| LED Digest 2626: Social Media Etiquette |
|
|
|
==================================================
The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom http://www.AudetteMedia.com : the LED's Publisher Boutique Internet Marketing: SEO, SEM, Social Media http://www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ : the LED's Premier Sponsor Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. April 16, 2008 Issue no. 2626 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== LinkedIn Etiquette ==-- ~ Nathan Holley "This social media thing is about people and connections, not etiquette and rules." --== Site Architecture for Multiple Languages ==-- ~ Cheryl Berry "Once site architecture and navigation has been designed, test it!" --== Guaranteed (and Automated) Rankings ==-- ~ Jim Berry "...it surprised me to see it advertised on Jill Whalen's recent newsletter..." ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Nathan Holley Subject: LinkedIn I'd like to respond to Grant Crowell's post on LinkedIn etiquette: http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2040/190/. I have a slightly different perspective, but I think Grant's sentiment is accurate. We need to be aware of how we use social networks. I just take exception to some of his points. > Put some effort into it. Don't use the > default form. I think actually the default LinkedIn form is preferred, only because most people are using it as the de facto and also because it's not that important unless you don't know the person (and haven't even emailed), in which case you shouldn't really be adding them. I also believe a lot of people network on LinkedIn and elsewhere hoping to make relationships or leverage them later, so they add someone before there's any sort of relationship there. That's fine by me. (By that I mean they've emailed before, but don't really know the person otherwise.) > Make it a real business interest. Don't be > adding someone if you haven't ever had any > actual business dealings with that person, > or if both parties express an interest in > planning to have them. I already mentioned why I don't agree with this, there are plenty of times I've added someone who I don't know or don't have any plans to know, but who I respect (I always send an email first). It's fine with most folks on LinkedIn, probably not so much on Facebook. That's for friends (to me anyway), LinkedIn is for business. It sort of IS about quantity really, it's about power in numbers and powerful contacts. > Offer a recommendation. If you really want > to have someone in your network, you need > to be willing to put in some extra effort > in advance. Disagree here too, it's not about putting any extra effort into connecting. This is the beauty of the web and LinkedIn - anyone can connect and we don't need the usual crap to do it. > ... I asked he to write me a recommendation > for my page, so she could help refresh my > memory about what I assumed was her > positive work experience with me... I've > haven't heard back from her since. I don't blame her one bit. You came off as arrogant and petty, and maybe pleading. (Not trying to sound harsh, the actions I'm talking about here not the person.) If I received a response from someone I wanted to contact like that, I would laugh out loud (or snort out my nose), shoot back my cup of espresso and mentally erase them from my world. This social media thing is about people and connections, not etiquette and rules. There are no rules. Get to know people by using sites that facilitate it, add who you want to add, maybe they'll add you back. Can it really hurt to have Matt Cutts on your LinkedIn contact list? Even if you've never spoken with him or done business, only shot an email back and forth? LinkedIn is the stuffiest of all social networks, so some of what you say fits there. But on Twitter, Facebook and others, rules don't exist and shouldn't ever exist since we're all just trying to figure it out anyway. Again, you wrote a good post in the spirit of helping, and I'm not trying to ridicule that. I just think you are off base. Nathan Holley -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Cheryl Berry Subject: Site architecture I'm not a frequent poster and sorry if a bit behind on this thread about site architecture, especially with regard to language issues but, whether relevant to most recent post or not, I'll throw in a few comments and hope LEDers will find it useful. > It would be easy to put 100 to 200 pages in > the root if the site was in one language, > but to organize a bilingual site seems more > difficult. - Magnus Brattemark, LED 2621 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2036/190/ From our experience, root pages are only important as a 'perceived' ranking value (Google tool bar, etc) and we've seen no difference in rankings for searches to qualified web pages which are much lower in the hierarchy than those in the root as long as those pages have met the rules - relevant metas, correlating content, and regularly refreshed data. It's not unusual for us to see visits to 4th level directory pages, likely because content on a particular page is more on the mark for a specific search phrase. "Perceived conclusion:" Search engines have to 'dig' (even more these days) for relevant and unique data - make yours such and you'll receive visits and high rankings regardless of directory level. Our rule of thumb: If your site architecture makes sense to you, it will probably make sense to a site visitor. If it's clunky or overwhelming to you, your site visitor will probably feel the same. If your site contains volumes of grouped things or categories, concentrate on creating a good navigation piece that directly relates to those groups, then offer options to move to the next level of interest a visitor might want to make based on where they landed. Logic is key. Once site architecture and navigation has been designed, TEST IT! Ask a trusted resource (or multiple ones) to do the test drive. Third party criticism of your website is a gift! Note problems, achievements, create a document, and analyze the results. Use this data for redesign considerations. Regardless of site architecture, design ALL pages in your site to be indexable, ALWAYS use title tags on each and every page and include the meta name="robots" content="index,follow". Create a user-friendly (I think Sheri calls this usability) navigation links in your site (text links make most sense) and then provide unique and relevant content from those links. DON’T be shy and DON’T hide! Offer a "we can help" message on every single page and live up to it. Even the worst site architecture / navigation can be overcome with a resource for help. Be credible in your presentation. Ex: We operate an advertising site, (sorta like a yellow page - but I do hate that reference because we are so much more), BUT, we regularly receive calls from site visitors who have come to our site seeking some specific information. Because our site "seemed to be an authority" in a specified area, visitors call us (in lieu of our advertisers) for help. At that point we either, point them (on the phone and while online) to the information provided on our site, OR help them search for a more relevant result. To this extent, we are never left with less than "overwhelming" thanks for our help! To our advantage, these types of calls provide us with information that (1) we have shortcomings in our site presentation and navigation OR (2) brands our online presence with the Internet community as a trusted resource. These calls are another ‘gift’. When it comes to site architecture, be organized, be responsive, evaluate from any an all resources available, present valid content, and feel free to design deep and measure your results. If you do, they will come... Cheryl Berry http://www.bookkeepinghelp.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Jim Berry Subject: Guaranteed rankings Thanks to all who replied. I was skeptical of this approach myself, which is why it surprised me to see it advertised on Jill Whalen's recent newsletter, to which I am a subscriber. Issue No. 228: High Rankings Advisor: Servers, States, SEMPO and Standards, includes this sponsored ad: ----------------- "iBusinessPromoter is the top-rated website promotion tool that helps you get top-10 rankings in Google, Yahoo and other major search engines." ----------------- It would be interesting to know what iBusinessPromoter paid to promote a service that seems to contradict what Google and many in the SEO community advocate. Jim Berry (c) Copyright 1995-2008 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "The first step is to fill your life with a positive faith that will help you through anything. The second is to begin where you are." - Norman Vincent Peale |
