| LED Digest 1924: Submission Software Comments? |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" 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 ............................................... January 26, 2005 Issue #1924 ............................................... .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== --== Site Submission Software - News? ==-- ~ Tom Connelly "Has anyone had any recent experiences they can share on this topic?" ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Dream Affiliate Programs ==-- ~ Richard Graham "Does anyone else have recommended programmes...?" ~ Michael Martinez "...most sites aren't even aware of how much their own content is being framed." --== Problems for Linkers ==-- ~ Tom Anson "...links within the copy of normal pages can have great value to your audience." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Stats Terminology ==-- ~ Philip Scriver --== The Google Rankings Thread ==-- ~ Dirk van der Werff ======= NEW ====================================== From: Tom Connelly Subject: Submission Software News? Hi All, I know the topic of submission software (software employed to submit sites to search engines and improve their rankings) has been covered in the past but not for quite some time. As I remember it the story was left with the majority of comment suggesting that this type of software did not live up to its claims and that most LEDers preferred to submit by hand. Well, as things things do have a tendency to change / improve over time I was wondering if the new range of submission type software programs had improved and if they now offered value? I'm looking after a web site for a company and as time (and knowledge) is short I was wondering if it was now worth buying into one of these programs. Has anyone had any recent experiences they can share on this topic? Many thanks, Tom Connelly ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Richard Graham Subject: Dream affiliate Thanks to Michael Martinez for the Allposters.com recommendation [issue 1922]. They seem a perfect fit for my site, and I've just set up a store. Does anyone else have recommended programmes that could be used for various sites to bring in extra funds? To start us off, I've heard reports that calendars sell well e.g. www.calendars.com Be genki, Richard Graham http://www.genkijapan.net ------- new post - same topic -------- From: Michael Martinez Subject: Dream affiliate > Although we go way beyond most of everything else > in your dream listing, [letting you frame our site] is one > we don't do... Frames can be used in a lot of ways > that we would not want. - Ken Evoy, LED 1923 Framing has become so common that most sites aren't even aware of how much their own content is being framed. The legal battles were lost years ago. Framing can be done right or wrong. Each merchant just has to decide how much they want to accept the reality of today's Internet. It's an option I would like to have, but flexibility on other points can offset non-framing policies with me (see below). [I wrote in issue 1922], > 13) Link back to my site on your sales page. It won't kill you > to offer to send your customers back to where they came from. [You responded], > Yes, it will. No, it won't. But then, that may also be an issue directly related to market. My sites generate return traffic. Making it easier for people to get back to content like mine is simply good customer service. GOOD customer service sells. But the bottom line is that neither you (the merchant) nor I (the affiliate) own the surfer. The surfer decides where s/he wants to be. Making it inconvenient for the surfer, attempting to trap the surfer, discourages that visitor from returning to your site. I don't invest in one-time traffic. I don't invest in one-time sale merchants. And it doesn't take "all sorts of code to provide dynamic links back". I speak as a programmer with almost 30 years of coding experience. A link back is a simple feature to provide. It is courteous, it is professional, and it is simply inexcusable NOT to acknowledge who sent you your sale. This is a major point for me. And, to be honest, the only way you can get around it with me is to be flexible on the links I provide to you. That is, if I can frame your site OR open a new browser window when I send the visitor to you, then I can live without the link back. CSV datafeeds give me the freedom to link any way I please. While I am pleased that you and I agree on so many other points, I didn't expect everyone to jump on the bandwagon and agree with me on everything. There are some attitudes in the online merchant community I don't expect to change. I've been arguing with merchants about letting surfers do what they please for years. I still see posts here on LED from merchants who think in terms of "losing traffic" by allowing outbound links (separate from our disagreement above). In the end, a good merchant / affiliate relationship will be built around a common market, and I don't have a market that will work with every merchant. I suppose if I wrote essays about washing machines, I'd be a good match for one-time vendors of appliances. There is one other point I would like to add to my previous post, though. 10) Quick review of affiliate program applications. I like being approved in a few minutes. I'll accept being approved in less than a week. But keep in mind that I may have just applied because you have something seasonal I want to start selling NOW. I should have mentioned that I do NOT fill out any applications which require me to print and fax something. If you are going to do online business, you ABSOLUTELY MUST accept online affiliate applications. While I am very flexible about many of the other points in my checklist, I always pass up merchant programs who are not in the 21st century. If you cannot or will not accept an online application, you don't need my help to sell your merchandise. Michael Martinez http://www.michael-martinez.com/ ------- new post - new topic -------- From: Tom Anson Subject: Linking > ... one of the most popular rationales for links, is > that they help people get information on a topic. This > seems largely outdated in a time when [we have > powerful search engines]... - William Ernest Waites, LED 1920 Hi LED-ers, I think William Waites makes an excellent point about linking. We haven't participated in any scientific studies on the subject, but I can't think of any more that a very few times when I've ever gone to a links page. Looking at my site stats, it appears that we're in a majority. If Google places much importance on links coming from such pages, it would seem to me that this is a little askew. However, links within the copy of normal pages can have great value to your audience. I use them whenever appropriate as a service to my customers. Some links I add to a side column. As William said (sort of), in the day of Google, who needs a self-serving mini-directory of essentially useless links? On the other hand, when a search on Google presents you with anywhere from thousands to over a million links, having that number whittled down to a few well-chosen links placed either within the body of the text or in a side column is very much welcomed by me. Tom Anson Health-Essentials.info http://www.health-essentials.info ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Philip Scriver Subject: New Post - Stats Terminolgy I look at my website stats every day BUT I'm not really sure what some of the terms mean (though I stab a guess). Perhaps somebody with a bit more knowledge can tell me what is meant by the categories. Total sessions served : 11093 Total hits made on server : 191848 Total page view hits : 17408 Total non page view hits : 174440 Total time spent by all sessions : 1035688 seconds Total bandwidth : 1328973.75 kilobytes Total sessions served : 11093 Total search engine referred sessions : 80 (0.72%) Total referred session : 2924 (26.36%) Total blind (no referrer) sessions : 8089 (72.92%) Philip Scriver Explore Britain http://xplorebritain.com philip, xplorebritain.com ------- new post - new topic -------- From: Dirk van der Werff Subject: Seven year old site rates higher than current site > If a page like the conference page can get listed high > and quickly, and a long time source is deep in the results, > optimization is a grail.... - Tracy Coyle, LED 1921 My site has some pages in Google UK ... but the search term 'plants' doesn't bring up my site at all .. even though it has been in top ten on Google.com for past 4 years. BUT yesterday I noticed that my first EVER site from 7 years ago is ranked 18th on Google.co.uk with no keywords, titles or anything... here: http://plants.users.netlink.co.uk// it doesn't even mention the word 'plants' I have asked google why the anomaly ..... standard reply full of nothing....... How on earth can my 7 year old site that hasn't been updated once in that time and is a re-direct to another site of mine that also no longer exists ... rank more highly than http://www.plants-magazine.co.uk to which http://www.plants-magazine.com points? Does Google Uk have a different algorithm ... or am I missing something really really easy .. or am I just being penalised for some reason? Dirk van der Werff ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains © Copyright 1995-2004 Adam Audette. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "One of the most adventurous things left us is to go to bed. For no one can lay a hand on our dreams." - E. V. Lucas |
