Posts By: Curator
Posted by BrianChilds
Welcome to the newest installment of our educational Next Level series! In our last episode, Brian Childs equipped copywriters with the tools they need to succeed with SEO. Today, he’s back to share how to use Open Site Explorer to find linking opportunities based upon your competitors’ external inbound links. Read on and level up!
In Moz’s SEO training classes, we discuss how to identify and prioritize sources of backlinks using a mix of tools. One tactic to quickly find high Domain Authority sites that have a history of linking to pages discussing your topic is to study your competitors’ backlinks. This process is covered in-depth during the SEO Link Building Bootcamp.
In this article, I’ll show how to create and export a list of your competitor’s backlinks that you can use for targeting activities. This assumes you’ve already completed keyword research and have identified competitors that rank well in the search results for these queries. Use those competitors for the following analysis.
How to check the backlinks of a site
Step 1: Navigate to Open Site Explorer
Open Site Explorer is a tool used to research the link profile of a website. It will show you the quality of inbound links using metrics like Page Authority, Domain Authority, and Spam Score. You can do a good amount of research with the free version, but to enjoy all its capabilities you’ll need full access; you can get that access for free with a 30-day trial of Moz Pro.
Step 2: Enter your competitor’s domain URL
I suggest opening your competitor’s site in a browser window and then copying the URL. This will reduce any spelling errors and the possibility of incorrectly typing the domain name. An example of a common error is incorrectly adding “www” to the URL when that’s not how it renders for the site.
Step 3: Navigate to the “Inbound Links” tab
The Inbound Links tab will display all of the pages that link to your competitor’s website. In order to identify sources of links that are delivering link equity, I set the parameters above the list as follows: Target This – Root Domain, Links Source – Only External, and Link Type – Link Equity. This will show all external links providing link equity to any page on your competitor’s site.
Step 4: Export results into .csv
Most reports in Open Site Explorer will allow you to export to .csv. Save these results and then repeat for your other competitors.
Step 5: Compile .csv results from all competitors
Once you have Open Site Explorer exports from the top 5–10 competitors, compile them into one spreadsheet.
Step 6: Sort all results by Page Authority
Page Authority is a 1–100 scale developed by Moz that estimates the likelihood of a page’s ability to rank in a search result, based on our understanding of essential ranking factors. Higher numbers suggest the page is more authoritative and therefore has a higher likelihood of ranking. Higher Page Authority pages also will be delivering more link equity to your competitor’s site. Use Page Authority as your sorting criteria.
Step 7: Review all linking sites for opportunities
Now you have a large list of sites linking to your competitors for keywords you are targeting. Go down the list of high Page Authority links and look for sites or authors that show up regularly. Use your preferred outreach strategy to contact these sites and begin developing a relationship.
Want to learn more SEO processes?
If you like these step-by-step SEO processes, you’ll likely enjoy the SEO training classes provided by Moz. These live, instructor-led webinars show you how to use a variety of tools to implement SEO. If you’re in need of comprehensive SEO training, you can save 20% by purchasing the 5-class bundle:
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!
5 things your business must do to market to millennials
There’s one question that frequents the minds of many small business owners:
How do I market to millennials?
As a local business owner, you’re already better positioned than large corporations to reach people aged 18–34 years old because millennials prefer to shop small and local.
Millennials spend 18 hours/day on average consuming content — being present in these online spaces is the first step to make sure they’re consuming yours.
Need help establishing your online presence? Get started with us here!
Gary Vaynerchuk, CEO and cofounder of VaynerMedia, says it best:
“Anyone [under the age of 40] discovers a business for the first time by either: (A) Google searching or (B) finding their content on social media. If you are not crushing it and focusing on the content that you put out on the most important social platforms, you’re going to become mute and obsolete in the modern day of doing business.”
Try these 5 things to make your business stand out to millennials:
Brand authenticity is the second most important factor for millennials when deciding which businesses to support and visit. (The first? Loyalty discounts.)
Tell your business’ story, develop your brand’s voice, and share behind-the-scenes details about your product and store.
When it comes to reaching out to millennials, they would rather see you focus on telling the story of your business instead of going in for the hard sell — 84% of millennials say they don’t trust traditional forms of advertising because it feels inauthentic.
Learn more about developing and maintaining an authentic online brand here!
This is a great opportunity for your business to get creative and show off what makes it unique!
Engage, Engage, Engage
Whether it’s liking a customer’s comment on a Facebook post or replying to a customer service request on Twitter, millennials don’t just appreciate a response from your business — they expect it.
Extend your incredible customer service skills online — delight your customers with these 5 tips!
Over 60% of millennials say they’ll become loyal to a business if the brand engages with them online. Building relationships with social media followers online can turn them into loyal customers offline!
Focus on the Experience
Generally, millennials are making less money than their baby boomer counterparts, and they’re more likely to spend money on experiences than things, which is why you have to market your business or product as an experience.
For example — if you’re a restaurant, focus on how your shared small plates will bring friends closer, or if you’re a clothing store, show off how your new sundresses are the perfect thing to pack for brunch in a new city.
A millennial is more likely to visit your store or restaurant if they’re treating themselves to an experience instead of just another pair of shoes.
Support Your Community & Showcase Your Values
When millennials are deciding which company to give their dollars to, they look at more than just the business’ offerings. How businesses treat their employees, give back to their communities, and what they value can influence a millennial’s purchasing decision.
Millennials think community is one of the most important aspects of life — both in their personal and professional lives. Showing your business cares about your community will help build relationships with this demographic.
For example, try sharing employee appreciation posts on your social media pages, host volunteering events and donation drives, or speak up about a cause your business is passionate about.
Over 60% of millennials respond well to loyalty programs, discounts, and coupons — meaning, they’re more likely to come eat dinner at your restaurant or book your hotel if there’s something in it for them.
Offering a discount is a great way to bring millennials into your business and strong loyalty programs are a great way to keep them coming back!
Adapting your online marketing strategy to appeal to millennials may take a bit of effort, but will pay off for your local business in the long-run!
Sound time-consuming? Let us do it for you! Get started with us here.
Source: Main Street Hub
Should you track or police your employees’ every move and tweet? We discuss this and more.
Each week, Erin Jones and I take a look at the most interesting reputation management stories, answer your questions, and share valuable ORM tactics. In this week’s episode:
- Is the Washington Post’s new employee policy anti-social?
- An RFID embedded in your hand? What could possibly go wrong?
- There are often two sides to a story, and the first one that complains is not always right.
If you have a question you would like us to tackle, please leave a comment below or on my Facebook Page.
Transcript (forgive us for any typos):
The post #29 – Social media shackles, RFID chips under the skin, and $1M awarded for defamation! appeared first on Andy Beal .
Source: Andy Beal
There are some groups who have been critical of this effort to hold backpage accountable and stop this online exploitation. They have suggested that this bipartisan bill could impact mainstream websites and service providers—the good actors out there. That is false. Our bill does not amend, and thus preserves, the Communications Decency Act’s Good Samaritan provision. This provision protects good actors who proactively block and screen for offensive material and thus shields them from any frivolous lawsuits. That is in the legislation and needs to be in there.
This positioning makes it sound like websites who object to SESTA are overreacting–why should they complain if they still have immunity? Unfortunately, Sen. Portman’s statement is flat-out wrong, and it’s such an egregious mistake that it makes me question if he and his co-sponsors actually understand the language in their bill (or Section 230, for that matter).
Section 230 has two main operative provisions. Section 230(c)(1) says websites aren’t liable for third party content. Section 230(c)(2) says websites aren’t liable for filtering content they consider offensive. Sen. Portman’s statement indicates that he thinks SESTA would create new exclusions only to Section 230(c)(1) and would not amend 230(c)(2). However, the bill clearly changes both 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2) equally.
Section 230(e) enumerates four modifications to the immunity, including Section 230(e)(1), which the bill would amend to read (new language bolded):
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair (A) the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, Section 1591 (relating to sex trafficking) of that title, or any other Federal criminal statute or (B) any State criminal prosecution or civil enforcement action targeting conduct that violates a Federal criminal law prohibiting (i) sex trafficking of children; or (ii) sex trafficking by force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion.
The bill also would create a new Section 230(e)(5):
No effect on civil law relating to sex trafficking. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement or limit the application of section 1595 of title 18, United States Code
The added language to Section 230(e)(1) and the new Section 230(e)(5) would expose Internet services to countless new enforcement actions by state law enforcement and civil plaintiffs.
Notice how both Section 230(e)(1) and the proposed Section 230(e)(5) start off with the statement: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair…” The only possible reading of “nothing in this section” is that it refers to all of Section 230, including both Section 230(c)(1) and (c)(2). I didn’t find any cases interpreting what “this section” means, but I found several cases implying that Section 230(c)(2) is subject to Section 230(e)’s exceptions. See, e.g., e360Insight, LLC v. Comcast Corp., 546 F.Supp.2d 605 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Holomaxx Technologies v. Microsoft Corp., 783 F.Supp.2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Milo v. Martin, 311 S.W.3d 210 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010) (concurring opinion); Davis v. Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C., 2015 WL 1535694 (Tex. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2015). Applying standard methods of statutory construction, Section 230(c)(1) and (c)(2) are equally affected by the existing and proposed Section 230(e) exceptions. As a result, Section 230(c)(2) would not limit any new enforcement actions unleashed by the proposed amendments.
[Note 1: Gucci America v. Hall & Associates, 135 F.Supp.2d 409 (SDNY 2001) contains a sentence saying: “Immunizing Mindspring from Plaintiff’s claims, therefore, would “limit” the laws pertaining to intellectual property in contravention of § 230(c)(2).” Although this language seemingly confirms my analysis, I believe the Section 230(c)(2) reference is a typo. The court meant to say 230(e)(2), a correction noted by Ford Motor v. GreatDomains.com, 2001 WL 1176319 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 25, 2001) when quoting this exact language.]
[Note 2: a few cases, including the Seventh Circuit’s Doe v. GTE and Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law v. Craigslist cases, have suggested that Section 230(c)(1) acts as a definitional section for Section 230(c)(2). These cases make a strained reading of the statute, but they also would further undermine Sen. Portman’s statement because, under this reading, Section 230(c)(2) would be the only operational immunity the bill could amend.]
Because I don’t see any possible way of interpreting the statutory language to say that Section 230(c)(2) is subject to different exclusions than Section 230(c)(1), Sen. Portman’s claims to the contrary appear to be a misreading of the existing statute or a misunderstanding of how the bill fits into the existing statutory language. Of course, Congress could easily effectuate Sen. Portman’s claim through different drafting. Instead of preceding Section 230(e)(1) and (e)(5) with “Nothing in this section…” the amendment could say “Nothing in Section 230(c)(1)…” thereby making Section 230(c)(2) not subject to those exclusions.
There is another problem with Sen. Portman extolling Section 230(c)(2)’s protection: it’s basically a defunct safe harbor that does not provide much protection from “frivolous” lawsuit. Unlike Section 230(c)(1), Section 230(c)(2) has a good faith requirement, i.e., to qualify for the safe harbor, the website’s filtering decisions must be made in good faith. Plaintiffs can, and routinely will, allege that the defendant made a filtering decision in subjective bad faith, and courts routinely let those generic and unsupported allegations defeat a motion to dismiss. Thereafter, plaintiffs can do expensive and intrusive discovery into the website’s subjective intent, raising defense costs substantially and extending the case to summary judgment or possibly a trial. As a result, few if any websites actually rely on Section 230(c)(2)’s protection; everyone relies on Section 230(c)(1). Indeed, we’ve recently seen filtering cases–where Section 230(c)(2) clearly should have applied–decided on 230(c)(1) grounds instead. See, e.g., Sikhs for Justice v. Facebook. It appears Sen. Portman may not understand how Section 230(c)(2) has effectively failed in the field.
I hope this blog post helps explain why so many in the Internet community have expressed grave concerns about SESTA’s effects despite Sen. Portman’s efforts to marginalize the concerns. The sponsors apparently think the bill wouldn’t change Section 230 for “good actors” when in fact it would eviscerate the immunity.
* Senate’s “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017”–and Section 230’s Imminent Evisceration
* The “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” Bill Would Be Bad News for Section 230
* WARNING: Draft “No Immunity for Sex Traffickers Online Act” Bill Poses Major Threat to Section 230
* The Implications of Excluding State Crimes from 47 U.S.C. § 230’s Immunity
Source: Eric Goldman Legal
Bad word-of-mouth can cost your business tremendous revenue, and in this digital era, your online reputation is word-of-mouth. Here is what you need to know about online reputation and how to…
The post How Online Reputation Management Prevents Revenue Loss appeared first on Massive Brand PR.
Source: Massive Alliance