| LED Digest 2251: Sites for Users not Search Engines |
|
|
|
Don't create your site for the search engines! Create it for the user. Also, a discussion under Creative Linking about reciprocation and its usefulness. AND a practical write-up on keyword modifiers. Great issue. ================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Registration from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. September 21, 2006 Issue no. 2251 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Creative Linking ==-- ~ Joel Lesser "Declining a relevant link exchange...is throwing away relevant traffic that is more likely to convert..." --== Are Meta Tags Unnecessary? ==-- ~ Nathan Holley "Use keyword modifiers to your advantage..." ~ Steve Pronger "Heck, I haven't used Google's submission page for years." ~ Jill Whalen "Title tags are not meta tags..." --== Dropping PPC ==-- ~ Michael Motherwell "...see what Google says [about] click fraud auditors, and realise some of the implications..." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Senate Commerce Bill & 'Net Neutrality ==-- ~ Bob Sheridan <Moderator Comment> ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Joel Lesser Subject: Creative linking > I have a client who got a link from a company > with a high pagerank site that is very relevant. > The problem is that the link is on a page that > is accessed through a database query... - Dave Roberts, LED 2248 > You should run some queries on search engines to see > if they are indexing the dynamic pages. It would have been > better had you done this before the client got the link. If there > are no dynamic pages from that linking source in the search > indexes, you need to tell the client to just move on. - Michael Martinez, LED 2249 No no no! If a "very relevant link" is useful for the end user, why ignore the opportunity and tell the client to move on? Because the link isn't being counted by a search engine? *** Attention webmasters! Stop linking for the search engines! *** If a link exchange benefits two sites by helping the end user proceed from Site A to another knowledge gateway on site B that is related back to the information on Site A thus helping the user learn more about the topic in the first place, why ignore the opportunity just because the link isn't counted in a search engine??? That's like telling the Centers for Disease Control not to link to a site discussing the sources of E-coli because the link is produced from a dynamic page not indexed in the search engines. When you ignore relevant link exchange because the link didn't come from a page that was indexed in a specific search engine, or had a specific PR, you are ignoring relevant traffic. If web site operators ignore every relevant link exchange opportunity just because it's not counted by a search engine, what happens when the search engine algorithms change and your search traffic goes down as new sites are rotated through the index? If you only rely on search engine traffic, and you don't have relevant links, your traffic is likely to drop as rankings go up and down to accommodate new sites. Relevant links supplement your inbound traffic as search engine rankings change. As hundreds of thousands of new websites go online every day, relevant link exchange is more important than ever before. There are only so many top search results to go around for each keyphrase. The search engines will continue to rotate new sites into their indexes in an effort to maintain freshness. Some sites will perceive they are getting lower rankings when really all that is happening is that new content is being offered in search indexes. Declining a relevant link exchange because the target site lists your link on a dynamic non-indexed page, a page placed in the supplemental results, or a page with low or no PR is throwing away relevant traffic that is more likely to convert to a sale. Sure, you want to be careful and conduct linking carefully. That means don't link to junk sites with no obvious original content. Don't link to sites irrelevant to your own in high volume. DO link to and obtain links from sites that benefit your end user regardless of how the page is produced (dynamic or static), or what it's ranking is. No one knows what the future will bring when it comes to how search engines index our sites. No one knows if your rankings will go up or down in the future. When you establish relevant links with sites relevant to your own, you are building another method of generating qualified traffic more likely to convert to a sale entirely separate from search engine returns. When you obtain a relevant link, in most cases, that link will remain in place unless you give the other webmaster a good reason to remove your link. So you need to produce a decent site that web site operators will naturally want to link to. Jeremy Zawodny from Yahoo said it best a few months back: "Linking is part of what makes the web work. If you're actually concerned about every link you make being counted in some global database of site endorsements, you're probably over-thinking just a bit. Life's too short for that, ya know? Link and be linked to. Let the search engines sort it out." Best Regards, Joel Lesser, President/CEO LinksManager.com http://linksmanager.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Nathan Holley Subject: Meta data Re: the meta-tag thread Don't forget that title tags aren't meta tags, they are displayed to the user directly in the browser (for instance in the user's browser "favorites") unlike the keyword meta and description meta tags which are hidden from view. But title tags are very important, and with the description meta can be influential in search results. Since these two tags are what is displayed in most search engines' results, it's wise to use them to advantage. I don't think Jill Whalen said any different: > ... implementing meta tags - more specifically the keyword > meta tag - is not going to have any affect on your rankings. - Jill Whalen, LED 2248 On a more practical note... Good to be snappy and descriptive in the title (with your keywords), but keep it unique to that page. And keep it short - around 10 words or less - with your most favored keywords coming early in the title tag. Also, try to create a call-to-action in the description tag. Short, sweet, and leave them wanting to find out / buy / know / subscribe to your stuff. I'm surprised the description-meta is not used to better advantage by so many sites. Use (relevant) keyword modifiers to your advantage. What are modifiers? Here's a quick run-down: By "modifying" your primary, favored keywords in certain ways, search engines will treat them as completely separate search terms. This has an effect of widening the scope of targeted traffic from your more narrow, specialized keywords. Examples are singular and plural forms of words, using apostrophes and hyphens, common misspellings, tying words together or splitting them up, country-specific language (for instance, color and colour, or even braces and suspenders), abbreviations, etc. All this stuff is important. But here's something even more important: don't create your site for the search engines! Create it for the user. If good design, thoughtful navigation and usability, and gripping content are all put online, it's only a matter of TIME until the traffic starts coming. Honestly, with the amount of MFA (made-for-AdSense) and other junk on the Web today the search engines are dying for the good stuff. That's what GYM (Google / MSN / Yahoo! - thanks to Eric Ward for that one) are looking for, that's what their algorithms are being tuned to find, that's what they WANT. All this gaming, worrying, and fussing can actually have the effect of creating diminishing returns. Even if we're not gaming, we're tweaking, optimizing, etc, and we're using valuable time that could be better served elsewhere. Nathan Holley -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Steve Pronger Subject: Meta tags > ... I stand firm that having good site content, > creating strategically crafted meta tags (i.e. > Title Tag and Description Tag) and submitting > manually to the search engines will get a site > listed in a top position... - Kym McLaughlin, LED 2250 Putting keywords in your meta tags is pretty basic stuff. For sure, your title and description tags should be carefully considered. I think we all agree that the meta keywords tag doesn't count for much at all. But submitting manually to the big 3 search engines (yes, there are some minor engines who don't spider) contributes absolutely nothing to how a site ranks. Heck, I haven't used Google's submission page for years. If we go back to R. Deisler's original post in LED 2246 we see R's site has been online for 3 months, and it's pretty plain to me that R has already done a bit of research into getting traffic, and not just organic SEO traffic. Directory listings, AdWords, linking campaigns, social bookmarking, PRs etc are part of the plan. All good and effective tactics for traffic generation when done correctly (I'd avoid the paid links though). And R is aready on the right track by updating his / her site daily with original content. Although R didn't specify the URL (would help if we could see the site) I think it's a pretty safe bet that meta tags were not overlooked. And if the site is already fully indexed with the major engines - it certainly should be after 3 months - submitting it to them will achieve nothing. However, if the site is not fully indexed, then I would first make sure that the spiders can navigate through your site. So long as they can, then all you need do is establish a few strategically placed inbound links and your site should be fully indexed in no time. If you're still having trouble, create a Google Sitemap. So, let's assume for the moment that your site is fully indexed but not ranking well on targeted keywords. First order of business is to research the keywords you are targeting. There are lots of tools for doing this (Keywords Analyzer, Wordtracker). How much competition is there for those keywords? How many people are searching? If you're in a high competition market-place try targeting "the long tail". That simply means targeting longer, more specific and less competitive keyword phrases. High rankings on keywords no-one searches for achieves nothing. Targeting ultra-competitive keywords and failing also achieves nothing. Targeting specific keyword expressions that potential customers are actually searching for brings high-converting traffic, even if it's less volume that the more general keywords bring. If you are not ranking well on Google but ARE on Yahoo and MSN, make sure you are not over-optimising. It's very easy to do, and I believe Google are much more sensitive to it these days. Try reducing keyword density, both on-page and in your inbound links. Create some links where the anchor text is JUST your URL. Add new content which doesn't include your keywords at all. Target some RELATED but totally different keywords. Given that you have no problem creating content, I'd also recommend starting a blog and hosting it on your site. Add Technorati tags with your keywords to each post. This will get your posts showing up in tag searches on Technorati, which brings you direct traffic and relevant links. Keep adding content and progressively building links from a variety of sources (directory, bookmark, article and reciprocal) and as long as you've done your keyword homework you can't help but succeed. Cheers Steve Pronger http://www.stevepronger.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Jill Whalen Subject: Meta tags For the record, Title tags are not meta tags, and yes Title tags are extremely important to rankings. Jill Whalen Want to Learn All That is Search Marketing? http://www.highrankings.com/seminar -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Michael Motherwell Subject: PPC engines > When I said the Emperor has no clothes I meant that click > fraud does exist although Google and the others deny it. - Robert Bass, LED 2250 Can you show me somewhere were anyone denies that click fraud exists? Anything at all. Everyone admits there are clicks that aren't any good. Every single person in the industry, including the SEs. The question is always "how much click fraud, and is it unacceptable"? IMHO, some is acceptable, because the cost to stop it is prohibitive, but there does come a point at which click fraud levels can move from acceptable to unacceptable. IMHO, there are far more accounts that suffer from poorly-setup-itis(tm) than there are accounts that suffer excessive click fraud. > Why did Google settle a class action suit about click > fraud for ninety million dollars if there is no click fraud? > Because it was the cheapest way out, defending the suit > would have compelled them to answer a lot of the questions > posed, questions they just do not want to answer. Half right. It was a solid business decision fullstop. The settlement killed the possibility of anyone suing for that timeframe, and given they gave advertising credits, the real cost, given Google have a 40% net margin according to their financial documents, is far less. On click fraud, I suggest everyone have a read of How Fictitious Clicks Occur in Third-Party Click Fraud Audit Reports, http://www.google.com/adwords/ReportonThird-PartyClickFraudAuditing.pdf, if they haven't already, and see what Google says on click fraud auditors, and realise some of the implications of what they report. ESPECIALLY this: --------------------------------- What Google will do - Work with third-party click fraud auditing firms to address their engineering and accounting issues - Continue to provide feedback to advertisers when flawed reports are submitted in order to help them avoid making harmful advertising decisions based on faulty data - Work with these firms and such industry groups as the IAB Click Measurement Working Group to establish standards in this area, especially with respect to the format of reports submitted to Google (for example, see AdWords auto-tagging instructions in next section) - Continue our heavy investment in invalid click detection technology, and continue to keep the industry informed about issues related to click fraud --------------------------------- > First off you have to understand that I am in a niche market, > maybe I have five legitimate competitors on the internet. The rest of your post is interesting, but you are mixing in so many topics that it is really hard to separate them out. You have: 1. Click fraud. 2. "faux" competitors, who bid on terms they aren't really relevant for, and the SEs responsibility to fix that. 3. Theories involving intent and shareholders. 4. The cost per click being suspiciously like your maximum (I have a campaign where I bid over $7 per click, and pay $0.09, if that helps you in any way). 5. How we know the price is "fair". 6. How to track clickers by IP address (something you can do yourself). I am happy to discuss any and all of these as separate and distinct issues, but I can't see a way to discuss them all in one post without boring everyone silly (myself included). Needless to say, my advice to you would be that what you really need is a third party analytics package, as 95% of what you query could be answered by such a package. Click fraud is not a PPC killer anymore than terrorists killed international, and intra-national, airlines. Neither helped, to be sure, but neither is as harmful to the respective industries as some people will have you believe. To worry about Google's motives, fraud and everything else is to miss the point that PPC is an advertising system that can provide excellent results when set up and run well, even when there is click fraud. Cheers, Michael Motherwell ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Bob Sheridan Subject: Senate Commerce Bill - Net Neutrality Hello fellow LEDer's, I am suprised there is no discussion among LED Digest readers about implications, interpretations and recommendations regarding Senate Internet Commerce Bills, Net Neutrality Bills, etc. If LED Digest is not the correct place for this type of discussion can anyone recommend where I and others can go to participate in discussions, etc? Bob Sheridan RestaurantPlus www.restaurantplus.com <Moderator Comment> Bob - see issues 2154-2158, located here: http://www.led-digest.com/content/category/5/28/55/20/80/ Then, see issues 2186 and 2187 for "Revisiting 'Net Neutrality": http://www.led-digest.com/content/category/5/28/55/20/60/ All this was found using the handy-dandy search tool at LED-Digest.com. Of course, all the archives aren't up yet, but quite a few are. It's a start anyway -- not bad for a part-time project! -Adam ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2006 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions." - Naguib Mahfouz |
