| LED Digest 2205: Framing Sites & Tracking, plus Linking |
|
|
|
==================================================
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 18, 2006 Issue no. 2205
.............................................
.....IN THIS DIGEST.....
==== CONTINUING =================
--== Smart Framing + Site Tracking ==--
~ Nathan Holley
"Joomla has a built-in 'site wrapper'..."
~ Brad Waller
"Tracking and analytics is complicated business."
<Moderator Comment>
--== SEO Conferences + Reciprocal Linking ==--
~ Chris Nielsen
"There is generally no way to tell if a link is
paid for or not."
~ Steve Pronger
"I've always advocated reciprocal linking for ranking..."
--== Fixed Width vs Fluid Web Sites ==--
~ Scott Smith
"Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest."
~ Michael Linehan
"So I don't see fluid as 'advanced' at all."
~ Mo Douglas
"My site uses a fluid design and it works fine. Mostly."
~ Kerry Branham
"...put yourself in the shoes of the site visitor."
==== BILLBOARD ===================
--== Web Hosting Newbie ==--
~ Valerie Beeby
======== CONTINUING ===============================
From: Nathan Holley
Subject: Site Wrapper - Joomla CMS
> I am looking for help on the best way to embed
> a website link content into a current website.
- Pat Pierson, LED 2204
Pat,
I think you're asking about "wrapping" a site to display within
another? I'll assume so for the purposes of this response, anyway...
Depending upon what type of content management system (CMS) you're
using, there are some great options here. I always recommend Joomla
/ Mambo, but Drupal is coming on strong and may fit your needs
better. For a quick summary, I feel Joomla is better for designing
"pretty" sites, with great built-in theme and module / component
support, while Drupal excels at code compliance, speed, and
efficiency. Drupal necessarily entails a more sophisticated
understanding of site development, and Joomla, while complicated at
first, is more turn-key once it becomes familiar.
By the way, for a quick clarification, what's the difference between
Joomla and Mambo? Well, Joomla is technically a "fork" of the Mambo
code base. There's a lot more to it than that, though. Here are some
good resources:
- A great FAQ about the differences
"Joomla - Mambo / Mambo - Joomla"
- An interesting article about Joomla's history:
A Joomla Developer's Blog: "So Really - What's the Difference"
Personally, I like Joomla. There's a more active community (check
out Joomla's Alexa ranking, they are around 500). There are tons of
extensions and themes. There AREN'T frequent updates, that's true,
but when they come along they seem to be well implemented. The one
sticking point I have: the Joomla CMS is not set up well for SEO
purposes. However, there are some great third-party extensions that
help there. Post here if you need more information.
On to your question: Joomla has a built-in "site wrapper" where you
can embed any site within your own. It's really cool. You can find
out more about it here:
As for site tracking, that's a whole 'nother ball game...
Have fun,
Nathan Holley
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Brad Waller
Subject: Smart framing
I'm not 100% sure what Pat is asking for. The title says "Smart
Framing", but the body asks to "embed a website link." Since all
links are embedded, are you really asking about embedding content as
the classifieds are embedded in this page (one of our affiliates):
Tracking and analytics is a complicated business. There are codes
you add to your page where the analytics is done real time. There
are also programs to post process your log files. And sometimes
your hosting account either includes or can be upgraded to include
analytics.
Google has a free analytics (http://www.google.com/analytics/) which
might work. It is very basic.
Sane Software (http://www.sane.com/) has NetTracker which works
quite well and I have come close to buying it. I still use old
Urchin software (they were bought by Google and don't offer the
program anymore)
I have also been experimenting with HitsLink (http://hitslink.com/)
but I can't fully recommend them yet. We have had some questions on
the accuracy, but they do have a 30 day free trial.
You can also stop by the Web Analytics Association
(http://webanalyticsassociation.com/) and look at their Education
area and investigate member companies.
Brad Waller
Manage and Sell your own site advertising
waller, adjungle.com
<Moderator Comment>
Also worth a mention are the follow open source and/or free packages:
AWStats: http://awstats.sourceforge.net/
Webalizer: http://www.mrunix.net/webalizer/
Analog: http://www.analog.cx/
I have Webalizer set up, but I'm looking for another option. Right
now AWStats is the next on the list to try.
-adam
-------- new post - new topic --------
From: Chris Nielsen
Subject: Conferences
> 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.
- Bruce Clay, LED 2204
I have to agree to the part about getting traffic, but not about the
ranking advantage. I have seen the positive effects of link-building
both on my sites and those of my clients, most of which have others
provide the link-building. I too advise against putting much stock
in this method of site promotion. Why? Because rather than a valid
method for SEO I feel it is very manipulative and in the past
anything that can be abused is taken away at some point.
I have waited a couple of years now for this to be discounted and I
still have not seen any real change. The only thing I can think of
is that it is such a large part of PageRank, that to remove it from
the equation would cause huge problems.
> 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.
I can buy the part about link farms, since those are easy to spot
and even program for. But the campaign against paid links is not
credible that it exists. There is generally no way to tell if a link
is paid for or not. I have paid and unpaid links on some of my sites
and you can guess which are paid and which are not, but there is no
way to tell for sure. And if a person can't do it, the a robot or
spider can't either.
If paid links are hated so much, then why hasn't Google done
something to take away their value? They took away the value for
hidden text on a page and a number of other things that can be
abused, so why not linking?
> I do still believe that link exchanges between trusted sites are
> valuable to both parties provided they are testimonial in nature.
Ok. But what is required for a site to become "trusted" and how can
you tell one from an average site. And how can you tell if a link
exchange is "testimonial" in nature? I thought one sign of a link
that is more respected link is that it is NOT an exchange? My
understanding is that is what has given rise to the popularity of
"3-way" or triangular linking, where 3 sites agree all to link to
another with no links being linked back to a linking site? It is not
so much for this reason but the potential traffic that we hand
submit client sites to over 200 places.
Everyone's opinion are often all we have in this business, but they
are all suspect and that includes mine, as it should be. But my
opinions do not come only from what any one person has stated, or
any group with a similar agenda. I generally base my opinions on
things that I have seen for myself (keeping in mind that the effects
I see could be the result of forces I am not aware of), or when I
hear a large number of various people, both experts and not, all
conclude the same thing.
Thank you,
Chris Nielsen
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Steve Pronger
Subject: Conferences
> Spammers do not want to hear that spam is wrong, and "reciprocal
> linking for ranking" advocates really do not like to be exposed.
- Bruce Clay, LED 2204
Bruce, nice to see you posting on LED. You obviously have a lot of
experience in SEO and I commend you for your achievements. But I'm
confused. In your article on link popularity at:
you state:
----------------------
"A quality link can sometimes be formed by establishing a link
partner. This is when you create reciprocal links between your site
and theirs. Be careful when you exchange links or establish a link
partner. Make sure that this is not done exclusively in your link
building campaign or in too much quantity. Ensure that the
reciprocal link is completely relevant to your site. With a link
partner you will continually need to make sure that their site
continues to exist and continues to be relevant to yours. "
----------------------
I wholeheatedly agree. But is this not "reciprocal linking for
ranking", or am I taking this out of context? It was under the
heading "Link Building Campaign." I've always advocated reciprocal
linking for ranking, in the manner you specify above. I'm quite
happy to be "exposed" for this point of view.
> ... 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.
Seems to me you've already given us that advice above. Just forget
about the REL=NOFOLLOW tag though.
Steve Pronger
Steve Pronger Web Business Solutions
-------- new post - new topic --------
From: Scott Smith
Subject: Fixed width
> What do you do when you find that you're designing for the
> browser-shrinkers who abhor on-screen pileups? ... The
> solution is to use fixed-width design.
- Martha Retallick, LED 2204
I disagree.
Here's an easier solution: toss in a 750px wide spacer image into
your main table. The table can still stretch as much as needed, but
it'll only shrink down to a minimum of 750 wide (or whatever width
you feel still results in a legible, functional site).
Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest.
Take care!
Scott Smith
Globi Web Solutions
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Michael Linehan
Subject: Fixed width
> Even Amazon has a semi-fluid site, with the
> center column expanding between the outer two.
- John Smart, LED 2204
Amazon is not fully fluid. The central content column of Amazon is
fixed width. Just the white space between the columns increases.
Personally, I don't see how that is any better than the
corresponding fixed width structure.
For a fully fluid structure, the content column soon stretches to
lines of horrible length. Our brains are highly habituated to
dropping to the next line after about a book length line. Reading
maybe 30 words per line rapidly becomes very tiring. I think all
the fluid layouts I've encountered have this line-length problem.
So then the window has to be resized anyway.
And fixed width does not mean 1024. Perhaps an example is useful. I
had no difficulty fitting this client site into a 740 pixel width -
http://www.sentrytelecare.com. So the site is easily readable at
the common resolutions.
Actually, there is one other point that is interesting to me. I
don't understand the designating of "fluid" as advanced. I know
there are crossovers on various "advocate" sites of advanced CSS and
DHTML techniques. On CSS Zen Garden (an astounding site, if you
don't know it), the layout is fluid - leading, once more, to
horrible line length --- 38 words on my screen!!! To make the text
comfortable, the window has to be shrunk to about 800 anyway!
So I don't see fluid as "advanced" at all. I like to read my
content on a "page". Word documents present the content fixed: the
content doesn't dance around with the size of your window. Same with
Photoshop. Some with InDesign. Same with my calendar program, and
so on. Why this different model for the Web? I like the Sentry
Telecare site sitting there with a nice, comfortable line length.
:) And yes, I know that can vary according to different browser
displays or individual user settings. But in general, it's going to
be around the length my brain expects lines of text to be, not jump
to 30 plus words per line.
Michael Linehan
Marketing Alchemy
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Mo Douglas
Subject: Fixed width
Mary Lee [issue 2204] gaves us the following figures and claimed
that this would lose you ~30% of your visitors:
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%
I would like to disagree with that number, it is in fact a lot
smaller at ~12%. I think she probably added the top 2 resolutions
and subtracted from 100%, however any user with a resolution set
equal to or higher than 1024x768 would have no problem with a site
set at 1024x768. In her figures that adds another 8%, and I would
assume that there are some more in the missing 10%.
The point is valid though, I'm just nitpicking :)
Reason I write though is that while I do like the fluid design, it
can cause issues. My site, www.thailandstories.com for instance,
uses a fluid design and it works fine. Mostly. I myself have set my
monitor to 1280x1024 and if I were to read my site with my browser
full screen it would be very hard to read the stories. Even at
1024x768 it is already hard to read.
On these high resolutions using a third column would solve the
problem (or at least reduce it), but of course this would make it
too hard for those on 800x600 to read. Suggestions welcome, btw? :)
Setting my browser to about 880x1000 is my preferred way of
browsing, btw.
Mo Douglas
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Kerry Branham
Subject: Fixed width
> The solution is to use fixed-width design.
- Martha Retallick, LED 2204
Martha's right here. I've been a proponent of using a combination
of fluid for the outer fringes of a site, and fixed width for the
rest. There's still an awful lot of people who have their browsers
set at 800 x 600 (me included), because they are either using small
screens or monitors (I know people that are using 10" and 12"
notebooks). I don't own anything larger than a 15" monitor, and I
would like to see the text and images a little larger than 1024 x
768 gives me. Heck, I bet there are still people using 14" monitors
set at 640 x 480. On a screen that size, your fluid designs are
going to more than cause images to display on the top of text, or
the text will run into other text, or a myriad of other things.
My point is that you will have to try and design your site that will
work reasonably well for many sizes of browsers and screen
resolutions. I'd rather leave empty space to the right of the
website than require a visitor to scroll from side to side to view
the site. No one is going to tell you one way is totally right and
others are totally wrong, but the best advice I can give is to put
yourself in the shoes of the site visitor. What would annoy them?
What would make them want to keep visiting the site? Design to
those elements, and you will do fine for most people. And, unless
you have unlimited resources and lots of time, the only way to do
better is to develop a design that will work at ALL screen sizes.
Kerry Branham
K-S Marketing
==== BILLBOARD ===================================
From: Valerie Beeby
Subject: Hosting newbie
> [My website is] set up for me to be both the administrative
> and technical contact, which gives me full ownership...
- Susie Redfern, LED 2203
I was a bit concerned by Susie's conviction that she owns her
domain. She may, but at Network Solutions I see that my listings
include Owner plus three contacts: Billing, Administrative and
Technical. Probably if you're the Billing contact you're also the
Owner, but I'm not sure that being just the Admin and Technical
contacts means you are the owner.
Being fiercely independent, I make sure I'm all four of these
people. That way I'm free to host my sites where I please.
Valerie Beeby
Making images small - smaller - smallest
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"True friends stab you in the front." - Oscar Wilde |
