| LED Digest 2006: Yahoo Directory Listings Worthwhile? |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 .............................................. August 4, 2005 Issue #2006 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== --== Yahoo Directory Listings Worthwhile? ==-- ~ Clint Whitsett "Would our blood be better shed for the purchase of a key term elsewhere?" ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Changing IP and SE Rankings ==-- ~ Karl L. Baldwin "...changing your IP address has no affect on your search engine rankings." ~ Kathryn Martyn "Be brave. It'll be fine. ;-)" ~ Rich Dudley "I seriously doubt that changing IPs would have any effect at all." --== Not Just Linking ==-- ~ Dirk Johnson "What I do is legitimate. What I do works for my clients." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Recommended Email Clients? ==-- ~ Charles Oertel --== Revenge of the Spammers ==-- ~ John Quinlan ======= NEW ===================================== From: Clint Whitsett Subject: Yahoo!'s Listing The email reads, -------------------- "We hope your business has enjoyed a fruitful year and that your listing in the Yahoo! Directory has contributed to your success. This is a reminder that the annual renewal date for your site is coming up on: Aug 14 2005 On the above date, your credit card will be charged the recurring annual fee of: $299.00" -------------------- In all honesty our primary site (www.unitedcoatings.com) is only getting 4k to 6k visitors per month. We don't have a lot of budget to spend on SEO and placement so I have build and maintain the sites myself. Every year the Yahoo mosquito wonders back looking for an easy vane and we willingly bear some flesh without any real way of knowing if the resulting welt and itching sensation is worth the pain. One year I decided to ignore the baited solicitation and got stung anyway. My question; is this money well spent? I know it's not a great deal to pay but if we decide not to continue is this going to adversely affect the meager traffic we are seeing and will we seace to exist in the eyes of Yahoo? Would our blood be better shed for the purchase of a key term elsewhere? Thank you for your time Clint Whitsett, Marketing Coordinator United Coatings ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Karl Baldwin Subject: Changing IP > Our dilemma is that we've achieved exceptional visibility > and results from Google (as well as MSN and Yahoo) over > this period and understand that a new IP address will likely > result is some fall-off of visibility while the Googlebot > locates our new IP. - Jim Berry, LED 2005 I know from experience that changing your IP address has no affect on your search engine rankings. Besides, you should give the search engines the benefit of the doubt that they are sophisticated and intelligent enough, to realize that thousands of websites change their IP addresses daily, and to send their Bots to your URL not your IP address. Best Regards, Karl L. Baldwin www.mountain-lodging.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Kathryn Martyn Subject: Changing IP I don't think Google cares about the IP where you are hosted. They only care that the DNS points to the correct site and you aren't pulling any tricks. There are literally millions of virtually hosted sites (many sites on the same IP). I'd set up on the new site while keeping the old running, then when you make the DNS switch be aware it can take up to 24 hours for everyone to get the new site. During the switch also check every link by hand, if possible, because some links may suddenly not work properly; scripts you forgot, etc. Use permanent redirects only when you must, double-check everything then when you're satsified, kill the old site. Be brave. It'll be fine. ;-) You won't need to redirect the old IP -- that's done by the DNS switch, and Google (plus the rest of the world) will see your new site on it's new host without any intervention from you. Redirects are only for pages that link to the wrong place in the site structure, so if it's set up the same as the old, you probably will have no trouble. Hope that helps, Kathryn Martyn, M.NLP Ending Emotional Eating, One Bite at a Time http://www.onemorebite-weightloss.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Richard Dudley Subject: Changing IP I have no inside SE information, but from a technical standpoint I seriously doubt that changing IPs would have any effect at all. It's very common to have a number of websites on a single server respond to the same IP; the server (be it IIS or Apache or whatever) sorts out which page to serve by the host headers -- basically the URL that is requested. Were Google or any SE to request an IP, they'd get nothing or a default page back. Requests need to be made by URL, and I'd be surprised if there's any heavy weighting for or against an IP address that's not in a range of known spammers. Your IP address can change if your host moves you to a new server, or changes their primary bandwidth provider, in addition to you moving the site to another host. Google's usually too technically smart to worry about trivial matters. Unless you're moving to a hosting company run by a gang of Google spammers, I wouldn't sweat it. There may be a small service bump for 48-72 hours as the DNS servers around the world update themselves from your old address to your new one, so keep both sites active for 3-4 days and you're good to go. Rich Dudley www.bloomeryweddings.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Linking > I certainly am not saying that all reciprocal linking is a "bad > neighborhood." However, if a link is bad, it is certainly nullified. - Shari Thurow, LED 2002 Shari, I am well aware of the "bad neighborhood" concept. Michael has been claiming that nearly all reciprocal linking is being nullified. I asked for proof of that statement. You, too, have implied that reciprocal linking is not being nullified except in certain situations, such as "bad neighborhoods". If so, I fully agree with your own conclusion. > Search engine spammers make a lot of money exploiting > the search engines. Does that make what they are doing > right because they make money? My clients are not "Search engine spammers", if that is your implication. They provide legitimate products and services. I've turned down working with sites that are nothing but shells. Let's move on. > ... if someone won't link to my client's site without > reciprocation, then that person must not have thought > too highly of the site's or page's content. If reciprocation > is required, the link is not an objective "vote." I've never claimed that reciprocal links are "votes". Links are references. And yes, I realize that the word "vote" may have been used in the original PageRank discussions. Reciprocal links are private exchanges arranged between two private parties, to their mutual benefit. Many sites decline offers to link. Especially if it is a non-relevant-subject offer. There are many other criteria being applied. Reciprocation is not automatic. You might be surprised at the level of scrutiny that is given to a site these days, before a link is placed. People have become a lot more sophisticated about this. Also, being listed in one of my client's directories is not based solely on reciprocation. Typically, my reciprocation rates are in the 20 to 30% range. I build legitimate link directories that can be used as resources to site visitors. Reciprocation is not a requirement to be listed, but we certainly appreciate those that do. Nevertheless, if we get a request that says "Please link to our site, it's really great! But, hey, we won't link to yours.", then what is that? Not many sites will play along with that kind of arrangement, and why should they? Reciprocation requires cooperation between two sites that *each* agree to do it, and the review criteria for each side must be met before an actual exchange takes place. There is a review standard being applied by many sites. What's more, no money changes hands between the two linking parties, unlike paid directory listings and text link ads. High traffic sites willingly link to low traffic sites. It's kind of democratic (small d) in that sense. Paid link placement, either in directories or as text ads, is all about the money. Are these paid links to be considered "votes" coming from those sites that place the links, or is it just a business deal? Anyone can pay to broadcast a "press release" that will generate some links. Paid placement is the linking method of choice for many people who don't want to reciprocate. I fail to [find] any moral superiority in paid placement. Sorry. I'll allow that legitimate links, placed as content citations, when they are unsolicited, unpaid, and (importantly) unprompted, are certainly the most genuine links to get. Some sites have done extraordinarily well with this. For most sites, waiting for that to happen is just not a practical option, and it may never happen, especially against competitors who may have hundreds of links. So, people will create ways to get links. Once a site endeavors to "create" links, or when they hire someone to do it for them in some way, then they on the same track as the rest of us. They are doing it to help themselves, and are taking deliberate actions to get themselves some links that they'd not otherwise have earned. Earning links is earning links. Sometimes is takes reciprocation. Sometimes money. Sometimes just hard work and knowing what to do and where to submit. All of it, except for the outright gratuitous, unsolicited link, is being deliberately pursued. Only a site that sits patiently and waits for other sites to link gratuitously to them is truly "innocent" in this world. That's the ultimate definition of "natural" linking. Everything else is just some deliberate attempt to effect an advantage. Anyone who arranges to "get" links (of any kind), either for themselves, or for their clients, is deliberately taking action that is intended, in part, to affect the search engines. Moral distinctions hold little water, except to those who need to hold onto such distinctions for their own personal or business reasons. I suspect that most of us can see clearly through such semantic posturing. The line between "exploitation" and "good intention" is a place where people can play all manner of word games. Yes, on the deep end of this business, there is outright deception and sordid behavior. Short of that, we all just do what we do, trying to feed the family, in an honest way. Reciprocal linking has been taking place long before Google even existed. There is nothing illegal or immoral about it. The fact that search engines recognize it is their right, too., and they do. Reciprocal linking is not for everyone. Again, I've never claimed that it is. Some people have reservations about it. Others are not so constrained. > ... I am not totally against reciprocal linking > when it is done properly. If "done properly" means staying relevant, not asking for links from sites that do not offer, honoring and using the submission forms when provided, (instead of sending email requests to those sites), respecting all "do not solicit again" responses that we receive (and we get very, very few, as a percentage of our number of requests), not demanding reciprocation, not using "We'll take down your link" threats, and building well-formed link directories that are responsible site resources, then yes, there is a difference, because that's how we do business here. We MUST use practices that reflect honorably on our clients. In fact, Shari, as I have stated before, the most successful sites who actively reciprocate are moving in this direction. You may not get to see much of that yourself, because, as you have admitted, you are not actively involved in reciprocal linking. There is a certain level of "self-policing" taking place in this realm, as legitimate sites do not want to link to sites that appear to be nothing but link shells. Build a good site and a responsible link directory, and other people in the same realm of interest with good sites will exchange. It's that simple. Where is the harm and "exploitation"? Those who choose to avoid these exchange opportunities that are just laying out there for those willing to do the work to pursue them, that is their choice. Others are not so constrained, and are benefiting. Sure, there are the spammers and scammers who blast out email to non-relevant sites or solicit sites that do not even offer to exchange or email sites that provide submission forms. Some of them try to bury their links pages, or use robot restrictions, or remove reciprocated links. That is unfortunate, but that's not us, either. Is everyone that sends an email newsletter a spammer? Of course not. The same with reciprocal linking. The people who do this properly are the ones earning the most benefit over time, while the spammers are being left on the side of the road, and are being ignored. That's what IS happening now, from someone who does this work every day. The reason that I am in this thread is to provide LED Digest readers with an alternative viewpoint, and to counter what I see are some very inaccurate, unfounded claims being made about the practice of reciprocal linking. Some of them are outright inflammatory, and many betray a genuine lack of understanding about what actually takes place in this realm today, or are from people who've allowed the spammers to influence them. Much of this comes from people who have never done it, or no longer actively do this work, by their own admission. It's baffling. Anyone who wants off the reciprocal linking bus can get off, at anytime, for any reason that they deem appropriate. But when the claims are unfounded, like Michael's unfounded claim that reciprocal links are being broadly nullified, or are outright inflammatory or cast moral suspicion on what I do, then I'll respond. I have to. What I do is legitimate. What I do works for my clients. As you can see, Shari, I have not attacked you or your business, as I have not attacked Michael's, Yet, I have to continue to confront words like "exploitation" in reference to what I do. LED Digest readers might want to look well beyond such emotional admonishments, and determine what is best for their own situation, with a more rational review of the facts. They need to review the cost and effectiveness of their various web marketing options, against a competitive backdrop, and in a forum where the information and arguments are fairly presented. When that happens, we do very well as a viable option. It's unfortunate that this subject invokes such unnecessary emotion. It shouldn't. It should be considered as just another option, and weighed on the merits. Adam, once again, you provide thoughtful balance here in LED Digest. Best regards, Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations DomainDrivers LLC www.domaindrivers.com djohnson, domaindrivers.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Charles Oertel Subject: Email apps > I am looking for a SAFE e-mail client that can live > on a small network and share a common message > file / database. It has to be easy to use, and safe. - Richard Stubbings, LED 2004 I was on Eudora during my Windows days. It doesn't run on Linux though. Since then, I switched to Mozilla-Thunderbird. Thunderbird runs on Windows, Mac and Linux, and has all the Eudora features (without the adware). The "Junk" mail filter is brilliant too. If you run Windows, and switch to Mozilla-Firefox for browsing, and Mozilla-Thunderbird for email, and practice safe computing, then you can throw out your anti-virus scanner too. regards Charles Oertel FineBushPeople.net ------- new post - new topic -------- From: John Quinlan Subject: The revenge of the spammers, a horror story. A couple of weeks ago I wrote to you and informed you of a site that I had made and published as a result of receiving spam ["A Little Humor", issue 2000]. Although it was tongue in cheek, it obviously hurt somebody because for the last week I have been the target of scammers using my domain name to run a phishing scam. The saga started Friday afternoon when I received a customer survey email, here is the extract: ------------------------ "We have just learned that your service is being used to display false or "spoofed" pages, apparently in an effort to steal personal and financial information from consumers, and defraud our customers. Specifically, it appears that you and/or one of your customers is sending unsolicited messages which misrepresent the sender, and apparently make false statements that encourage the recipient to go to a page hosted by you at [URL removed] is asked to enter personal information. The purloined information is apparently sent to an email account and, based on our investigation of similar schemes, used to steal accounts and commit other fraudulent acts including international credit card and wire fraud." This matter is URGENT! We believe that consumers have been falsely directed to this page and may be fooled into divulging personal information to a criminal if the page is not immediately disabled. We ask that you immediately disable the site as well as any associated email addresses, so that this fraudulent scheme can be stopped..." Finally, please be advised that we have referred this issue to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their investigation. The FBI has requested that we convey to you in this message their request that you preserve for 90 days all records relating to this web site, including all associated accounts, computer logs, files, IP addresses, telephone numbers, subscriber and user records, communications, and all programs and files on storage media in regard to all Internet connection information, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(f)..." ------------------------ As a result of this email, I downloaded all of the data from my web space, completely cleaned out the web space so that not a single scrap of data remained and using the "cpanel" administration page deleted all of the empty directories. I checked all of the content that I had downloaded and didn't find a single entry regarding a bounce or redirection to the phishing scam, and so out of interest tried the link and found that the link was still live and going to the dodgy eBay login screen. I may not be the best technician in the World, but I do know that if there is no content in a website that it doesn't bounce to another site you get either a 500 page or 404 page error message. Clearly the problem was with the DNS servers at the hosting company, and so I sent an email informing them of what I had done and suggesting a solution to the problem. This was the first of numerous emails that I have sent, and I have yet to receive a reply to any of them. By now I had spent over six hours working on this problem, I started to upload some of the data. Finally at 4am after spending 10 hours on the case I had uploaded a fair amount of data, enough for the main websites I run to operate. I finally dragged myself off to bed. Saturday I sent more emails - no response, Sunday - no response, Monday evening I receive the following email; ------------------------ Hello, Unfortunately, we have been forced to suspend your domain account for the following reason: phishing link [URL removed] ------------------------ Apart from their address, that is the whole of the email. All of last evening I have been sending emails asking for help and an explanation, not one has been answered. If out of interest you click the link above, you will find that despite my domain account being suspended the link is still live. If this does not prove that I have nothing to do with it I don't know what does, the problem is at the server and absolutely nothing to do with my content. I am pulling my hair out here, I am writing this out of desperation hoping that just maybe somebody within your circle of contacts and readers may have a solution. Thank you for your time, John Quinlan ------------------------------------------------------- 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much." - Helen Keller |
