| LED Digest 2648: Views on SEO Standards |
|
|
|
==================================================
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 .............................................. May 19, 2008 Issue no. 2648 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== SEO Standards ==-- ~ Michael Linehan "I also disagree factually with what Dan Thies says..." ~ Elliot Borin "They *are* constantly changing the rules, that's fact not myth." ~ Eric Ward "...comparing SEO standards to drunk standards might make good sense." --== Ad Networks for Newbies ==-- ~ Brad Waller "Looking at only one source is the perfect way to limit your revenue." --== Has the Stone Age Ended? Xara ==-- ~ Shaun Johnston "Xara dramatically shortens the learning curve." ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Michael Linehan Subject: SEO standards > The myth of the search engines "constantly > changing the rules" is the only thing that > *never* changes in SEO. > > I am struck by how little has changed in > the past seven years, for those who aren't > trying to game the search engines. - Dan Thies, LED 2647 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2062/190/ Re Dan Thies' use of "myth" and "gaming"... The use of emotionally- laden words, innuendo or name-calling is no substitute for articulating a coherent and logical thought. Using this manner of writing is merely to attempt dismissal, by immediate negative association, of a contrary point. Hence all the terms we see in public discourse such as unpatriotic, NIMBY, commie, myth or gaming the search engines. I also disagree factually with what Dan Thies says about "how little has changed in the past seven years". Keywords were powerful; now they're not. Duplicate content was great; now it's not. How titles need to be formulated, for best effect, has changed, and so on. There are many other examples. As for speed, I'm not saying it's *always* changing overnight; just that there are some times when it does. Remember the Florida update? And who gets to define "gaming", or any of these other labels? By some people's definitions, anything you do besides what you'd do if the search engines didn't exist is gaming. Probably most useful for anyone reading is to keep to clear, logical discussion that doesn't rely on blanket categorizations that no-one has a specific definition for, anyway! Michael Linehan, Marketing Alchemy www.marketing-alchemy.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Elliot Borin Subject: SEO Standards It's hard to imagine Dan Thies, or anyone else, seriously calling the statement "search engines are constantly changing the rules" a myth. They *are* constantly changing the rules, that's fact not myth. Perhaps if you define "constantly" as every day or every week, the statement isn't true. But that's not what "constantly" is. Constantly is a process, a process that is ongoing and continuing. At this very moment somewhere, on one continent or another or maybe three different ones, Google engineers, mathematicians and mainframes are hard at work revising the rules of the game. And in due course, when they are satisfied that the new rules will achieve the goals they have preset for them, they will impose those rules on their subjects in the classic manner of all kings everywhere. It is that endless process of refining and redefining their corporate and product (and we all know what the main product is) goals and then writing rules to achieve those goals that is the constant and produces the change. Elliot Borin -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Eric Ward Subject: SEO standards Two salient points jump out at me > I am struck by how little has changed in > the past seven years, for those who aren't > trying to game the search engines. - Dan Thies > ... certification would be obsolete before > it was issued... - John Merrell Both statements are brilliant and beautiful in their simplicity and accuracy, and ironically, the statements refute each other. If nothing has changed for the non-gamers, then the certification would NOT become obsolete before issued. At the same time, I'd never have a shred of confidence that just because a person was "certified" that they had a clue what to do on a site by site basis. From a link building standpoint, even 100% white hat link building requires different tactics based on the subject matter and competitive space. What I have to do in order to help edmunds.com rank high for 'car prices' is completely different than what I have to do to help hubblesite.org rank well for 'space photography' Yes, I use a few similar strategic tactics in both cases, but nothing I feel could be certified, yet nothing that would be too much different than what I'd have done seven years ago. Social media, UGC, and bookmarking tactics would be new, but to 'certify' social media SEO is, to put it in technical terms, KooKoo. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but experts in our country can't agree on blood/alcohol standards for defining what 'drunk' is, so comparing SEO standards to drunk standards might make good sense. A teensy bit of difference either way can mean making it home safely or killing something. Eric Ward http://www.ericward.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Brad Waller Subject: Ad networks > Can anyone suggest some great resources for > learning about ad networks? - Barrett J. Rossie, LED 2646 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2061/190/ Grant Osborne (issue #2647) wrote "You may only need to look at Google's Adsense." I really have to take exception to that advice. Looking at only one source is the perfect way to limit your revenue. What if MSN or Yahoo's version of the same thing pays better for your site? What if you qualify for Tribal Fusion? I bet they pay better. My advice is to look at the options and review your goals. Can you make enough money from advertising to be worth your while? If your potential is not high enough, you can find that you waste more "money" in your own time signing up, editing your site, and checking on things. If you have made the decision that you want to try it, I do advise checking out AdSense as it does work well for many people. You can also apply for the Rubicon Project (http://rubiconproject.com) which is an ad manager that can optimize what is shown on your site by showing ads from lots of networks. I created AdJungle to help publishers manage multiple newtorks and optimize their eranings. Google is optimized for the advertisers. They only have to pay a few cents CPM more than your site earns through PPC ads, so you want to make sure that you are always showing the best ads that can earn you the most money. Letting one network show everything is a way to guarantee you are not earning as much as you could. Brad Waller Manage and Sell your own site advertising http://adjungle.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Shaun Johnston Subject: Xara > ... you refuse to use CSS (why??) then go > on to praise Xara Extreme Pro then point us > to a sample page (presumably created with > Xara) that makes extensive use of CSS. - Tom Aman, LED 2642 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2057/190/ I refuse to handcode using CSS because: 1. Doing so produces non-standard "files." If someone sends you a Freehand or Illustrator file you have a standard interface through which to work on it. But each designer implements CSS differently, so taking over a site from someone else can be a nightmare. 2. It rapidly became clear with Freehand that it was going to outrun even the most advanced Postscript programmer. Current reliance on CSS and hand coding is holding web design back from a similar advance. 3. As a professional web designer I welcome separating published work, eg print piece or pdf, from a "source" document, as an original Xara file would be. Handing over a design would involve sending the original Xara file. 4. Xara dramatically shortens the learning curve. My wife struggled with learning web design and I saw CSS frustrate her to the point of abandoning the attempt, even after a year of self-training and the creation of several web sites. I meanwhile, with a wysiwig editor (Namo Webeditor), had no such problems. 5. In Xara I just design. I don't have to bear the limitations of html in mind. For http://nycgetaways.com/temp/xaratest/webTest%20of%20flyer.htm I just created the central graphic, made the top right text balloons, and then just duplicated and reshaped it as I went around, reshaped and repositioned the balloons so they worked together, and then said, "Make Web page." I needed pay no attention to design limitations. It blew me away. Xara can create multi-page websites, and styles can be maintained among different designers or departments by circulating graphic "libraries," thus maintaining a common style, as CSS stylesheets let one do. Adam, maybe I should become an affiliate for Xara, and advertise on this board with you. As you can see, I believe quite passionately in this approach. And I could usefully feed back to Xara this group's opinions and problems. For an introduction to Xara see www.xara.com/us/products/xtreme/tutorials-demos/ And I'm British, as Xara is, so I can explain local customs. Shaun Johnston (c) Copyright 1995-2008 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "For every failure, there's an alternative course of action. You just have to find it. When you come to a roadblock, take a detour." - Mary Kay Ash |
