The text: “This is Google’s cache of http://www.alistapart.com/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 14 Jul 2008 08:58:09 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more >>”

UPDATE: I saw the original cache header come back a few times, but I am seeing this change in header for Google’s cached pages consistently now.

• Type “about:config” into your Firefox address bar, you’ll see a config page load up in your browser window;
• Change “network.http.pipelining” to “true” (by right clicking and selecting “toggle”);
• Change “network.http.proxy.pipelining” to “true”;
• Increase “network.http.pipelining.maxrequests” to “8″ (by right clicking and selecting “modify”);
• Sit back and enjoy significantly faster browsing!

If one things is true, it’s that Google has nailed returning the most relevant image searches for a user’s query, eh?

Matt at SEO Tunes noticed that “Gertrude” was a porn-free name, but this one of the only exceptions to the rule so far. As long as you’re not cheeky and type in states or locations like “Dakota” and “India” or names of flowers such as “Rose” and “Jasmine” (although there’s still porn for a search for Jasmine)…

So, if anyone wants to play, post your porn-free first girl’s name searches here… I won’t hold my breath. I’ve come across “Mia”… (which I’ve just been told has a hardcore porn image on the first page after all).

Good luck!

Looking at Google’s cache of this page, we see that it hasn’t been updated to incorporate the recent content added to the Co-op Electrical fridges page:

It is obvious that Googlebot has visited the Co-op page and updated parts of its index accordingly before updating the cache that we’re shown. The as-yet uncached content where the above snippet was pulled from is here:

What does this mean to us? That Google’s cache is not necessarily a reliable indicator of crawl rate, nor does new content have to appear in the cache before it is factored into Google’s algorithms.

In reality, bulk directory submissions will appear as natural as submitting to 10 or so directories a week. The main two reasons are:

1. The time taken for each directory to review and (probably) include your listing will vary between days and months
2. Search engine spiders will not crawl and index all of your directory listings at once. Again, it can take months for search engine spiders to crawl and index your bulk submitted links

So, instead of wasting valuable time manually submitting to directories yourself, feel free to bulk submit - the “footprint” will be as natural as submitting over a long period of time. However, if you use a service and find that all of your links are approved within the space of a week or so, then alarm bells could ring. It may the case that you’ve just submitted to a network of directories under common ownership - or a list of directories all using the same software with ‘free for all’ acceptance criteria - rather than a series of quality, individually owned directories.

Not bad outranking Splut and the Google Directory. Now, it would seem that they’ve had their toolbar PageRank spanked down to zero, but still have this fabulous number one ranking.

Just another stake in the heart of toolbar PageRank providing any sort of meaningful authority metric…

An average bounce rate of 79.38% is pretty appalling, not to mention an average 1.6 pages per visit and 51 second average visit length. Any half acceptable stat here comes straight from the client’s admin panel, so they don’t count. Taking these results out, we’re left with an 87.35% bounce rate and an average visit length of 15.6 seconds.

In Facebook Consistently The Worst Performing Website, click-through rates of around 0.04% (400 clicks per million impressions) have been repeatedly reported. Applying this to my client’s stats, their 291 visits would have been gained from about 72,750 impressions.

Maybe it’s the industry (finance) - I doubt this as there is so much negative press out there - but it’s more likely that Facebook is remarkably resilient to monetisation via adverts, much to Microsoft’s dismay.