| LED Digest 2433: Search Engines Want the Canonical |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom www.GetWebContent.com/LED : the LED's Key Sponsor The Web's Most Experienced SEO Content Providers. www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ : the LED's Premier Sponsor Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification ================================================== Guest Moderator: Published by: John Audette LED Digest john, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. June 19, 2007 Issue no. 2433 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ===================== <Moderator Comment> ~ John Audette "Thank you for the welcome." --== Converting An Ezine to a Blog ==-- ~ Shel Horowitz "I'm being told it's valuable, but too long and not pretty enough." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Duplicate Content Issues ==-- ~ Shari Thurow "Search engines certainly want you to deliver them the "canonical" (that's what they call it) URL." --== Drop in Rankings at Google ==-- ~ Sonia King "On the primary search term, "mosaics", my site is now at number 113. (insert panic here)." ~ Dirk Johnson "Peggy, site owners need to make decisions that make them comfortable." ========== NEW ==================================== <Moderator Comment> Greetings... Whew! Thanks to everyone for the welcoming messages. I'd print them here but it would sound like a eulogy. On to what I find to be an interesting issue. Your Striving Moderator, John Audette ----------------- From: Shel Horowitz Subject: Converting an e-zine to a blog For ten years, I've been publishing two text-only e-zines: Frugal Marketing Tips and Frugal Fun Tips. I added Positive Power of Principled Profit 3-1/2 years ago, and I've been planning to add one on book marketing once I reach 100 subscribers. Last month, I got almost no response from four items that should have netted at least a dozen. This month, I asked the 8000 subscribers in my two largest e-newsletters for feedback and I need to make drastic changes. Clearly the current format isn't working, and even most of the feedback landed in my spamfilter. If the feedback is getting trapped, I'm sure a lot of the newsletters are as well. Plus I'm being told it's valuable, but too long and not pretty enough. So...this morning I came up with a possible idea that would eliminate delivery problems, allow it to be pretty, encourage brevity, and take a lot of the burden off your shoulders once it's set up: do the newsletters as blogs, and send out a very short teaser with link. But I've got a couple of questions: 1. My feeling is it doesn't make sense to incorporate this into the existing blog, and that a separate blog for newsletters (or possibly a separate blog for each newsletter) might be better -- maybe set up at FM (and with the spamprevention plug ins, etc. What do you think: existing blog, one per newsletter, or one for all newsletters, categorized by tipsheet name and subject? I'm leaning toward a new blog covering all newsletters but I'd like your thoughts, pro and anti, on all three ideas. 2. Is there an easy way to set up a jump menu within a blog entry? I'm thinking I could have one blog entry listing the TOC for each issue and then individual posts for the articles. Shel Horowitz Marketing Strategic Planning, Consulting, and Copywriting focused on Ethical, Affordable, Effective Approaches http://www.frugalmarketing.com Comment? ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Shari Thurow Subject: Re: Duplicate content issues > To address potential duplicate content penalties, > manipulate your htaccess file and redirect secondary > domains to the preferred listing. - Chuck Hiatt, LED Digest 2432 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1837/190/ Hi all- First, a warm welcome to John Audette. Gosh, Adam. Make me feel old. I guess I am an "old timer" because I was one of the original readers and posters to LED when John was the moderator. Nice to have you back, John. Long time, no hear. This is in response to Chuck Hiatt's post in LED #2432 regarding duplicate content penalties. This is a session I cover at search engine conferences worldwide. It's one of the most popular sessions because the group of speakers that cover it work very well together. Kudos to my group. One of the biggest myths about duplicate content is that it's a penalty or spam. Sometimes, the purposeful delivery of redundant content to the search engines is spam, and the engines certainly filter that out (or at least they try). The one thing the search engine reps keep saying over and over again is that redundant / duplicate content filtering is not always spam. They keep using the word filter over and over again. There isn't one duplicate content filter. There are many and they are applied at different times throughout the spidering, indexing, and querying stages. Chuck certainly gave great advice. Search engines certainly want you to deliver them the "canonical" (that's what they call it) URL to them. Three URLs like the ones below: domain.com www.domain.com/ www.domain.com/index.html Should be permanently redirected to the "canonical" URL. Also, if you have printer-friendly versions of pages, those should not have a 301 redirect. Those should be robots excluded either with the robots.txt file or the robots exclusion meta tag. Knowing how and when to apply 301 redirects and robots exclusion will help your site's index count. That is why duplicate filtering is important for Web sites. If you deliver redundant content to the search engines, it often lowers your site's index count, which is the number of pages that are included in a search engine's index. The lower the index count, the lower the number of URLs that are available to rank. Sorry, long post. This is a topic that I study a lot and get a bit overly passionate about. Nice topic and tip, Chuck. Sincerely, Shari Thurow, Webmaster/Marketing Director Grantastic Designs, Inc. http://www.grantasticdesigns.com/tips.html Comment? ============ Sponsor Message =========== Have you sat down and read your website lately? What your site says is crucial in converting surfers into customers and meeting search engine mandates for fresh, unique copy. Our all-pro writers have Fortune 500 experience. For top-quality, customized, cost-effective copy, visit http://www.GetWebContent.com/LED today. ============ Sponsor Message =========== -------- new post - new topic --------- From: Sonia King Subject: Rankings drop > It's June 13th and I have just noticed a radical drop > in some of my Google rankings. I think I checked > them like a week ago and everything was OK. - Scotty West, LED Digest 2431 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1836/190/ EEEEK!!! Just read Scotty's post and checked my rankings. On the primary search term, "mosaics", my site ( http://www.mosaicworks.com ) is now at number 113. (insert panic here) Like Scotty, no changes to the website. Up until this week, it has been floating at around 11 to 18 for a couple of years. For many years it was in the top 3 and then it suddenly moved down a year or two ago - while websites that haven't been updated in 2-3 years remained in the top 5. I mentally adjusted, kept reading LED, kept trying just to make the best site possible, only adding pertinent and informative links, etc. But now it's a huge drop. Interestingly, on the search 'mosaic artist', it is still at number 3. But for my little niche, 'mosaics' is the biggie. I am an artist who does her own website. If any LED'ers (I am not worthy) have any advice, it would be gratefully received. And then there is always the eternal question...why the change? Many thanks for all the shared knowledge over the years. Best to all, Sonia King http://www.mosaicworks.com Comment? -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Lost rankings Peggy Deras in LED Digest 2432 said: "Your brand of link-cultivation advice is not for me." Peggy, site owners need to make decisions that make them comfortable. That is first and foremost. If you are not comfortable with reciprocating with other home-related sites, then you should not do it. Reciprocation is not for everyone. If you want more links, then you'll need to pursue whatever one-way linking opportunities exist, if that is the case. Please realize that the remainder of my post is intended for the LED readership, and not intended to get you to change your own position. I do think that there may be some confusion and misunderstanding about this subject, so I would like to reply to your other comments. Peggy said: > ... gaining links, in my position in the kitchen > and bath industry, is one of the hardest things > to do. Since I no longer sell product, no manufacturer > or industry site is likely to link to my site... Links are never easy. Some cost money. Some take time or real promotion effort. Some are not stable. For most site owners, sitting and waiting for links to come to them is a dismal effort, even with so-called "good content". Getting links from any major manufacturer, in any industry, is a very hard thing to do. Occasionally, it happens, but I wouldn't count on it. The bulk of your linking opportunities, reciprocated or not, are not going to come from the major product manufacturers. If you were reciprocating within the home products and services realm, you would have hundreds of valid and quality linking opportunities readily available to you. But you have taken that off the table for yourself. I am just making that point for others that are in your situation to consider. Good links are really not that hard to come by in the home-related realm of interest. > I see no point in having a truckload of irrelevant links, even > relevant links that I would not recommend to a client. Again, this is your personal choice in relation to what you present on your website. A link directory is not necessarily a "recommended vendor" list. It is a compilation of related information that may be useful to your site visitors. In many cases, many site owners specifically state that it is strictly an informational resource and it is not a recommended vendor list. Legal precedent does uphold this concept. The World Wide Web would be far less robust as an informational resource if every link carried some sort of legal certification. To be more specific, Yahoo! started as a link directory. At some point they applied limited editorial review criteria for their own purposes, but at no time were they ever vetting the overall business-worthiness of the sites listed. Presenting a link directory to site visitors as nothing more than an informational resource and a way to participate in a community of related sites is a very valid activity that has proven itself again and again as a worthwhile marketing tool, in real world situations. This activity took place long before any search engine even existed, and was active for years before Google came along and rewarded links. Most niche websites thrived in this reciprocation environment, and they became hubs within their realm of interest. Informative, well-structured link directories have merit, on their own. Again, it is personal choice of the site owner to determine what is presented to the site visitor. Some owners are much more liberal and open-minded in their interpretation of that, but there should always be some form of editorial review. It just depends upon how strict one wants to define it. > Any fool can see the future consequences of such behavior. > I think junk links just pull you down. They may work for a while, > but it is savvy design and content that really wins the eyeballs > and the ranking. I am not a fool, and I have direct experience with reciprocation that pre-dates Google (over ten years now). I can provide example-after-example of legitimate sites that have used proper and relevant reciprocation quite effectively to establish a very dominant presence within their realm of interest. Content and design are certainly worthy attributes of for a site. But content and design without effective promotion is just half the battle these days. Content and design can go unnoticed indefinitely. Peggy, I respect your choice, but I can also provide a very reasoned counter-argument for the rest of the LED readership. Regardless of the individual choices that are made by individual site owners against gracious reciprocation, it is a practice that will continue among site owners who do not share your perspective and prefer to pursue the various opportunities that proper reciprocation can provide them. From what we see here everyday, if those sites also provide valid content and design to their visitors, then it is quite typical that their reciprocated links will provide them with a very solid marketing advantage, for a number of reasons. As long as that situation continues, people will choose to reciprocate, and reap the benefits. Those who choose to not reciprocate openly will simply have to find other ways to gain references to their websites. All the fancy terms that are thrown around these days like "natural" links, "one-way" links, "high PR" links, "authority" links, and "quality" links are ALL creations the Google-centric SEO community, and they eventually all relate back to gaming Google in some manner. Specifically, no SEO consultant ever imagines "authority links" without also imagining some kind of gaming device to then get some. To them, it's all about forcing links, and selling some kind of service around that scheme. With that goes a lot of scare tactics and "white hat" posturing as added promotional spice. More power to them. I really don't care what they do, but site owners who think that they've hired an SEO consultant that is not gaming the process because they hide behind this wall of terminology and posturing are only kidding themselves. Search engine optimization is, by it's very definition, structuring a site to gain an advantage. No rational business owner would pay for search engine optimization with any goal other than to rank better and have their site perform more effectively in search for specific terms related to their business. Choose your weapons and get on board. None of that kind of link building talk existed prior to 1997. Before Google, site owners within the same realm of interest simply linked to each other graciously because it was the right thing to do, and it made sense, on it's own merit. Reciprocation that is still done that way continues to be a very valid marketing exercise. Some people just do it with more determination that others. That is their choice. Best regards, Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations DomainDrivers LLC www.domaindrivers.com Comment? ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by: GetWebContent.com The Web's Most Experienced SEO Content Providers. Free no-obligation proposal: http://GetWebContent.com/LED SEOToolSet.com Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification Join the certified SEO directory: www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ The Archives: http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/126/120/ Subscribe: http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/52/77/ Unsubscribe, Change Email, or Hold / Resume Delivery: http://www.led-digest.com/content/category/4/17/86/ (c) Copyright 1995-2007 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Give. Then take." Yoda |
