| LED Digest 2186: Revisiting 'Net Neutrality |
|
|
|
==================================================
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 20, 2006 Issue no. 2186
..............................................
.....IN THIS DIGEST.....
==== CONTINUING =================
--== How Important are H1 Header Tags? ==--
~ Charles Oertel
"You should be marking up the text on your
webpage using only HTML tags."
~ John Brumage
"H1-6 headers are an important way to
organize your website."
--== Penetrating AOL Email Defenses ==--
~ Sarah Hayes
"...a lot depends on [the AOLer's] personal
settings and the content of the email."
~ R. Neilson
"Anyone stupid enough to use AOL doesn't
know any better."
--== Tips for High Rankings ==--
~ Steve Pronger
"I have a sneaking suspicion that many LEDers
are thoroughly sick of the battle of egos..."
~ Michael Martinez
"According to Sergey Brin and Larry Page...the
sum total of all PageRanks is 1."
~ Shari Thurow
"PageRank is a very real concept."
--== The Sandbox Myth ==--
~ Michael Motherwell
"So, nothing has changed, and the foundation
remains the same...but we need to learn more?"
==== BILLBOARD ===================
--== Revisiting 'Net Neutrality ==--
~ Scott M Stolz
======== CONTINUING ===============================
From: Charles Oertel
Subject: H1 headers
> Are the H1, H2... headers really important for the
> search engines? Does anyone know for sure?
- Tim Rosser, LED 2185
Search engines do not care what your font-sizes are, and do not read
the stylesheets. How would they even know which stylesheet to use,
since there may be different stylesheets and font-sizes for
cellphones, printers and screens.
You should be marking up the text on your webpage using only HTML
tags. The visible top-level heading should be h1. It has absolutely
nothing to do with appearance, and everything to do with 'what it
is'. If it is the top-level heading on the page, it is h1. If it
is a subheading, h2, a paragraph p etc.
The way you are doing it now, search engines cannot distinguish your
headings from your other text.
Now, use the stylesheet to specify the way you want your h1 to
display. You can affect line spacing using margin, padding and
line-height. And you can specify the font size.
But, if I were you, I would not specify font size as an absolute
point size (what if the viewer enlarges or reduces fonts, or uses a
special devices for visually impaired people?). Rather specify the
h1 font size as a percentage of the base size (like 150%).
HTH
Charles Oertel
finebushpeople.co.za
(just google for 'protea seeds' - we're #1)
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: John "Zeke" Brumage
Subject: H1 headers
IMHO, H1-6 headers are an important way to organize your website.
CSS markup can make H* display inline, overriding the normal
behaviour, so there is no need to sacrifice your design / layout
preferences in order to present effective heading markup to the
search engines
John Brumage
-------- new post - new topic --------
From: Sarah Hayes
Subject: Penetrating AOL
> I have spoken to some of the admin at AOL -- followed
> all of their advice to the letter, but I cannot get a script
> generated mail to penetrate the AOL defences. Have
> any of you experienced this issue...?
- John Smart, LED 2184
Hi John
I have the same problem with emails that I send using Outlook to
clients with AOL accounts. I have found that a lot depends on their
personal settings and the content of the email. I myself have an AOL
account and I can receive emails that I send from Outlook (and forms
on websites) without a problem, but when I send the same emails to
my clients I have to remove my website address from my signature or
the emails bounce back.
Have you got / have access to an AOL account so you can see exactly
which AntiSpam options AOL users area able to select and more
importantly which options are set as default?
Best regards,
Sarah Hayes
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: R. Neilson
Subject: Penetrating AOL
I have had so many problems with sending e-mail to AOL address's
that I just don't worry anymore about them. Anyone stupid enough to
use AOL doesn't know any better.
I have had friends that I have even tried sending private e-mails to
and AOL rejects my e-mails about 50-75% of the time. I just tell
everyone that AOL stands for All Out Of Luck. There administrators
are useless to talk to. Usually the problem occurs with the spam
filters that each individual account is set up with and unless the
recipients know how to properly set them your e-mail with never make
it to them.
As an example I had a customer make a purchase thru my ebay store
last fall. When the item arrived he was missing a part as the
manufacture failed to put it in the sealed box. He sent me four
e-mails complaining about the missing part. I responded to each
e-mail within an hour offering to refund his money in full (item was
discontinued and no longer available). But because he didn't know
how to use the spam filter on his AOL account or even know how to
check the mails stored in the spam account he was not getting any of
my e-mails even those sent thru ebay. I finally called him by phone
and told him how to check his AOL account spam filter and he
apologized for his angry e-mails.
But you aren't going to usually have access to a potential customers
phone number to remedy a problem like this. So I just tell
customers if you use AOL for your e-mails that they have to fix
there spam filters or not receive any e-mail from me as AOL is ALL
OUT OF LUCK as far as I am concerned.
R. Neilson
H. L. Supply
-------- new post - new topic --------
From: Steve Pronger
Subject: Ranking tips
> This is now bad advice. Most of the free article directories are
> being filtered out by Google, in terms of building up backlinkage.
- Michael Martinez, LED 2184
Oh really. Exactly which directories are being "filtered" and which
are not? And please provide us with proof rather than hearsay.
> Pay no attention to PageRank. It's a useless, worthless
> measurement and does not indicate quality of page, link,
> or reference.
Although this thread has morphed into a discussion on "ranking tips"
my post was actually tips on getting your site indexed. There is a
difference. Using my "to do" list I usually manage to get new sites
indexed fairly quickly. Ranking is an on-going endeavor. And yes,
building lots of original, frequently-updated content on your own
site is important. Vitally important. Never said it wasn't. Links
from high PR pages won't necessarily get you high rankings, but it's
a safe bet that the page is spidered frequently. That makes them
important from an indexing viewpoint. That's why I pay attention to
PR and will continue to do so.
> It's a shame that people continue to pass around such
> outdated, bad advice despite months of debunking these
> kinds of SEO myths by many well-informed people in the industry.
Frankly, I don't give two hoots what "well informed people in the
industry" say in regards to what works and what doesn't. I only
adopt and pass on what works for me. I'd encourage LEDers to do the
same. My post on indexing tips was an attempt to offer some
real-world strategies for LEDers who were having difficulties
getting their site fully spidered and indexed.
I have a sneaking suspicion that many LEDers are thoroughly sick of
the battle of egos that goes on when discussion turns to proving or
disproving some theory (I'm as guilty of that as anybody else) and
would rather read an action plan they can try for themselves, rather
than a statement to the effect of "none of my clients experience
the sandbox effect because I'm just so darn clever"
> To get good rankings, you need to write interesting content,
> post it on YOUR Web site, and optimize it. Don't limit yourself
> to 250-500 words of content.
I have no argument with the first part of that statement. The
250-500 words relates to the recommended length of articles
submitted to ezinearticles.com. Longer articles tend to not get
syndicated as frequently. This advice actually comes from
Christopher Knight, owner of ezinearticles.com, in his course on
article marketing. Chris knows a lot about using articles to not
just build links but drive targeted traffic to your site. Michael
Martinez, apparently, does not.
> Don't go for these cheap tricks.
I agree that there are plenty of bad articles in directories which
have no editorial discretion over the articles submitted.
Ezinearticles.com isn't one of them. That's why I recommended it.
Since when is writing a good quality article and having it
syndicated across the web a cheap trick? Baloney.
Steve Pronger
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Michael Martinez
Subject: Ranking tips
> I really don't want to get into a debate about PageRank,
> but... I do think it is more meaningful than "a useless,
> worthless measurement."
- Renee Kennedy, LED 2185
Usually when people ask for help in a forum or discussion group like
this, they start out by saying: "My site is xxxxxx and I have xxxxx
links and my PR is XX...."
People look at the Google Toolbar or similar reporting tools and
think that 0..10 value is informative. It is not. The true
PageRank value that Google assigns is a miniscule number somewhere
between 0 and 1. According to Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the guys
who devised the PageRank algorithm, the sum total of all PageRanks
is 1. The Toolbar PR Values provide an approximation of overall
value to the Web community on a scale of 0..10.
Of course, Toolbar PageRank can be and is manipulated by
unscrupulous people, so you don't know whether the Toolbar PR value
you're seeing is honest. Also, Google only publishes Toolbar PR
data about 4 times a year, so it's usually not fresh data.
How important is PageRank to the average Web page? Not important at
all. Google admits to using PageRank in two ways:
1) They determine crawl priorities on the basis of PageRank.
2) They add a page's PageRank to whatever relevance score it is
given when resolving a query.
The crawling aspect is more important because if you're not getting
crawled, you're not getting indexed. Many low PR pages outrank tons
of high PR pages in the search results. That's because Google deems
them to be more relevant to the queries than the higher PR pages.
High PageRank simply doesn't guarantee you anything.
Now, some people point out that PageRank comes from linkage, and the
more links you have, the better you can rank. Yes and no. For
example, the infamous "miserable failure" query
http://snipurl.com/s04z [google.com] shows how links have elevated
several Web pages to the top of an otherwise unnatural query.
But those pages got that positioning from the ANCHOR TEXT, not from
the PageRank. Search for "bad president" http://snipurl.com/s052
[google.com] and you'll find an entirely different set of results.
That's because people don't use "bad president" to link to the
"miserable failure" pages.
Anchor text can only assert relevance for a limited number of terms.
PageRank may be used to weight every term, but it's not an aspect
of relevance.
The purpose of PageRank is to act as a deciding factor between two
otherwise equally relevant documents. Any document with a fair
amount of indexable text will be deemed relevant to a large number
of potential queries. It wil be more relevant for some and less
relevant for others.
Let's go back to my point about PageRank being good for crawling.
It follows that you would want links from high PR pages because they
are crawled more often. Unfortunately, SEOs and spammers have
ruined the pudding for everyone.
Matt Cutts has admitted on his blog that Google deprives high PR
pages of their ability to confer PageRank and anchor text if it
catches them doing things Google doesn't like. Matt has
specifically said this with respect to selling links, but we don't
know where Google draws the line.
Hence, you cannot know whether that PR 8 link you just bought or got
from a link swap is going to help you in any way.
It is better to ignore PR and look at other factors when seeking
links, than to believe (wrongly) that PR tells you anything of
value. It doesn't because you don't know what the story is behind
that PR number or whether the page you're looking at still confers
PageRank and anchor text.
Can the Toolbar PR ever provide any useful data? Maybe. Sometimes,
when a page that normally shows a non-zero PR value is greyed out or
zeroed out, that may be an indication of a problem. Many people
have found that a redirect they just implemented wasn't properly
done after seeing their Toolbar PR drop to 0. But you may have to
wait up to 3 months to see that change.
It's better than no indication of trouble at all, but it's a very
unreliable messenger.
Michael Martinez
"Cuando Maria canta, canta para mí"
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Shari Thurow
Subject: PageRank
Hi all-
This is in response to Renee Kennedy's post in LED #2185 in which
she stated:
> I really don't want to get into a debate about PageRank,
> but I do want to set the record straight.
Okay, I'll set the record straight. PageRank is not a number between
1 and 10. PageRank is a very real concept. It's required reading in
my graduate classes, in fact.
I believe I understand what Michael Martinez was communicating. If I
am incorrect in my assumptions, Michael can correct me.
Too many people obsess over this number between 1 and 10 on the
Google Toolbar, even people who should know better. In fact, if any
SEO refers to PageRank being a number between 1 and 10, I won't hire
them. A site can get qualified search engine traffic from Google and
have a Google Toolbar PageRank of 1. A site with a Google Toolbar
PageRank of 8 might not get ROI.
Renee wants quoted Matt Cutts as evidence. I quote Matt all of the
time, too, as well as other notable software engineers. But I think
she misses the point. Matt is a software engineer. He certainly sees
PageRank from a very different perspective than people without his
level of technical understanding. There is more to information
retrieval algorithms than PageRank.
So, I agree with Michael that the number between 1 and 10 is a
"useless, worthless measurement."
Thought I was going to say that PageRank doesn't exist, didn't you?
:-)
Sincerely,
Shari Thurow, Webmaster/Marketing Director
Grantastic Designs, Inc.
-------- new post - new topic --------
From: Michael Motherwell
Subject: The Sandbox Myth
> Last year... I returned to graduate school. Graduate
> school isn't for everyone, I understand. It was the
> best solution for me, however.
- Shari Thurow, LED 2183
May I ask Shari, what did you study the first time around?
> The bottom line is that I swallowed my ego and admitted
> that I needed to learn more. Now, I am a better SEO than
> I could ever imagine.
Shari, I am confused. In your comment that started this, you wrote:
> A search-friendly Web site is built on a solid foundation
> of keyword-focused text and giving spiders a means of
> accessing that text. Then, objective 3rd parties should
> basically confirm what you say about your own content.
> It has been this way for years. I sincerely doubt that this
> foundation is going to change in my lifetime
- Shari Thurow, LED 2177
So, nothing has changed, and the foundation remains the same, likely
for your lifetime, but we need to learn more? I am perplexed at how
these two statements jell together. Can you explain it to me?
> ... my anecdotal evidence has revealed that none of my
> clients have ever experienced this phenomenon. My
> more objective experience? It's all about linkage properties.
What frustrates me no end is that in all these discussions, and I
hate to sound like a broken record here, but we don't have a
definition.
So, if I may, lets put one out there:
1. Definiton: The Google Sandbox (hereafter known merely as
"Sandbox") is a filter / algorthim / call it what you will, that
affects BRAND NEW SITES, causing them to have difficulty ranking for
anything competitive on Google specifically, making them only able
tor ank for obscure phrases. this affect seems to abruptly stop
around the time it takes a baby Human to gestate (9 months to 40
weeks).
What is even more frustrating is that, when we do appear to have
"evidence", it is so non-specific. Comments like "...none of my
clients have ever experienced this phenomenon", don't directly
address the specifics (how many new sites have you been part of the
launch of? What were the effects? Did these sites rank well quickly
for competitive terms? Did you see a spike in traffic nine months
later?).
The only example that did address directly the brand new sites
dimension was Jennifer's example [Jennifer Laycock, LED 2181], one
that garnered an inordinate ammount of coverage because, well, it
was such a cool project (and I mean the whole shebang, from the 30
days article series to the idea itself).
2. Evidence for or against: Does anyone who has LAUNCHED A BRAND NEW
SITE (or three) have any evidence to either support or deny this
assertion? I do not qualify, because I am rarely, if ever, involved
in the launching of sites, and when I have been (my terribly witty
blog), SEO wasn't a concern (ranking well for trapezoidal linking
matriflux isn't very difficult). The times I have seen the effect
(looking for new sites and not finding them) are not really
evidence, because I don't really have access to enough info.
Michael Motherwell
==== BILLBOARD ===================================
From: Scott M Stolz
Subject: Toll Roads & Net Neutrality
> Cable and telephone companies that provide
> Internet service are talking about creating a two-tiered
> Internet, in which Web sites that pay them large
> fees would get priority over everything else.
- From a quoted article, LED 2154
Would I pay a modest premium to get my traffic prioritized to meet
(i.e. guarantee) my latency requirements? You better believe it!
This is just one example of many new applications for the Internet
where the current infrastructure is simply falling short of
requirements. Does it make sense to have everyone pay their share
to build out the network to support such new uses? If it added a
few dollars a month to everyone's bill then I would say "yes". But
if it gets to be a significant increase, which I suspect will be the
case, then we might all be better off accepting some form of tiering.
Here's the problem with not having net neutrality: double billing
for the same bandwidth. In some ways internet use is like making a
phone call. The person who initiates the interaction must pay a fee
(i.e. your monthly service charge to your ISP). The person who
receives the interaction (i.e. the web site) must also pay a fee
(i.e. the web hosting charge). The bandwidth is already paid for
with those fees. What they are proposing is a third fee on top of
all that so they can essentially bill people twice for the same
bandwidth and do so on a usage basis.
What they are trying to do is phase out unlimited internet use and
turn it into a long distance model where you have to pay a fee for
every access you use. Yes, they will keep the free unlimited access
around for while, but the quality will decline so they can force
people to pay monthly fees AND usage fees. It's basically a scam to
get more money out of people for the same services. Available
bandwidth is going to increase without tiered service because people
will start paying for faster connections at their home and office as
new technology becomes available.
It's already happening now. In fact, companies are already paying
thousands of dollars a month for faster connections. If the big
internet network providers had their way, those same companies would
have to pay thousands of dollars a month PLUS usage charges on top
of that (the story being their network traffic is prioritized with
their goal to force everyone to "prioritize" their traffic).
It's all a scam to get more money for the same bandwidth. We are
already paying for the bandwidth on both ends of the line (both at
the ISP end and the web host end).
And about the toll road analogy. Most toll roads started out as a
way to pay for the road but wound up as an additional way to tax
people. Do you really think that most of the tolls collected
actually go to maintain the road? If you do research, you will find
that after the road was paid for by the tolls collected, the
remaining tolls benefit some local or state government and are used
for purposes other than maintaining the road!
The monthly fees the networks charge to people on both ends of the
line already pay for the network. Anything extra they can squeeze
out of you with "tiered service" will just be extra profits for them.
Scott M Stolz
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Good questions outrank easy answers." - Paul A. Samuelson |
