| LED Digest 2296: Transactional Email Gets Lost |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Registration 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 .............................................. November 27, 2006 Issue no. 2296 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== --== Confirm Emails Being Ignored? ==-- ~ Dirk Lutzweiler "[Many] new registrants go through the trouble of filling out our form, but do not confirm..." <Moderator Comment> "This is a very serious issue..." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== The Supplemental Index ==-- ~ Nathan Holley "...the supplemental 'fiasco' is a reflection of Google's arrogance." --== Web Development Auditing ==-- ~ Al Toman "I found out that those who do not like the pre-pay arrangement do not intend to pay..." ~ Rae Deisler "Why should I trust you?" ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== 301 Redirects ==-- ~ John Smart ========== NEW =================================== From: Dirk Lutzweiler Subject: Site Registration - confirmation messages Our site requires a new registrant to confirm their registration by clicking on a link in a welcome message that they receive after submission. A large percentage of new registrants go through the trouble of filling out our form, but do not confirm their registration. Why do you suppose this is? What can we do to encourage new registrants to get to this next step and become an active member? Best regards, Dirk Lutzweiler dentalquarters.com <Moderator Comment> This is a very serious issue and, unfortunately, it doesn't look good for the future. Confirmation messages are routinely filtered by ISPs and email providers as false-positives. If they do make it through, they are often unintentionally deleted by the user who requested them since it's difficult to make them eye-catching. The combination of the From and Subject headers is much more important than it's ever been, but what that's doing is putting a large amount of weight on those two factors and making it easy for spammers to manipulate. I'm hearing from other publishers that their conversion rates for confirmation messages are as low as 50% in some cases. (!) A few I've spoken with have resorted to opening their registration to single opt-in (both for email lists and site forums) -- effectively taking a step backwards just to avoid the drop-offs in confirmations. I'm planning an article on this subject for a new site I'm putting together. I'd really appreciate some views out there about this and other problems we're seeing with email. Spam has taken a large bite out of email already. Where are we headed? -Adam ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Nathan Holley Subject: The supplemental results at Google Adam, Thanks for the post by Adam Lasnik re: the supplemental index. It caused a little bit of a ruckus recently with everyone freaking out about it - just another problem to solve when dealing with Google, I guess. And just another opportunity for Google to play their authority card. With all the power, guess what? They don't need to disclose any specific information. They are running a tight line, in my opinion, with their credibility begining to erode as this struggle evolves. First, I'd like to give some specifics about the supplemental index, then (if you'll bear with me) I'd like to open this up to the problems facing the G giant and the dwindling trust Web masters (especially jaded ones like me) are feeling towards them. This is relevant to our discussion because the supplemental "fiasco" is a reflection of Google's arrogance. First of all, supplemental indexes are nothing new. Inktomi was the first in the search realm to use this kind of data technique with their "Best / Rest of the Web" databases. Here's what Danny Sullivan had to say about these back in 2003: ------------------- "Using a supplemental index may be new for Google, but it's old to the search engine industry. Inktomi did the same thing in the past, rolling out what became known as the small "Best Of The Web" and larger "Rest Of The Web" indexes in June 2000. "It was a terrible, terrible system. Horrible. As a search expert, you never seemed to know which of Inktomi's partners was hitting all of its information or only the popular Best Of The Web index. As for consumers, well, forget it -- they had no clue. "It also doesn't sound reassuring to say, "we'll check the good stuff first, then the other stuff only if we need to." What if some good stuff for whatever reason is in the second index? That's a fear some searchers had in the past -- and it will remain with Google's revival of this system. "Why not simply expand the existing Google index, rather than go to a two tier approach?" Source: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3071371 ------------------- Google has been terribly confusing about this whole thing from the start. In the article I reference above a representative is quoted that this was an "experiment." Well, obviously the experiment is still in progress some years later. What's confusing though is that in Lasnik's much-maligned post at Google Groups he states that the "cure" for the supplementals is quality backlinks. Okay, but what do they expect us to think here after hearing over and over from them that we must make sites for the user, not the search engine. If that's true how can we then focus on getting backlinks? Hmm... doesn't quite make sense to me. Making sites for users doesn't usually involve a professional linking campaign. And believe me folks - getting quality backlinks demands some professional link work. You'll be buying. They are effectively muddying the waters with the SEO industry because a) their algorithm is easy to manipulate (just check most any competitive search phrase and you'll see) and b) their business model depends on search relevancy since they are making loot off of the links targeted to those searches. Here's a long thread at Webmaster World about Adam Lasnik's post: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3152332.htm Lasnik then responded in this more current thread and here's a quote: ------------------- "Pages are in the supplemental results because we still wanted to be able to show them to users, but the pages didn't have enough PageRank to make it into our main index (which is more extensive and updated with greater frequency). "Getting more *quality* backlinks is generally a good way to get more of your pages in the main index." Source: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3107997.htm ------------------- So just what does Google mean by "getting more *quality* backlinks"...? If you ask me, Aaron Wall was pretty close to the mark when he mentioned recently that "most quality links are in one way or another bought." ------------------- "The major search engines are the largest link brokers. Their guidelines are based on them extracting as much value from the web as possible, and many of them buy and sell links with intent to manipulate their own indexes or pollute other search engines. Most quality links are in one way or another bought." Source: http://www.seobook.com/archives/001925.shtml ------------------- There just isn't enough room here to adequately cover this issue. It's a series of articles not a post. But there are signs that the industry is losing its trust in Google and losing respect for them. Just look at how "AdWordsAdvisor" - a Google rep that visits Webmaster World (but hasn't posted in ages) - tries to clear the air about the trust score for landing pages (another huge issue): ------------------- "Because of persistant rumors and conjecture along these lines, I'd like to clarify that information from Google's conversion tracking and Google Analytics is not used in the calculation of ones minimum bid, nor otherwise incorporated in the calculation of CPC." Source: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google_adwords/3163417.htm ------------------- Nice try Google. But no go. You're learning that it's not possible to keep an open community relationship with those you depend on and maintain that parochial level of authority. Power = corruption it's that simple and we are all witnessing the opening salvo of a growing corrupt power named Google. Who's so naive that they believe this company won't be evil? How are they any different from any other big business? In the end we've seen this before many times and sadly when it comes to business, ideals are only words on paper. The bottom line drives the decisions. I'm out. Nathan Holley -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Al Toman Subject: Web dev auditing > ... are there many companies doing [auditing of Web > development firms], and how do you guys see this kind > of activity? Have you had your work audited any time? > Would you think of using this kind of auditing when > using the services of another party? - Joao Pereira, LED Digest 2294 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1373/55/ > I have direct experience with "being audited" and > it was no fun... we were denied about 35% of our > bill, and this company basically said "tough luck..." - Cayley Vos, LED Digest 2295 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1376/55/ This can be considered theft of services, however, that doesn't help your case. However, your example demonstrates the necessity of contractual agreements, especially in conducting global business. Decades ago I learned the value of "possession is 99% [of the law]" back in the early 70's gasoline shortage... and here I stood next to a tank containing well over a million gallons of petrol. Therefore, lesson learned, I get the green (possession) before I turn on the working machine. How I handle the money on my end is: #1 - I'm very selective for whom I'll contract work in the first place. #2 - I phase each job. #3 - My web design contract agreement requires the client to pre-pay each phase of the job. They pay, I do the work, they sign-off on the work, they send check for the next phase, etc. I allow a 10% retention for final cleanup. Once the 10% is received, I move the work off of my server and (allow them to) publish the web site. The work is my property until publication and in accordance with the specific contractual agreement. If I smell a bad smell, I encrypt the work. If they attempt to hijack it, they only get goo-muck code! I also have a delay of project (by the client) charge. You delay, you pay. Designing a (business) web site, today, requires a close partnership between the web site owner / webmaster and the web site designer. I'm very, very careful about the partnerships into which I enter. I found out that those who do not like the pre-pay arrangement DO NOT intend to pay for the work in the first place. I have no use for them. Have I ever been shmucked? You bet! But no more! Kind regards, Al Toman studio9.ws -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Rae Deisler Subject: Audits - Who Decides? This issue has potential to be hugely problematic. For instance, how do you know the third-party auditing service is going to offer definitive results? How do you allow them to decide things like efficiency, technology, workflow, etc? This takes the responsibility from your work force and gives an outside agency the power. I think there are some problems, Joao, that you'll have to solve on the PR end if you want to make this a success. Why should I trust you? What kinds of empirical methods can you guarantee that will result in deliverable, measurable outcomes? Rae Deisler ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: John Smart Subject: 301 redirects > Are multiple 301's pointing to the > same base URL a problem? - Moderator Comment, LED Digest 2293 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1372/55/ There are other ways of redirecting. If you set up a .htaccess in the folder with the redirects. { RewriteEngine on RewriteBase / RewriteRule ([^.]+).[h|H][t|T][mM][lL]$ show.php?id=$1 [T=application/x-httpd-php] } (without the braces) this will take a case insensitive call to ANY .htm or .html, and pass it to the show.php script as a GET variable called id. English version. If you had this code in domain.com/test, and someone went to domain.com/text/hello.html Although their web browser would confirm that they are at domain.com/text/hello.html, they would be seeing a feed from: domain.com/text/show.php?id=text/hello.html In php you could then use $_GET[id] as a call from a database or as a flat file, or as a feed to include the correct file. This could easily be done in any language, but I am only fluent in php! John Smart InternetDesign.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2006 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "We have a mantra: don't be evil, which is to do the best things we know how for our users, for our customers, for everyone." - Larry Page |
