| LED Digest 2028: XML Search Optimization Techniques? |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 .............................................. September 27, 2005 Issue #2028 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== --== ROR.XML? ==-- ~ Salem Kashou "Does anybody have facts on this new SEO technique?" ==== CONTINUING ================= --== What's Up With DMOZ? ==-- ~ Fabio Braghi "There are meta editors looking over our shoulder..." --== Redirects and Google ==-- ~ Michael Martinez "There are massive numbers of affiliate link farm sites in Google's index." ~ Dirk Johnson "Affiliate sites that do well usually have considerable content..." --== Microsoft's Future ==-- ~ Janet Attard "...I can't see many small or large businesses giving up control of important data..." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Mambo? ==-- ~ Michael Linehan --== Inexpensive Flash Design? ==-- ~ Diane Dennis ======== NEW ===================================== From: Salem Kashou Subject: ROR.XML Addme.com is suggesting the use of ror.xml. Does anybody have facts on this new SEO technique? Salem Kashou The Pocket Diet www.pocketdiet.com ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Fabio Braghi Subject: DMOZ The comment... > A lot of the category editors run their areas as if they > were private fiefdoms... if your site is a competitor to theirs, > your chances of listing your site in DMOZ are somewhere > between slim and none. - Martha Retallick, LED 2026 .. is not true. We try to list all relevant sites with good content. There are meta editors looking over our shoulder to make sure we are not playing favorites. It is time to stop these rumors without substance. Fabio Braghi, DMOZ Editor -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Michael Martinez Subject: Redirects A Word on 'Redirects' > I understand that blatant affiliate-link-farm sites are > unlikely to be indexed by Google. But, when you provide > other meaningful content (even though it contains affiliate > links), should you be penalized by Google? - Joe Halbrook, LED 2027 Google indexes just about everything. They do filter some sites, but the filtering is not as effective as they would like it to be. There are massive numbers of affiliate link farm sites in Google's index. They rely upon their algorithms to de-emphasize the majority of those sites. But if you search for "comparison shopping" or "poster store" you'll find plenty of affiliate link farms. Just search for "britney spears posters" and you'll find affiliate link farms. > http://www.site--name.com/cgi-bin/redir.cgi?1234 > Is this a huge no-no from a Google perspective? Your > expert help would be most appreciated. There is nothing wrong with this kind of redirection script. Google will not penalize a site for using something like that. They explain what they are looking for in their Webmaster guidelines (http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html). A Word on 'Pagerank' But you and Ian apparently misunderstand what Google is interested in indexing. They are looking for content that is linked to by other content. They view subjects as sort of trees. Each document is a branch or leaf on the tree. A branch has many leaves pointing to it. A leaf doesn't. Most documents are leaves. A few are branches. "PageRank" is Google's algorithmically determined measure of overall importance for a document, from the point of view of a random surfer just randomly clicking on links. A document's PageRank is their estimation of the probability that the surfer will get to the document and stop randomly clicking on links. It's not a very useful value in itself. Google claims to use more than 100 factors for determining rankings in search results (http://www.google.com/intl/en/webmasters/4.html). PageRank is only one of those factors. PageRank has been elevated to a mythical status by poorly informed members of the SEO community. They have written tutorials, FAQs, and long-winded forum discussions that are filled with blatant nonsense. It is virtually impossible to find an accurate, reliable explanation of PageRank outside of the scholarly technical papers published by Google's engineers and other search engineers in the academic field. The problem is now being compounded by the news media, who have begun using "Page Rank" to refer to the search results rankings. Between the news media and the SEOs, it will be a miracle if anyone new to search marketing will understand the basics in the coming years. PageRank is determined on the basis of two key factors: the combined PageRank of all the links pointing to a document AND the damping factor that Google has assigned to the document itself. The PageRank that a link confers is determined by dividing the PageRank of the document where the link is located by the number of normalized outbound links on the page. What is a "normalized link"? Google doesn't say. What is the damping factor? Google's technical papers suggest they normally assign .085, but they imply that some sites (like Yahoo!) may get more favorable damping factors. A damping factor alone can give your document a very high or a very low PageRank regardless of what links are pointing to it. Many people in the SEO field are now speaking about "quality links", but again they have wrapped up that expression with misinformation. They believe they should be getting links only from documents which show high PR values in the Google Toolbar. The Google Toolbar reports a "PageRank" value from 0 to 10. This is NOT the calculated PageRank value based on damping factors and inbound PageRank. The calculated PageRank value is a probability -- that is, it is a value between 0 and 1. Google claims that the sum of all (calculated, non-Toolbar) PageRanks is 1. So, what is that Toolbar PR value? Some people believe it is a proxy of the real PageRank derived from a logarithmic function. They believe that because an early Google paper describes such a proxy. However, Google engineer Matt Cutts recently explained that the PageRank data that they make visible is only exported once every three months (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/whats-an-update/). That is, any reported PR data, whether it is valuable at all, is only valuable for a short period of time. Google constantly updates its index. The SEO community has gradually come to realize that the Toolbar PageRank values cannot be trusted. Mike Grehan, a very respected voice in the SEO community who has access to Google engineers, has been widely cited this year as downplaying the Toolbar PageRank importance by calling it "green fairy dust" (http://www.clickz.com/experts/search/results/article.php/3522286). In the July 25, 2005 article I just linked to, Mike revisits an interview he published in 2003 with Google engineer Daniel Dulitz, who said: "For search engine marketing, search engine optimization purposes, yeah, I'd say that there's too much emphasis placed on what that PR number actually is.... So, if people are trying to look at what we're doing and their idea is based on that single thing from 1 to 10, then... well, they're not going to be effective in figuring out what we're doing at all." It's been two years since that quote was published, and yet you'll still find so-called SEO "gurus" talking about PageRank in the most popular, highly respected forums. These people do not know what they are talking about. They cannot digest the technical papers. They ignore the Google engineers. And they continue to blab on about PageRank as if it were a vital piece of information. And if you challenge them on their misinformation, their response can be summed up in one sentenced which is representative of what they have actually said to me on many occasions: Google is lying. Google may be practicing spin control and it may be playing its cards close to its vest, but no one has ever shown any Google document or engineer to be intentionally misrepresenting the facts regarding their indexing and ranking technology. If I am given a choice between accepting what Google tells us about its technology and believing the nonsense coming from people whose only justification is to call Google a liar, well, I may not LIKE Google, but I'll trust what they have to say on the subject of their technology first. People, stop talking about PageRank. Take that stupid toolbar out of your browsers, because it is NOT telling you anything useful. Michael Martinez, Author Understanding Middle-earth, Parma Endorion, and Visualizing Middle-earth http://www.michael-martinez.com/ ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Redirects > ... when you provide other meaningful content (even though it > contains affiliate links), should you be penalized by Google? - Joe Halbrook, LED 2027 You are right, Joe, but don't over-analyze it based on human emotional aspects. Search engines are just machines that read and index content. You must feed them. Text is the staple diet, and links point them to the trough. Affiliate "shells", (by my definition, yours may vary) simply have little or no content, and thus, stand little chance of indexing well in search results. That is the primary reason that they don't do well. Affiliate sites that do well usually have considerable content and a link foundation to go with it. As always, there are exceptions. A direct merchant website is competing on the same playing field as the "affiliate" site. If they want free search results, they must establish content, optimize it, and begin to build some kind of a link foundation. Best regards, Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations DomainDrivers LLC www.domaindrivers.com ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Janet Attard Subject: Microsoft's Future > Although the PC need not disappear from the IT scene, it will > not be required (in its current fat form at least). Once > reliable broadband Internet connections become the norm then > application service providers (ASPs) can thrive on the > Internet. The ASP can store your data, and provide IT > applications and services online. - Adam Bostock, LED 2025 That's a nice theory, but I can't see many small or large businesses giving up control of important data or operations to a third party. The third party could disappear or have technical difficulties (what happens to your sales when authorizenet goes down for a day - but when it does, you can at least record the information locally and process the orders when it - or whatever gateway you use - is back up); or the internet connection could be down for hours or maybe a day or more -or just overloaded. Then you have an entire company full of employees who can't do any work (if all applications are hosted remotely.) Sure a local connection could go down, but businesses feel like they may have more control over getting the problem fixed - and the bigger businesses that employ on-site tech staff, probably do. There's also further opportunity for compromise of data - for customer lists to get out to competitors, etc. Then too, there would be the cost of an ASP, and the costs of forced upgrades to software, compatibility problems with vertical market software, inability or high cost to customize software the way individual companies work, etc. Yes, there are some things now that do ok as outsourced applications - particularly backup services - but some ASP programs seem to be hooks to get you to try the software so you can see if it works for you before spending thousands of dollars to buy the software for your own server. Janet Attard Small Business / Home Business Resources http://www.businessknowhow.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Michael Linehan Subject: Mambo > I've heard a little about Mambo supposed capabilities, > but does anyone out there have actual experience > using it? What's your opinion...? - Carrie Cassidy, LED 2026 In my small experience with Mambo - just a handful of sites - it has been reliable, clean to use, and can do everything I need and more. No problems at all. Michael Linehan www.marketing-alchemy.com ------- new post - new topic -------- From: Diane Dennis Subject: Inexpensive Flash design? Hi Everyone! Thank you to all who keep this list going, it has been a tremendous help to me over the years. :) I have a friend ;) who needs an inexpensive Flash designer. I myself do not 'do' Flash so for all I know the words 'inexpensive' and 'Flash designer' may be an oxymoron but I told my friend I'd ask anyway. :) Thank you for any leads! Have a terrific day, Diane Dennis http://www.thecontractorsgroup.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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates |
