| LED Digest 1784: The Early Days of Online Search |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 16, 2004 Issue #1784 ................................................ .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== HTML Editors? ==-- ~ Tom Anson "...the Macromedia website didn't function properly in Mozilla 1.6." ~ Bill Davison "I refuse to use MS servers..." ~ Joe Taylor "Why count on your fingers, when you can use a calculator?" --== Reciprocal Linking: Dead or Alive? ==-- ~ Bob Gladstein "...properly targeted link exchanges are very valuable and will continue..." --== The Local Search Buzz ==-- ~ David Yancey "It's early days in online search, folks." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Plaxo? ==-- ~ Ivan J. Jimenez ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Tom Anson Subject: HTML editors After years of putting it off, I finally took a good look at Dreamweaver yesterday. I was impressed enough to buy the product, despite the fact that I can't really afford it right now. The tutorials online made everything look so great. One thing I noticed, however: I found that the Macromedia website didn't function properly in Mozilla 1.6. On some pages, text in one column overlapped the adjacent column. When it came to ordering, I had to switch to Internet Explorer. None of the order buttons or links worked in Mozilla. I have no idea what the web developer used to build that site, but it adds a note of caution to the uncritical use of Dreamweaver. I'm still looking forward to using Dreamweaver. One of the features I especially found of interest is the CSS tool, where style definitions that are overwritten by other definitions (as in cascading) are displayed with a strike-through. It should be a great learning tool, if nothing else. Tom Anson Anson Aromatic Essentials http://www.therapeutic-grade.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Bill Davison Subject: HTML editors I refuse to use MS servers, why? - When you call the hosting company, you first have to find someone who speaks English. - You'll need to know the paths to useable files - rarely will you get the right answer the first time if ever! - You'll need the sys admin to set the permission codes on a MS server - with UNIX you can set the code (chmod) yourself. - With guys like Will Bontrager you can get great CGI scripts and assistance plus, you can even get a script that will tell you what and where everything is on the server - he even has one that will test the script for you! Much much less headaches with UNIX servers, far more reliable and, most of the time less costly, believe me! Bill Davison bizwebpage.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Joseph Taylor Subject: HTML editors Hi Everyone and Carol, Why count on your fingers, when you can use a calculator? Hand coding HTML, Dream Weaver, forget it... Frontpage is easy, enough said! I have been using Frontpage since 1998, and while I know how to go in and "tweak the code" these days, why worry about that. Or for that matter worry about having to find code on the Internet. I bought Frontpage 2003 about a month ago and it is great! The search-and-replace feature alone is worth the price. I make my living from my web sites and you can get hosting, with Frontpage extensions, on pretty much any kind of server out there. Me, I run a dedicated Linux server with FP extensions and never have a lick of trouble with it. Although I dont use their templates, many are included with FP2003 and even more you can download, so making a web site will be a snap. Good luck to you, whatever way you decide to go. Very Truly Yours, Joe Taylor Powder and Bulk Dot Com http://www.powderandbulk.com jtaylor, powderandbulk.com -------- new post - new topic ------- From: Bob Gladstein Subject: Reciprocal linking > The SEO pundits seem to be releasing a new > wave of "Reciprocal Linking is Dead" articles. - Dirk Johnson, LED 1780 I've seen a number of these articles, and what I'm finding is that when they refer to reciprocal linking, what they really mean is reciprocal linking between sites that have nothing to do with each other. I agree that a link exchange between an e-commerce site that sells DVDs and an informational site about post-modern architecture is of little or no value, but that doesn't mean that relevant, targeted link exchanges are useless. It seems to me that the people promoting the death of reciprocal linking through screaming headlines that make their argument unclear are probably people who will benefit from site owners deciding that the only way to build link popularity is to buy run-of-site text ads. While I believe that a one-way link is likely to be of greater value than a reciprocal one, I still think that properly targeted link exchanges are very valuable and will continue to do what they're meant to: they represent a vote from one page to another. Bob Gladstein Raise My Rank Services http://www.raisemyrank.com/ ------- new post - new topic ------- From: David Yancey Subject: Local search When considering the emergence of "local search", and, especially, in deciding if a local online search listing is right for your site or business, it helps to remember three basic erroneous assumptions about search that we see made over and over again: False assumption # 1: Everyone uses search engines, and they have decided already what works for them. Not so, folks. Half of the online users in the world do NOT use search engines, even in the simple-Simon Yahoo or MSN portal forms. The obvious question is why? Why would some 300 million people ignore this presumed time-saving tool? Could it be because these all-things-to-all-users engines simply don't cover the kinds of things or sites the *majority* of people are interested in finding? False assumption # 2: The big three, especially Google, are so dominant that new or smaller search tools have an impossible marketing job to be, as John Barendrecht puts it in LED 1780, "commercially viable". This is completely wrong, since there are hundreds of search industry tools and sites that are making money right now. A business does not need to be the 800 pound gorilla of its industry to be "viable" - just be one of the best in your niche. Indeed, on the Internet, it is almost a *liability* to be perceived as the 800 pound gorilla, as Alta-Vista learned, then Yahoo, and others. Now, it appears to be Google's turn to be stung by a swarm of persistent little mosquitoes. False assumption #3: I use Google; my pals use Google; everyone who counts uses Google. The truth is that over 75% of web users do NOT use Google. Even when Google is now a household name, more than 350 million users ignore it. A *very* substantial number of these are the people who control the vast majority of the world's discretionary income. Web-savvy folks tend to look down on these people as being hopelessly clueless. But these clueless people manage to get along quite satisfactorily without the benefits of Google, Yahoo, or MSN. The question screams out to be heard: *why?* Mr. Barendrecht adds his own assumption about local search, namely, that its main reason for being is to act as a local portal. This, too, is an over-simplification, in our judgement. We see local search serving a number of quite different geo-centric constituencies (which we more properly call "audiences"): 1 People who want to know "what's" on in their nearby area. John Barendrecht is correct that this is a great role for local search. But it is one of the *lowest volume uses*. 2. People who want to know what's on within, roughly, a one hour driving radius - - not the same folks, necessarily as those in audience # 1. 3. People looking for local services like restaurants or dry cleaners. 4. *Business* and other professional people looking for local services - - not the same as the 3rd audience, because these people are busy and use local search a *lot*, and want the best mechanism for doing it faster. 5. People looking for local *personal* services. Lawn care, anyone? 6. People who are interested in *content* about the local area. Not important? Maybe not to you, but the local newspaper people would not agree... Nor would the publishers and users of thousands of useful "destination" sites about New York City, the Big Sur, Orlando, or the Napa/Sonoma wine country. 7. People searching for local people - - not just for socializing, but a wide variety of interests. 8. People looking for products, and the local sellers of same - - and with the ability to see if they can get a better deal online. 9. People looking for *used* products - - Are we all aware that the total money spent on *local* classified advertising *exceeds* the money spent on Yellow Pages, which is itself *ten times* greater than Google's and Yahoo/Overture's combined revenues? . and, of course, my own personal favorite, as a world wanderer: 10. People NOT from the area, but who plan to visit it. Obviously, some people in any one of these "audiences" will belong to several of them. But the point is that their search behavior when they are acting as one type of user will tend to *differ* as they use the local web for different purposes. To say that there is just one main reason for a "local search" tool is, clearly, to exclude the many other uses that many other people will have for finding local sites and local services. Google, Yahoo, and the coming MSN search entry are, necessarily, all things to all people. Their "viability" is based on amassing the maximum number of eyeballs possible, so national advertisers will pay lots of money to reach them. Our idea is different. We seek to make a search venue that *each* of the above-listed groups of local-centric users can *tailor* to its own needs and purposes. To "target" the search experience, in other words. I don't care at all if we cannot sell ad space to big national advertisers. We are out to serve the smaller online, and smaller local business sites, who need to reach the *precise* kinds of users that represent their best prospects, readers, members, users or whatever. Will it take an effort to persuade enough such local businesses and smaller sites to buy a listing? Sure. It took Overture the same effort, and then the paid part of Yahoo, and then Google, with its AdWords. But it isn't a daunting prospect. Consider this: for all their well-deserved fame and collective success, the Big Three have only signed up less than 3% of North American businesses. Hey! It's early days in online search, folks. David Yancey http://www.vivante.com ==== BILLBOARD ==================================== From: Ivan J. Jimenez Subject: Plaxo > 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, LED 1783 Val, I really, really like it. As far as free services go, it'd be hard to find a better one. My only issue is that I can't seem to update my Yahoo! Mail and Outlook contact lists when I import my info. Does anyone else have this problem as well? ivan j. jimenez http://cosmicbreath.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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "I never let schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain |
