For those of us who've been deep in the trenches of online marketing for years, the question of who to trust may seem inane. We've all gravitated to sources of one variety or another, and probably built up a few favorites based on past experience. I've shared some of my selected sources in the past and I (consciously and subconsciously) bias toward trusting news and advice from those over others.
But for those new to the field of web analytics, social media marketing, SEO or a myriad of other practices, it's a true challenge. Case in point, a Q+A question from earlier today:
How do you know what is junk information vs what is truly good SEO advice? Is it just simply trial and error? It seems to me that if people find truly good SEO information, they aren't going to be sharing it so easily. It's the whole, "You get what you pay for".
I've observed and heard this perspective dozens of times. Like the assumption that the "best SEO company in my city probably ranks first for cityname+SEO," it makes sense at first blush, but quickly loses any semblance of logic upon deeper analysis.
The reason is fairly straightforward; SEO at its core is about great content combined with earning great references. Sharing openly, honestly and adding value with that content is far more likely to produce returns in the form of links, reputation, references and customers than staying closed and secretive. Participation in a professional ecosystem almost always yields more value than hoarding "secret discoveries," particularly when those same secrets are being shared elsewhere on a gigantic, relatively level playing field (the web).
But let's say you're completely unfamiliar with the field. You need secondary cues - signals that help you sort the wheat from the chaff. On the web, these follow fairly consistent patterns:
When a piece of content (or an entire site) falls into the right-hand column of untrustworthiness, we tend to reject the information provided. When it falls into the left-hand, trusted column, our instincts are to assign credibility and all the positive associations that accompany it.
There's a lot of boxes to tick to earn trust, but also an incredible amount of value to be had in establishing it. Conversion rates rise. Links, citations, references and social shares increase. The propensity for virality improves. The likelihood of earning a subscriber or a follower or a fan (in all senses of those words) improves. Building trust is like adding an extra percentage on top of every activity web marketers engage in.
Thus, when an SEO reaches out for help earning top rankings or a social marketer wants to know how to get more Facebook fans or drive more traffic from Twitter on a site that looks like this:
(no offense, but they're ticking box after box from the orange column above)
I'm left wondering, why put the cart before the horse?
Users of the web have been trained through experience (online and off) to seek out indications of trustworthiness. When we enter a new field on the web, we'll use these same signals to evaluate possible resources and channels. So why is it that when we put on our marketing hats, we sometimes revert to paying thousands of dollars for a link building campaign, yet shy away from investing in the foundation of our success - the trustworthiness of the site and brand?
A wise man once said: "Let's stop putting lipstick on pigs and trying to rank 'em." I couldn't agree more (and, I suspect, neither could most of our bottom lines).
I think it depends a lot on the market you are targeting, I know when I tidied up my Freelance website the leads started to dry up, I attributed that to the type of people looking for Freelance SEO - they wanted budget and as soon as the site started looking better than budget the whole targeting was wrong, by dumbing the design down a bit the leads have started to come back in.
Overall I do think it's a very competetive place online and if you want to compete with the big boys you've got to make sure you're playing at their level or you might as well not bother.
Fascinating. I hadn't considered the impact of earning "too much" trust, and thus driving away customers who wanted low-budget solutions.
Effectively it is correct as indication of people behaviors. Using as an example real life commerce, just imagine what may happen if "All less than 5 $" shops were presenting themselves as a high fashion shops and not as the warehouse look they usually have.
Surley displaying a cost for the service takes this factor out? A well designed website with budget services must work better then dumbed down design with budget services, surely it indicates to the visitor there going to get a proffesional service at a good rate.
Like most people I don't do packages - I work out a cost based on the amount of work that's carried out, I can give an indication and indeed I do for things like writing a page of content - but I don't really get how people can give a cost for a service such as SEO without having first reviewed the site, the competition and come up with a plan. Budget or not.
Maybe "dumbing down" isn't the right way to put it - maybe it would have been better to say make the design a little less slick or less sophisticated.
no, "dumbing down" is exactly they way it should be said. Take television commersials from warehouse stores like the Brick or Leons or Bad Boy (all canadian, you can youtube the commercials to see what i'm talking about) - the tv advertisements are SUPER low budget, often times shot in the warehouse instead of the showrooms. I had the opportunity to ask the owners at bad-boy (our former mayor believe it or not) why they did this, and he told me, "we want potential customers to think that our products are sold at low prices, so we don't go out of our way to make them feel like the store is high end or that our products cannot be bought by the average joe in our commercials. Even though we have high end items."
I must hold my hands up for being the one responsible for making the GrowTraffic website look too "slick". Simon is totally correct though, we made it look better and enquiries dissappeared - I think we where being percieved as expensive. In hingsight the terms we rank on are probably people with limited budget, which is an interesting insight when doing keyword research in the future.
We're are now thinking of a redesign in Frontpage :) (I joke!!!)
If I see a website earning "too much trust" without prices or an indication of prices on their website I would not even contact them - because they probably cost too much.
But good sites with prices - I bookmark them and come back later - (sometimes months or years later) to check whats new and if I like what I see I generally buy.
Every service website should have at least a rough guide to pricing, many people will skip over your page and go to a competitor. Even if you are targeting the higher end of the market at least give a starting price - "seo from 3000 a month" it is the best way to qualify a lead, weed out tyre kickers and also respects the prospects time by not sending them on a wild goose chase.
I can only imagine what would happen to seo moz sales if they didn't publish their pricing and made prospects fill out a form or call first
I think there is a difference between a package and a bespoke service - it's very different
I think its not only about trust, its about all the brand perception. One good example is: Ryanair.com, targeted on low budgets, so if you change the style it will may appear to be more expensive.
Another good example for online stores is mariscovip.com: they have a painful design but people trust them because they seem to be focused on their job, buy and sell seafood. But if you see https://salylaurel.es then you will think they are so expensive because of their beatiful design. And its not too expensive at all, compared to mariscovip (but this is another non related topic).
In little markets it's super important to make a better brand perception, people don't read just look and if you make a desirable perception you win.
I think it's a combination of both confidence and price. An example of a website that is getting in the sector you comment is https://bocadodemar.com/ image conscious and price. This the Success.
Yes - perhaps a fine line - too much/too little - how do you find that "Goldilocks" balance...but then again, gaining a higher level of trust has allowed us to reach higher yielding, premium clients - not just large ones but also SME's who have an eye for quality, as well as (sadly) quite a few clients who have had a poor experience (either by their provider or self imposed). Our business has doubled and redoubled by positioning us as a trusted provider, highly transparent, we even publish our introductory product prices and we provide solid intro advice on our site (um - sometimes, perhaps mor ethan somtimes, gleaned from insights gained from SEOmoz). Yes, lead volume is less, but lead quality jumps...and a greater level of efficiency for our sales process - less "tyre kickers" chewing up scarce time that can now be spent securing highly profitable, long term business realtionships.
As Rand noted on a comment in his "How Much Do SEO Consultants & Agencies Charge? A Survey that Needs Your Help" post, "The first few years I consulted, we charged $75, then $100, then $150 an hour. After demand became much larger than supply, we moved to $300, then $500 and finally $1,000/hour (for my time in particular). I don't think pricing and ethics have much to do with one another (so long as it's transparent and upfront on both sides). It's much more tied to supply and demand."...but what helped create that demand? Certainly a part of it must have been "trust" as well as demand/supply.
Agreed. One of our clients in the art space revamped their website from a basic $500 website to a beautiful design with all the "conversion" elements... and surprisingly conversion rates dropped.
Every market is different, because searchers in each market have their own psychology and decision-making process (and their own "trust" measures).
All can be revealed for each market with split (and taguchi) testing, and a starting Adwords budget.
This is an incredibly fascinating revelation! I know myself (and I'm sure nearly everyone else), I sometimes look for the grungiest dive in town in hopes of finding an awesome burger - often successfully. Sometimes the most valuable shopping experience can come from a "low quality/budget" operation.
Case in point: take a look at these two high speed internet providers in my area. First is Charter cable - huge conglomerate, shiny corporate website, all on the left column. But they have AWFUL customer service, MISERABLE internet service. When you call for help with your service (or just to buy it for that matter), you speak to someone in a call center who wants to talk to you as much as you want to talk to them. Not a pleasant shopping experience - I would not convert. Then take this provider. Out of date website, not very user friendly interface - yet they have a cell phone number to call one of the <10 actual people working at the company. And when I called - they answered immediately, were extremely friendly and helpful, and were capable of answering every question I could think of (not to mention they could be at my house in less than an hour to install my internet - the same day I called). Needless to say I went with them and have been delighted with my choice.
Just another case of needing to take a step back from the computer screen and take some clues from the real world.
In an industry where prices vary so greatly (some people charge over $1000/hr for consulting, some charge $50), looking affordable (if you are affordable) is very important.
Just look at the discount store Dollar General. They net billions of dollars in sales each year, yet their logo is fugly. They could certainly afford to hire a design firm to whip something better up - but they don't want a clean, modern logo.
If a store looks expensive, some people simply wont enter.
I usually agree with your posts completely Rand. Today is not one of those days. The majority of the items in the left-hand column can not be directly attributed to the quality of information (or product) on a website. You and I both know that great companies with amazing products sometimes don't have the "best" website, and I can't tell you how many times I have stumbled on a blog with beautifully written content that has no readership, no links, and no social mentions because they have no unique banner, a boring name, and have no seo or social media outreach strategy.
You are confusing quality with assumed quality. They way your post is set up leads the reader to assume that most sites that fit somewhere into that list in the right column will exhibit most or all of those characteristics, when in reality that is not the case. This falls into the same problem I have with google's insistence on favoring established, large brands over small upstarts - the assumption that succes=quality.
Perhaps Rand's post is focused a little more on assumed quality rather than actual quality... but the Stanford Credibility Project found that assumed quality (like visual cues) is far more important to conversions on most sites than actual authority. Why? Probably because, as Rand says, people often don't know actual authority and need to rely on secondary cues. It's actually surprising how similarly Rand's post matches the Stanford research, actually. You could argue the case that he used it as a source... though I bet he didn't.
Of course, to argue against myself, this research is incredibly old for the internet (2002), so it's very possible (even probable) that the results would be different in at least some ways if the same research were conducted today.
James, I am also not a fan of everything Rand writes. I find it repulsive that so many grovel over every word on his blog. I feel the same way about Matt Cutts. I think Matt is a puppet and works as the king of disinformation. However, Rand always does a good job of posting information that is interesting and thoughtful. I do read his posts because they're food for thought. This post is no different. One can always find an exception to the rule, but I think its a stretch to say that "many" great companies have untrustworthy websites. Even if this was so, it doesn't make it right. Rand's advice is good on this topic regardless of what "many" great companies are doing.
I do think that if you follow the rules on the left you will exhibit a trustworthy appearance to users. There's a difference between having a trustworthy appearance and having an expensive appearance. I don't think you have to have an expensive appearance to be trusted. Let's take, for instance, the green bar that shows up when you are visiting a page with SSL. Does this look expensive or is it simply trusted?
Just my thoughts.
Please don't mistake my comment above for any kind of Rand-bashing, I was simply offering a different perspective to the issue - the one of the disgruntled consumer. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. /grovel
I always love his posts, this one included, as they are always extremely insightful and geniuine. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with it.
As for my comment - I should clarify that I didn't mean to imply that "many" great companies with distrustful sites (I don't think I used the word many). As you pointed out - there is always an exception to the rule, and I was merely playing devil's advocate and pointing it out.
Thats also assuming the user is even aware of SSL. We are a group of exclusive marketing professionals who are very educated, you'd be surpsied how the average user interacts and comes to a conclusion of what makes a quality site.
I'm only saying this because I was shocked by a few tests we conducted. We did about 100 usertesting videos across different demographics. I was comepltely changed after watching the videos.
100% Agree. Assumption vs. Accuracy of what is quality and what is not cannot be measured in an algorithm. We all come to our conclusions of quality in different ways. We take different cues as to what is our personal meter of quality.
Jim - perhaps I didn't present it correctly. I'm trying to say that perception often is reality, particularly on the web, where other signals (tactile, physical, face:face) are lacking. As an example, here's a journalist who wrote about how startups are judged:
Good design has an unfair effect on how I judge your company. When you launch, I can’t tell if you have the most streamlined code in the world or the smartest sales guys in the country. The easiest way for journalists to see if you’re serious about your company is design. Make it pretty and the press with give you an unfair pass.
via https://seanblanda.com/blog/feature/confessions-of-a-tech-journalist-my-advice-to-startups-pitching-the-media/
I agree that oftentimes, perception is NOT reality and that poor quality can "cover up" by merely appearing to have these trust signals. But I don't think that negates the advice here, which is - DO THIS! Appear trusted, because it matters.
Hope that helps clarify :-)
Rand,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your insights - of course it is always great advice to siteowners to work on their site first to appear trustworthy before turning to seo (especially off-site seo and linkbuilding). I just hope people wont take this as "don't waste your time on a site that has a crappy logo and no social media presence", which I think some have.
If someone approaches you about seo help with their site and they fall into the right column a lot - don't just decline, help them fix those issues as part of a broader online marketing strategy including seo. I think that was the underlying message of your post anyway, in retrospect.
Something which is harder to get across to some clients is the growing importance of this, but even aspects such as physical address, phone numbers are getting to be fairly important. I'm still yet to have time to roll out the Author tags to see how it uplifts CTR and reduces the impact of scrappers if they get a hold of your content. We raised the social adoption item today, no point having a twitter feed on your home page if you have 7 followers and last tweeted back in 2009.
For the most part I totally agree with you Rand, but there's one thing that is very easy to do, and that's to be decpeptive to the user. I've conducted a Usertesting study in which we wanted to know what users thought of the top 3 results in Google for certain verticals. We saw and heard explicit feedback from users and what sites they gravitated towards the most.
Guess what, the majority of the sites were complete spam, and the users trusted their content. These sites were well designed and had pictures of people and contact information, videos and social widgets. One user stated that oh, here is the authors picture so I would trust it to be true. Another user saw the Facebook widget and assumed they "had a relationship" with Facebook so they are legitiamte.
There was one person who stuck out the most and i found most interesting becauae I've never heard or done this before. This user had a routine of bookmarking a site to see if they had created a favicon! He said that if the site didn't have one, they most not pay attention to detail. Now that is pretty extreme but when we're discussing users, I would say 95% of them are susecptable to being duped.
There are so many untrustworthy sites that have retruned in the SERPS that users no longer know what is a trusted vs. non-trusted site. We as marketers sometimes forget that and we should all partake in trying to educate users while at the same time provide them with trustworthy content.
The favicon example is interesting. I know that when I visit a new site, it drives me crazy if they're using the default Bluehost favicon (which I happen to recognize... I'm sure there are other default favicons I see that I don't recognize).
Yes, that came out of left field for us. We were screening these videos as a group almost as if it were a feature film with popcorn lol. We all looked at each other when the user did this little test.
How can anybody disagree with what you wrote, Rand?
Anyway, as a beginner SEO working in a web agency, I feel quite familiar with the sensation of pouring make up on rats, pigs and other species (no offence intended to those poor animals). Ethically I'd say "no, I won't work on a junky, spammy and unsignificant site like that". But, hey, I have to, because I'm paid for it.
I'm trying to educate clients and colleagues to value quality and user experience above links and other amenities, but what they ask for are results, a.k.a. top 10 rankings for their keywords, and the most of the times they won't make any effort in terms of increasing the quality of their content: so I've got to pick up my make up beauty case and dress my pigs as best as I can, and I have to go back home with that annoying sense of frustration.
Nonetheless, I feel lucky. I love spending my time trying to become a better SEO, and I love learning new stuff from you guys.
Thanks for the post. I think your list also applies to any business on the web that is web-related ( ie. SEO companies, website companies, web design companies, web marketing, etc.) Unfortunatly for some, we use these bullet points (consciously or subconsciously) when we visit all websites. This can be unfortunate for some small ma and pop shops who in the real world have been in business for 50 years and are well trusted but are not tech-savvy or aware of the importance of these check boxes. They therefore have poor websites and cannot really break into the online market. Hopefully this is changing and these well-intentioned shop owneres with poor websites are becoming more aware of the steps neccesary to become trusted on the web.
Totally agree.
Much as I agree with the concept of trust on the web, along with much of what you are saying, I am a little curious as to what made you pick the example website that you did.
Don't get me wrong, from what I can see of the screen grab I don’t think it is a very engaging or inspiring design but I wouldn't instinctively say it was a bad design leaving me with any type of 'untrustworthy' impression,
The web is full of millions of examples which I would have thought would help to convey the message better.
However, that said, thanks as always for another well thought out article.
Awesome Post Rand, this has needed to be said by a trustworthy & authoritive figure in the Search industry for a long time.
It highlights the important fact that is basic human psychology, 'in order to be trusted, trust has to be earned', which of course starts with great valuable content which leads onto votes of confidence & approval (the high quality relevant links).
The two columns are a simple yet effective way of differentiating between Trustworthiness and Untrustworthiness. This will prove useful when trying to explain to people not in the Search/User Experience industries the importance of earning and building trust.
Great post Rand! I wanted to add one more thing in the trust worthy column and that is ‘connection and communication’. People who produce quality and trust worthy content tend to connect with the real people in the real time environment (i.e Twitter and other Social Platforms) and even in real life like conferences and do not hesitate to come at the front and share their opinion on the subject.
But, people who produce un-trusted content usually don’t use their name or avatar and done communicate on social platforms nor join conferences and stuff like that...
Rand, I am 99% with you. As I read your left column (trustworthy), the website of the brilliant Eric Ward came into my mind, which doesn't fit really into "clean, modern, beaufiful design and logo". I don't want to offend Mr. Ward - as I wrote, I am a big fan of him and his way of working. I only wanted to say that there may be some small exeptions of the rule.
But I'd say that while Eric's site may not be web design gallery worthy (https://ericward.com/) it does have a ton of trust and authenticity signals present. You might not contract him to win you a CSS "site of the day" award, but looking down most of the rest of the left-hand column, I'd say he's doing a pretty stellar job.
I've prodded Avinash Kaushik https://www.kaushik.net/avinash/ about that for years (and he finally did upgrade his site), but I think they both achieved a lot of authenticity and trust even if they're not fully nailing the "beauty" aspect of design.
Eric Ward's site loses me in 2 seconds. I didn't even notice the left side. His image looks outdated. My initial thought is that this site was made in early 2000 and it can't possibly have anything relevent to offer me on today's ever-changing SEO. He should definitely consider revamping it.
Trust, like reputation, is hard earned...and most savvy web searchers have their own barometer, relative to what they are seeking at that time, be it a diamond or a lump of coal - it shouldn't always be about "bells and whistles" but more about the quiet confidence portrayed - not just looks, but language, gravitas and presence.
if it wasn't for the fairly impressive citations he has in the header I think the site would have lost me straight away.
not everyone is looking for a super high trustworthy website. make sure you build the trust and align the website along with the taste and preferences of your target audience. If your site sells trinkets but looks like it sells gold bars to billionaires you might find a disconect. Bead shops on Bourbon Street don't look like high end fashion stores for a reason. Most people are looking for cheap, fast, satisfaction in that moment in time. If the location is too ritzy less walkins, if the price is too high too many bounces and less sales.
I dont think Search Engines can't do a good job at telling users feelings in this manner (at least for now)
Hi Rand,
Thanks for taking some time to discuss this "problem" that nefariously rears its ugly head time and time again with all types of websites and businesses across the Internet landscape.
The core tenets of marketing dictate that before any execution of an online (or offline) marketing strategy can take place, you first need to have the core fundamentals and foundation of a sound marketing plan to convert once that strategy goes live.
Often, it seems that business leaders work backwards:
I've fought long and hard to battle this backwards thinking with each and every client we deal with as well as through my blog and whenever I can speak to those that run companies.
The reason we get this short sighted vision though is simple:
We're human.
As such, we want things done NOW and results even sooner, therefore the thought of taking an extra 2-3 months time to get the web presence done right complete with back end strategy, deep analysis and research and a sound actionable marketing plan to convert visitors into sales, just feels like too much to bear when you've got anxious board members, stakeholders or the business owner themselves staring at a blank "coming soon" page over and over.
What most website owners/businesses need to realize is that you'll wind up costing yourself MORE money in the long run working backwards trying to fix something that was terminally broken from the very start.
Instead, leaders should focus on what really matters and get it right:
At any rate, I hope that as time goes on, more and more business leaders will understand on a deep and consistent level that in order to succeed for the long term, and not be a flash in the pan, you need to take the time to build your base, core set of values and strategy, implement with precision, and THEN drive traffic and adjust accordingly.
Let's not forget that the ultimate goal of a website is to drive leads, conversions and sales -- and ultimately cash flow.
I'm always amazed at how many potential small business clients think they have a great website just cause their previous designer told them they do. Now when I explain to them why they're website needs to be redone I can share this source with them to back up my arguement.
Rand, more and more you're becoming a conversion optimist... Love it! =)
Meanwhile I agree a good design website is better, I don't agree that dated design is untrustworthy. Take a look at the below sites
- rimuhosting.com
- linode.com
Do they look good from graphic design? No, I don't think so.
BUT they are high recommended hosting vendors.
Linode is also one of the Inc.500.
Rimuhosting was ranked the 16th fastest growing company in NZ in the Deloitte Fast 50 Index.
So, they are trusted! :)
Great article Rand. Thanks!
I would also add to the orange column, a proliferation of ads... is there anything more offputting?
Shame that there are a lot of outdated sites with no updates and with old table design hitting the top of SERP. I mean a lot.
Excellent points but what continues to amaze me with all of the changes that google is making is how phony blogs / articles are still having success in SERPS. A local competitor of mine used this tactic to get onto page 1 and then rise to about half way up page one. When one examines the links to these blogs / articles they do not even make any sense yet they have two anchor text elements from PR 3 or 4 sites. I guess one can only continue to use legitimate blogs etc and hope that these spammy methods will eventually fall into disrepute
Great post, many companies get lost in link building, and forget the basics of a good business.
I am new to this group and am interested in many of the comments.
Maybe I missed something, but I did not see any mention of validation from any of the "Trust" certification agencies as being a contributing factor to the "trustworthiness" of a web site.
Does this infer that showing trust seals are not meaningful to help create trust about a web site?
I operate a web portal and hope we are perceived to be trust worthy, as we do a lot to assure we earn this, but I am not sure how to be sure this is the case.
Thanks
Good article
So, my only concern is the use of hyphenated names as my name is https://rolandapowell-rickert.com
Also, I can't stand when a person does not leave a photo.
I visited an article where the blogger used a photo of a sexy woman to represent himself as the author. I instinctively knew this face was not the one speaking in the article. Sure enough, after reading a little deeper I found the same photo used with a different name. The blog content wasn’t even bad but I never went back. It irks me when people try to fake trust. Other tactics that turn me away are pitchy sales copy and too many stock photos. Authenticity counts.
You are right, I have seent blogs doing that to fake trust. Scraped blogs use that tactic a lot, and they are easy to spot just be copy/pasting a single sentence from an article on the blog onto G search with quotes.
Hello, I am the owner of the website you posted an image of above.
I wanted to mention that although our site is successful as is, I agree with your list and that it could possibly do better with the right changes. Originally, we could not afford everything you list on the left and assessed our market to determine which were necessary. We got our site up quickly about 2-3 years ago on a shoestring budget and while traffic grew, we measured our site’s results, as well as user interaction. Then we planned for the necessary changes. For the past 6 months we have been working toward correcting the obvious issues and hired a professional designer and developer and expect our new site to be out sometime early next year.
Rand, I like the way you put up the differences. I am scared sometime in the near future, people would be scared to use adsense on their site. If you have a blog/website which has clean and modern design along with high quality graphics in it, imagine how the site would look if you want put some adsense on it. The adsense graphics are so outdated/thrid graded that people no longer want to use it(at least the ones who put visitors before thier numbers) because they are the eye catchers. The Pyschology Schools is such an example. I dont say the site has an amazing design, but the adsense code on top is making it worse.
This was something I was worrying about from a while and I felt this post is the right place I can pen it down. Nothign against the post or the website you mentioned.
Your views on it are appreciated.
When I was just starting out with SEO found the most useful trustworthy info came from library books initially. Can also be purchased at a good price from Amazon.
Once become more experienced this initial knowledge can help you see the good and bad sources of info on the web, even though some leave a lot to be desired from a design point of view, as very often down to personal taste.
If a site is outdated in design... I don't really hold it against them. Quality designers are expensive and difficult to find. And they can be very expensive. I put much more weight into quality content, tesimonials, bbb seals, and other trust signals.
I couldn't agree more. There is no point in spending time and resources on SEO or any other kind of online marketing for a bad website. If it's outdated, unprofessional looking, hard to navigate, or simply ugly in design it will have a hard time converting.
I wish I had read a post like this a few years ago when I first got interested in online marketing/SEO in college! it can be really hard to learn what works, doesn't work, and penalizes you when attending a business school at a university that doesn't teach or even talk about online marketing.
It would be great to see a post like this but with a focus on choosing a trustworthy and knowledgeable SEO company to work for. As a newbie entering the field it can be intimidating and easy to fall into traps if you don't know things to look for in an SEO company.
Oh my...I'm going to dream about pigs with outlandish lipstick :)
While I'm slapping myself again for not having managed to inspire the powers that be to move our own sites up the priority list, this is a timely reminder to climb back up on my soapbox!
Thanks for the little push Rand :-)
Sha
Rand, love the quote! Hats off to Bob Rains.
Good article as well.
Nice post, yeah I think brands really need to invest in content strategies for social properties to develop an on going content syndication accross platforms which will benefit the SEO process.
Something which I have seen people pushing recently too as a sign of trust is "varified by Trustee" buttons to show users that the website is a trusted source.
Really nice post Rand,
that reminds this past one you wrote: The Next Generation of Ranking Signals, which was about Brand and Entities signals. I consider that Brand and Trust tend to be linked, at least that is what Google itself says too.
So... from Trust to Rank: surely Branding signals (and the factors in the left corner) may be correlated to Rankings.
Great post! But actually there are exceptions to the rule always. Somethimes in the deep dark there are also great sources.
Agree Rand, It should be one of the things an SEO does when analysing a clients website to ensure it passes the "Trustworthy Test", and to put actions in place to fix these first before any marketing, as if the site is not up to scratch, it’s a waste marketing it.
My question as an SEO is, Does Google check spelling mistakes in content?
Syed
Google checks reading level, and spelling mistakes can play a factor in that.
But when you are educated enough all those mistakes are poking the eyes when ou read an article.
Agreed. It's a complicated beast that Google apparently attempts to factor in for topical queries. SEO basics come back to proving the page/site as a subject matter expert. Would a true subject matter expert have spelling and grammar errors on their page? …How about for about comedians, volunteer organizations, or medical suppliers? You can see how the accuracy weight may be different based on the topic.
It's such a small factor that I've not seen it influence rankings... yet. (It's something to watch with micro Panda updates to see if there's a potential correlation with "low quality" content.) In Google search results, under "Show search tools", there is a link for "reading level" that breaks results out by Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced reading levels. This could play a factor on click-through rates for those detail-oriented and savvy-searching content seekers.
At the end of the day, spelling and grammar is an easy and fast thing to check and to fix, so I would absolutely include it in an on-page SEO checklist.
I agree with all of the untrustworthy points except for the logo aspect - you can have an authority site that is not graphically pleasing.
I am thinking about Useit.com .. it does get some of the boxes from Rand's column on the right checked, but it sure nevertheless wins on authority, trust .. for the ones who have known it since the early days of SEO.
I totally agree. It's frustrating when the experts don't apply the principles they preach to their own websites. Jakob has stated on several occassions that he admits his site doesn't follow best practices. Ad agencies are often troubling on this same note. (Who wants a non-intuitive all-Flash home page?)
"Trust" is just another way of looking at the concens people have when they visit your site.
How you address these concerns will depend on the needs of the particular maket/niche you're targeting. (If you're going for cheap, probably a good idea to look and sound cheap!) You've got to reassure people that they're going to get what they're looking for.
The trust signals that matter are surely going to depend on the product/information and it's perceived value along with any associated risk/uncertainty in the mind of the visitor.
Understanding your customers and their motivations is absolutely key.
A good testimonal that customers can relate to can work wonders!
Nice post Rand,
I agree that Trust is an important factor when you are selling out your services. The points you given in Left hand column are somewhat we used to see in each & every website but there is two points which I hardly found in any other site i.e. 1. Interaction & Engagement 2. Updated Content. Those are some trustworthy factors which are missing in each infact in every other websites.
Value placed in Trust both on and off site are high priorities moving into 2012 - consider them to go hand and hand with user experience and social engagement and will ultimately not only effect rankings, but conversions. Allow your site to share the most common trust factors (return policy, shipping, privacy/terms, about us, contact and trustmarks - Verisign or similar) and make it easy for your user/visitor to navigate.
Building this trust will increase time on site, lower bounce rate and ultimately play into better percieved content. The example above provides a wonderful color scheme of Pink, Blue and Orange, which I'm sure has been deep rooted into bots as a no-no as well.
I don't think a clean modern beautiful design should be on the list at all.
For example raint-tree.com is a very well known site that has been online since 1995, their design is tipical of a site of the early nineties, but still it has great reputation.
Logo? A logo is like a signature. What is Albert Einstein's signature? His gray pointy hair, very bad looks with excellent reputation.
ID