| LED Digest 2178: Sites & Sand, plus AdSense Tips |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 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 .............................................. June 8, 2006 Issue no. 2178 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== The Sandbox Myth ==-- ~ Chris Nielsen "It makes perfect sense to me that Google would treat new sites differently than sites [with] history." ~ Mark Whitman "...techniques that worked well for me 10 years ago still work well today." ~ Michael Linehan "Is there any evidence or any logical connection that you left out for reasons of brevity?" --== AdSense Experiences? ==-- ~ Mike Banks Valentine "AdSense...now makes up a significant part of my income..." ~ Renee Kennedy "...find an ad representative that will run ads for you." --== Image Formats ==-- ~ Kerry Branham "Image optimizers are good, but eventually you may want to know how to optimize yourself." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Mac vs PC ==-- ~ John Smart ~ Tom Aman ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Chris Nielsen Subject: Sandbox myth > There is no such thing as a Google Sandbox. It's one of > those terms that self-proclaimed search engine "experts" > came up with to explain why their methodologies don't work. - Shari Thurow, LED 2177 My understanding of the Google Sandbox idea is that they treat new sites differently from ones that have been established. I have launched quite a few sites over the past few years, some good, some not so good, and watched those of new clients that were optimized and submitted. While the specifics may vary, the general pattern is that while a new site may get some traffic, it generally takes about 3+ months to get any Google PageRank. This seems to be true for sites that are submitted to a couple hundred search engines and directories or ones that are only submitted to a few places or have links from some of my other sites. I have one site that was launched in late February and currently has 130 backlinks that show up in Google, but still has a PR0. What I have seen is that even a new site with zero PR (white bar) can still get some pretty good traffic. I see this as being a result of the site having good content and being well-optimized. And I cannot say that the appearance of a site's PR coincides with a noticeable increase in traffic. I view PR as an effect, not a cause. There are many people much smarter than me and with more available time to study Google and the other search engines. While I don't accept everything that gets put forth as fact, I do listen to most of what is said, even from those with only a high school education like myself, since many have insight, intuition, and just good old analytical skills to understand and uncover things that many well-known experts don't or can't. I think SEO is one of those things like politics and religion where you have to listen to as much information as possible or you can't form an accurate picture of the truth for yourself. It makes perfect sense to me that Google would treat new sites differently than sites that have a history and I think the sandbox effect is the result of testing and observation. How often and to what extent is a site updated or modified? How quickly and from where do links point to the site? How many clicks to different pages get, if presented high in the search results? How many if low in the results? How quickly are site errors detected and fixed? How often is content removed? Is the page load time consistent? How do links to other sites change? Is the visitor consistently presented with the same content that was spidered? As you can see, there are many, many things that can indicate what is happening with a site. In order to understand and properly "Rank" a site, I think you have to gather this kind of information, and that takes some time. Frankly, the title of this topic caught my eye and I'll have to go back and read the other messages to see what had been said before. Ok, I just read the last LED and have one last comment. There are many "experts" now that say you should not submit your site. I feel this is both true and also stupid. It's just not as simple as that. It is true that is not needed to submit your site to places that spider, like Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc. However it IS required to submit your site to other places that do not spider, or only spider after you submit to them. DMOZ is difficult to get listed in, but can make a big difference in your site's traffic. There are also many other directories that can provide the benefit of a valid link to your site if you get listed, even if they send you little or no traffic directly. It's important to note that the content of your listing provides them with content, so it's a win-win situation and both sides need to realize that. We almost never pay for listings, since our listing does have value as content. Then there are sites like www.SplatSearch.com. This site will spider your page(s) after you submit to them. The bad thing is that you have to submit each page you want spidered, but the good thing is they spider every page you submit. I mention SplatSearch.com because I have been submitting sites to them for years and I generally see traffic coming from them. There are more and more services springing up that hand submit to large lists of sites like these, some as many as 200 or more. You don't have to hire anyone to submit your site, but for the best results you should submit one time to as many places as possible. Thank you, Chris Nielsen www.nielsentech.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Mark Whitman Subject: Sandbox myth > There is no such thing as a Google Sandbox. - Shari Thurow, LED 2177 I have little to base this on but I'm inclined to agree with Shari. I dropped out of the professional SEO biz several years ago when I discontinued services to the general public but I still get very good (frequent top 10 Google) results when I do SEO for various projects I work on. I've heard people referring to the "Google Sandbox" and thought it might be some new way Google devised to make people hate them even more but since I've never had anything go into any "sandbox" I've been skeptical about it. The fact is, techniques that worked well for me 10 years ago still work well today. It's pretty much a matter of understanding how search engines work and using common sense, which is basically what Shari is saying. Even if there is some sort of "sandbox", using an intelligent SEO strategy seems to be the path around it. Mark Whitman -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Michael Linehan Subject: The Sandbox Myth > And no, I really do not care what other search > experts say, unless you're Alan Perkins. - Shari Thurow, LED 2177 This is supposed to be a place of DISCUSSION for people of every level of experience. > For that reason, no Google Sandbox. I don't need my graduate degree to see that your statements, in no way, lead to this conclusion. You made three very basic, widely believed statements and then leapt to "therefore, no Sandbox". Is there any evidence or any logical connection that you left out for reasons of brevity? > I probably won't listen unless you have a high-level graduate > degree and/or considerable experience in information retrieval > systems. I don't consider anecdotal evidence as proof. Amazingly similar to statements made by those who think that western medicine is the only medicine - not realizing that much of that method is based on anecdotal evidence. We are all acquainted with medicine's attitude of, "We are the experts with the letters on our names. We are the only ones who know the truth." That attitude has taken a huge beating in the last couple of decades. I would say a huge percentage of working knowledge of what is effective in marketing and web marketing is anecdotal, or based on such tiny studies as to be close to such. "Does it work?" is more important than "What letters do you have?" Michael Linehan, Marketing Alchemy -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Mike Banks Valentine Subject: AdSense > I'm looking to find if a) we should use AdSense and b) what works > and what doesn't. Am I just wasting time thinking about this? - Nathan Holley, LED 2177 Nathan, The key to AdSense is popular content that gets significant traffic. I have over 1000 pages with Adsense ads on them at http://WebSite101.com and about a dozen of those pages produce 90% of the income generated because they contain the most frequently searched keywords, are ranked well and get heavy traffic. Your question about ad sizes, links, banners and positioning on the page are the most important *after* the popularity issue. They all matter hugely - but only if you get significant traffic to your site. I made a few simple changes to ad format, color and position after reading Joel Comm's "The Adsense Code" (available at Amazon). The changes doubled my Adsense income. AdSense started off paying for my hosting fees in 2003 and a few small business expenses and now makes up a significant part of my income - based mostly on the popularity of a dozen pages on WebSite101. I have the code on about 1000 pages. The pennies made on AdSense click throughs on the balance of less popular pages is still significant because WebSite101 gets a fair amount of traffic. It works if your site gets traffic - it works better if you place ads carefully and choose ad colors that match your site design. I'm happy to talk with you by offline if you'd like other details. Mike Banks Valentine http://seoptimism.com/ -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Renee Kennedy Subject: AdSense Nathan, Adsense is a good program. Also, MSN and Yahoo both have a similar program. You might try testing all three to see what works best for your content. However, the best bet, if you have a 10,000 page site, is to find an ad representative that will run ads for you. For instance, I work for a company which represents over 350 health web sites. This includes both physician and consumer oriented sites. If you specialize in a niche, like healthcare, you would do much better to find a company to represent you and sell your advertising space. Companies like mine have a sales force and the contacts with the healthcare industry that you would be able to leverage much easier than trying to hire your own sales force. My suggestion is to go out and look for an ad representation company in your niche. Renee Kennedy http://www.e-healthcaresolutions.com -------- new post - new topic --------- From: Kerry Branham Subject: Image formats I've been working with images and websites for many years. My rule of thumb is that if you are creating a logo or some other type of image that does not require more than 256 colors then use GIF format. Also, if you need to make the image backgrounds transparent you only have two choices - GIF and PNG. If, however, you are using photographs or images that require many more colors then JPG format is better. It is a compressed format, which automatically reduces the file size - provided you are careful of the resolution you are using. Remember that CRT and standard LCD monitors are only about 96 dpi, so you do not need to create images that are 200 or 300 dpi. That makes large files in itself. Also, you can compress JPG images sometimes up to an additional 25% without ruining image quality. This all probably goes out the window with HD monitors, which presents a whole new set of rules. I have experimented many times with GIF images that require more than 150 colors to be viewed properly, and they will often be larger in file size than if I create the same images in JPG format. My point is that if you are new to doing your own image creating and editing, then you need to experiment somewhat to see what will give you the smaller file size. Image optimizers are good, but eventually you may want to know how to optimize yourself as you have more control over the exact settings you can give your images. Paint Shop Pro has an excellent image optimizer built in. Kerry Branham K-S Marketing kib, ksmnet.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: John Smart Subject: Mac PC James has some strong, and not too well focused views on PC and Mac: > I propose that you give your child a Mac... and > don't let them ever use a PC again, then let's > bring back this discussion in two years and > see who's crying... - James Haley, LED 2177 Do you have kids at school? Do you know what they are using?? It isn't just that Windows is a bigger target. The Mac OS (even before it was ported to a *NIX base) gave access rights on memory and on files, so a virus is automatically contained, and is unable to grab other files and memory holes to do with as it pleases. This will make it (near) impossible for any kid to get through it. Windows for all its good and bad, was never designed or built to be secure (Gates has admitted that repeatedly over the years) and it is only the new (still in development) versions that have proper security management in them for memory addressing. I am not pro Windows, anti Windows, pro Mac or anti Mac. I am pro what will ever get the job done for me! All our servers are Linux -- I wouldn't trust a Windows IIS server. Sure they are fine if you devote a plethora of time to managing updates and security plug-in -- but our flagship server has only had a couple of software upgrades in 5 years -- it just keeps running -- safe and secure Linux! > I use a PC without any problems at all. I don't > run virus software but I do run anti ad ware > and spy ware programs. A PC without anti virus will run much faster, and with more stability because each memory and drive call is not being investigated. But ad ware and spy ware will not protect you. It's a little like going to a war zone with a bullet proof helmet, and no bulletproof vest -- you may feel secure but you are in for a nasty surprise one day! John Smart InternetDesign.com - A Human Touch in a Digital World -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Tom Aman Subject: Mac PC > Macs now use Intel chips... 'Boot Camp' allows > you to boot either Mac OS X or XP (!!!!) right on > your Mac. This is NOT any kind of emulation. - Michael Linehan, LED 2177 Michael was commenting on my earlier comment regarding paying a severe performance penalty using a PC emulation on a Mac to enable the running of some Windows software. He is absolutely right if you can afford a new Mac now, but on older systems (non-Intel based), you are still stuck with the emulation. The pervasiveness of Windows can be infered from the fact the PC emulation on a Mac has been around for many years (even back when a 16 megahertz PC was considered *fast*). The emulations were always impressive, but the fact that they were marketed at all indicates, to me, the lack of some critical programs back then for the Mac. Aside from that, the Mac / PC argument can go on forever. Anyone remember Betamax video tapes and recorders? It was argued (and generally agreed by those who understood the differences) that Betamax was superior to VHS. But VHS prevailed. Basically, this was a case of a proprietary technology format being overwhelmed in the market by a format (VHS) allowing multiple, competing, licensed manufacturers. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax for more info). The Apple / PC situation has been much the same - Apple kept so much of the technology proprietary that Intel based PCs with the open architecture took over most of the market. MS-DOS was the most generally used operating system so when the initial Windows versions hit the market the shift to Windows followed naturally. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Apple had started with an open architecture and, like MS-DOS, included a GW-BASIC equivalent with the OS so anyone could create programs for the Apple. We might have a whole different computing landscape today. I also wonder what the Intel based Macs really mean - is Apple going to give up developing operating systems and just produce hardware? Tom Aman Aman Software http://www.cyberspyder.com Home of CyberSpyder Link Test ------------------------------------------------------- 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. "I learned that it is the weak who are cruel, and that gentleness is to be expected only from the strong." - Leo Rosten |
