| LED Digest 2118: The Downhill Spiral? |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" 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 .............................................. March 16, 2006 Issue #2118 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== --== The LED Downhill Spiral? ==-- ~ Paul Morris "...the Digest seems to have become self obsessed with Google and Rankings..." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== URL Naming ==-- ~ AE Brantley "I would appreciate your comments on how a 301 redirect will affect rankings." ~ Ian Smith "Google and Yahoo both support 301 redirects for links." ~ Tom Anson "...I'd like to pose Chris's question to Mike and others again..." --== Reciprocal Linking [was: SEO Services] ==-- ~ Dirk Johnson "[This debate] is getting rather worn out and transparent..." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Outsourcing ==-- ~ Marty R. Milette --== Getting Pages Ranked ==-- ~ Bob Sheridan =========== NEW ================================== From: Paul Morris Subject: Caught in a loop! Dear Adam and Contributors As a long time supporter of LED, I often feel that something is missing from my day if I don't get to read the Digest. However over the last year the Digest seems to have become self obsessed with Google and Rankings, I feel the Digest is now boring. While I agree the big 'G' and rankings are important it is not everything to do with running a business on the net. I wonder now if the Digest is caught in a downward spiralling loop, driven by a small few who snipe at each other or continuously clap each other on the back. Having said that I would hate to see the Digest go down the tubes, which I imagine is going to happen in time if it continues as it is. I do appreciate and thank you for the great advice I have received from you over the years, I also thank Adam for all the time and work it must take to keep it running. Regards Paul Morris ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: AE Brantley Subject: 301 Redirect Hi, I would appreciate your comments on how a 301 redirect will affect our search engine rankings. Thanks! AE Brantley -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Ian Smith Subject: URL naming > If anyone knows how to change the wording > in the URL without losing the incoming links, > then I would be really happy! - Magnus Brattemark Google and Yahoo both support 301 redirects for links. This is also a browser compatible solution. It basically works by sending a message in the header that says that the document at xxx.com/oldurl has permanently moved to xxx.com/newurl. Google and Yahoo will treat the links to the oldurl as links really going to the new url. Users will be redirected before they can tell the difference. On a side note, you can use 301s to make sure all links use the same subdomain for your server. This is a safeguard to make sure that links going to www.xxx.com/document and xxx.com/document are counted as going to the same document and don't appear as duplicates in the search engines. It is generally suggested that you route all traffic going to http://domain.com to http://www.domain.com There are lots of resources to help you use 301 redirects (at the scripting level, etc). A simple google search should get you what you need. Ian Smith http://dottactics.blogspot.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Tom Anson Subject: URL naming Concerning Chris Oberst's question about the relative importance of names in URLs (LED 2115): I believe that Mike Banks Valentine's response (LED 2117) has some real merit. However, it seems that the wisdom contained there may be a bit "diluted" by his assumption of what Chris was asking. It sounds to me like Mike assumed that Chris was looking at URL names as a single-ingredient fix-all. That is not how I read the question. Possibly a better way to approach the question would be, "Given the many different aspects of SEO, and assuming that each is being addressed appropriately, how important is it -- within the total of SEO efforts -- to have the product name or description in the URL? Is it important, borderline (or incrementally important) or not important?" When I was getting started on the web, the heavy use of keywords in file names was stressed as an important way to get good rankings in the SERPs (as were alt tag-stuffing and title attritubes). However, I found that things improved for me once I *removed* all the extra stuffing (although my numbers have not been sufficient to define any really unambiguous trends). When I changed my page names from something like ~/singles/marjoram-essential-oil.html or ~/blends/valor-aromatherapy-blend.html to the more simple ~/marjoram.html or ~/valor.html, it didn't seem to make any difference in traffic. But it seems to make sense that naming a page for lavender oil something like ~/products/singles/lavender.html would be a better choice than a string of gibberish. At least site visitors know where they are (if they bother to look at the URL) and can tell that there is some real site structure in mind. That said, I'd like to pose Chris's question to Mike and others again, "Within the full mix of SEO practices (at least the good ones), and understanding that there is no single technique that will catapult my site to the top ten, how important is the product name / keyword in the URL? Assuming I don't have a lot of incoming links to these product pages, would the file name make enough difference to warrant making the changes? Or would the benefit be low enough that it wouldn't be worth the trouble? In a numbered list of things to look at for SEO, would the file name even make the top 10?" Tom Anson Anson Aromatic Essentials http://www.therapeutic-grade.com/ -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Reciprocal Linking [was: SEO Services] Let's take a new approach to this ongoing argument about the effectiveness of reciprocal linking, and I'll try to avoid direct exchanges with others who have posted, and talk in general terms. Maybe that's better. Reciprocal linking, done properly and with relevance, is still very effective as a means to establish brand awareness for a website. That branding work has the secondary effect of being seen and confirmed by the search engines. Thousands and thousands of sites do it, and many have done it many years, and continue. If it did not work, most would stop, since it requires a commitment of time and money. Yes, some people do stop, for various reasons, as there are no guarantees, and there are a lot of factors at play here. For those who continue to do it and derive tangible benefits, just how do they know that it works? Are they guessing, hoping and praying? No. It's actually very simple. By reviewing their site referral stats before and then during the link campaign. Once they start to see the primary and secondary benefits, they become even more determined to continue the work. It's been happening that way for years. Here's another much more public way to see if it works. Proper reciprocal linking does affect search results. Just take a look at a broad cross section of search results, and not just a few carefully selected individual cases here and there. Look at dozens and dozens of situations. Again and again, many of the sites that rank well (but this is certainly not always the case) have robust link exchange programs in place, and they rely on reciprocal linking as their primary means of initiating links. That is an undeniable fact, for anyone who looks objectively at search results. Many of them have had these programs in place for years. Moving these established sites out of their established positions is very hard to do. Lots of people try. There are those in the SEO world who would dismiss this rather substantial community of cooperative, reciprocating sites as being misguided, and following some kind of outdated, pack-mentality, or whatever. After all, all the "experts" know that it doesn't work anymore. These SEO specialists can grind whatever axes they need to grind, for whatever reasons they need to grind them. Some of these people have the advantage of having "big names", and they get high profile speaking gigs, run popular forums, and have widely referenced articles and books. Many of them have repeatedly published misguided, unfounded statements about reciprocal linking over the years, and some of it is has been outright absurd with it's failure to hold up to scrutiny. It is obvious to me that many of them have very little real experience with the practice, or they no longer do. If many of these "experts" are so confused about this most fundamental aspect of website marketing and branding work, then I have to question what else they do not truly understand about this business. The ability to talk and write about this subject, regardless of how high profile the stage, does not guarantee any sort of factual expertise. At the same time, there are a large number of SEO practitioners who do understand the purpose and the benefits of a robust and relevant reciprocal link exchange program, and they do pursue link exchanges on behalf of their clients. We encounter them every day, as either clients or as link exchange partners. While some of these people are also very well-known and respected and published, these are also the work-a-day SEO practitioners. They need to get results for clients, at reasonable cost. They look to reciprocal linking as one option of many, in a very pragmatic and unemotional way. Would these people continue the practice, if did not work as a part of the larger picture? Fortunately, the site owners and SEO specialists who do benefit from reciprocal linking tend to just ignore the nay-sayers, and continue to do what they have done for years, and continue to enjoy the benefits. Those who prefer to take the advice of the detractors then need to find other means to accomplish their goals. Maybe those other means might cost more, be less stable, be less effective, and may carry more risk. That's up to them to decide how to proceed. Reciprocal linking is by no means the solution for every site. Some people don't like the concept of it. Some people think it is ineffective. Some don't want to commit resources to it. Every site owner must decide if it is right for their own site. Nor does it stand alone. It is just one of a myriad of methods to not only earn links, but to market a website. However, we see in situation after situation where it is, in fact, one of the fundamental components of a solid website marketing and branding program. Am I self promoting? If that's the tack that one wants to take here, then just call me a self-promoter, dismiss me, and do what you need to do. But LED Digest is supposed to be a forum for the exchange of web marketing and management ideas, and expertise in this realm does not come from left field. Nor does it come from those who see only limited examples and then make broad, unfounded claims. It comes from those who practice their craft daily, and have done it for years. I do bring that to the table here, so if myself and those like me don't share what we see out here in the course of our work, and accept in advance that it just might be construed as self-promotion, then we'll only have a LED Digest full of speculators and casual observers, and not day-to-day practitioners. More to the point, folks. Adam tries hard to moderate this forum properly, and has done it well for years. Those who want to constantly advance their opinions in here by attacking their detractors as "self-promoters" are not only insulting all the other LED readers as being unable to tell the difference, they are also taking aim at Adam's moderating decisions in the process. I am not the only one who has endured these kinds of attacks. It's getting rather worn out and transparent as a debating tactic in a closely moderated forum like this one. Let's exchange ideas, but how about we all lay off the "self promotion" retorts? They accomplish nothing but to put a muzzle on those who might have something relevant to share, but do not, lest they be called out as a "self-promoter". I have a thick enough skin to take it. Others who have something to share may not. Best regards, Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations DomainDrivers LLC www.domaindrivers.com www.linkstrategy.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Marty R. Milette Subject: Outsourcing... Real-World Example: This week, I needed someone to install SugarCRM on a SUN Solaris 10 box. I am a Microsoft guy, and have very limited UNIX skills and no SUN skills at all so I needed a solution and needed it FAST and CHEAP. For the past week, I've been soliciting quotations to do the installation and have received quotations from Russian and American IT specialists ranging from 2 to 5 days at $500 to $1,750 to do the install. I considered this unreasonable -- especially since the software is Open Source and a fairly straight forward installation. Instead, I used http://www.bangaloreit.co.uk/ -- an Indian company whom I have used before and who's work I can highly recommend -- they quoted $10 per hour and 3 hours of work -- the system was installed on a live server (with other mission-critical applications) is RUNNING PERFECTLY today and I can get on with other tasks. When the work was performed to my satisfaction, I paid by PayPal (took about 30 seconds), and the case was closed. Totally hassle-free. CUSTOMER DELIGHTED! Some may consider it "corporate greed" to send work offshore and save money. I call it a common sense way to solve a problem and delight the customer. Businesses can only STAY in business by using their heads, shopping around, and getting the best value for money. Some employees don't understand that if the business pays too much for products or services -- the business will fail and there will be NO job for them. There is nothing 'greedy' about treating the corporation's money as carefully as you treat your own by shopping around in order to stay in business. The key to survive in the global economy -- be SMART, be COMPETITIVE and ADD VALUE! Marty R. Milette http://www.ambh.com marty, milette.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Bob Sheridan Subject: Getting Non-Index Pages Ranked on Google, MSN, etc. Dear LEDr's, I have been reading LED for several years and have used many shared tips & techniques to get my website www.restaurantplus.com ranked fairly high for keywords such as "restaurant software" etc. My question for one of the SEO guru's is "how to get non-index pages to get ranked with Google, etc." Specifically I have a page called www.restaurantplus.com/pos-point-of-sale-hardware.htm that I want to get ranked using keywords like "pos hardware, point of sale hardware". I am also trying to get www.restaurantplus.com/restaurant-pos-software.htm to place using keywords "restaurant pos software". I do get ranked but only for my index (home) page. I believe I have done everything correctly in my source code and have sufficient "content" on the web pages. Is anyone willing to share some ideas for improving ranking of web sub-pages? Bob Sheridan RestaurantPlus, LLC ------------------------------------------------------- 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. "Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegut |
