other than the obvious stuff, but I have a feeling it’s going to be a bit bigger than we think. What’s the next bit here, Scott?

Scott: On Monday, SEMrush announced that they are going public and will soon be found on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SEMR, which is kind of interesting. I think about these tools, we use SEMrush all the time, and you never really think of how big some of them are. Some of the tools we use are relatively small in comparison, but I had no idea.

They said that in 2019, revenue for SEMrush was around 92 million. In 2020, it was 125 million. Those are both reporting almost 10 million-dollar losses each of those years. For me, SEMrush, I never would have guessed revenue would be nine-figures.

Ross: Pretty impressive.

Scott: I never thought they were that big.

Ross: I knew they had to be getting significantly quite large because they have so many staff and they really throw the red carpet out for people if they come to visit. They’ve got the money, but this is impressive for sure. The stock exchange is no mean feat.

Scott: One thing I didn’t see was the actual date for this IPO, just that it’s coming. I checked a couple of articles, Search Engine Journal reported on it, Search Engine Land did, I’m sure others as well. I’m not sure when you’ll actually be able to go and pick up some of their stock, but I’m imagining fairly soon. I’m not sure how long these things take.

Ross: I have no idea. I’ve talked to people about this sort of thing who have been through it, it’s quite a rollercoaster ride so I imagine it’s pretty difficult to specify a date. Who knows. Just so you know, they’ve rebranded as Semrush.

Scott: Really?

Ross: Yup, Semrush.

Scott: I had no idea.

Ross: I know. I keep up on such useless things.

Scott: I’m not changing.

Ross: Yeah, we don’t.

Scott: Nope, it’s SEMrush forever.

Ross: Anyway, Semrush—great program, love using it. Just an advisory for anyone who uses it who upgrades temporarily don’t, or be careful about it. I did upgrade to a larger package to get some more data for one month for a couple of clients that Scott was working with and we were excited to get that data. We really didn’t need it after that, so we wanted to downgrade back to our old one.

I had a phenomenal grandfathered rate. Not only do we not have the ability to downgrade, which perturbed me, to put it mildly, but when we downgraded we lost our grandfathered rate because they no longer offer that package.

It was a bit difficult, I would say a customer service issue. They did their best to work with us. They were really quite kind about it. I just fell into a bit of an oops there. Just be aware that that can happen. I don’t understand why they can’t downgrade. That’s one part I still won’t agree with.

Scott: It’s kind of ridiculous because, in hindsight, we could have created a whole brand new account at that higher level tier, used it for a month, canceled, and we’d still have our grandfathered rate on our regular account.

Ross: That’s right.

Scott: So now, maybe do that.

Ross: That’s definitely what I would have recommended. I had to actually create a new account, repurchase or reset my plan, and then buy my secondary user again as well. Fortunately, they kept all the data. That was one thing I would have lost my mind over, but they did. All the audit data was still there, so that was good. This seems a bit glitchy to me, hopefully, that’s something they can address soon.

Let’s jump into some SEO news. This first one, Scott, we’re just going to skip over just because it was more of a testing point I could get some of this other data for. Just so people know what we’re talking about, we have notes here we go by and it was an article. It was a round-up by good old Barry Schwartz. I’ve got some good tips for the coming articles.

So first, let’s go with this, Google may suspend ecommerce sites that change prices on checkout pages. What this is all about is I guess Google missed some businesses that were providing a merchant fee to Google, with prices that didn’t match what people found in the checkouts. Obviously, that pissed a lot of people off. If Google can determine that the checkout price is higher than what their feed was showing, you can actually get suspended.

If you have any ecommerce issues or this is accidental, this could be a big oops. Be very careful about that. I do think anyone who’s doing this on purpose deserves to get slapped badly, so I have no pity for them. But if it’s a mistake, that would be a pretty sad issue. Have you ever seen that, Scott? I’ve never seen it, thankfully.

Scott: I’ve never seen any discrepancy in pricing like that before.

Ross: In Canada, we don’t use the shopping feed like they do in the States.

Scott: No, I don’t use it much. I suppose I use it a little bit from time to time, just doing a search for whatever and you click on the search result, you get bumped over to Amazon. It’s almost always Amazon.

Ross: There’s how much I use that. But it is good, it works, it’s quick. Something we’ve been talking about forever is Google Passage ranking. Essentially what this is let’s say you have a very long page of content and it covers various points. If there’s one paragraph or one section of a paragraph that does a really good job of explaining or matching a search in Google, Google might use that passage instead of the whole. They will actually copy and paste elements of that package in the ranking, and you’ll see it as a snippet in a sense.

Now, why this is a good idea potentially is that you can have multiple passages ranking on the same page. This is particularly good news for people who have really long informational articles, just an exceptional way for them to get multiple rankings for that page. It’s not something you can leverage yet. I know there are a lot of people testing it most certainly in the industry. But at this point, it’s something you can largely ignore.

Just know it is a different type of search result now. Until there’s anything that’s been proven in terms of how to increase your odds of appearing in there, I would just keep note that it’s there, and we’ll update you when we hear some more.

Scott: I think the gist of it comes back to—and this applies to a lot of things in SEO—is just to have well-written, quality, informative content. If your content is good and organized, that’s going to be the key for the most part. It is interesting though with Passages if I didn’t know it had gone live—I think it went live mid-February, like the 10th I believe, or something like that—I wouldn’t have had any idea. I haven’t seen any indication whatsoever in real-world results where it’s happened.

It’s actually interesting, there was an article in SEO Roundtable I think that is where it was. Somebody had left a comment in there saying, I don’t understand any of this stuff, I can’t comprehend what this means, so I think it will be another thing that I ignore. Barry Schwartz replied, yes you can ignore. But then another person had commented saying that their rankings plummeted and they’re nowhere in the top 200.

I don’t think there’s any relevance here at all. That’s the only thing I’ve seen. It doesn’t really affect that.

Ross: It’s probably someone fishing for advice.

Scott: It very well might be, yeah.

Ross: Have you ever heard of the Brave browser?

Scott: I did, actually because I was reading it in your show notes about 10 minutes ago.

Ross: That’s it for me too, I had never heard of it. Mind you, we’re tunnel-visioned here because of Google Chrome. We don’t have time to test browsers and stuff, but anyone who’s a fan of DuckDuckGo or any of those privacy-centric search engines, maybe even Tor. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, I won’t explain.

What this is coming down to is there is a browser that you can download and use called Brave browser—Brave as it sounds. It is privacy-centric, 100%. Nothing’s gathered, nothing’s saved, it’s apparently the ultimate. Apparently, it’s even more private than Tor, which is the tunneling system that you can use to get into the dark web and stuff, which I thought was as tight as it got.

In any case, the reason they’re in the news right now is that they have purchased a search engine that was attempting to be the next Google or at least a competitor. It hadn’t actually gone to public use at this point, I don’t believe. The codename for it was Tailcat. Since they purchased it, it’s going to be built into Brave, they figure by spring at the earliest. It will have, apparently, very decent search results, we’ll see.

I for one—for many, I’m sure—would love to see another Google competitor out there, especially one that has the privacy we all dream of. With that will come some caveats. There are a lot of things we benefit from by sharing our information, but I think it’s intriguing. I’m going to keep an eye on it. I might even try Brave browser.

Scott: Maybe I’ll install it this afternoon and give it a go. I’m curious, because I know they’re super privacy-centric, how that will work in terms of regular data collection if any, for say Google Analytics. So if someone is visiting your site using Brave, are you ever going to know about it, or will that be stripped? Will that Google Analytics code be all stripped right out? Will the browser strip it out or what? I don’t know.

Ross: Do you ever wonder what our future looks like when it comes to marketing? It’s not going to be a lot we can work with if this keeps up.

Scott: It’s funny because this is kind of backward. I remember talking to my wife one time about bunk beds or something—just talking about it, not even searching it. Next thing I know, I’ve got remarketing campaigns for bunk beds. I’m like, okay who’s listening to me? Is this a coincidence? That’s in the exact opposite direction of this. It’s like we’re being pulled into totally different ways. I guess it’ll meet in the middle with exactly how it is now. I don’t really know.

Ross: Yeah, I have to admit I’ve been free-spirited about my privacy, just taking whatever I want to see, what we can get out of all this. We’re marketers. I’m interested in giving away a little privacy for more functionality. But this new future that seems to be being pushed upon us, in a good way, I’m not sure what we’re going to find and how much we’re going to like it.

At least it will curtail some of the monopolies out there, perhaps. I’ll believe it when I see it. Let’s take a quick break. When we come back, we’re going to jump into the Page Experience Update.

Welcome back to SEO 101 on webmasterradio.fm hosted by myself, Ross Dunn, CEO of StepForth Web Marketing Inc., and my company’s senior SEO, Scott Van Achte.

Google’s Page Experience Update won’t be a massive change, to start. This is no surprise if you listen to the podcast. Obviously, we’ve talked a lot about the Page Experience Update, but the fact is Google wouldn’t launch an update like this and say, if your site doesn’t get a top mark, we’re not going to rank you. Their search engine will fall apart. There are just going to be way too many websites that don’t meet the grade.

Scott: You can’t go all in like that.

Ross: No, you can’t. We know that from looking at the Google mobile update, or what Danny Sullivan and the crew back at Search Engine Land called Mobilegeddon back in the day when it was going to be mobile-first. It’s certainly taken hold now, but that took a couple of years, a few years. Don’t freak out when this launches.

It is not going to have a huge impact at all on rankings. In fact, I’d say it’d be infinitesimal. Anyone who’s horrendously offending the […], maybe you’re a zero, may notice some impact. I’ll be surprised if you’ll be getting much traffic at all anyway.

Just keep that in mind and note when you’re doing a new website that whoever designs, always designs mobile-first, desktop second—that’s what we do at StepForth—and ensures that they’re looking at core web vitals, which is the key point of the Google Page Experience Update. Just do your best to design in a way that is going to get you a good score for that, and you can test for that. Just type in core web vitals and you’ll find some testing tools. Don’t pass out when you see how your current site is rated, it’s generally not pretty.

Scott: There was an interesting article I read maybe this last week, and I think it was Roger Monty who wrote it. I think you had him on the show a few weeks back if I remember correctly. His perspective from it was, is it even fair for Google to have this update? Because really, what they’re targeting is a fundamental code behind these content management systems.

It’s not the way the site is built, it’s the way the architecture behind the system is built. They’re punishing the user for a problem that’s actually a core WordPress issue, a core Shopify, or Joomla, or whatever you’re using issue that most designers can’t even fix anyway. It has to be fixed at its root.

Thinking about that really got me wondering. I don’t think it’s really going to do a lot. It’s not going to shake up search results that much, maybe a little bit. Over time, like they say, it will grow as WordPress and the systems redevelop how they work and redevelop their code to prevent problems.

Ross: See, that’s the funny thing, and cue the soundtrack Stuck in the Middle with You. If you think about it, we’re pooched here because WordPress is also saying, it’s up to you guys. We don’t care about this. Our system works fine.

Scott: And that’s just it, the systems do work fine, but Google wants it to be fine in a different way. They want to fix what’s not broken.

Ross: And they invented it. Core web vitals is their thing. They’re a monopoly, so we have no choice. In some ways, yes, it will improve the internet, especially the—what’s the one where the page moves?

Scott: Cumulative Layout Shift. I say it wrong every time.

Ross: Yes, that one I particularly. I’m all for that.

Scott: I hate that. There are a lot of sites that it’s so bad. I know I’ve complained about CNN in particular because theirs is the worst for CLS issues. But yeah, there are tons. And it’s really bad on mobile, which I guess is what they’re focusing on anyway. You’re on your phone, you’re reading, then now you’re 3/4 of the way down the page, you can’t find where you were, and then you finally find it again, and then it gets bumped again, you go up or down.

Ross: Or worse, you’re about to click a link and then you click an ad because the ad shows up in front of it because it moved down.

Scott: Well that only happens about once an hour though, it’s not that often.

Ross: I hate that. No, just out of principle I’m not buying from you ever again.

Scott: Just target those guys. Focus on those ones and everybody will be happier.

Ross: The other stuff, whatever. Just mobile experience, mobile page speed, all that stuff. We’re all working on that still, nevermind core web vitals. This has replaced that, and we can’t help but focus on it. In a transparent fashion, let’s say we do web design now. Over the years we’ve built into it as our clients begged us to do that as well. They don’t really want to go elsewhere, which is flattering but also scary.

It’s always a lot of work to jump into a new service. Since we are what we’ve built our name over the last 24 years on SEO. But it’s kind of awesome actually having a website built by an SEO because you know it’s going to be built to work in rankings, and that’s our thing.

At any rate, one of the things we’d be researching is, what is going to be the best platform with WordPress or infrastructure within WordPress that will be compatible with the core web vitals? We’re looking at everything from the Oxygen Theme Builder to Astro with Gutenberg.

Anyone who’s in the design field will know what I’m talking about. Just looking at absolutely any way possible we can design really, really well but with light code. It is not easy, none of these are perfect. There’s going to be a lot of headaches, so we’re not going to jump into it yet. We’re going to stick with Divi, which is definitely bloated, but we can make it faster.

Over time we’re going to jump into Oxygen or one of these other options. Hopefully, Gutenberg, which is the native design system within WordPress. But it isn’t complete. They haven’t rolled out all the major options that you need to truly design a great site.

Anyway, to give our listeners a peek into what we look into on a regular basis as design companies and SEOs, there’s a lot to it and everything’s changing on a regular basis.

All right, the local SEO news. This is interesting. The local search form, as anyone who listens on a regular basis, knows I love to talk about some of the threads that are in there. It’s always intriguing from a local SEO perspective. Someone asked, “The Google My Business opening date—what date should you use?”

When you have a Google My Business listing, this is the listing you have if you have a local business. You’ve claimed it, you’re asked to fill out the information, such as photography, your hours, what kind of payment options you have. There’s a ton of stuff that you can put in there, obviously address […].

One of the questions they ask is, when did you open? What’s your opening date? It was interesting that some people had run into some issues with this because Google’s help area is a little confusing on this subject. It states that, in general, it’s whenever you opened your business. But if you switched locations, you should use the time that you opened that location. People have done that, but they got upset when they saw that their 40-year-old business said it was 3 years old in search results.

Scott: That’s an issue.

Ross: It is an issue. What it came right down to is obviously I would switch it back, but really, only if you’re opening a franchise location—let’s say McDonald’s, let’s use it as an example—maybe it switched locations. In that case, you would put in the opening date. Everyone knows McDonald’s has been around for a while, this is the opening date of that location. If it’s a business, stick with how long you’ve been around, so your actual opening date of the company.

Next up, Google My Business has finally integrated support for desktop. This is the messaging support. If you want people to be able to ask you questions through your Google My Business listing, talk with you, or whatever, up until now you’ve had to use your mobile phone and it was a bit annoying. It was the only option you had. I can only imagine how annoying that would be. It’s not the easiest thing to carry out a conversation with text-style, or at least I’m not of that generation so much. I prefer to do it on a keyboard.

Now, they finally have that interface set up so that while you’re working away, you can be annoyed and jump into a conversation. At any rate, it is definitely an improvement.

Now, let’s jump into some Mueller files. Google recommends pure mid-navigation structures for larger sites. This is from the Search Engine Roundtable. John Mueller was asked about different site structures. It was actually based on a person’s question but I’ll just skim it here.

Someone had been trying to get all their pages indexed by making it a very flat-file structure. That means that most pages can be accessed by one click or maybe two. But their main navigation was fluid. It wasn’t always the same links, and it would change perhaps every time you load it, which was just too much he figured for Google to really make sense of the site.

He recommended more of a pyramid structure where you have the most important content at the top and work your way down. This works out really well with our next piece here on the same subject. But the point is when you’re a business owner, you don’t necessarily want those lowest pages not to be indexed.

However, Google will focus on what’s most important. Whatever is generally found the quickest—only within a few clicks of their entry point on a website—are the ones that are going to be crawled and likely indexed. Everything probably will get crawled at some point. I’d say unless it’s an absolutely disgustingly large site or has way too many levels of depth, it’s a more advanced SEO, you’re going to be crawled.

However, an index is another thing altogether. Google has to determine whether or not you’re worthy of showing in their search results. If there’s a lot of content that they just think is low quality, it won’t show that way. When you look in the Google search console, it will say crawled but chosen not to index. I forgot how they put it, but there’s an actual listing you can look at in indexing.

Anyway, that’s the pyramid navigation structure. That’s what John Mueller recommended. In the next bit here, he suggested focusing less on individual pages and more on category pages. This is something we run into a lot, isn’t it, Scott?

Scott: Absolutely. His recommendation here was based on a very specific website. It wasn’t a generalization across everybody. In this case, it was a website that had top-level category pages and then sub-pages beneath that. I’m not sure if those sub-pages were an ecommerce type of setup or what was going on there, but in this case, those sub-pages had very little content on them, as do the category pages.

John Mueller’s recommendation was to beef up those top-level category pages with content rather than focusing on the thinner content in the lower-level stuff. I realize he was recommending this specific site, but it really is a good rule of thumb. I see this all the time when I do website audits and even with some existing clients where their category pages have little to no content on them.

I’ve got one client who I’ve been bugging for literally years and they just don’t want to put content on those category pages. I really wish they would do it. We have another client—I almost want to say names, but I’m not going to say names—who did have category page content and his rankings went up. It made an obvious difference right off the bat.

In his case, the product-level pages also had lots of content. It was a growth of content in lieu of avoiding thin pages or anything like that. Have your category pages beefy with relevant content suitable for that category. It just makes common sense. Do it. I don’t know what else to say.

Ross: If anyone listened to the John Mueller episode—we did our episode 400 just a couple of episodes ago—I actually asked about an instance we have with a particular client, a great client of ours. It’s essentially the same issue. In this case, he had many levels of depth—too many, there was no question. We were helping him with that. We needed to improve that, but we wanted to improve the overall indexation of his site.

There were too many pages that Google chose not to index. It said, we haven’t crawled these but we’re not indexing them. We discovered that it was because it was 350 levels deep.

Scott: That’s the bottom of the pyramid.

Ross: That is one serious bottom. We’ve done some changes to the site to improve that. One of them was putting in the same concept as Google. When you look at the footer of search results, you’ll see pages one, two, three, four, five, and so on. You can click on them and go directly to them.

Obviously, it’s not Google because it’s Google’s search result, but in the case of a website, it allows Google to jump to specific sections of the site while it’s indexing and dramatically decrease the number of pages it requires, or click depth essentially, for them to index or crawl it. The other thing too is to increase how many are on each page.

There’s a lot to this, and it’s been an interesting little experience. We always try to have fun, but this was a really good little puzzle, and it certainly worked in terms of decreasing how many pages deep his content is. Scott, I know you have to go pick up the old fam, so I’m going to let you do that and I’m going to continue on with some questions here. Thanks for joining us.

Scott: You bet. Should I say thanks for listening and all that now?

Ross: Yeah, sure.

Scott: I don’t even know what I’m supposed to say. Thanks for listening, everybody. Keep listening because it’s not over.

Ross: No, it’s not over. All right.

Scott: Thanks. Bye.

Ross: Okay, so we have some questions here, but before we jump into them we’re going to take a quick break.

Welcome back to SEO 101 on webmasterradio.fm hosted by myself, Ross Dunn, CEO of StepForth Web Marketing, and our company’s senior SEO Scott Van Achte who just stepped off the show for the moment.

I’ve got some questions here. One of them is from Vinayak, we’ll call him VJ because I’m not even trying to pronounce your last name, I’m sorry. It’s better to say I’m sorry now because it would be worse if I did. I’m going to try to skim this here.

His question is related to page load time and its effect on SEO. Essentially, they have implemented a splash screen before the site opens. It’s an animation of 1.5-2 seconds. This is a concern to him. He wants to ensure that this doesn’t cause any problems.

His core question here is, “Does Google consider the perceived load time or the actual loading time of the website? For example, from a user’s perspective, it’s not like the screen is blank. It’s showing useful graphical animation. So will Google mark this negatively? If the page load time doesn’t make a difference to SEO, then all is well.”

Okay, so my take on this is mostly about user experience and conversions. I wouldn’t worry too much about Google in this case. It’s one of those things I would test. I’m already thinking of different ways of arguing this, but when it comes down to it, testing is always the best way to go.

If you notice that you’re getting better at conversions because of this animation, stick with it. If it’s not, then don’t. It’s going to require quite a bit of traffic. You may have to pay for some if it’s a new site. It depends just how much you have because you need a fairly sizable section of traffic to really know what’s working.

If you were a client that said, I need to have this—essentially it’s an interstitial in a way—this flash page, then I would say, okay let’s see how it works. Worst case scenario we can add some text somewhere. That’s really hard-core, old-school SEO. I’m not a big fan of that. But if it is going to help the page make sense to Google, then we might have to do that.

Honestly, Google is getting pretty darn good at this stuff. I’m not sure it’s going to be a big concern. I would test, test, test. Let me know how it goes. We’re very interested in learning about this stuff too. Anyway, I hope this helps. I wish I knew exactly how Google perceives this, but I try to think of it from the AI perspective. Do they really understand what this is? Probably not yet, so you might have to make it really obvious by putting in some text or removing it.

Question from Peter Knight. Hey, Peter. “I’ve just seen this article on Search Engine Journal, it appears to imply that Google doesn’t really care how many 404 pages your site has, and whatever you do—including to make them 410s—it will still come and crawl them. Now, we’ve removed some old content from our site, and in some cases, there has been no obvious place to redirect it using a 301. So we removed the content and made the page respond with a 410, thinking it was the right thing to do. Now it appears I just wasted my time and should have just deleted them. So are 410 history and have no point using them?”

For listeners who don’t know, 410 just means gone. Those pages are gone. They’re not coming back. This is not an error, this is just—they’re gone. It couldn’t get clearer. I think what you did was perfectly fine and obviously the purest way to go. They’re not going to be there anymore? 410 it. Was it a waste of time? You would have only known for sure if you tested either way.

Honestly, I wouldn’t bother doing it. I think that a 404 is perfectly fine. If, like they said in the example there, it’s a classified site that’s constantly churning and it’s going to have lots of 404s, it’s just a natural thing Google will understand.

Now with that said, Scott had a good point when we were discussing this. He said, what if that content has links? Do you really want to 410 it? Maybe you want to put a 301. Like you said, you don’t know whether this is a really good fit. Use your best judgment there, but if you can, perhaps 301 it to the upper category, that’s probably the best solution. Just one step up so people can find the next best thing. That way, you’re going to keep that link value.

All right, time for a sip of water. I want to say thank you for being with us today. I want you all to remember that we have a show notes newsletter you can sign up for at seo101radio.com.

I’d love for you all to connect with me on LinkedIn. You can find me through linkedin.com/in/websitemarketer. Instead of my name, it’s website marketer. Or just type in Ross Dunn and you’ll find me pretty quickly, or Ross Dunn SEO within Google. It would be great to connect with you and just find out a little more about all of you who are listening.

On behalf of myself, Ross Dunn, CEO of StepForth Web Marketing, and my company’s senior SEO, Scott Van Achte, thanks for joining us today. If you have any questions you’d like to share with us, please feel free to post them on our Facebook group, easily found by searching SEO 101 podcast on Facebook.

Have a great week, and remember to tune in to future episodes which air at 1:00 PM Pacific, 4:00 PM Eastern every week on webmasterradio.fm.