| LED Digest 1783: Traffic, Content, Links, SEO... |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 15, 2004 Issue #1783 ................................................ .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Reciprocal Linking: Dead or Alive? ==-- ~ Martha Retallick ~ Rick Gortatowsky ~ Maria Meyers --== Choosing an SEO ==-- ~ Dave Roberts --== HTML Editors? ==-- ~ Valerie Beeby ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Plaxo? ==-- ~ Val Waldeck ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Martha Retallick Subject: Reciprocal linking > ... many of the SEO gurus seem to have taken the approach > that if they publicly denounce directory-to-directory reciprocal > linking, maybe they will collectively "disarm" the marketplace, > thus restoring their old advantages... - Dirk Johnson, LED 1780 I have no problem with reciprocal linking, as long as the linking fits in with the goals of my websites. However, I am turned off by the unsolicited e-mails that say, "We've added a link to your site from ours, now would you please do the same for us?" Why does this bother Martha? Because if I don't know you, why in the world do I owe you the favor of a link? Like most human beings, I'm more interested in doing favors for people I know, not strangers who e-mail me out of the blue. Martha Retallick "The Passionate Postcarder" http://www.postcardmarketingsecrets.com ------- new post - same topic -------- From: Rick Gortatowsky Subject: Reciprocal linking > ... the only people making such [linking] requests any > more are people who naively believe that links from > my domain will help them get good rankings in search > results. - Michael Martinez, LED 1781 Driven traffic is highly dependent on content of a site, it's that simple or that complex. I assure you if Amazon did not use all its forms of linkage from Search Engines to price bots, affiliates, forums etc. they'd not be the #1 trafficked site on the net. Affiliates, reciprocal links etc. are all linkage models meant to drive qualified traffic. Our present web has no reciprocal linkage though it is planned. We draw natural traffic due to what we do. We have heaps of sites that link us so their surfers can find what they want. Not the case with all sties or even all types of sites. Googles AdWords proves reciprocal linkage works. After all, what AdWords is happens to be a model by which like content is displayed to the surfer and convert that into routed / qualified traffic. While your web might do quite well it depends on what you compare to. As compared to Amazon it will do poor. As compared to a competitors site it may do well. Part of the web stigma many many webmasters have is thinking that the Internet means "I must compete against this site and that site" no matter what type of site it is. If normal businesses operated this way they'd just murder themselves. Business is controlled warfare. Microsoft and AOL are at war on some fronts and will also work together on others. On the web nothing is different. There are assets and liabilities. The key is capitalizing on the assets and limiting the liabilities. With web linkage this is also the case. Additionally dont believe what "services" say. I looked at several webs we developed via Alexa and where they obtain their stats is a total mystery. We derive well in excess of 400% more traffic than they note. How? Whys? Wherefor's? Alot of people bookmark sites, come via mailing lists or human referral. To think any service can derive an accurate statistic is simply ludicrous. Optimally all forms of qualified traffic are what any webmaster should want, thats why a website exists, so as many people as possible can come to it and do what they want do. Reciprocal linkage is a great way of doing just that. The problem with reciprocal linkage is there is no automation of control, qualification, statistic and cost effectiveness. As I noted in a previous LED, Google AdWords is very close. A mechinism like AdWords need be done for reciprocal linkage forms and can even be taken a step farther IMHO. In other words, it can also service as a repository of VERY like content, like WebRings do. Again, a controlled mechinism so it doesnt end up like other repositorys that eventually become a mess as webmasters try squeeze every drop out they can by misrepresenting content. Search engines suffer due to webmasters, not the SE itself. Its misrepresenting content, spamming, multi-dimensional domains and sub domains. SE's would be wise to get strict. So when such things transpire they axe the site and have a mechinism of tracing domains. In other words when SE submissions happen take some real data about the submittee. SE's should also be staging content. Someplace that appears to be selling things for example but in reality is just a affiliate should bump down in rankings. Sites with copied content of other "original" sites should bump down below those sites. SE's should also IMHO consider a pre-content filter. So, if Joe/sephine web surfer goes to a search engine he/she can instantly eliminate crud-loads or irrelevent results by a single "click" in entering the engine. If he/she is seeking a DVD video review site he/she should be able to click or type "Video reviews" and then cycle into a search context eliminating all other forms of content non-specific. Now webmasters need properly "stage" content, not relying on page titles and jibe to try and suck the user into something completely irrelevent. Perhaps a new Meta-Tag requirement that allows this search staging for the websurfer. I know many a webmaster who goes, "I get 150,000 hits a day"... Well, yippie skippy. Qualified traffic is all that matters as those are the folks interested in a sites content. The rest of the surfers are like "Mall walkers". All they are doing is in fact is nothing. Hits do not equate to value. What equates to value is qualified traffic. The problem on the web are gazillions of frustrated surfers who are trying to get to the qualified sites they want and instead ending up not once, not twice, not three times but 53 times in Timbuktu. They get so frustrated they finally go, "Oh forget this... I'll go to Walmart" or "The library" or "The phone book" etc. Ultimately to me, the best search engine would be one that is highly context sensitive to web content. So if one's seeking books, one goes to the Google or MSN book search engine. All thats there are book sellers, book review sites, book forum sites, book history sites. The same for ALL content. Any site that cares breach the content restriction, syonara. Then from such a "engine of sub-engines" start deriving reciprocal linkages. Now surfers and WEBS can FOCUS and focus means success. Rick Gortatowsky, President The Software Society ------- new post - same topic -------- From: Maria K Meyers Subject: Reciprocal linking Hello all, This is my first post in close to 4 years of learning from all of the phenomenal knowledge that exists in this group. My background in Website Development comes straight from programming books, development lists like this one, seminars, and online research. I have read a lot of discussion regarding SEO and Reciprocal Linking recently. I don't understand a lot about the topics. Some people say that the search engine ranking equations keep changing, that what is between the <.TITLE> tags is most important, that keywords in the META tags aren't important unless they appear in the content on the page, that reciprocal links work best when they are associated to information on your site or the products you promote, and a variety of other topics. I think for a small, professional equity theatre in the Midwest our rankings are pretty good with both Alexa and Google. We rank high in most search engines' categories. We only link to sponsors or complimentary businesses such as local restaurants and hotels. We have never purchased SEO services. We have a relatively small number of sites that link to us. The site is even built in frames which I have repeatedly heard to be a problem for search engines. The site is constantly changing as I learn things from this list and others so I want to thank everyone for all of your help. =) I'm not sure why our rankings are good, but we plan to keep doing what we are doing. =) Maria Meyers, Box Office Manager, Website Manager American Heartland Theatre http://www.ahtkc.com ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Dave Roberts Subject: Choosing SEO [Jeff Meister, issue 1775] has raised very interesting questions that confront sellers and purchasers of SEO services. Let me give you some thoughts from the provider side. It's difficult to provide just SEO services -- typically I'll notice that the client needs more help, that the site just doesn't do the job of converting visitors into customers. It's often hard to get this advice to be taken, but these kinks need to be worked out before the engagement will produce business results for the client. So, for me at least, there's no such thing as just SEO. Promises are hard to make, because results are unpredictable. I can cite specific successes that I've had -- in terms of taking a business that was producing no results and transforming into a successful Web business, with orders arriving every day; to doubling the business of a company that manages vacation properties. What can I promise you? A competent effort, with regular communications from me about what's going on, and lots of input from you throughout the process. High rankings from the top search engines (these days, Google and Google) are hard to get. I do put clients on page 1 of Google, but it can take time, and sometimes it's very hard to do. So I can't promise page 1 of Google by any particular date, although I'll keep working toward that goal. To judge me, I suggest my clients look at business results. They will start seeing them in about three months. If they don't like them, then stop paying me. If they like the results, then keep paying. I don't have a minimum engagement, although I do tell clients that they shouldn't engage me for less than three months, because we'll just start seeing results then, and we need a process of continuous tuning. I charge $250 a month, so clients are at risk for $750. I have perhaps the opposite problem. I don't like to do lots of promotion, so I want clients who are serious, can appreciate results when I deliver, and will stick with me. So during the process of talking about how we work together, I am screening the client as much as letting them screen me. I no longer take on clients I don't expect to be long-term. Dave Roberts http://www.davedoesitall.com ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Valerie Beeby Subject: HTML Editors - GoLive Hello Everyone This is my favourite lurking ground but here I feel I must speak. Before the thread on HTML editors peters out, I'd like to wave my hands about and put in a word for Adobe GoLive. I used Dreamweaver for a couple of years, but am now a GoLive devotee and wouldn't go back. My coding skill is at 'Get By in HML' level, but GoLive offers a 'switchboard' of editable colour-coding modes that highlight different elements and really help you to spot what's going on. Of course it's wysiwyg from the makers of Photoshop, and provides split view. But where GoLive really shines is in site management. Navigation view gives you a hierarchical plan of your whole site, again with a huge choice of views, including thumbnails of pages, highlighted 'families' of pages, and 'Pending Links' - red arrows on your diagram to point out pages missing in or out links. Cons are that GoLive takes a bit of getting used to, especially as it has more icons than a Victorian parlour has bric-a-brac. And I should be the last to complain, as my site is all about making tiny graphics (and tiny graphic files)! Also I do have to say that the new version of GoLive is as slow as swimming through treacle, at least on my Mac. Not to worry, though, because GoLive 6.0 is quite fast. I've reverted 6.0 now and highly recommend it though I don't have any interest in doing so. Valerie Beeby http://www.purple-owl.com ==== BILLBOARD ==================================== From: Val Waldeck Subject: Plaxo I've been sitting on the sidelines for some years and learning much from the LED list. Appreciate all the input and suggestions and have used many of them. Is this the right place to ask about Plaxo? It's a fairly new system that regulates your address book. Does anyone have any experience with it? Val Waldeck www.valwaldeck.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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dream." - Willie Wonka |
