| LED Digest 2204: Conference & Linking Lowdown |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 .............................................. July 17, 2006 Issue no. 2204 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ===================== --== Smart Framing + Site Tracking ==-- ~ Pat Pierson "I am looking for help on the best way to embed a website link content into a current website." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== SEO Conferences + Reciprocal Linking ==-- ~ Bruce Clay "New voices at conferences certainly would be nice, but not at the cost of adding personal agendas..." --== Fixed Width vs Fluid Web Sites ==-- ~ Mary Lee "So design in fixed width for a 1024 & you lose about 30% of your viewers." ~ Martha Retallick "...two of my observant clients have discovered a problem with [a fluid] type of design..." ~ John Smart "Even Amazon has a semi-fluid site..." --== Anchor Text and Rankings ==-- ~ Nathan Holley "...the prevalence of link spam is eroding anchor text as a viable factor in Google's algo." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Web Hosting Newbie ==-- ~ Joe Halbrook ========== NEW =================================== From: Pat Pierson Subject: Smart Framing + Site Tracking I am looking for help on the best way to embed a website link content into a current website. I have found several sites that provide scripts... some are free and some cost. Does anyone have any thoughts or experiences with any of these scripts. Also, we are looking for ways (anything) to track the individuals that visit our site. Would appreciate any info on any scripts, etc that would help. Pat Pierson Imaginative Designs ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Bruce Clay Subject: Conferences + Reciprocal Linking As one of the frequent speakers at major conferences, as a writer of articles, and as a trainer -- I agree with Shari [Thurow, issue 2200] that it is difficult to provide an hour worth of training in a sentence or two during a conference presentation. In a conference session a speaker must summarize at the level of the audience what it took years to learn, and what you truly believe, with the intent of improving the core knowledge of the audience while NOT beating your own drum, all in just a few moments. >... most (but certainly not all) claims about reciprocal > linking that have been espoused by the so-called > "well-known experts" in this industry fail completely > to hold up to close scrutiny. Yet more keep coming. > I read a new one just yesterday, from one of the > biggest names in the SEO business. - Dirk Johnson, LED 2201 I have a lengthy opinion about the advantages and disadvantages of reciprocal linking. I do boil it down to "a reciprocal link is commonly a bartered exchange between sites with the usual intent to influence search engine ranking instead of a means of generating either branding or traffic specific to that link". Many sites do not get much traffic from their link exchanges, and most do not get ranking advantage from them, so I advise the general population to avoid them. Matt Cutts specified in a WebmasterWorld Keynote (Nov, 2005) that purchased links and reciprocal link farms are hated by Google and that most are already dead as of Update Jagger. This is a significant statement by Google that purchased links (paid in cash or bartered) are wasted links if you are doing it for ranking. This is not easily tracked, of course, but I really think that it is the most common condition. I do still believe that link exchanges between trusted sites are valuable to both parties provided they are testimonial in nature. However, for the average site, just because there is a link does not mean it is contributing anything to ranking, and most users do not understand the difference. This is obvious to the industry speakers that spend time listening to the search engines or putting effort into research. A speaker at a conference may know this, but in tailoring a slide to an audience of many non-technical people it may boil down to a simple line saying "forget reciprocal links because these are easy to get, therefore not important to Google". In my opinion, reciprocal linking should never be about the ranking. Do it because it makes business sense (traffic or branding) or do not bother. > It continuously baffles me how people who don't really > do something can claim to know so much about it, and, > in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary, > they continue to hold to their conclusions. I do not spam, and I am openly white hat and opinionated on that matter. Yet I know what spam is and often discuss it. I do not see that I am not qualified to discuss a subject simply because I choose not to do it. Believing that reciprocal linking schemes intended to deceive the search engines into giving a site unearned ranking to be spam, I choose to avoid that as well. What is often considered "evidence to the contrary" is clearly an opinion most of the time. Matt Cutts did specifically comment at length about purchased and reciprocal links in his WMW keynote -- isn't that pretty good evidence? I feel it is better to spend your time offering information worth linking to (a link magnet) and thus benefit from unsolicited quality sites offering willing testimonial grade links, than to artificially, and I think temporarily, receive some inbound links from seldom visited pages. Because I do not engage in reciprocal linking programs does not mean that I am incompetent when it comes to speaking about that subject. And as a speaker, author, and trainer on the general topic of SEO I feel it is my duty to express my learned opinions when it comes to industry-harmful misconceptions. The only way that a reciprocal link helps is if it generates branding or traffic at a sufficient value. Otherwise it is a bad investment that may actually be harmful. Back to the thread... it is difficult to simply boil ten years worth of knowledge down to a 20 minute slide presentation targeting a varied audience when some in the audience have a vested interest in seeing your statements (that inhibit their ability to make a living) suppressed. Spammers do not want to hear that spam is wrong, and "reciprocal linking for ranking" advocates really do not like to be exposed. New voices at conferences certainly would be nice, but not at the cost of adding personal agendas instead of educating the masses. With that in mind, if you wish to teach an audience how to gain traffic through reciprocal links without spamming the search engines (REL=NOFOLLOW) then by all means, please speak up. Bruce Clay www.bruceclay.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Mary Lee Subject: Fixed width Our moderator wrote, > I received an email from an LEDer... wondering why > anyone would want a fixed width site, especially when > CSS and XHMTL allow for such clever fluid designs. I think the question should be Why Not Fixed? I have been doing web design about 8 years now. My current design is pure very fluid CSS & I love it. I have always designed on a percentage model instead of a fixed size. When I started designing web pages, monitors were 640x480. Next came 800x600 to muddy the waters and then 1024x768... well anyone who has a monitor NOT set to 1024x768 can tell you that those people who design a fixed page for 1024x768 monitors are evil. Well maybe not 'really' evil, but they have to be the only ones to offer the content or the back and forth scrolling to read will last all of about 2 seconds before we click away. In my home alone I have 2 computers on 1024 and 3 on 800. Hubby has his on 800 but zooms all his pages as he is hard of seeing at the advanced age of 49:-) Here are some helpful figures on percentage of browser resolutions used: 1024 x 768 is 56.15% 1280 x 1024 is 15.79% 800 x 600 is 12.04% 1280 x 800 is 4.09% 1152 x 864 is 3.90% So design in fixed width for a 1024 & you lose about 30% of your viewers. May not seem like that much, but as a business I find it to be way too high a figure to ignore by designing with fixed width. Mary Lee Dinner and a Murder Mystery Games http://www.dinnerandamurder.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Martha Retallick Subject: Fixed width Since I'm a big believer in it, I've implemented "fluid" design on my three websites, and strongly recommend it to my clients as well. I like the versatility of a design that can expand to fit the website visitor's browser window. Note that the key word in the previous sentence is "expand," because it plays a major role in this saga. Well, sorry to break the news to all of you "fluid fans," but two of my observant clients have discovered a problem with this type of design. They have found that when they shrink their browser windows, a big on-screen pileup ensues. To see this problem for yourself, go ahead and click on my sigfile URL, and shrink your browser window. Mind you, shrinking the browser window isn't something that occurs to many people. They prefer to view their websites full screen, or not at all. What do you do when you find that you're designing for the browser-shrinkers who abhor on-screen pileups? Well, apologies again, but here's Martha with more bad news. The solution is to use fixed-width design. Martha Retallick http://www.westernskycommunications.com Dressing your Business for Success on the Internet -------- new post - same topic -------- From: John Smart Subject: Fixed width If you have a 'letterbox' screen then no matter how you measure 'ROI' on your web page, the page will look poor even if you take some preventative steps with centering the body and having a surrounding repeating background. A fluid page is more work, and much harder to do well than fixed, and I understand why some would shy away from such a commitment, but like most of the advanced aspects of web design, hard work, dedication and perseverance can bring fantastic results. Even Amazon has a semi-fluid site, with the center column expanding between the outer two. I think when it comes to maximizing ROI, the Amazon model is one we would all like to be able to follow! John Smart InternetDesign.com - A Human Touch in a Digital World -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Nathan Holley Subject: Anchor text > ... your reference to the thousands of site owners who reciprocate > responsibly as "a game clowns play" is the equivalent of calling > anyone who sends a legitimate email newsletter a spammer. - Dirk Johnson, LED 2203 You're right to call me on it, Dirk. I was being purposively controversial in my post, but mainly to support a discussion of anchor text and its future diminishing value. And just precisely because of this: > ... all of the methods that allow sites to get links are abused, > including press releases, article submissions, guestbook > submissions, forum and blog postings, and more. Which brings us back to just what my original point was: the prevalence of link spam is eroding anchor text as a viable factor in Google's algo. Since no one has responded, I'll assume that I'm 100% accurate. :-) Thanks, Nathan Holley ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Joe Halbrook Subject: Hosting newbie Hi Pepper, I can tell you that I've tried many hosting companies in the past twelve years, with many bad experiences to go along with them. Bar none, the absolute best hosting company I've found, and have now been using for over five years is ArteryPlanet, located at: http://www.arteryplanet.net It doesn't matter if you're a serious web developer or a newbie, they have all the best design and development tools (mostly free) and a plethora of features that I couldn't find elsewhere. And their support is absolutely the best I've ever experienced. They keep up on all the latest security and software updates, and constantly offer the latest in managed hosting. Give them a shot. I think they have a $5.95 / mo. plan that has all the things I mentioned earlier. And I believe they have data services in your area (some of my server timestamps are in your time zone). p.s. I have no affiliation with them, I've just been a very happy client for over five years now. Best of success, Pepper. Joe Halbrook http://www.cleanmymailbox.com ------------------------------------------------------- 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "It's a strange world of language in which skating on thin ice can get you into hot water." - Franklin P. Jones |
