| LED Digest 1995: List Ethics, also Hidden Links |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Reg. from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest post, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. July 14, 2005 Issue #1995 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== <Moderator Comment> --== List Ethics ==-- ~ Brent Duncan "Is there a legal and ethical way to use an email list you've acquired from another source?" --== Hidden Link Swapping ==-- ~ William Ernest Waites "Periodically, I get invitations to swap links..." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== List Comments ==-- ~ John Smart "We all have slightly different focuses..." ~ Martha Retallick "In cruising around the official LED website, I found quite a number of dead links." --== SEO Pricing & False Economy ==-- ~ Don Baker "...the bottom fishers should be confronted and not coddled..." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Inbound Link Numbers ==-- ~ Simon ~ John Fallentine ======= NEW ====================================== <Moderator Comment> Well, so much for "summer cleaning". Just two posts re: our little conversation yesterday about the slide in quality here. This either makes me kinda depressed or really hammers home the fact that we're in the middle of a summer lull. Not a crisis, I think. :-) So a couple interesting new posts in this issue. Brent asks a very fair and considerate question about when / if / how it's ethical to re-purpose or re-publish a list. What do you think? We could get into some interesting ground here. Also, Martha comments on the sorry state of the LED "site". Not a site at all, but a temporary page. The site is a project left hanging. I'll get to it, I promise. Maybe this will give me the kick in the pants I need to get cracking. Thanks, Adam -------------------- From: Brent Duncan Subject: Legal list marketing Is there a legal and ethical way to use an email list you've acquired from another source? Brent Duncan -------- new post - new topic -------- From: William Ernest Waites Subject: Hidden Links Periodically, I get invitations to swap links (don't we all?) I evaluate each to determine a) that the information on the proposer's site(s) is not offensive and would be of value to my typical visitor. After posting a link to the proposer's site, I go searching their site to find a reciprocal link. It's not critical if it isn't there, because my fundamental interest in linking to their site is service to my visitors. Still... When I can't find an obvious link on their home page to a links page, I wonder how anyone visiting their site would ever find a link to my site. If I ask, I usually get emailed a link that appears only be accessable by the link they provide in the email. I find this beyond offensive to almost fraudulent. Since anyone visiting their site would have a devil of a time finding a link to my site (and I'm not even talking about the link farmers who offer 500 inks on an unorganized list), it has no apparent value for me. My question is, even though I can't find the links that are listed on these blind pages, do the search engines spider them? Do they add to my link popularity anyway? If they went away, would it make any difference? Sincerely, William Ernest Waites, Eyewriter ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: John Smart Subject: Comments Our moderator wrote, > As my attention has been slowly removed from the list and > placed elsewhere, the quality here has definitely slid. And > I think you make a terrific point about the "summer lull". The digest has seems slow to me also of late. However, I am sure that there are others who have not seen this! We all have slightly different focuses, and when the digest follows certain paths, some of us want to head in other directions. There are editions that I read word for word - oftentimes there will be a thread that is of no interest to me, so I skip that, and all of its spin-off's. Of course, it is easy for me to sit here and just state that I don't share the focus of many of the current topics, and do nothing about it. The harder part is to supply a new thread - so how about a challenge (to me, and to all of you). Rather than only post here when we stumble across something that we want to share or want advice on, why not all make a point of finding something to submit the digest within the next 4 weeks. Something worthwhile - I am not suggesting that we inundate Adam with mails saying "It's been a month, I can't think of anything" - or "Isn't it time Google changed their logo?" - but I am sure that we can all come up with something (come on you lurkers - jump in!). I just hope I can deliver, now that I have started this! John Smart, Technical Director InternetDesign.com - A Human Touch in a Digital World -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Martha Retallick Subject: Comments Adam, a suggestion: In cruising around the official LED-Digest website, I found quite a number of dead links. Some went to 404 pages, and others went to pages run by various "domains for sale" companies. It appears that the "domains for sale" pages relate to what had been under the Adventive umbrella. You might want to clean these things up. It doesn't look good for such a long-running discussion list website to have so many dead links. Martha Retallick Western Sky Communications Web & Graphic Design http://www.westernskycommunications.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Donald L. Baker Subject: SEO pricing Martha Retallick wrote in part in LED 1994: > I'm also not afraid to [potential clients] that I have been > in the web design business for a decade, that I've learned > a lot of things during that time that could benefit them, > and that I'm not the cheapest designer in town. > After all, people who are loyal to the dollar > are never loyal to you. Boy, is that right (on the money?). We've found it takes a huge amount of extra effort to keep clients who want superior results -- at rock-bottom prices. I've been frequently reminded of the challenge for bottom-fishers: "fast, cheap, good -- pick any two." As Martha suggests, the bottom fishers should be confronted and not coddled, as they'll likely be more trouble than they're worth. But I think she should multiply her SEO estimate by a factor of 10 -- at least! Most people have no idea the amount of work that goes into a successful SEO campaign. Don Baker NSI Partners http://www.nsipartners.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Simon Subject: Inbound links > Google has been showing only partial inbound links for > a couple of years to discourage SEO specialists from > running queries against their database. - Michael Martinez, LED 1994 Response to Michael: You say this Michael as if it is fact. Please point me to the Google resource that explains that. Oh yes I know google says don't use automated tools etc... but where does it say "we only display a subset of results to discourage SEO". You also say: > In fact, a recent study suggests there is > considerably less overlap in the databases > than has been previously estimated by third > parties. Please Michael, show me this fact. Please show me the details of the study that you report. Please point out the facts. I have read many of your posts to this list about Google and SEO in general and to be honest with you I think you spread many falsehoods and then fail miserably to back them up with facts. SEO in it's worst form is a webmaster that thinks he knows it all, backs it up with poor and inaccurate data and gossip and then spreads more mis-information amongst the masses. Anyway... I await half heartedly for your facts. Sorry if this sounds harsh but I am sick of gossip when SEO is SO SO SO important!!!!!!!!!!!! Simon simon, hostmob.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: John Fallentine Subject: Inbound links > Why would Google show 67 inbound links, Yahoo 500 > and MSN 2200? And what's the easiest thing to do about it? - Michael Linehan, LED 1993 I was recently at a search engine conference in Toronto. I sat in one of the seminars named 'Meet the Crawlers', and I asked a Google representative this exact question. It is clear Google is not listing all of their inbound links for their own reasons. I asked her if I found sites that were linking to me in my logs, if I should submit them to Google. She advised against this practice and stated that the site will get more 'credit' if it's found through a natural crawl. I can understand this perspective, as it prevents a lot of spammers trying to hammer their index. I suspect MSN and Yahoo have differing policies on what inbound links they will report. I suspect they want to protect competitors from stealing a good (hard-earned) inbound link. John Fallentine www.zintax.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2005 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Oh, for the simple life, For tents and starry skies!" - Israel Zangwill |
