| LED Digest 2175: Image Formats, also Mac vs PC |
|
|
|
==================================================
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 5, 2006 Issue no. 2175
..............................................
.....IN THIS DIGEST.....
==== CONTINUING =================
--== Search Engines Finding Sites ==--
~ Michael Martinez
"But being crawled doesn't guarantee you'll
be indexed."
~ Lew Vividere
"I simply add [new] domains with a text link
to my main site's sitemap."
--== Image Formats [was: Email Cloaking] ==--
~ Valerie Beeby
"Small GIF images of lettering are clearer
than JPEGs..."
~ John Smart
"PNG is better still!"
==== BILLBOARD ===================
--== Ransomware ==--
~ Michael Linehan
--== Google's Pigeonrank ==--
~ Tom Aman
======== CONTINUING ===============================
From: Michael Martinez
Subject: Finding sites
> If you have a Google or Yahoo toolbar, and are working on your
> own site. Would this not allow it to be flagged for crawling?
- Rob Bishop, LED 2174
No. This is a common misbelief, perhaps because people confuse the
properties of the Alexa toolbar (the tracking data of which is
reported in Alexa rankings) and the Google / Yahoo! toolbars (the
tracking data of which are apparently only used for internal
reporting purposes). Some people have openly speculated in various
SEO forums that Google uses the toolbar for crawling, but that is
just not a provable case.
As others have pointed out, Google, Ask, Yahoo!, MSN, and other
search services crawl new domains as soon as they are available
through Whois databases. I have seen this phenomenon myself. The
robots show up withn a few days of a domain going live.
But being crawled doesn't guarantee you'll be indexed. The search
engines tend to do more crawling than indexing (and Matt Cutts
recently confirmed this much is true since Google's Big Daddy
People with new domains should not be concerned about being found.
You will be found. You only need to be concerned with being
indexed, which requires more than just having a new domain. You
need a few good links to get indexed. Not hundreds. Just a few.
Ranking in queries will depend on various factors. Some people like
to do it through links, other people don't.
But you WILL be found.
Michael Martinez
"Cuando Maria canta, ella canta para mí"
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Lew Vividere
Subject: Finding sites
Whenever I add a new domain to my group of sites or I provide
hosting for a new client, I simply add their domain with a text link
to my main site's sitemap. Since my site gets crawled a lot by
most of the SEs, it is only a matter of a few days before the new
domains start popping up on the search engines. I don't submit any
sites anymore.
Normally as a part of adding a new site I also do some link
exchanges with relevant sites as a part of normal link building but
I don't stress that part as much as I used to. I have had sites get
a PR a day or two after putting them up simply by adding the domain
somewhere on one of my other sites. Usually my new sites relate in
some way to my other sites and if not, it doesn't seem to matter,
just so the domain is found by the SE's crawler.
Of course DMOZ or similar sites are another matter that would
require hand submission but I gave up on DMOZ after I found blatant
fraud on the part of other members that DMOZ management didn't seem
to care about.
Lew Vividere
-------- new post - new topic ---------
From: Valerie Beeby
Subject: Image Formats [was: Email cloaking]
> I like the idea of the slightly distorted GIF image.
> (Why GIF and not JPG?)
- Jean-Jacques Joseph, LED 2171
Small GIF images of lettering are clearer than JPEGs, which tend to
get what I call 'tadpoles' - messy artefacts around the edges - when
saved at small pixel size and low quality to reduce file size.
GIF file sizes can also be dramatically reduced by removing all but
the minimum colours. (You can't reduce the colours in a .jpg.) For a
demo, see:
Valerie Beeby
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: John Smart
Subject: Image Formats
A GIF is usually smaller, given that it has a limit of 256 colors,
where as a JPEG has the whole 16 million. However, in recent
experimentation, using a good image package, I can create better
looking, smaller images in JPEG, buy defining the size of the
palette. PNG is better still!
GIF’s have a major downside. They are proprietary to AOL if you
have a code that modifies a GIF on a server (or desktop) you
*should* be giving some money to those lovely people at AOL. I
understand that was the main reason for developing PNG leaving the
rights open for anyone to create utilities to manage, modify and
create these files.
Certainly in the world of PHP, I have found it easier to create and
modify GIF than JPG, but PNG seems to be as ‘easy’ as GIF.
John Smart
InternetDesign.com
==== BILLBOARD ===================================
From: Michael Linehan
Subject: Ransomware
> This seems to be the latest hideous scam... Their methods
> are described in this piece on the BBC.
- James Miller, LED 2174
It really pains me to read things like this - mostly because it's
all so unnecessary.
John Dvorak is one of the top, frothing-at-the-mouth, Apple is
rubbish, Microsoft can do no wrong writers. He has a very high
profile on and off the Web. For him to even admit the Mac OS
install CD is any use at all for anything other than scraping your
frying-pan is mind-boggling. And yet, in a move about as likely as
Bin Laden proclaiming, "I love George", Dvorak wrote in PC Mag,
"Right now, and as much as x86 users do not want to admit it, the
Mac OS is already better than Windows in its modern look and feel as
well as its functionality."
At the risk of provoking the "Mac is ****" reaction", sorry, but if
you are really fed up with "hideous scams" of ransomware and with
viruses, trojans and spyware, it may be time to consider a new OS.
Don't believe me; believe Mr. Windows, John Dvorak.
THE VIRUS MYTH: "All these Windows troubles are because Windows is
so popular." No - it's because a program can install itself without
any barrier at all. Apache has three times the market share of
Windows Server on the Web. But all those problems we hear about are
on Windows, not Apache.
So why wouldn't someone just buy a Mac? The two main reasons - and
my replies.....
THE COST MYTH: It's crucial to compare ability for ability ----
Comparing Apple's dual G5 to the top of the line Dell dual Xeon
Precision workstation and the PC has most of the features but costs
a thousand bucks more than the Mac. The two lines are closer in the
midrange, where the Apple 15-inch PowerBook is still about US $180
cheaper than the nearest comparable Dell. AND when considering
"total cost of ownership", (i.e. including repairs, etc.) we see
that the average PC costs 1.5 times the cost of a Mac.
THE SOFTWARE MYTH: There is almost nothing a business owner would
want to do that cannot be done on a Mac, sometimes better. In the
case where there is a specialized piece of software that only runs
on Windows, you can now run that on the new Macs too.
Business owners may be interested in increasing their profits.....
The Gartner Group, an extremely well-respected, mainstream
organization has studied Mac based vs. PC based businesses for years
and the conclusion is that Mac-based businesses are more profitable
to the tune of several thousand dollars per person per year -
because of no viruses, virtually no crashes, and overall elegance
and efficiency of function.
And the Gistics report, which surveyed over 30,000 business
professionals, concluded that due to a more efficient computing
environment, the Mac OS business user gains, per year, an average of
234 prime time authoring and composing hours over a Windows user.
That is a full month!!! They also stated that the Mac user
generates 7.14 times ROI over three years, while the Windows user
generates 2.02 ROI. The report concluded, "Clearly for profit
oriented firms, deployment of Apple technology constitutes a
fiduciary responsibility.”
Michael Linehan
Marketing Alchemy
-------- new post - new topic --------
From: Tom Aman
Subject: Google ranking methods
Check http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html to learn
about Google's ranking methods.
Tom Aman
Aman Software
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Every problem has a gift for you in its hands." - Richard Bach |
