| LED Digest 1878: The Blind Men and the Elephant |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 ............................................... October 6, 2004 Issue #1878 ............................................... .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== --== Anti-Virus Software? ==-- ~ Stu Langley "Does anyone know a good anti-virus program..?" ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Alternatives to Authorize.Net ==-- ~ John Brumage "Private Networks are now available for less than US$150 per store..." ~ Peter Warnock "...an alternative would be to have a backup gateway." ~ Lanell Grant "I believe the Internet guideline to be "TMP', The Merchant Pays." --== The Future of SEO ==-- ~ Bruce Clay "...you are all right, and all wrong." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Redirects for Different Browsers ==-- ~ John Smart ~ Deke Hammel ======= NEW ===================================== From: Stu Langley Subject: Anti-virus Software Needed I hope this isn't too far off list topic, but this is the only list I subscribe to. I am very tired of acknowledging every virus turd in my email box and reassuring Norton that I don't want it. And then if it can not safely quarantine the virus; it wants to tell me it can't disarm the virus turd and I actually have to click twice to say its OK to get rid of it. And finally they all have to be deleted out of my inbox. Does anyone know a good anti-virus program that will just permanently delete the infected messages and tell me it deleted viruses. And please will some sanctimonious type please tell me that I should just be thankful that there is virus software to protect my computer. Sorry, I guess I am just in a bitchy mood. Stu Langley ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: John Brumage Subject: CC merchants > This article explains the DDoS attack that is ongoing against > Authorize.Net. http://snipurl.com/9dss [wired.com] > [I am] interested in finding an alternative arrangement > for [my] credit card payment processing. - Martha Retallick, LED 1874 Private Networks are now available for less than US$150 per store for small chains; this can result in immediate ROI, because the credit card processor gives a substantial discount for using private networks. Because the private network cannot be reached from the internet, they are not susceptible to DDOS attacks. John Brumage zeke, ww-tel.net ------- new post - same topic -------- From: Peter Warnock Subject: CC merchants While storing numbers in a database opens doors to all kinds of potential liabilities, an alternative would be to have a backup gateway. There would be the cost of developing a script to format the data on the fly and an additional gateway at about US$20 per month. Yet another alternative backup and/or secondary option is PayPal. The cost per transaction is a little more, but a buyer may be willing to close the sale if they really want your product. Peter Warnock Webstruction, LLC ------- new post - same topic -------- From: Lanell Grant Subject: CC merchants Hello LED ers, Charles Bennett's comment, "..read your merchant agreement carefully" is right on the mark. I might say it this way,"..read your BANK's merchant agreement carefully to learn about the most one sided, carefully crafted document you will ever sign that positions your merchant bank to avoid all responsibility for virtually anything that happens and charge you, the merchant, in the event of any problems, they or you, might have." This agreement is really even worse than my caustic paraphrase above in that the several I have reviewed also attempt to severely limit your recourse if the bank is finally found wanting in some way. Sadly, there seems to be uniform "drafting" from bank to bank whereby each successive addition to the ranks of merchant banks feels the need to out do all of those that came before in creating a truly obnoxious one sided agreement that you will either agree to, or forgo credit card payment. It has always been curious that the credit card industry sends credit cards "here there and everywhere" while at the same time attempts to avoid responsibility for their questionable use even while they have established the practices and standards that govern and control their issue and application. As Internet purchasing grows relative to other "in person" types of spending, this industry smiles as they have successfully shifted a financial burden mostly of their making, to the merchant. An example of poor practice; the mailed out credit card! Do you simply mail merchandise of value or do you require an on file signature when you fulfill a costly order. Is it any wonder that cards fall into questionable hands? An elementary school child could quickly discover "plastic" in a stack of first class mail. I believe the Internet guideline to be "TMP", The Merchant Pays. By all means, "..read your merchant agreement" (and weep..). Lanell Grant ------- new post - new topic -------- From: Bruce M. Clay Subject: Future of SEO Gentlemen, like The Blind Men and the Elephant http://bruceclay.com/elephant.htm, you are all right, and all wrong. IMO, this is clearly not an "all or nothing" argument. You need a technically optimized page, a well written page, and links to be well ranked. Excuse the simplicity of this example, but it shows the concept of this methodology to anybody. Assume that these (3 for now) categories are rated by degree of difficulty of a keyword. Then if that difficulty is average (say 5), then optimization times copywriting times links = 5 * 5 * 5 = 125 to be well ranked. If you do not optimize you need to adjust elsewhere. Ditto for copywriting. So you need a massive number of links to adjust: 1 * 1 * 125 = 125. In this simple example it shows that perhaps you can refuse one category and still get ranked, but you need an exponential amount of work in the others to adjust. Now do this with 5 categories and now over a hundred. Personally, I have found that a balance of them all is the easiest and longest lasting path to high and steady ranking for difficult keywords. I optimize the site (density, frequency, distribution), I make sure it is properly written (content, grammar, sentence structure, theme), and that it has quality links such that experts in the subject matter link to you with appropriate anchor text. Do it all. Trust me, you will not get penalized unless you spam. In my opinion, to do only one makes you sensitive to algorithm changes, SE spam detection (even if you are righteous, you are sometimes flying too close to the sun), and competition. Only links, or only content, makes you suspect. The search engines are looking for relevant sites that answer the need of the researcher, not poorly written sites with links, and not heavy content sites nobody else likes. You have to agree that to have great content is better than none, and great quality links are better than none, but to have them all is synergistic, certainly enough to make you first among equals. So we have to work on all of it, and the harder the keywords the harder we work. Make the site relevant every way you can. But know that with billions in the bank that it is only a matter of time before spam in each area is detected and sites are flushed, so do not step over the invisible spam line. Play fair, follow the rules, improve the site in all ways, and you can rank well for a long time. But do only one and you are taking a much larger risk and working harder than you should. You can optimize in many ways, and to do them all is easier, smarter, and is generally a longer term ranking solution. Bruce Clay http://www.bruceclay.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: John Smart Subject: Browser redirect > Can you please tell me how... to check which browser a person > is using when they try to go to your home page and then "redirect" > them to another page, depending on the browser identified? - Susan Reid-Pfau, LED 1876 By using JavaScript you are limiting yourself to those who are using JavaScript. Putting this code server side will give the same results, without the interference that users settings can cause. Something like this - basically the same as Stephen provided only on the other side of the web: ------------------------- <?php if(eregi("msie",$_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'])) { $brs = explode(" ",stristr($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'],"msie")); $version = $brs[1]; # This is MSIE - we can now redirect # to a page either just for MSIE, or # a different page for each version: if ($version=="6.0") {header("Location: ie60.html"); exit;} else {header("Location: iepage.html"); exit;} } elseif(eregi("netscape",$_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'])) { $val = explode(" ",stristr($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'],"netscape")); $val = explode("/",$val[0]); # And we could do the same for Netscape # too, but to save space, we will just # do a generic one. header("Location: netscape.html"); exit; } ?> ------------------------- This only covers two browsers - There are of course many other browsers - this code can be expanded as needed. John Smart, Technical Director InternetDesign.com - A Human Touch in a Digital World" ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Deke Hammel Subject: Browser redirect Using javascript to redirect a browser to a different page wastes server resources because the user has to download the wrong page and parse it before it knows to fetch a different page instead. This wastes your user's time as well, and since some users turn off Javascript in an effort to protect themselves against malware, it's unreliable as well. It's much better to do server-side redirection. The syntax depends on the server you're using, but for the majority that are using Apache, you can stick something like this in your ------------------------ RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^Mozilla/3.* RewriteRule ^foo\.html$ foo.NS.html [L] RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^Lynx/.* [OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^Mozilla/[12].* RewriteRule ^foo\.html$ foo.20.html [L] RewriteRule ^foo\.html$ foo.32.html [L] ------------------------ Complete documentation for the Rewrite Engine is at: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/mod_rewrite.html although you can probably find everything you need at: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/rewriteguide.html Deke Hammel AmishHosting.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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind." - John Godfrey Saxe |
