50 ways to make Google love your website

I apologise if you've come to this post expecting to see those 50 ways listed out - you won't, but read on, you will still find it worthwhile.

I've been sent for review a copy of the book, 50 Ways to Make Google love your Website (see at Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com). It's an intriguing prospect. Google remains the dominant force for driving business to a website. I've just taken a quick look on the stats of where visitors to this blog came from and out of the top 20 sources, sixteen are Google searches. (The others were one Bing search (go Microsoft!), my website, my Twitter feed and someone else's site - thanks for the link!)

Most of us know that Google uses a complex algorithm for deciding how to rank pages in its search results, and we all want to get higher in that listing, because we know that if you aren't in the top few, chances are you won't get clicked on. (I'm pleased to say I'm winning the "brian clegg" search at the moment, though Brian Clegg arts and crafts is always nibbling at my heels.) But how to make sure our site is as 'loved' (as the book puts it) as possible by Google? That's why there are so many SEO (search engine optimization) companies trying to take your money. You really have to understand what's going on in Google's vast computerized brain - which involves some impressive matrix mathematics.

There's good news and bad news about this book. The good news first. Assuming it is right, it really understands the Google page rank mechanism, and goes through every detail of how it works, and how you can give your site the best chance of doing well. It really does provide those 50 ways, if not to make Google love your site, at least to make it think your site is pretty good. This is search engine optimization for the masses.

The bad news? Well, the title sounds like a blog post - and to be honest, the '50 ways' themselves just aren't enough to fill a book. If all you want is practical advice, there's an awful lot of stuff here you don't care about. Much of the book is quite an academic dissection of Google's mechanisms, with each chapter having a small coda that's a few of those 50 ways as little snippets. Now we'd all love that blog post... but would you pay the price of a book for a blog post, unless you want that academic analysis too?

Secondly, the recommendations are so hard! Unless your website is your life, or the lifeblood of your business, no one sane could be bothered to do everything suggested. We are probably talking person years to get it done. Yes, there are little hints and tips that everyone can fairly quickly employ, but some of this stuff is endlessly time consuming. If you are one of the Amazons of the e-world it's essential, but you will be doing it anyway. If you are Joe's Fish Shop,trying to drum up a little extra trade, it's just too much. Of course there are plenty of businesses in between who could benefit - but be aware, it's not a minor commitment.

All in all, I would recommend this book, but don't expect the sort of quick fixes implied by the title. (Check it out at Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com)

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog