Samuel Branch Jr. Blog

Mar 13
2

How To Get Full Referral & Content URLs From Google Analytics

While cruising through the standard reports in Google Analytics (GA), you may have noticed that you can only get URIs (the part of the URL that follows the domain, AKA hostname). You can’t get the full URLs. That can be pretty unhelpful. So, I’m going to show you some tricks to pull full URLs into your GA reports in an export-friendly format.

Helpful Export Tip

Before you even get started creating these reports, you’ll need to know how to get all of the rows from your report into your export. The GA interface caps you out at 500 rows. However, to get more, just look at the bottom-right corner of your report to see how many rows you have.

Then, choose 25 from the “Show rows” drop-down. At the very end of the report URL, you’ll see this: table.rowCount%3D25. This tells GA that you want 25 rows. Change 25 to however many rows you need in your export — which would be 6001, in my case.

Get Full Referral URLs

This isn’t immediately apparent, but if you’re in the Referrals report (Traffic Sources Sources Referrals), the standard report is set up so that if you click on one of the referral sources, you’ll see the URI(s) visitors clicked through from.

Click for larger image

However, if you export the report (by clicking Export from the top navigation bar), you’re only going to get the URIs for the referral source you clicked on, not the sources and not the URIs for any of the other referral sources. Not very useful.

If you want the full URLs, you’ll need to create a custom report. If you’re not comfortable with creating a custom report in GA, I created a video walkthrough. You’ll never want to suffer the confines of standard reports again.

Here’s how I set up my custom report:

Click for larger image

Or, you can apply it to your own GA account by using this share link. Important: make sure you’re logged in to GA when you open the link — or copy it into a browser where you’re logged in. Otherwise, you’ll get a 404 error.

Pro Tip: If you want to create a pivot table with both the referral source and the full URL, use this custom report. This custom report will give you the ability to create a pivot table that lists the full referral URLs under the source to easily group multiple links from the same site. Your pivot table would look something like this:

Click for larger image

You can learn more about how to create pivot table-friendly reports in GA using the flat table option.

Get Full URLs Of Landing Pages

You may be asking yourself, Why would I need to capture the full URLs of my site’s landing pages? By default, unless you have a filter in place to capture the hostname, GA only captures the URI in its content reports.

If your site has multiple subdomains, and you’re not capturing the hostname in your content reports, this can create two issues:

There’s no way of knowing which homepage the landing page report (or any other content report) is referring to because the homepage of each subdomain will show up as a “/” in most cases.
Visits to your different domains are very difficult to segment for analysis purposes. And, visitors to a store subdomain are going to behave very differently than they will on a blog or forum subdomain. For this reason, analyzing data from all subdomains in aggregate is usually pretty ineffective.

So, to include the hostname in landing page reports, you need to create a flat table custom report that looks like this:

Click for larger image

I threw in a filter that isolated organic traffic, but you could use whatever you need. Or, you could apply this report to your account. Click the Edit button at the top of the report to modify it to meet your needs.

To create a column with full URLs in Excel, using the hostname and landing page outputs, you will need to concatenate the hostname with the URI in Excel using either the ampersand or the CONCATENATE function.

Get Full URLs Of Pages

To get the full URLs of all pages on the site (not just landing pages), you’ll follow the same steps you did with landing pages, except choose the Page dimension instead of Landing Page, as demonstrated below.

Click for larger image

Opinions expressed in the article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land.

Related Topics: Search Analytics

Article source: http://feeds.searchengineland.com/~r/searchengineland/~3/id_2r1CiQxg/how-to-get-full-referral-content-urls-from-google-analytics-149549

Mar 13
2

WATCH: Google Now Shows Live Examples Of Spam Removed From Its Search Results

In Google’s new How Search Works, Google is showing real live examples of spam that was recently removed from their search index.

Most of these examples are of pure spam, as Search Engine Land founding editor Danny Sullivan explained in his write up, Google Charts “Manual Actions” Against Spam In Search For First Time. Most of the examples are spam removed from the index within the past hour or so.

You can see them live over here but note, some of the examples give can be offensive. Google warns users, “these screenshots are generated automatically and are not manually filtered. While uncommon, you may see offensive, sexually explicit, or violent content.”

Google told us that these examples are of pure spam pages that “appear to use aggressive spam techniques such as automatically generated gibberish, cloaking and scraping content from other websites” and were recently removed from their index.

Here are some examples:

Google Phone Spam

Google Pay Day Loan Spam

Google Drug Spam

Google Watch Spam

Cat In the Hat Spam

To see more, see the Google fighting spam page.

By the way, at our SMX West search marketing show later this month in San Jose, there’s a special session all about search spam, featuring Google’s Matt Cutts and Bing’s Duane Forrester:

The Search Police: Matt Duane’s Excellent Search Engine Adventure

You name it, Google’s Matt Cutts and Bing’s Duane Forrester have seen it all, when it comes to trying to bend, break or shatter search engine rules. In this session, both will share examples of what not to do and why, ranging from accidental mistakes to horrifying spam, as well as general tips directly from the search engines on how to succeed with them.

It’s one of over 50 sessions planned. Check out the entire agenda and registration page.

SearchCap: The Day In Search, March 1, 2013

Below is what happened in search today, as reported on Search Engine Land and from other places across the Web.

From Search Engine Land:

Recent Headlines From Marketing Land, Our Sister Site Dedicated To Internet Marketing:

Search News From Around The Web:

Business Issues

Local Search Maps

Bing Photosynth for Windows Phone 8 is Here!, Bing Search Blog

Link Building

3 Ways to Identify Link Prospects, Search Engine Watch
Identifying target markets for great inbound link building, verticalleap.co.uk

Searching

SEM Industry

Video: Google Advertorial Penalties, Yahoo’s 18th Birthday Women In Search, Search Engine Roundtable

SEO SEM

Related Topics: SearchCap

Connect with the author via:
Email

| Twitter
| Google+
| LinkedIn

Article source: http://feeds.searchengineland.com/~r/searchengineland/~3/C0KEt9rcOgA/searchcap-the-day-in-search-march-1-2013-150284

Posted in Affiliate Marketing List Building Making Money Product Services SEO Tactics Social Marketing Traffic Generation by hopechest3. No Comments

Mar 13
2

Google Gutted Its Search Quality Rating Guidelines For Public Release

As part of today’s big “How Search Works” reveal, Google also took the big step of sharing its Search Quality Rating Guidelines for the first time.

This is the document that Google’s human search quality raters use when grading Google’s search results.

But the new, public document is actually an edited version of the old one that circulated quietly several times amongst webmasters and SEOs. In fact, “gutted” is more accurate than “edited” — where the most recent non-public version of the document was 161 pages, the public document released today is only 43 pages.

What’s Changed

The biggest change, in my opinion, is the complete removal of Parts 3 and 4 — “Page Quality Rating Guidelines” and “Rating Examples.” These sections offered extremely detailed guidance on how to rate pages, how to rate sections of pages, how to judge the reputation of a website, and specific examples of public web pages and how they should be rated. I’ll share more on this below.

Many sections, in fact, are now missing the specific URL examples that were included in the old document — URLs that matched the different labels of Google’s rating scale, for example (“vital,” “relevant,” “useless,” etc.) It’s likely that Google doesn’t want all those specific examples of pages and how they’re rated to be public. It’s also possible that Google decided web pages/URLs change regularly and it’s not efficient to have to manage a public list of URLs in that setting.

A substantial amount of material related to local search and location-based queries was removed.

There are also some sections that were expanded to add clarification — a section on “thin affiliates” is one example.

I’ve spent most of the morning comparing the most recent “underground” version of the Search Quality Rating Guidelines with the new document made public today, side-by-side, listing all the relevant (and some you might say aren’t relevant!) changes. Who loves ya, baby?

Ready? Here we go….

34 (At Least!) Changes To Google’s Search Quality Rating Guidelines

1) The old document was version 3.27. The new document is 1.0.

2) Google added this preface to the new document:

“Google relies on raters, working in countries and languages around the world, to help us measure the quality of our search results, ranking, and search experience. These raters perform a variety of different kinds of ‘rating tasks’ designed to give us information about the quality of different kinds of results in response to different kinds of queries. The data they generate is rolled up statistically to give us within the Google search team a view of the quality of our search results and search experience over time, as well as an ability to measure the effect of proposed changes to Google’s search algorithms. Raters’ judgments do not directly impact Google’s search result rankings. While a rater may give a particular URL a score, that score does not directly increase or decrease a given website’s ranking. Instead these scores are used in aggregate to evaluate search quality and make decisions about changes.

This document is a ‘Cliff’s Notes’ version of our search quality rating guidelines. By this, we mean that it is not the entire version that raters use on a daily basis; however, it is a summary of the important topics. The raters’ version includes instruction on using the rating interface, additional rating examples, etc. These guidelines are used as rating specifications for search raters, and this document in particular focuses on a core type of rating task called ‘URL rating.’ In a URL rating task, a rater is shown a search query from their locale (country + language) and a URL that could be returned by a search engine for that query. The raters ‘rate’ the quality of that result for that query, on a scale described within the document. Sounds simple, right? As you’ll see, there are many cases to think through, and this document is used to guide raters on some of those cases and how to look at them.

Our search quality rating guidelines are in constant flux as we learn and search evolves over time. We’ve created this version especially for those individuals who want to understand better how Google thinks about relevance and quality of search results.”

3) Section 1.3 – “The Purpose of Search Quality Rating”

Old text: “Your ratings will be used to evaluate search engine quality around the world. Good search engines give results that are helpful for users in their specific language and location.”

New text (change in bold): “Your ratings will be used to evaluate search engine quality around the world. Good search engines give results that are helpful for users in their specific language and location. Please note that your ratings do not directly impact Google’s search result rankings or ranking algorithms.”

That’s something that Google has emphasized in the past, and obviously has reason to emphasize again.

3) Google removed Section 1.6 (“Releasing Tasks”).

This section explained that it’s okay for raters to skip (release) some rating tasks, and described some cases when that’s acceptable, i.e., “You believe that the landing page will be offensive to you.”

4) Section 2.4.1 (“Action Queries – Do”) and 2.4.2 (“Information Queries – Know”)

In these sections, Google edited the charts showing the relationship between a query and a landing page; example URLs of helpful pages were removed, as shown below.

OLD

NEW

The example URLs were left in Section 2.4.3 (Navigation Queries – “Go”) and Section 2.4.4 (Queries with Multiple User Intents (Do-Know-Go)).

5) In Section 3.0, “The Language of the Landing Page,” a chart showing examples of landing page language flags was removed.

6) In Section 4.1, “Vital,” which is about the highest rating that a page can receive, Google removed a paragraph directing the reader to a later part of the document.

7) Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 were removed. These were titled:

4.1.1 – Examples of English (US) Navigation Queries with Vital Pages for the Task Location
4.1.2 – Examples of Entity Queries with Vital Pages
4.1.3 Vital Pages for People Queries

Each section included a chart listing examples of “vital” web pages for different types of queries.

8) Section 4.1.4 (“Other Important Vital Concepts”) was changed to become Section 4.1.1 (“Important Vital Concepts”) and was edited substantially. A chart showing examples of queries that don’t have vital pages was left in, but two charts showing examples of vital pages were removed — one chart showed how there may be more than vital page for some queries, and the other showed examples of unofficial website that look official and should not be considered vital.

9) Section 4.1.5 (“Vital Pages and Geographic Location”) was removed completely. This section offered guidance for dealing with websites and web pages that have multiple versions for different languages.

10) Also removed completely are:

Section 4.2.1 (“Examples of Useful Pages”)
Section 4.3.1 (“Examples of Relevant Pages”)
Section 4.4.1 (“Examples of Slightly Relevant Pages”)
4.5.1 (“Examples of Off-Topic or Useless Pages”)

Each of these sections showed specific web pages matching the labels from Google’s rating scale. The company clearly doesn’t want the general public — and the companies whose pages were used as examples — to see specific examples of how Google assesses their pages. And, it’s also likely that these examples were removed because web pages change and some of the ratings may not have been accurate.

One interesting example is this paragraph from Section 4.4.1 which is now gone:

Please note that not all pages with copied content are considered “low quality”. The website www.answers.com contains content copied from Wikipedia.org and other dictionary and encyclopedia sites, but is not considered to be a low quality site because the content is well-organized and intended to be helpful for users. Similarly, there are pages on medical information sites that contain copied content. If the page is well-organized and appears to be designed to be helpful for users and not just to display ads for users to click on, it should be rated based on how helpful the content would be for users.

I’m guessing that Google wouldn’t want an endorsement of Answers.com like that to be widely distributed.

11) In 4.5 (“Off-Topic or Useless”), this paragraph was added to the new document:

A rating of Off-Topic or Useless also applies when there is lack of attention to an aspect of the query that is important for satisfying user intent.

12) In Section 4.6.1 (“Unratable: Didn’t Load”), some text describing a military site that triggers a message saying its security certificate isn’t trusted was removed, and a chart showing similar examples was edited to remove the URLs of sample pages that deserve the “didn’t load” rating. Another chart showing similar web page-generated messages was removed.

13) Charts with example URLs were removed from

Section 5.1 (“User Intent and Page Utility”).
Section 5.2 (“Location is Important”)
Section 5.3 (“Language is Important (This section is for Non-English Task Languages)”)
Section 5.5 (“Specificity of Queries and Landing Pages”)

14) In the “Common Rating Problems” section of the document, Section 5.6.1 (“Dictionary or Encyclopedia Results”) was changed as you see here:

OLD

NEW

15) Section 5.6.2 (“Action vs. Information Intent”) was removed completely from the new document.

16) Section 5.6.3 (“Queries that Ask for a List”) became 5.6.2, and a chart with example URLs was removed. Ditto for Section 5.6.4 (“Misspelled and Mistyped Queries”).

17) The very detailed Section 5.6.5 (“URL Queries”) was renamed to 5.6.4, but remains very detailed. Some example URLs were changed, and two charts with example URLs were removed.

18) Section 5.6.6 (“New and Old Pages”) becomes 5.6.5 and two charts with example URLs were removed.

19) Section 5.6.7 (“Search Engine Result Pages”) was removed entirely, and probably should’ve been a long time ago. This section tells raters that they should rate search engine result pages “just like any other landing page” … even though Google has said for years that it doesn’t want its own search results to include search result pages.

20) Section 5.6.8 (“Video Landing Pages”) was also removed completely.

21) In the “Flags” section of the document, these sections were edited substantially, usually to remove charts with example URLs:

Section 6.2.1 (“Clear Non-Porn Intent”)
Section 6.2.2 (“Possible Porn Intent”)
Section 6.2.2 (“Clear Porn Intent”)

22) Section 6.2.4 (“Reporting Illegal Images”), which discusses child pornography and bestiality and has specific reporting instructions for both Leapforce and Lionbridge employees (the two companies that hire and manage the Quality Raters), was removed.

23) There are significant changes to “Part 2: URL Rating Tasks with User Locations”, where several sections were removed completely:

Section 1.0 (“Important Definitions”)
Section 1.1 (“What is the User Location?”)
Section 1.2 (“Why are the Task Location and User Location important?”)
Section 1.3 (“User Location, Task Location, and Explicit Location in the query”)

All of those were replaced with a Section 1.0 called “Query Locations” that’s about half as long as the old material.

24) Section 2.0 (“Location-Specific Rating Task Screenshot”) was changed — a chart was moved to Section 1.0 (“Query Locations”).

25) Another major change in this section is the consolidation of 11 pages of local query information down to two. These sections are gone and/or were condensed:

Section 3.0 (“The Role of User Location in Understanding Query Interpretation/User Intent”)
Section 3.1 (“Queries with Local Intent”)
Section 3.2 (“Rating Landing Pages when the task has a User Location”)
Unchanged
Section 3.3 (“Vital Ratings for Rating Tasks with User Locations”)
Section 3.4 (“Rating Examples”)

Those are replaced by two sections:

Section 3.0 (“Assigning a Rating When There is a Query Location”)
Section 3.1 (“When Does the Query Location Matter?”)

26) Parts 3 and 4 of the old document are completely missing from the new one. Part 3 was called “Page Quality Rating Guidelines” and Part 4 was “Rating Examples.”

They totaled about 50 pages of very detailed instructions and guidelines about identifying the quality of web pages, identifying “main content” and “supplemental content” on a page, how to rate the layout of a page, how to identify the reputation of a website, determining if content is high, medium, or low quality … and so forth.

Some of the material in these two sections was very “inside baseball” and not stuff that the general public would care about, but certainly anyone creating web content would.

27) “Webspam Guidelines” used to be Part 5 of the document, but becomes Part 3 with the removal of the two sections described above.

Some text has been edited to educate the reader about things like PPC ads, and some text has been removed — including a section (2.0) on browser requirements that human raters have to follow, text that linked to screenshot examples showing raters how to check for spam (i.e., “use Ctrl-A to reveal hidden text”), and text-based instructions for doing this like disabling javascript.

28) In the new document, Section 2.2 (“Keyword Stuffing”), these two bullet items were added to the list of examples:

Pages with a large amount of what look like gibberish or random keywords.
Pages that appear to be programmatically or automatically generated text that doesn’t really make sense.

29) This sentence was added to Section 2.4 (“Cloaking”): “True cloaking is somewhat rare, but spammers do use other methods to show different pages to search engines than to users.”

30) Section 3.1.5 (“Copied Message Boards”) now mentions “copies of Usenet posts” as an example of spam.

31) In the old document, a section on “Recognizing Copied Content” was broken up in the new document to two sections, but the content is the same.

32) The definition of “thin affiliate” has been clarified in the new document; the sentence in bold is new:

A thin affiliate is a site that offers little additional information and does not offer substantial value to users compared to many other sources on the Web. For example, an affiliate that has only copied content from the merchant site is considered a thin affiliate. This is a moneymaking spam technique.

Also in the new document, these two bullet points describing thin affiliates have been removed:

Click buttons on the page. Click on a “More Information” or “Make a Purchase” button. If you are taken to a merchant on a different domain, it is probably a thin affiliate. You will not be able to make the purchase on the affiliate webpage.
Check properties of images on the page. Right-click on an image on the page with your mouse and look at “Properties” to see where the image originates. Check to see if the address of the image is the same as the address of the page or if it is the address of a “real” merchant.

33) The instructions for identifying “Pages with Unhelpful Content and PPC Ads” have been expanded. Google says raters should ask themselves these questions:

Is the content likely to be helpful to users or is it too general, too poorly written, or gibberish?
Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
Does the page have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
Would you trust the content?
Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to the site?

34) In the new document, “Part 6: Using EWOQ” is removed — that has instructions for using the evaluation system where tasks are performed. Also gone is “Part 7: Quick Guide to URL Rating” and “Part 8: Quick Guide to Webspam Recognition.”

Conclusion

I think it’s great that Google has publicly released this Search Quality Rating Guidelines document. But the changes above strongly suggest that this is not the document that its hired human raters will be using, but more of a watered-down, public-friendly version.

Related Topics: Features: Analysis | Google: Search Quality Raters | Google: SEO

About The Author: Matt McGee is Editor-In-Chief of Search Engine Land. His news career includes time spent in TV, radio, and print journalism. His web career continues to include a small number of SEO and social media consulting clients, as well as regular speaking engagements at marketing events around the U.S. He blogs at Small Business Search Marketing and can be found on Twitter at @MattMcGee and/or on Google Plus. You can read Matt’s disclosures on his personal blog. See more articles by Matt McGee

Connect with the author via:
Email

| Twitter
| Google+
| LinkedIn

Article source: http://feeds.searchengineland.com/~r/searchengineland/~3/Yv8HC5gCG6g/google-gutted-its-search-quality-rating-guidelines-for-public-release-150281

Posted in Affiliate Marketing List Building Making Money Product Services SEO Tactics Social Marketing Traffic Generation by hopechest3. No Comments

Mar 13
2

Zuckerberg Already Described How Facebook’s Most Central Feature Is Going To Change (FB)

Illinois Tells Square To Stop Taking Payments

Ellis Hamburger, Business Insider

My Job Interview With Salesforce’s Marc Benioff Was The Weirdest 7 Minutes Of My Career (CRM)

Business Insider

Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff

Girlfriend Leads Man Around the World in Breathtaking Pics

Murad Osmann and his girlfriend like to travel. And, when they do, they document their journeys in incredible style.

Rather than upload traditional touristy shots, Osmann uses his Instagram account to post photos of his girlfriend leading him, by the hand, through gorgeous landmarks across the world. Some notable spots include London, Singapore, Amsterdam, Hong Kong and Bali. Even the inside of an IKEA store gets a shout-out.

The overall theme of the pics: “Follow Me.”

“The first photo happened in Barcelona while we were on vacation. My girlfriend was a bit annoyed that I was always taking pictures of everything, so she grabbed my hand and tried to pull me forward. But it didn’t stop me from doing photos,” Osmann, an executive producer at Moscow-based Hype Production, told Mashable. “That’s how it all started.”

Osmann said he snaps the photos with his iPhone and uses the Camera+ app to add some corrections.

“It might seem that I have a lot of free time, but we [Hype] have a lot of shoots away from Moscow — I’m usually always busy at work abroad,” he said. “But after we finish shooting, I often ask my girlfriend to come for two or three days and we continue our project.”

Regardless, it’s an undoubtedly romantic concept — and one that’s sure to unleash the travel bug in everyone.

We’ve compiled 20 of our favorite photos in the gallery above. You can stay up to date with the rest of the stunning shots on Osmann’s Instagram page. He’ll be traveling to New York in April, where he says he’ll take more photos for the project.

Do you have any unique traveling photos? Share them with us below!

[H/T Reddit]

Images courtesy of Murad Osmann

Article source: http://mashable.com/2013/02/28/girlfriend-photos-world/

Posted in Affiliate Marketing List Building Making Money Product Services SEO Tactics Social Marketing Traffic Generation by hopechest3. No Comments

Mar 13
2

Shocking New Adidas Basketball Uniforms Invite Mockery Online

Adidas unveiled new uniforms Thursday morning for some of the college hoops teams it sponsors.

Check them out above. Now check them out again. Really let it soak in.

You’ve probably noticed by now that some of the jerseys have sleeves and the shorts have stripe-like things. The new Adidas basketball uniforms are what the company calls its “impact camo” look. Six teams — Baylor, Cincinnati, Kansas, Louisville, Notre Dame and UCLA — will wear the new duds for at least one post-season game.

The highly advanced unis, according to Adidas, include “quick drying technology” and “ClimaCool zones which move heat and moisture away from the body to keep the jersey light and dry during heavy sweating.”

All that high-tech innovation may have benefits on the court, but the Thursday reveal was met with mostly mockery, criticism and incredulousness among sports fans online.

Many commenters likened them to something an MC Hammer backup dancer would wear and the word and hashtag Zubaz were thrown around a lot. If you don’t recall, Zubaz (plural or singular?) is/are/was/were those funkily striped baggy non-jeans that were big in the late ’80s and early ’90s.

“Nothing has been mocked on the Internet this badly and this quickly since that ‘Friday’ video,” wrote USA Today.

Anyway, here’s a small taste of what the Twitter peanut gallery had to say about the, um, creative new Adidas basketball uniforms:

New Adidas uniforms are “sorry for Party Rockin” Inspired by #LMFAO “@andrewsharp: ADIDAS MUST BE STOPPED twitter.com/chrislittmann/…”

— Murph (@ThatMurph) February 28, 2013

How much blow did a guy do to have designed the new #adidas unis’? #CocaineIsAHellOfADrug #Zubaz

— Will Smith™ (@Ohwilliehe) February 28, 2013

KU @adidashoops warmup pants to go with the new jerseys #zubaz twitter.com/charliew28/sta…

— Charlie Worthington (@charliew28) February 28, 2013

Did these new uniforms deserved their online roasting or not? Give us your take in the comments.

Image courtesy Adidas

Article source: http://mashable.com/2013/02/28/new-adidas-basketball-uniforms/

Posted in Affiliate Marketing List Building Making Money Product Services SEO Tactics Social Marketing Traffic Generation by hopechest3. No Comments

Older posts

SamuelBranchjr.com
The Place for Internet Marketing

Pages

GVO CONFERENCE

Archives

Meta

Sponor Ads

Affiliate Shout Out!

Here is help

Click Bank Products

Amazon Search

Email Marketing

Banner ad rotator

WEb Hosting

Helpful Export Tip

Get Full Referral URLs

Get Full URLs Of Landing Pages

Get Full URLs Of Pages

Related Stories:

From Search Engine Land:

Recent Headlines From Marketing Land, Our Sister Site Dedicated To Internet Marketing:

Search News From Around The Web:

What’s Changed

34 (At Least!) Changes To Google’s Search Quality Rating Guidelines

Conclusion

See Also

See Also

See Also

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Image courtesy of Murad Osmann

Amazon Search