Marketing & SEO Discussion List - LED Digest

=========== NEW ==================================

From: Lee Roberts

Subject: Search Engine Friendly v. Search Optimization Friendly

In LED 2080, Barb Radiavljevic states that she used search engine

friendly URLs and page titles.

With all the hype about search engine friendly, I can understand how

it can be confusing with so many people expressing their opinions on

what is "search engine friendly."

Search engines like Google state they can index Web pages created by

ASP, PHP, JSP, ColdFusion and other extensions.  Then the search

engines express an unwillingness to treat dynamic URLs with the same

kindness they treat pages without variables.  In reality, search

engines don't have too much trouble with Web pages that have

variables in the URL.  The URLs with variables the search engines do

have problems with include the following &id, CFTOKEN, PSESSION and

a few other variables.  URLs with long, unruly variable markers also

present problems.

Google states they will not index anything with &id in the URL.

This is confusing to many because &pid, &uid, &sid and &cid all

include id, but are also indexed by Google.  The &uid and &sid

typically represent the session id variable in the URL.  Each new

visitor to a Web page is considered a new session.  Subsequent

visitations typically result in a new session id.  When search

engines encounter this problem they end up indexing the Web page

multiple times under different URLs.  This causes duplicate content

and is devalued by the search engines.  Too much of this duplication

can cause the entire Web site to perform poorly in the search engine

results.  Eliminating this problem must then be a priority.

Dynamic pages are generated with either a POST or a GET function.

The two functions pass information from the browser to the server.

The GET function will include the session variable in the URL.  A

POST function includes the session variable in the HTTP Header

request.  The POST function will then not have the session variable

in the URL.  Another problem is the GET function is less secure than

the POST function.

What is an HTTP Header request?  When browsers request a Web page

from a server, they include information up to 14 different

variables.  These variables include such information as a referring

Web page, the type of request, browser and its capabilities, the

acceptable protocols and more.

It is typically assumed that the only way to remove a session

variable is by using static, downloadable Web pages whose URLs then

do not include variables, but rather include a .html type extension.

 This is a misconception.

Dynamic URLs can be easily indexed if the session variable is

removed from the URL.  The only problem found then is the lack of

ability to merchandise products properly.  For example, an item

could be in more than one category.  A dynamic URL will typically

include a &cid where the cid is a numeric representation of the

category.  Since no two categories can have the same numeric

representation, having a product in two categories causes the search

engines to index the same item twice due to the different category

numbers.

Google states that the content management system should export the

content in a manner suitable for search engine navigation.  Shopping

cart applications come under the umbrella of the content management

system.  This does get a little confusing and does imply they want

static Web pages.  Google does not require .html extensions.

Rather, they seek the simple removal of duplicate content and

session variables in the URLs.  The other search engines aren't as

open-minded Google when it comes to the number of variables a URL

can have before they index the Web page.

Web pages using .html type extensions tend to be treated better than

Web pages with dynamic URLs.  Why this occurs is based primarily

upon the above mentioned problems.  Removing those problems tends to

result in equal treatment.

Search engine optimization experts will tell you that a URL that

includes keywords is search engine friendly.  This isn't entirely

true.  Rather URLs that include the ability to use keywords are

search engine optimization expert friendly.

Why is there a difference between search engine friendly (SEF) and

search engine optimization friendly (SEOF)?

The simply answer is realized when we understand that search engines

and search engine optimization experts have a love-hate or

adversarial relationship.  Search engines want to have relevant

results without a lot of spam or duplicate content.  With clean,

relevant results the search engines tend to feel they are providing

good user experiences.

Search engine optimization experts are paid to get their clients to

the top of the search engine results so they can be found.  Here's

where the adversarial relationship becomes understood.  Some actions

performed by the search engine optimization expert are not friendly

to the search engines.

Actions like stuffing keywords into every image ALT attribute falls

into the not friendly realm.  Using the accessibility elements of

HTML and XHTML such as table SUMMARY, image LONGDESC, NOFRAMES

sections, TITLE attributes (not be confused with page titles) and

many other elements incorrectly is not search engine friendly and is

merely and attempt of the search engine optimization expert to spam

the search engines.  Using spamming techniques is like taking

advantage of another person because they were not as clever as you

might be.  Obviously that isn't friendly to the other person and

certainly not friendly to the search engines.

Back to the exporting of content from the dynamic application, we

are faced with companies developing what they call SEF solutions by

using a function to take the product information from the database

and creating static, downloadable Web pages.  While this might be

thought to be SEF, in fact, it typically isn't.  Typically, these

static, downloadable Web pages create duplicate content.  Again,

duplicate content is not SEF as it fills the search engine database

with multiple copies of the same information.

At Apple Pie Shopping Cart, we've been wrestling with how to make

cart software *both* SEF and SEOF effective for over 6 years, so we

understand how hard it can be.  The search engines don't make it any

easier, since they are constantly adjusting the ground rules.  But

they *have* to, since the SEO experts and others are endlessly

searching for techniques to help their pages rank higher.

The confusion over just what works in search engine optimization is

not going to go away.  So site owners need to be very critical and

do their homework in evaluating the claims of SEO experts and just

as thorough when reviewing the claims of an application package like

a shopping cart claiming to be "search engine friendly."

Sincerely,

Lee Roberts, Chief Executive Officer

Rose Rock Design, Inc.

http://www.roserockdesign.com

======== CONTINUING ===============================

From: Reg Charie

Subject: Shopping carts

> We need something that is search engine friendly,

> low-budget, pretty much ready-to-go right out of the box.

        - Susan Johnson, LED 2081

Hi Susan,

Have you looked at the CRELoaded system? (www.creloaded.com)

It is search engine friendly. Meta Tag fields are given for all

products and product descriptions. One of my sites built with it has

listings in Google for every product.

It is multi language, multi currency with an option to auto update

currency conversion rates.

CRELoaded is open source, so it meets your low budget requirements

as it is free. It has a huge following which means a very active

support group.

As to "ready to go out of the box" you can check our demo at

http://0grief.com/demo/ and you can take a look around the working

demo admin at http://www.0grief.com/demo/admin/login.php

Login: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Password: admin

Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss the cart

system. Contact info for IM chat service is on my

http://dotcom-productions.com/cms/contact_us.php page

Thank You,

Reg Charie

www.dotcom-productions.com

------- new post - same topic -------

From: Paul Harris

Subject: Shopping carts

> ... I am considering GoECart Shopping Mall.

> Has anyone here ever used their system?

        - Susan Johnson, LED 2081

I hadn't heard of GoECart Shopping Mall so had a quick look - Its

functionality is similar to the Ecart system. I use EROL -

www.erolonline.co.uk - The main difference is that it's a one-off

price so no monthly bills.

Paul Harris

www.bivvyman.co.uk

------- new post - new topic -------

From: Sandra Linley

Subject: Multiple Sites - a Personal Perspective

I have a 6 year old marketing dilemma / website.  B Independent

(http://www.bindependent.com) was formed to provide information and

assistive products to brain injury survivors and their families.

The site has been successful, but not as originally envisioned.

Most visitors arrive via product searches (we rank high for fitness

gear, medication reminders, rollators, etc.) and depart without ever

realizing the brain injury connection.  Personal injury lawyers and

rehab centers tend to outrank us on brain injury searches.

Last fall, we decided to launch a secondary site with a tighter

focus and a subset of products.  KeepSafeJewelry

(http://www.keepsafejewelry.com) is packed with information on

emergency medical ID jewelry.  The site logo makes clear the

connection between the two sites, noting this is "B Independent's

KeepSafeJewelry," design-wise the two sites are similar, and the

shopping cart used is B Independent's.

Was going with a second site - as opposed to beefing up the medical

jewelry section of B Independent - a smart marketing move?  I wish I

knew. We announced the launch on B Independent, and google crawled

the new site almost immediately.  However, it has taken several

months for KeepSafeJewelry to start coming up on keyword searches,

and on most terms it still doesn't rank high.

Adding a comparable number of articles to B Independent would have

had a greater immediate impact.  But long term the separate site

seems to make sense.  Visitors seeking to learn about or purchase

medical jewelry can find exactly what they want - no clutter.  The

website name accurately reflects its purpose, a definite plus for

adwords and similar campaigns (unlike the situation with

"bindependent," which is consistently misread as "bin-dependent").

Finally, the search engines should relish the focused and

information-rich nature of the site.

What do you guys think?  Is this a situation that justifies separate

sites, or are we mucking things up?  Pros, cons... I'd love to hear

them! Then, if there's interest, I'll report KeepSafeJewelry's

progress (or lack thereof) six months to a year out.

Sandra Linley

B Independent, Inc.

http://www.bindependent.com

tools for living free

==== BILLBOARD ===================================

From: Michael Martinez

Subject: Learning

> Sheryl Coppenger's post... is (in my opinion) rude.

        - Michael Linehan, LED 2072

Sheryl's comment was far less rude than all the belligerant posts

that have been made in followup.  She wrote:

> A forum can't be all things to all people. Everyone has some

> holes in their experience and needs some simple explanation

> occasionally, but IMO if a beginner can't get anything out of the

> discussion here maybe he should find a newbie forum someplace

> and come back when he's "grown up" a little more professionally.

For that, she was browbeaten repeatedly.  All the angst that ensued

pretty much proved her point.

No two people have the same standards of rudeness and politeness.

One of the most rude, crass things anyone can do is to publicly

berate another person for "being rude".

Many Americans expect other people to look them in the eye when

talking.  We instinctively assume honest people do this.  In Asian

cultures, however, maintaining eye contact is rude.  You look down

to show respect.  A lot of Asian people are treated badly here

because of this simple difference in standards.

Most Internet bullying consists of people accusing each other of

being rude.  It's always OK to impose your personal standards of

politeness on others?  Not with me.  Respect goes both ways.  If you

cannot respect the other person's unique point of view, why should

anyone care about yours?

If people are not welcome to speak their minds here without fear of

being chastized and ridiculed for speaking their minds, then maybe

it's time to put the LED list to bed.

50,000 minds do NOT think alike.  Privately, Mike Linehan expressed

his displeasure at my "Get off the ego trip" remark in the site maps

tangent.  And yet if Adam received a similar torrent of protests and

Miss Browbeating replies about what I wrote, he opted not to subject

the list to further tedious discussion of what people think is and

isn't rude.

As Sheryl said originally, "Take what seems to fit your needs, and

leave the rest."

Turning these discussions into finger-pointing soap operas because

you didn't like the way someone said something is a huge distraction

and a total waste of a lot of people's time.  That's just plain

rude, in my book.

Sheryl, if you're still on the list, you go, girl.  Keep sharing

your thoughts but follow your own advice.  "Take what seems to fit

your needs, and leave the rest."

'Nuff said.

Michael Martinez, Author

Understanding Middle-earth, Parma

Endorion, and Visualizing Middle-earth

http://www.michael-martinez.com/

------- new post - same topic ------

From: Donald Baker

Subject: Learning

I've been following this thread with some interest. I agree with

Maty Matyszak's statement:

> Frankly, if [Sheryl's] comment is such that it causes

> lasting distress to a marketing manager, then I would

> submit he is in the wrong profession.

Anyone who's been an employee in a company with big plans and/or big

egos can remember shouting matches behind closed doors, after which

no one was fired and everyone got back to work.

At the same time, I agree with Michael Linehan's remark:

> Ideally, I would like to suggest that anyone refrain from using

> emotionally-loaded language that says anything negative about

> someone's character, motivation, level of integrity, etc.

..because I know from experience that strong statements can sound

*too* strong when delivered in print, rather than face-to-face.

<anecdote>

Early in my so-called career, I worked in a home office that

supported the activities of numerous field offices. There was a

typical HQs-vs-field mentality -- rational people left HQs for a

field office, and within six months became drooling idiots running

amuck, flouting all the rules. (Their viewpoint, of course, was that

HQs had no idea of reality and expected them to build bricks without

straw.) Every few days, someone got upset at the latest field

"mess-up," and sat down to type out clear, logical, by-the-book

instructions that no cretin could misunderstand.

Of course, their emotional state came through in their typing, and

calmer heads edited the prose before it was relayed to the field.

This happened so frequently, we developed a guideline: write your

reply exactly the way you like, letting it all hang out. Then cut

out the first paragraph (containing all the negative comments on the

inbound message, the stupid things planned, the writer's ancestry,

etc) and send the rest.

It worked -- the HQs writer got everything out of his / her system,

the field office received a dispassionate response with clear

instructions, and a respectful attitude prevailed in print.

</anecdote>

I'd like to follow both Maty and Michael's suggestions:1) develop a

thicker skin, and 2) delete angry remarks; send only what's helpful.

I'm reminded of Paul's instruction to the little church at Colossae:

"Let your conversation be gracious and effective, so that you will

have the right answer for everyone."

Don Baker

NSI Partners

------- new post - same topic ------

From: Leah Driver

Subject: Rudeness

I am a lurker here ­ I believe this is the first time I have ever

sent an email ­ and like everyone else, I enjoy this newsletter

immensely.

However, why don’t we give the whole “rudeness” thread a rest?

Everyone has berated Sheryl (which I believe is extremely rude in

and of itself), the list has apparently lost a valuable member and

if any topic has been beat into the ground, this one has.  I have

subscribed to this list for several years and can’t remember any

problems prior to this ­ though I have seen posts I would consider

much more mean-spirited than Sheryl’s was ­ and I think it’s safe to

say that rudeness is not a problem here.

I know, by sending this post I am contributing to the very problem I

am complaining about, but what do people want?  Sheryl is gone, the

finger pointers should be content and I don’t see anything else to

gain.

Thanks for the vent,

Leah Driver

-------------------------------------------------------

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"If you are patient in one moment of anger, you will escape a