| LED Digest 1779: Sites for the Lowest Common Denominator? |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 adam,led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com ................................................ April 9, 2004 Issue #1779 ................................................ .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== HTML Editors? ==-- ~ Lorelle Smith "I use FP2002, and it supports CSS just fine." ~ Godfrey Parkin "...swallow your ego, and build for the lowest common denominator." --== Choosing an SEO ==-- ~ Shari Thurow "Search optimization is a subset of usability." ~ Ivan J. Jimenez "Anyone out there had any experiences with a company called SEO, Inc.?" --== The Local Search Buzz ==-- ~ David Yancey "...we have barely scratched the surface of the best ideas." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Confused by Alexa's Ranking ==-- ~ Mark Frank ~ Richard Graham ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Lorelle Smith Subject: HTML editors Veronica Yuill's advice [issue 1777] to Kurt was right on - FP borders DO cause a lot of trouble. One reason is that the underlying code is that of a table (i.e., 3 columns x 3 rows so that the top and bottom borders are 3 cells merged into one, and the body goes into the middle cell of the middle row, flanked by the left and right borders). She said: > I forgot to mention one important proviso: Don't use Front > Page's proprietary "bots"! ... Use server-side includes instead. > Once you've set them up, FP will happily allow you to edit pages > containing them, and they will work no matter what editor you use. As a FrontPage trainer / consultant, one of the first things I teach clients is how to set up Includes. Borders are a great idea in theory, but they can disappear completely if FP hiccups during publishing to the website. I hate to contradict Veronica, but FP's built-in SSI function *is* a bot. The code looks like this: <!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="top.html" TAG="BODY" --> ..whereas "normal" SSI code looks like this: <!--#include virtual="/include/top.txt" --> .. and doesn't work in FP as far as I know from trying it on my own sites. (It might depend on how the server is set up, and whether FP extensions are installed. Ask your web host.) So if you do switch from FP to another editing program, and have Includes set up, you'll have to globally search-n-replace the line of code. I highly recommend using software outside FP to do this. There's a great freeware program called Advanced Replacer if you have a lot of pages (it can even handle multiple lines of text). Veronica ended with: > I haven't used the latest version of FP, but I'm > sure it must offer reasonable support for CSS. I use FP2002, and it supports CSS just fine. In fact it's got a nifty little utility that walks you through menu selections, but it also allows you to write code directly in your CSS text file if you prefer. FP doesn't support more than 500 pages in a web very well, as Kurt discovered. What Kurt could do is separate each section into its own child web. Just right-click on a directory folder and select Convert to Web. In closing, I'd like to offer my #1 tip for working with FrontPage: ** Always edit your hard-drive copy of your website and use FP's built-in FTP utility, File/Publish, to update the online version. Never edit the online web directly (if unsure which you have open, look at the top left where it says Microsoft FrontPage - it will be followed by either http://www.yourdomain.com or c:\my webs\mydomain). This way you'll always have a backup saved. ** Hope this was helpful! Lorelle Smith FrontPage Web Consultant http://www.frontpagesmith.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Godfrey Parkin Subject: HTML editors > And forget about cross-platform nonsense -- in 10 years of web > development, I have yet to meet a client who's EVER asked for it. - Marty R. Milette, LED 1777 Maybe if you are building sites for anonymous consumers you don't get to know that a bunch of them just couldn't get it to work. If you are running an e-commerce site, that's lost business your clients will never know they missed. Selling graphics tablets online? Ignore Mac users at your peril. I have been developing e-learning courses for many years, and making those work in 'down-level browsers' and across platforms is essential. If someone in a global corporation has to take a course or access a chat-room and it does not work in their environment (OS, browser, plug-in policy, firewall, bandwidth) you have a BIG problem that you can't ignore. In my experience MANY corporate environments are one or two generations behind most home environments. Netscape is still the default browser in more companies than I care to count, and that's a legacy from the days when it was the only game in town. As recently as 1999 we had corporate learners within IBM in Europe who had to access courses on O/S2 machines using Netscape 2.1 (the only browser supported at the time) using 14.4 dial-ups -- and no sound cards. Flash is another tool that Web designers used gratuitously for years when most corporate users were forbidden / unable to install the necessary plug-in. Fortunately, this is less of a problem today (but don't believe everything Macromedia tells you about its ubiquity). To upgrade an entire corporation's desktop infrastructure can be a vastly slow and expensive project, which is why the biggest companies tend to skip a generation or two. Build for your target user's platform, not the one on your desk. If you don't know what that environment is, assume the worst, swallow your ego, and build for the lowest common denominator. Godfrey Parkin ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Shari Thurow Subject: Choosing SEO > All an SEO does is optimize your rankings. If the > site the customers then reach does not call them > to action - ie to purchase from you, that cannot > surely be the fault of the SEO? Or am I missing > something? - Samantha Mignano, LED 1777 With all due respect, she is missing something. Search optimization is a subset of usability. All usability experts categorize sites and create design templates so that products and services are easy to find. In other words, they make a site easy to navigate. They make a site easy to browse. Plus, in the event people perform a search on a site, they optimize the search results pages so that visitors get accurate results. They also make sure "trigger words" (as Jared Spool calls them) or keywords are in appropriate, targeted places. The site is always written for the target audience. Optimizers make it easier for people to form a mental model of a site. Thus, optimization increases the conversion rate. If you are dealing with a search engine marketing firm that only focuses on rankings, then you are most likely dealing with spam companies. If you are dealing with a search engine marketing company that optimizes a site following usability principles, then you are dealing with the right type of firm. Just don't mix up search engine advertisers with search engine optimizers. Two different animals. A search engine marketer knows how to do both, because marketing encompasses both optimization and advertising. Best wishes, Shari Thurow, Webmaster/Marketing Director ~ Search Engine Visibility book now available http://www.searchenginesbook.com/ -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Ivan J. Jimenez Subject: Rating an SEO Anyone out there had any experiences with a company called SEO, Inc. (SEOInc.com)? They seem to rank very well on relevant searches and the limited interaction I've had seems like they're on the up-and-up but I figured my fellow LEDers would have the skinny on this company. Thanks! Ivan J. Jimenez ------- new post - new topic -------- From: David Yancey Subject: Local search In LED 1776, C. B. Malley wonders why the Internet cannot just be divided up for "local search" purposes, such as into separate domain names. Then local sites could be simply plugged into their local-centric online pigeon-hole. The problem, Mr. Malley, isn't simply the massive number of domain names that would be needed - about five *thousand* to do an adequate job across the globe. The more serious issues are: 1 For every searcher who may want to find something for sale locally, there are others who want to see the offerings of *non*-local estores who may sell the same thing online. In other words, a true integrated search tool will allow these people to see *all* vendors, side by side. 2 Similarly, a very large number of "local" stores are now selling online, and these businesses *must* have a presence in "national" search sites as well as the local one(s). 3 Study after study is now telling us that most people search online for product info before they look for a place to buy it. A fragmented, Balkanized search database would require any "content" site with such information to be in *every* "local" edition. If it wasn't, then that cheats the searcher of needed info prior to making a purchase. 4 A very large number of searchers for "local" information are not "local" at all, in fact. They are travelers and others who want to know more about the areas *outside* their local area. A Balkanized web would make them go to as many as a half-dozen separate sites to plan a nice road trip home to Grandma, much less a bicycle tour of Europe. 5 Technically, it is *very* messy to judge if a store or service belongs in one "macro area" or another. Should Camden, New Jersey, be part of a "Philadelphia" search pattern or one for Central New Jersey? The number of these "overlap" exceptions truly boggles the mind. To my knowledge, only our www.vivante.com has the "rolling area" geo-descriptive technology to deal with them (but I am sure others will find other solutions in time.) The point is that setting up a Balkanized web would force businesses on the "edge" of an area to list in several directories. Or the alternative: the area boundaries would have to be so large as to be useless to truly "local" searchers. These are the main drawbacks to "dividing up the Internet", but there is another that is, to me, even more compelling. To try and pigeonhole sites into a fixed boundary "sub-Internet" would quickly undermine the very utility of the web, and would destroy its potential to speed the finding process for users everywhere. Any solution that begins by undermining user convenience needs to be re-thought. But please keep thinking! As the "big guys" conceded a few days ago in a major conference on local search, we have barely scratched the surface of the best ideas. David Yancey http://www.vivante.com ==== BILLBOARD ==================================== From: Mark Frank Subject: Alexa > My Alexa rank comes out to be 348,670 but my stats show > 2,000 plus visitors a day. Does anyone know why this should > be? Or is there a more reliable way to judge a site's visitors? - Richard Graham, LED 1777 Sunny, Like many struggling site owners, you are worried about the wrong problem. Your site has a very small and clearly defined market. It may never get "good ranking." But that doesn't mean it can't be successful. Compare it to other sites that serve the same market. Find out what they have that your site lacks. Then add it. Develop your site around the needs of your audience and spend your time worrying about how you will meet their needs. Provide information that they will want. Promote products and services that they will buy. Define your audience carefully. Then target them with your site content and your keywords. If you get 30 well-targeted visitors a day who stay and buy your products (or click your affiliate links), you are much better off than if you get 1,000 visits per day from people who aren't interested in your site. Don't worry about Alexa. It's just a hit counter. Mark Frank, Author Start Your Own Home-Based Website Design Business http://www.websitedesignbiz.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Richard Graham Subject: Alexa As usual, thanks for the great help LEDers! I think Ken Envoy hit the nail on the head with his report http://build.sitesell.com/tips/alexa-rankings.html The sites I was comparing mine to are all Korea based and hence the Alexa results are biased! Be genki, Richard Graham www.genkienglish.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2004 Adam Audette. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo |
