SEO, keywords, optimization, la la la zzzzzzz who gives a crap...right? WRONG. Whether you are a blogger, a marketer, a PR pro or what have you, so long as you are in the Internet business -- specifically social media -- we MUST teach ourselves the basics. Otherwise, our efforts could be moot. As in wasted. As in, wtf are we spending all this time online for?

Listen. Linking well known blogs does not automatically catch Google's attention. It could actually do the opposite, as in bucket you as spam. As Internet professionals, we want to grab Google's attention, get on Google's goodside and keep Google's attention. Otherwise, your site could end up on the bottom of the list. Bottom of the list = no one can find you. There are basic methods and best practices we all should be aware of (at the very least.) And hey, don't beat yourself up if you didn't know this. The most important thing is you want to learn.

So invest a few minutes out of your day to read this post. I'm in the same industry as you, I know how much time, effort, and energy is used to post content. I'm just saying it would be a darn shame if Google wrote you off as spam (or frankly, garbage), only because you don't understand how Google's search engine works.

Read the entire piece "Perfecting Keyword Targeting & On-Page Optimization" here which I found via "Targeting Multiple Keywords vs Singular Keyword Focus" here.

[sidenote]
For the vets out there rolling their eyes: do you give yourself refreshers? I sure as heck do. I force relearning to 1. stay on my toes and 2. to try and keep everything as simple as possible for sometimes, when I am too knee deep in the daily grind it is tough not to over analyze. Thank goodness for people like Rand, who simplifies the complex.

Now don't write off these stats because the source is Royal Pingdom. That site is like BGR (Boy Genius Report) -- not credible until recently. Look where Royal Pingdom pulled their stats. ht @percival

WE may be able to amass 5,000 friends on Facebook but humans’ brains are capable of managing a maximum of only 150 friendships, a study has found.

Robin Dunbar, professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford University, has conducted research revealing that while social networking sites allow us to maintain more relationships, the number of meaningful friendships is the same as it has been throughout history.

Dunbar developed a theory known as “Dunbar’s number” in the 1990s which claimed that the size of our neocortex — the part of the brain used for conscious thought and language — limits us to managing social circles of around 150 friends, no matter how sociable we are.

Dunbar derived the limit from studying social groupings in a variety of societies — from neolithic villages to modern office environments. He found that people tended to self-organise in groups of around 150 because social cohesion begins to deteriorate as groups become larger.

“There is a big sex difference though ... girls are much better at maintaining relationships just by talking to each other. Boys need to do physical stuff together.”

Dunbar’s study is due to be published later this year.

ht: @mike_elgan

Seems rudimentary but it's pretty shocking how a lot of sites and services execute poorly. This post goes over basics (with examples):
1. size
2. shape
3. color
4. position

Word.
ht @tamar

If you believe Vanity Fair's take on it, female power users of Twitter have more in common with the movie 'Mean Girls' than with anything legitimately related to business.

(Credit: Paramount Pictures)

Yet in its February issue--yes, the one with Tiger Woods on the cover--it managed to publish one of the silliest, most superficial, and most wildly out of touch articles about Twitter that I've ever read. Called "America's Tweethearts," it discusses the phenomenon of individuals (primarily attractive women) who have amassed notable amounts of Twitter fame, or "twilebrity." (Twilebrity? Barf.)

Accompanying the article, which makes liberal use of egregiously irritating Twitter terms ("tweeple," "Twitformation Superhighway") that were likely coined by folks who blog about "your personal brand" and hand out business cards etched with "Social Media Expert" at marketing conferences, is a stylized photograph of six female "Twilebrities" identified by name and follower count. I know a few of them personally and am familiar with the rest, and I can say that they all have reputations for working hard and really "getting" the power of Twitter marketing and conversation when many people still thought that the microblogging service had about as much lasting power as the pet rock.

 

I'd like to think the whole thing is satire. I really, really would.