Now that the heat has been turned up on Digg, scrutiny is also spilling over to all the “up-and-coming” services who have decided to jump on the “justifiable framing bandwagon.”

One of those services is BurnURL. The concept of BurnURL is pretty simple: You input a url and it spits out a shortened version that you can then use for distribution. But like Digg, they do not implement a simple 301. Instead, they wrap your page in a frame bar.

Also like Digg, they recently published a “don’t worry, we’re not evil” blog post assuring everyone that they have taken steps to prevent any negative impact on publishers.

We’ve always been a very publishers focused company (both with Readburner and BurnURL) and we intend to keep it that way.  We, from the very creation of BurnURL, wanted to make sure the focus was on publishers and their content versus on us and we’ve put quite a few steps in place to do that.

One of the changes we recently put live was to remove the Sharebar when we detected the user-agents of Google, Yahoo, MSN and Ask (these four account for the largest portions of search traffic).  These crawlers don’t need to see the Sharebar (as they’re not going to interact wtih it), so we don’t need to serve it to them.  Instead we feed them a 301 redirect.  This tells them the URL that was burned is the original content owner and it should be listed in the index on that topic.  Our shortened URL effectively gets ignored.

While I am certainly an SEO who appreciates “bot only” technical solutions for SEO related issues, I still find myself wondering how/why the operators of sites like BurnURL don’t understand the “big-picture” issues.

So let me try and explain them one more time.

1. The SEO Value Isn’t the 301 Itself – Bouncing Googlebot through a 301 served from a url Google has never indexed does not generate the type of “juice transfer” people think. The bump from 301 based adtracking/affiliate programs has been on the decline for quite awhile. I won’t go into the specifics in this post, but the short version is that Google is getting much better at figuring out when a 301 is being used as it was originally intended, (moving content that they most likely have already indexed to a new location) and when it’s being used as a bounce.

2. The SEO Value is in the Preservation of the Destination URL – The URLs generated by traditional 301 shorteners in and of themselves are not going to contribute much to improving your organic visibility. But they do play a significant secondary role by making sure that EVERYONE ends up on the URL that the PUBLISHER intended the content to be viewed from. That is extremely important, because it is from that point that the viral distribution process actually begins.

The Bottom Line:

If you are running any type of service that actively encourages the viral distribution of frame wrapped content you do not own, you are a steaming pile of shit. Period.  There simply is no way for you to spin it as some type of “we’re here to support publishers” bullshit. The only reason you do what you do is to gain exposure for your company off the backs of others hard work. So stop being a pile of shit and go figure out how to create something of actual value.

Over the last couple of months, I’ve been getting the urge to get back into blogging a bit. However, when it’s been awhile since you’ve attempted to construct a thought longer than a 140 character tweet, actually doing it is a bit harder than you regular bloggers might imagine. I keep finding myself sitting around waiting for a topic to come along that instantly compels me to start typing.

Well guess what? Today is the day. And the compelling topic turns out to be Digg’s new amazing DiggBar.  In cased you missed the announcement, here is the Digg’s explanation of what the DiggBar is:

“The DiggBar enables you to Digg, read comments, find related content, and share stuff from any page on the Web. And it’s presented in a short URL format, making it easy to share in emails, on Twitter, and via other services. In addition to finding it on all outbound links from Digg, you can generate the DiggBar using any of the following solutions.”

Here’s what it should say:

“The DiggBar is an incredibly clever framejacking tool disguised as a URL shortening service. The mass adoption of the DiggBar by the thousands of users who constantly distribute un-digg-worthy content through our most feared competitor, will allow us to generate millions of additional revenue dollars by injecting our ads in between our feared competitor and the destination url.”

Shortly after the release of the DiggBar, in an article about URL shortening services, Danny Sullivan wrote the following regarding the DiggBar:

“Like lin.cr, it does a 200 code. That means the page is actually on Digg itself – they’re making a page with the DiggBar and pulling in your content without permission into a frame. That’s not illegal, but it’s a tactic that died off years ago. It also means that if you use the Digg short URLs, none of the link credit passes to your page. It’s all kept with Digg.

There’s no need for you to give Digg all your link credit. If you want to shorten your URLs, use a service that does a 301 redirect.”

In response to Danny’s criticism, John Quinn Posted the following on Digg’s blog:

“Prior to launching the DiggBar, we reached out to Google and SEO experts to ensure we adhered to the leading best practices, as we framed and linked directly to source content via the DiggBar. This process involved gathering feedback from publishers to ensure the execution was as content-provider-friendly as possible. We took several steps to ensure that search engines continue to count the original source, versus registering the DiggBar as new content. We include only links to the source URLs on Digg pages to allow spiders to see the unmodified links to source sites. These links are overwritten to short URLs in JavaScript for users who have this preference.”

He then goes on to add:

“We launched a few additional updates early this week to address some lingering concerns in the SEO and publishing communities around the infamous (and sometimes mysterious) search engine ‘juice’. We always represent the source URL as the preferred version of the URL to search engines and use the meta noindex tag to keep DiggBar pages out of search indexes. For those of you interested in the technical details, we also include link rel=”canonical” information to indicate that the original URL is the real (canonical) version. Additional URL properties, like PageRank and related signals, are transferred as well. This is recommended by Google, Ask.com, Microsoft and Yahoo!.”

Sound’s great. (But not great enough for Digg to allow it on their site?)

But here’s the problem… Based on everything publicly published for us common folk, plus a ton of personal testing, I can tell you that the claims in Digg’s post are a flat out lie.

Lest’s start with the noindex part .  A page excluded from Google’s index either by robots.txt or via a noindex meta tag will develop juice, but it absolutely does not pass it. For that claim to be even remotely true, you would need to at least use “noindex, follow” (which Digg doesn’t) and from all my personal testing, that doesn’t work either.

Now for the canonical part. (aka RelCan)

From Google’s official blog post regarding the introduction of RelCan:

Can this link tag be used to suggest a canonical URL on a completely different domain?

“No. To migrate to a completely different domain, permanent (301) redirects are more appropriate. Google currently will take canonicalization suggestions into account across subdomains (or within a domain), but not across domains. So site owners can suggest www.example.com vs. example.com vs. help.example.com, but not example.com vs. example-widgets.com

Based on that, the big question is whether Digg is lying or a backroom secret handshake took place between Google and Digg which lead to Google giving Digg preferential treatment by honoring a cross-domain RelCan tag. I have no way of knowing because neither company is talking, but I did notice the the RelCan Digg uses contains a source tag at the end.

Could that be the secret code that tells Google to count it, even though they have been told to ignore the page? Maybe.

But lets explore the idea that Digg is just lying.

Think about it for a moment. You invest countless hours promoting your content. You get lucky enough to make the homepage of Digg, or you hit the Retweet motherload on Twitter. A certain percentage of all those people who see your content are going to copy & paste the link they land on into a blog post. (Thereby generating a link for your site).

Before the DiggBar, (and with legit shortening services) all those links would point to your url. Now, a large percentage of them are going to be links pointing to a page on Digg. Now if you are Yahoo, CNN, or the BBC, that isn’t really going to matter much. You don’t have to spend time thinking about building link equity, because you already have it. However, if you are a newer site struggling to build trusted link equity in the current black hole environment we live in, the mass adoption of the DiggBar is a serious issue.

I will be advising all clients to add some frame busting code to their sites so the DiggBar won’t work for the simple reason that regarless which scenario is accurate, they are both equally wrong.

Hopefully, others will do the same.

Update: 4-13-09

The DiggBar discussion on Twitter has been incredible. Here’s the most recent Tweets.

I try very hard to stay away from the drama that constantly engulfs Morgan Carey and Real Estate Webmasters. But this one is worth commenting on because it’s such a great example of what not to do.

Late last night, members of REW’s forum started posting that they weren’t finding REW in Google searches. This morning my inbox was full of emails asking if I thought they were penalized. After conducting a few searches on their most popular terms, it appears that they have been tossed in the penalty box. Not only are they not showing up, there seems to be an across-the-board toolbar adjustment as well.

Morgan’s reaction was to write a very long post that outlines his penalty assessment process. While discussing REW blogs, he quotes from his TOS the section that clearly explains REW’s strict stance on behavior intended to manipulate SERPS:

"Search engines: REW blogs perform very well in search engines – this is due in no small part to the fact that our authors write high quality (Unique) content that does not violate any search engines guidelines and is often referenced from other sources on the web. Our rules against link spam and other forms of search engine spam or low quality advertising posts ensure that REW Blogs are able to maintain their authoritative status by providing our readership with the highest quality (Unique) content possible. It is also very important that these rules and regulations are strictly enforced so that search engines can trust that they are indexing and ranking high quality "Human" contributed, edited and moderated content. Link schemes: Any attempt to artificially inflate page rank or link popularity is not welcome here. Search engines frown upon this kind of behavior, and it does nothing for the user experience – when a link is placed in any section of REW Blogs (In a post, in the relevant reading section, in the related links of a post) it should be done so for the sole benefit of the user, and NOT to send yourself link juice / page rank."

He also goes on to say:

Just to be clear directory aside – Real Estate Webmasters does not participate in any kind of link exchange (Solicitation or otherwise) on our domain http://www.realestatewebmasters.com. We do not sell links from our domain http://www.realestatewebmasters.com, we don’t buy links, we don’t spam comments with our links – in fact – we are so damn busy building technology for our clients that we wouldn’t have the time to go out and try to get links even if we wanted to – it’s the old "The carpenter’s house is in the worst shape in the neighborhood

By the time you get to the end, you walk away thinking that the penalty is definitely undeserved. But here’s the flaw in Morgan’s post:

He is making the assumption that any penalty that might be imposed would be directly related to guideline violations involving the REW site. It would be great if that’s how it always worked, but that just isn’t the case. (If you don’t think that’s true, just ask Bob Massa). Occasionally, search engines do issue penalties for general behavior that shows an overall disregard for the sanctity of their guidelines. And when that behavior is a direct contradiction to their constant flow of pro-guideline public spin, the penalties can be quite severe.

Here’s an example: (from an email being sent out by REW staff)

My name is Nick May. I am a Link Manager for Real Estate Webmasters. I am emailing you today to introduce a new, free system we have developed, based on contextual-quality links. This system is designed to put more focus on a fewer amount of links, as they would be located on pages full of content, relative to the site. Instead of having links placed in directories, 5 links will be placed on an already established contextually relevant page. Our format will be a bit different than the format you use. Your links, on our pages, will appear as comments and we will be using your keywords as the commenter’s name. You add 5 of our clients to one of your content pages and in return, we will add your site to each of those client’s sites, on a content filled page. This is just an introductory email to let you know a little bit about it. This system is working for our clients and I have some examples to show you, if you’re interested. Email me back and I will fill you in with all the information you need. Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope you will take part in this excellent new program.

(Emphasis Mine) 

OK, so last spring many of REW’s clients got in trouble for cross-linked directories. Now, six months later REW staff members are sending out dozens of these emails (and have been since last June) offering to create fake blog comments stuffed with your desired keywords in exchange for you putting back the links that used to be in the spam directories that caused all the trouble in the first place.

So how is it Morgan forgot to mention these emails in his public plea to Matt? Is this employee sending these emails without Morgan’s knowledge? (Maybe it’s the same employee that hacked into the PREN Forum?) Or maybe he thinks there’s no way Google would know about these emails? I have no idea for sure, but you at least have to give him some credit. It takes a lot of balls to stand up in public and declare to the world that your shit doesn’t stink, even when so many people know it does.

I while back, I received some swag in the mail from SEO Shirts. However, being the extremely lazy blogger that I am, I never got a round to giving them the link they wanted for the free shirt. So now I’m playing catch up.

Just for the record, I’m a big fan of “links for swag.” (Our mailing address is 23822 Valencia Blvd. Suite 310 Valencia, CA 91355) But I do think that if you are going to do it, you should take the time to make sure your swag generates maximum impact.

I think a T-Shirt announcing to the world that I’m a link whore is awesome. But this particular shirt falls a little short because of the size, typeface and colors used. It’s very difficult to read. A better approach might be a BOTW style white on black. That way, people could see that I was link whore from a good 100 ft. away.

Moving on…. I figured since it’s Beer Friday and I’m already pulling pictures out of the Blackberry, I’d go ahead and post a few more.

Last week, my good buddy Todd, accused me of swiping a cute little anti-spam flyer during a recent visit to the Plex. Now I can assure you that’s not the case. If I was going to take something off of a Google bulleting board, I would have took the picture of the weird guy with lines all over his face. (Which coincidentally, was posted in close proximity to the spam flyer….)

Most people think that Google is all about kitty cats and lime flavored soda.  But the truth is, that’s not the case. As you can see by this picture, there are some Googlers who really understand the concept of “work hard, play hard.”

And finally, here’s a photo from the end of the evening. It’s important to remember that if you leave your clothes hanging in the hotel bathroom with the shower turned on (anything to not have to iron) for too long, you will set the fire alarm off when you open the door. When that happens (at 2:00 am), the only way to get it to stop is to rip it off the ceiling and pull that battery out.

One of the things that happened over the summer while I was on my blogging hiatus was the launch of the “Do Follow” movement. For those that haven’t heard about it, it’s basically a group of bloggers who have realized that having comments and trackback links automatically default to “No Follow” isn’t really a good thing. (And it certainly hasn’t stopped the number of people attempting to spam comments).

The core concept behind the Do Follow movement is something I genuinely support. I’ve always moderated my comments, so anyone being a jackass never makes it live. Those that do make it through are either personal friends or trusted colleagues who I wouldn’t have any problem “vouching” for.

But the overall implementation of the idea in my opinion has been pretty poor. When I browsed through the many Do Follow Blogrolls or Do Follow directories, I found quite a few blogs that I would consider either poor quality or sites that are promoting things (selling text link ads or blog reviews) that I personally don’t want to be connected with. (From a linking standpoint).

I also noticed that for the most part, being part of the “movement” hasn’t really helped improve the level of participation in the majority of the blogs on the list. I think the biggest reason for that is the fact that the only real requirement to get on the list was to install a Do Follow plugin, and then put a copy of the list on your site. In the end, that just created a clever link swapping scheme. So once people got their sites added to the list, their support for the concept went away.

When everything was said and done, I found that the highest quality “Do Follow” blogs I cam across were ones that I found by accident. They weren’t on any published list, and they also weren’t displaying any kind badge that announced to the world that they support “Do Follow.” They were just great blogs being run by people who took the time to remove the link condoms, install the appropriate spam plugins, and dedicate some time to proper comment moderation.

Blogs with those qualities are the type of sites I’d like to spend time on. And those types of blog owners are the kind of people I would love to have comment on my blog, and in exchange for their commentary, I’d be more than willing ditch the love glove.

But there really wasn’t any easy way to find and connect with these types of sites. So I thought I would borrow an idea from Lee and try and put something together.

We have begun the process of collecting and categorizing feeds from quality sites that are not on any of the published Do Follow lists, and do not display any information declaring that they are a “Do Follow” blog. Once we have a good quality list built, we’ll turn it into an OPML file so it can easily be uploaded into any feed reader. The Do Follow OPML file isn’t going to be available to the general public.

So how can you get a copy?

Pretty simple really. Just help us build the list. If you have a blog that you think would be worthy, just visit our submission form and submit it. We will review your site and then make a decision on whether or not we will include it. If we do decide to include it, we will provide you with a copy of the OPML file, plus provide you regular updates as the list grows.

In the meantime, if you would like to start the process of going Do Follow, you find a great list of plugins here. 

Here are some posts from Rand, Andy and Daniel on today’s toolbar hysteria. What I find most interesting about all the blog posts popping up is the constant use of the word penalty. To me, that just isn’t an accurate description; at least not in the sense that anything has changed recently.

Google has stated many times publicly that they do track and monitor sites that either sell links, or engage in excessive cross-linking. And they have also been pretty clear about the fact that they have the ability to prevent a site from passing juice, without necessarily impacting that site’s own ability to rank. Now that’s a pretty cool system, but the problem Google faces is the fact that is a) most people have no idea that there are two sides to PR, and b) the amount of green showing on the toolbar is still the primary factor used to determine price in the text link market.

Sites like Forbes haven’t been passing any significant juice for quite some time. Yet Forbes continues to have a steady stream of advertisers willing to pay rates based on the perceived value displayed in the toolbar. That’s pretty much a no-win situation for Google when it comes to winning the war on paid links. As long as mainstream sites can charge high prices based on their toolbar PR, there will always be more sites trying to sell links than Google could ever police by hand. So they can either spend a shitload of time and money trying to explain to people that just cause you see it, doesn’t mean it’s real, or they can simply adjust the toolbar score for offending sites to a level that more accurately represents the site’s ability to pass juice.

If you were Google, which approach would you take? For me, it would be a no-brainer. Reducing the amount of PR displayed in the toolbar is the equivalent of the Health department forcing restaurants to hang a sign with their inspector’s grade on it in the front window.  Regardless of how nice those restaurants look from the outside, most people will think twice about dining there if the sign in the window has a C on it. And the revenue loss the sign creates motivates the restaurant owner to figure out how to get rid of all the roaches in the kitchen.

In the big picture, I don’t think this approach is going to make the text link market disappear. But it might very well force the big brand sites to stop selling links. And doing that will go a long way in helping Google paint the picture that buying and selling text links is a dangerous and evil practice used only by the worst of spammers.

The cool thing about a specialized vertical social site like Sphinn is you tend to get a better concentration of smart people contributing  stories to the community. But that’s not always the case. Rose Desrochers posted a link to a story claiming BlogCatalog doesn’t pass PageRank because their links contain OnClick. Her evidence was a SEW post from last year where Matt and Brian made some comments about the Washington Post selling blogroll links.

Andy Beard responded with a great post that explained what was really said (and more importantly, what was not said) by Matt and Brian. He also included a ton of quality researched information that would lead most sensible people to the conclusion that the idea that the mere existence of OnClick automatically prevents PageRank from being passed is probably a bit far-fetched. But Rose isn’t one of those people. Instead of responding to the specifics in Andy’s post, she instead resorted to name calling.

Now normally, I’m not a big fan of Digg’s "bury it" function, but in this case, I think it’s warranted. If we can’t get Danny to give us the ability to make a stupid post go away, then at least give us a big red Dumbass button that will flag the post as one not worth clicking on. 

Early last week, Bodog Entertainment lost control of over 3000 domain names, including bodog.com due to a default judgment in a patent infringement case. I’m not going to delve into the specifics involving the suit, or the potential ramifications to the web as whole, because that has already been covered in great detail in other places. 

Instead, I think there is some great value in taking the time to look at the SEO implications of last week’s domain seizure. In terms of organic search, Bodog has been the 800lb Gorilla for quite some time. Not only did they dominate the SERPS for popular generic gambling phrases, they also enjoyed an extremely high level of search traffic from branded terms. Even to the point that Google returns the word “bodog” as a related search for “poker” and “online poker.”

Now, if you’re new to the SEO game, it’s important to understand that getting to a point where the world’s largest search engine thinks your brand is synonymous for the two most coveted generic phrases within your space is pretty much the equivalent of reaching SEO Nirvana.  Obviously, the volume of search traffic being in that type of position produces has a positive impact on the bottom line.  But the real question is will the loss of that traffic be as devastating to Bodog as many people are suggesting? 

For many other companies in Bodog’s space, I’d say the answer would be an absolute yes. But Bodog has a huge advantage over everyone else, because no one understands how to build and maintain a brand better than they do. Bodog is much more than an online gambling company. They are a digital entertainment company that has successfully established their brand in several different verticals in an extremely short period of time. And they also have an incredible understanding of how to leverage the web.

While they may have lost temporary control of their branded domain names, the plaintiff in the case can’t seize control all the other places on the web where their brand is deeply entrenched.  (MySpace,  YouTube,  Flickr,  etc.)

All of that, combined with an extremely proactive PR team who jumped out in front of the story so that it could be leveraged in their favor has put them in a position that will make it fairly easy for them to weather the storm.

In just a little over a week, Bodog has been able to establish over 43,000 links to their new domain.

That has helped put them back in the top 20 for the term “bodog” despite the fact that Google hasn’t even come close to purging all the pages from the original domain, and dozens of opportunistic affiliate spammers are coming out of the woodwork trying to rank for Bodog’s name. 

Within the next couple of weeks, I think you’ll see Bodog regain most of their branded SERPS, and then generic phrases will begin coming back as well.  It just isn’t possible to suppress a brand with the level of momentum Bodog has for very long.

During yesterday’s Rockstar show, we spent some time talking about the latest domains on the web being used for some good old fashion parasite SEO. A brand new domain on our monitoring list was http://www.quizilla.com

Quizillia is one of those sites that haven’t yet figured out that it’s probably not a great idea to let your users have the ability to embed JavaScript in their pages. That of course has led to an infestation of pages designed to suck enough trust to generate some cash.

Now normally I wouldn’t waste the time to blog about a new host domain. There are so many out there, it really isn’t much of a story. But this one is a little different because the site receiving most of the traffic from Quizilla is http://www.google-casino.net! That’s right. A Google domain name, Google colors, and Google’s layout.

Could it be possible that Google’s brand is so strong, packaging your spam in a Google clone interface actually generates a higher conversion rate? And if “brand transfer” actually does influence conversion, does it work both ways? Is it possible packaging your spam in the wrong brand could actually cost you money?