SEO content marketing roundup, week ending September 1st
Hey, I’d love it if you subscribed to the SEO Copywriting RSS feed! Take a minute and subscribe right now – thanks!
Greetings and welcome to this week’s SEO copywriting and content marketing roundup!Â The latest news and links tend to cluster around these topics: the multi-faceted and changing face of search engine ranking, outsourcing vs. in-house content marketing, off-site SEO, and yes, the SEO and content marketing fallout from Google’s recent activity at the patent office!
So, who would’ve thunkÂ that it’d be a bad thing to be #1 on Google? Actually, this article’s (seemingly) iconoclastic take on the dangers of ranking No. 1 on Google offers an astute and reasoned view of SERP ranking as an unworthy measurement of SEO mojo:Â iMedia Connection.
A thorough case study, Are all Results on Search Engines Equal? examines the relative performance of traditional search engine results versus those up-and-coming, potential threats to the (now two) behemoths, Google and Bing, with implications for SEO, SEM, and social media marketing.
Now how about the mobile SERP scenario?Â This SEOmoz post explores the usability of mobile search engine results, in great detail, while raising the question:Â will Google eventually combine both mobile and traditional SERP’s into one index?
Onto content marketing:Â To in-house or outsource it?Â Strong cases for outsourcing are presented by both Junta 42 (Joe Pulizzi) and “expert advice” via Hubspot.Â (For one thing:Â do you really have the time to do your own content marketing, and keep on it, as well?Â Now, be honest”¦.)
There was a positive plethora of pieces to do with offsite SEO (link-building), so a completely subjective sampling follows: Testing the Water with Link Bait, and How to use your Bounce Rate for Link-Building Purposes.
Finally, here are the links to the latest news and fallout analyses of Google’s newest patents for valuing links and ranking blogs, as well as its move towards filtering blog searches.Â What does it mean for us?