| LED Digest 2207: Why Linking isn't SEO |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 20, 2006 Issue no. 2207 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Fixed Width vs Fluid Web Sites ==-- ~ Detlev Johnson "I try not to get caught up thinking my site is the only site surfers see." ~ Marty R. Milette "The worst offence is forcing specific typefaces or sizes..." ~ Tom Aman "...while many people view their websites full screen, many do not." ~ Mary Lee "My outside columns are fixed width to control content in them and the overall look." --== Reciprocal Linking + Paid Links ==-- ~ Joel Lesser "...consider a world where search engines did not exist. How would you get traffic?" ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Experiences with Text Link Ads? ==-- ~ David P. Abrahms --== Business Communication [was: Design Marketplace] ==-- ~ Martha Retallick ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Detlev Johnson Subject: Fixed width Hello everyone, Regarding fluid design versus fixed width, the conversation seems to have neglected to cover the fact that the information displayed in the design will make or break whichever format you choose. If you choose fixed width, your site is hard to navigate on small screens. If you go with a fluid layout, assume your text lines will not wrap in time before eye fatigue sets in. Folks with large screens experience eye fatigue reading the Web full screen. Thay also tend to be folks that are aware enough to resize for their own better Web experience. I try not to get caught up thinking my site is the only site surfers see. Just because analytics tells you that x% of visitors have huge screens, does not mean they experienced your site full screen at high resolution. These users have the perfect incentive to resize their Web browser. As for fixed width, you certainly have control over the display, but then you have to consider all the resolutions and limit your design to the lowest denominator you are comfortable with. Care to design for WebTV? See how it looks full screen on 1200x1600? Then there's the other extreme: fixed width for 800x600 is a lousy experience on a cell phone (or PDA) no matter what your content. Fluid design with simple information as content can work great on a cell phone. And think about this: it is easier to resize a fluid design window on a large screen than it is to navigate fixed width on a cell phone. If you are looking for the lesser of two evils, fluid design may be the answer you are looking for - but you have to consider the content or it may not work right. Detlev Johnson, Administrator SearchReturn Digest: http://www.searchreturn.com/subscribe.shtml -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Marty R. Milette Subject: Fixed width The sad thing about this whole issue is that web designers often completely ignore the needs of their visitors -- opting for what THEY like, what looks good on their equipment and how they personally use their systems and browser. THERE IS NO "PERFECT" ONE-WAY-FITS-ALL DESIGN. The theme of your site and your audience should determine the design choices you make. Elderly people have totally different browsing needs than teenagers, as a simple example. This results in fixed-width sites that don't take advantage of the screen space available, or that force users to scroll. The worst offence is forcing specific typefaces or sizes and preventing the user from changing them. Are you in this mode? On IE, try a quick test: Select View > Text Size > Largest and see if YOUR site allows the user to change the text size. For example, my eyes aren't as good as they used to be, so if I am reading 'text-heavy' sites, I LIKE having the ability to increase the text size and take advantage of the full width of my display. Being forced to view text in a tiny font using only 50% of the screen is both a waste of my resources and a major annoyance. (I can't count the number of times I've copied-and-pasted the text from a web site into WordPad JUST to be able to view it conveniently.) For myself, I prefer to design for an 800 pixel non-scrollable width (a reasonable compromise), with fixed width left and right columns and fluid center column -- using standard HTML and CSS markup -- avoiding fixed-size fonts or widths wherever possible. For the "control freaks" -- remember this Internet 'thing' is NOT PRINTED MEDIA -- it is an entirely different media with advantages, disadvantages and compromises to consider. If you want to produce digital versions of paper brochures -- why not just put them into a downloadable PDF file where you CAN control everything with exact precision and let people view the web site the way they like or need? Marty R. Milette -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Tom Aman Subject: Fixed width > They have found that when they shrink their browser > windows, a big on-screen pileup ensues... - Martha Retallick, LED 2204 First, your "fluid" design isn't. You are *assuming* that the only versatility required is to allow the browser window to expand. A *fluid* design should also permit the browser window to shrink. It is not really a case of the browser window expanding or shrinking, it is a case of the page design being able to expand or shrink to suit the browser size being used by the surfer. The problem is that all of the elements on your sample page are not fluid, hence the pileup - the design of this page starts to get into trouble if the browser width is less than ~710 pixels. Second, while many people view their websites full screen, many do not. I seldom use my browser full screen because it makes text too hard to read (long lines require a lot of head movement). Also, people who do a lot of multi-tasking on their computers will often run programs at something less than full screen just because it can be easier to navigate between programs. Another reason is to be able to see the contents within one program while entering the visible data in another. I don't pretend to know for sure what minimum width would be suitable, that would take a lot of research to establish, but I would expect that a fluid design should still display reasonably well down to something in the order of 500 or 600 pixels wide. Tom Aman Aman Software http://www.cyberspyder.com Home of CyberSpyder Link Test -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Mary Lee Subject: Fixed width After reading my post [issue 2204] I felt I need to clarify something. I do use some fixed design elements. My outside columns are fixed width to control content in them and the overall look. What I was talking about is the overall design size is best when fluid. My main concern being those that set a table width at 1024 & really cause problems & don't even realize it because they have not bothered to look at their site in any other browsers or resolution. Mary Lee Dinner and a Murder http://www.dinnerandamurder.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Joel Lesser Subject: Reciprocal Linking [was: Conferences] In LED 2204, Bruce Clay stated: > ... 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. I have a lot of respect for Bruce Clay... he's taught webmasters a lot about proper SEO techniques. My response here is not to specifically argue what Bruce has said but more to elaborate on why some webmasters think linking is an SEO function and why linking should NEVER be conducted as an SEO function. The introduction of Pagerank and search engine ranking programs designed (in part) to use link popularity to determine search engine returns and rankings is what caused some webmasters to cross ethical linking boundaries and link to any site that would link back to them. Unscrupulous services "guaranteeing links" came along to quench the thirst of Pagerank hungry webmasters. But not all webmasters who engage in reciprocal linking are out to game the search engines. It is my observation that there are plenty of websites on the Internet that publish relevant links that benefit the end user with no intention of influencing search engine rankings. Not all webmasters with links pages are linking to influence search engine rankings. For those that don't understand this, I want to help educate those who might be new to linking and why you should never conduct reciprocal linking as an SEO function. From my experience, the vast majority of webmasters who link with other sites do it because it produces quality traffic completely aside from search engine returns, and it provides valuable content to their sites giving their end user's knowledge gateways to additional, in-depth, or related information on a subject thus helping to fulfill the essential mission of the web. Bruce referenced Matt Cutts' quote from his 2005 Pubcon keynote: > Matt Cutts specified in a WebmasterWorld Keynote (Nov, 2005) that > purchased links and reciprocal link farms are hated by Google. I want to clarify that quote so it is not mis-interpreted. Matt Cutts was referring to "reciprocal link farms" in that keynote. The term "reciprocal link farm" is rarely defined so allow me to educate those readers who might wonder that this means. A site that publishes irrelevant links in high volume deemed not to be useful or beneficial for the end user is considered to be a "reciprocal link farm". When Matt used the term "reciprocal link farms", he was referring to unscrupulous webmasters who engage in fully automated linking schemes. Schemes whereas you pay X dollars for X number of links. He was also referring to webmasters who link in high volume to any irrelevant site without consideration for the end user. There are now over 300 services on the web that will link you to thousands of sites overnight with no editorial discretion on making those links. Participating in these fully automated schemes, and publishing irrelevant links in high volume is what Matt was talking about (because he has stated since then that linking should be made using editorial discretion). What the search engines do not want is for your site to link in high volume to irrelevant sites. Allow me to prove this statement by referring to facts. Take a look at Google's 2003 patent: http://snipurl.com/fmer [uspto.gov] -------------------------- "The dates that links appear can also be used to detect 'spam,' where owners of documents or their colleagues create links to their own document for the purpose of boosting the score assigned by a search engine. A typical, 'legitimate' document attracts back links slowly." -------------------------- This means that Google (and probably the other search engines) are trending how often you publish and obtain links. A rapid increase in back links may result in a higher Google ranking, a lower Google ranking, or no change in your Google ranking at all. It depends, in large part, on the rate of "rapid increase." At some point, some programmer - human or silicon - established a back-link acquisition speed limit. Acquire links below that speed limit and you may get punished, get them at that speed limit and you may get rewarded. Achieve them at or above the speed limit and you may get slapped. What's the speed limit? Everyone wants to know!! Of course, Google didn't tell the Patent Office that. But it's reasonable to conclude that there are many of them. Separate speed limits for various types of websites, websites of different age groups and states of development, websites with global as well as national and regional links. Now look at what Matt Cutts said on the topic of linking in his blog in recent months: -------------------------- "... Just make a great site, with great content and a normal reason why people would want to link to you and visit your site. A compelling reason why people would want to link to your site... common sense and the value of delivering a quality user experience should dictate decisions around link strategies." - Matt Cutts, Google -------------------------- Let's also look at what Jeremy Zawodny from Yahoo said in recent months: -------------------------- "If you're actually concerned about every link you make being counted in some global database of site endorsements, you're probably over-thinking just a bit. Life's too short for that, ya know? Link and be linked to..." - Jeremy Zawodny, Yahoo -------------------------- What do we gather from this? The search engines realize that most webmasters will not link to a site if a link is not reciprocated. Some SEO's have publicly stated that you should only get links from high profile sites such as .gov or .edu sites. This is misguided advice. Why only go after high profile sites? Better to follow Google's advice which has been published on their webmaster guidelines for years. "Have relevant sites link to yours." That means link to and obtain links from any site that you deem is beneficial to your end user. Reciprocal linking has roots that extend back to the infancy of the web. The search engines have evolved and now analyze all of your published exit links and your obtained back links to determine which were acquired with editorial discretion and with due diligence, which back links were bought or acquired with no editorial discretion, and/or at a rate which exceeds their unpublished speed limits. Honest, relevant reciprocal linking thrives on the web. To tell a webmaster to avoid reciprocal linking because "X search engine hates it" is misinformed in my opinion. And there is NO evidence that reciprocal linking is hated by the search engines. Check Google's webmaster guidelines (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769) you will see no mention of reciprocal linking being a no-no. Google does say, "...don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank." That means avoid full duplex services that promise a guaranteed number of links over a short period of time. Relevant linking must be conducted using editorial discretion so if you do manage the data with software, make sure you use a reputable service or software that is editor based. Want more proof regarding irrelevant linking? Look again at the 2003 Google patent: http://snipurl.com/fmer [uspto.gov]. According to its legal filing, Google defines "independent peers" as "unrelated documents which may be used to generate (or alter) a score associated with a document." Here's a bit of what the patent application says about "independent-peer" links: -------------------------- "A sudden growth in the number of apparently independent peers, incoming and/or outgoing, with a large number of links to individual documents may indicate a potentially synthetic web graph, which is an indicator of an attempt to spam ... this information can be used to demote the impact of such links." -------------------------- The emphasis is mine, but the meaning is clear even without it. If you sell Christmas ornaments online and load your site with links to payday loan companies, Google (and other search engines) can -- and probably will -- hold it against you. So what have we gathered from the Google patent and other statements from search engine engineers? We have learned that the search engines analyze your published exit links and your acquired back links to determine the rate at which you acquired them, and the quality of sites representing both your outbound and inbound links. The search engines do not always count irrelevant back links. But almost always they count relevant links from quality sites that benefit your end users. The proof is in the SERPS. Finally, Bruce said that many non-technical people may boil down to a simple line saying "forget reciprocal links because these are easy to get, therefore not important to Google." Bruce is right in that it is easy to obtain links if you pay an unscrupulous service to link you to 5000 sites overnight avoiding editorial discretion. But it's NOT that easy if you do the work diligently and insure each link you are considering linking to and from benefits your end user. I have seen some SEO "experts" state "reciprocal linking is dead" .. That might be valid if you are only linking in high volume to irrelevant sites as an SEO function. However, ethical and honest reciprocal linking is at the very basis of what the world wide web has become. We work, we play, we socialize, we do business using two-way reciprocal exchanges of information. Life is a web. Without two-way, interactive links, society would collapse. I have seen thousands of our users manage their link campaigns as a branding function with like minded sites that benefit their end user. They find that not only do their outbound and inbound links produce quality traffic for the end user, they see their search engine rankings thrive probably due (in part) to long term organic link popularity growth. For those of you who still aren't sure, consider a world where search engines did not exist. How would you get traffic? Would you just sit around and wait for traffic to magically appear at your doorstep? Of course not.. you would find other sites that are relevant to your own and ask them to exchange links. This is the essence of decent, ethical, reciprocal linking for the end user. Joel Lesser, President/CEO LinksManager.com - http://linksmanager.com Creative NetVentures, Inc. - http://cnvi.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: David P. Abrahms Subject: Text Link Ads Does anyone have experience with Text Link Ads http://www.text-link-ads.com/ , either as a buyer or publisher? It looks like an interesting idea. If the links stay contextually relevant (don't know if this technology is part of Text Links) I'd imagine the CTR is quite good. Couple quick thoughts - from the website: --------------------- "1. Text Link Ads are served as static links that can help your natural (organic) search engine rankings. "2. We have an exhaustive inventory of quality niches that can send targeted traffic to your website. "3. Flat price per ad for a 30 day ad run. Never worry about cost per click or CPM rates." --------------------- That all sounds interesting, but isn't promoting static links for better ranking muddying the waters? I'm wondering, with all the linking talk here lately (and especially Bruce Clay's excellent recent post) the types of ads Text Links displays wouldn't really result in "natural (organic) search engine rankings," or would they? For one thing, linking is has a possibly dwindling weight factor in Google's algorithm. In at least one occurance, they're going about changing it (first with paid linking, as we've seen with the O'Reilly sites). Is Text Link Ads paid linking? Is it truly natural linking if it's through an ad network? I'm actually asking these questions because I'm interested in their service. It looks like it could work for one of my sites. But I'm much more interested in the advertising / publishing side of things then using it as some sort of SEO technique. This is what I mean by "muddying the waters." David P. Abrahms -------- new post - new topic --------- From: Martha Retallick Subject: Business Communication [was: Design Marketplace] I would like to respond to Cheryl Berry's post in LED 2206. In it, she said: > After only stating my name and company - Cheryl Berry > with bookkeepinghelp.com - I received the immediate > reply "I already have an accountant" and click... hang up. Sorry, Cheryl, for my hostile response, but your introduction sounded very much like the one that is used by the countless telemarketers who call my number. A better approach would have been to say something like, "Hello, would you have a few minutes to discuss your web design services?" The very beginning of the call also would have been a good time to say that you had read my posts on the LED Digest. Then, before proceeding with the call, give me a chance to say that yes, it's a good time to talk, or no, it isn't. If the response is yes, then proceed to introduce yourself as Cheryl from bookkeepinghelp.com and explain what you're trying to do. As for listing my phone number on the Do Not Call list, that is my right. And my telephone is there for the convenience of my clients, many of whom have been happily with me for years and give me referrals without my having to ask, not to mention my family and friends. My phone line is not a happy hunting ground for telemarketers. Also, before calling people in web design, do your homework. Take a look at the frequently asked questions on our websites. For example, I say what my target markets are in this part of my FAQ: http://www.westernskycommunications.com/faq.html#question-1 Note that my specialties do not include the accounting / bookkeeping professions. Hence, I might not be the best prospect for you. Martha Retallick http://www.westernskycommunications.com Dressing your Business for Success on the Internet ------------------------------------------------------- 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." - Scott Adams |
