Case Study - Thompson Reuters

Conducted by: Jacob Pharo

ICT-511 Information and Communication Technology Analytics

Contents
Summary.................................................................................................................... 1
Analysis...................................................................................................................... 2

1
Research..................................................................................................................... 3
Recommendations...................................................................................................... 4
References.................................................................................................................. 5
Appendices................................................................................................................. 6

Summary
In this case study, the interactions between the Law office of Mr. Smith and FindLaw for
Search Engine Optimization over the duration of May 2005 through September of 2010 were
reviewed. Smith had the goal of generating more law cases with the primary focus placed on
personal injury, and a secondary focus towards vehicle accidents, products liability, nursing
home negligence, medical malpractice, traffic violation, and sexual abuse. The original website
was lacking in the areas of content, design, and visibility. In order to improve these areas he had
FindLaw build a custom web site, purchased TopSpots on FindLaw.com, and used FindLaw
products called Web Advantage and Activity Tracker. The results showed an increase in:
monthly visits (see Appendix A and J for more information), traffic by source (Appendix C and
K), firm contacts based on email and phone calls (Appendix D and L), and cost per lead
(Appendix E and M).

Analysis
In order for FindLaw to make a web site that would be an improvement compared to the
previous, while reaching the goals of Mr. Smith, there were specific steps taken. A keyword
research was done in order to determine the proper keywords that were being searched to find the
business. Off-site and on-site optimization needed to occur on the website, which means building
the site in such a way that it is for the end-user, but also capable of being crawled by the search
engine spiders. Proper links to the website were established in order to lead individuals to the site
would have been formed as well. Local search needed to be optimized, which makes sure the
search engines accurately display the business's location, contact information, and services.
During the beginning, traffic count was their main metric. Once Web Advantage was
added initially a dramatic incline of traffic being drawn to the site was seen. This increase came
from search traffic (Appendix F and G). After Activity Tracker was implemented, which allowed
for the ability to track phone calls, they could begin using metrics more accurately to determine
cost per lead (Appendix I). Once SEO practices were implemented, it took time for the search
engines to take the changes into account. These changes can take many months, but results
showed increases in every area (Appendix J, K, L, M). Mr. Smith was able to meet his goal.

Research
The concept stated in the case study of quality inbound links piqued my interest. An
inbound link is an external site that contains a link to direct individuals to your site. Google
currently contains: "a staggering 67.6 percent of the U.S. search engine market share" (Google
Search Engine Market Share, 2014) making it the major focus for SEO. Google analyzes those
links to determine if they are a good link or a bad link, and uses that to determine their position
in search results. A good link is based upon the quality of links that the linking website has,
deeming them to be a positive reference and one with authority. If Mr. Smith's office was
receiving inbound links from shoe blogs, those may not be the quality links that you are hoping
for. However, if it is receiving links from a state's website, it would be positive due to the
relevance and authority of the site (SEO Rankings Tanking, 2013).
Google has many different algorithms that focus on different points of a website and
impacts how they appear in search results, or if they appear at all. The names for these
algorithms are: panda, penguin, and hummingbird. Panda tries to show the site with the most
quality information higher in a search. Penguin impacts the trust and authority the site has.
Hummingbird impacts the way the search engine understands a query (Your Google Algorithm
Cheat Sheet, 2014). Google is constantly updating these algorithms with little or no warning.
This means that websites may lose significant percentages of their traffic if they are not aware of
these changes and actively working to optimize for Google.

Recommendations
Based upon Google's recent update to its Penguin algorithm that occurred in early
October of 2014 (Google Penguin 3.0, 2014), I would recommend performing an in-depth review
of the inbound links to the site. If you have sites that were once quality sites, but are no longer
quality sites linking to you, they may be a negative impact to your rankings. The update to
Penguin placed even more importance on quality links and providing search results that are
correct for a user's location. When searching, users may now receive fewer local results because
Google believes they do not need as many for that search (Why Did Google's Pigeon Poop All
Over Big Local Brands?, 2014).
While there are many ways to begin this process, using the Webmaster Tools from
Google, or Majestic SEO are a solid first step. These tools provide a thorough look through all
the inbound links a website or page contains. They also can provide a trust metric, anchor text,
and a count for the websites that are currently listed with the nofollow option. The nofollow
option is the way to stop an inbound link's authority from benefiting or harming you by telling
the spiders to not follow it. Talks with the owner of the site that has the inbound link to your site
may have to occur for them to implement the nofollow option.

References
Works Cited
Haynes, M. (2014, June 10). Your Google Algorithm Cheat Sheet: Panda, Penguin, and
Hummingbird. Retrieved October 30, 2014, from http://moz.com/blog/google-algorithmcheat-sheet-panda-penguin-hummingbird
Schwartz, B. (2014, October 21). Google Penguin 3.0: Worldwide Rollout Still In Process,
Impacting 1% Of English Queries. Retrieved October 30, 2014, from
http://searchengineland.com/google-penguin-3-0-worldwide-rollout-still-processimpacting-1-english-queries-206286
Shotland, A. (2014, October 27). Why Did Google's Pigeon Poop All Over Big Local Brands?
Retrieved October 27, 2014, from http://searchengineland.com/googles-pigeon-crap-biglocal-brands-206468
Steimle, J. (2013, October 9). SEO Rankings Tanking? Check For Bad Incoming Links.
Retrieved October 30, 2014, from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2013/10/09/seo-rankings-tanking-check-forbad-incoming-links/
Zeckman, A. (2014, May 20). Google Search Engine Market Share Nears 68%. Retrieved
October 30, 2014, from http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2345837/Google-SearchEngine-Market-Share-Nears-68

Appendices
Appendix A

Monthly Visits
Early days : May 2005 to Dec. 2005

Appendix B
Monthly Visits
Jan. 2006 to Dec. 2006

10

11

Appendix C
Traffic by Source
Jan. 2006 to Dec. 2006

12

Appendix D
Contacts Generated
Jan. 2006 to Dec. 2006

13

Appendix E
Cost per Lead
Jan. 2006 to Dec. 2006

14

Appendix F
Monthly Visits
Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2007

15

Appendix G
Traffic by Source
Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2007

16

Appendix H
Firm Contacts
Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2007

17

Appendix I
Cost per Lead
Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2007

18

Appendix J
Monthly Visits
Jan. 2008 to Sept. 2010

19

Appendix K
Traffic by Source
Jan. 2008 to Sept. 2010

20

Appendix L
Firm Contacts
Jan. 2008 to Sept. 2010

21

Appendix M
Cost per Lead
Jan. 2008 to Sept. 2010