Saturday, October 18, 2008

Freelance Bloggers Getting Paid

The brilliant Genia of SistersTalk has started FreelanceBlogger.net ~ and yes, she's included a category for adult or sex bloggers.

Also included in the community is advice on and other tips ~ including this list of social bookmarking sites, with opinion on their effectiveness for traffic and SEO.

The plan is to get all you bloggers who want to get paid over there, registered and posting your mini-resumes and then go after companies looking for bloggers. Genia is anticipating a 30 - 60 day time line to get the community active before she'll really begin courting the companies who will pay for bloggers, but there are already some Available Freelance Blogging Jobs listed.

The sooner you get registered, the sooner your potential for a paid blogging gig.

Labels: , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Cult Of Gracie Radio: The Marketing Whore Edition

Both Callie Simms & I will be back on Cult of Gracie Radio tonight, from 9-10 PM (Central), discussing mainstream & mature marketing from more of a 'how to' aspect. Tonight's agenda includes the following discussion:

* SEO: application tips (how) & definitions of purpose (why)

* The purpose behind & use of blogs (when to use, what they are for; when blogging doesn't make sense)

* Content: What is, and isn't, content with a purpose, and the issue of "giving it away for free". (somewhat related to both of the above)

* Ethics & 'feelings' about blogging & online user IDs. (When using a pen name feels icky, but is necessary; are there situations to 'out' yourself?)

(Of course, I'm sure we'll still have plenty of lively debate as we defend our reasoning!)

You can join the conversation by calling 646.200.3136

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

PageRank & User Data

SEO by the Sea writes that Yahoo Replaces PageRank Assumptions with User Data. I find the post interesting, mainly because I, like most of those who commented, was under the assumption that Google was already doing something like this already.

If Yahoo gets the patent (they've only just applied for it), this would mean that it is somehow different from what Google is using (or, very unlikely, that Google 'forgot' to patent it themselves). But in any case, the conversation at SEO by the Sea is quite interesting; if only to further prove that quantifying human behavior and constructing an equation to take in all the factors discussed is more math than I want to do.

Labels: , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

SEO Case Study

You know I'm Believer in content rather than SEO, but I do like to consider &/or avoid potential problems as I can and to that extent I offer like-minded folks Understanding Search Engine Penalties for such consideration. In it David Peralty gives tips via looking at a particular site (for you visual types).

Labels: , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

Monday, August 27, 2007

SEO Talk That's Fun & Educational

You know I'm not much for SEO (I don't think it's spam, I just believe in content more than key words etc.), but darn if Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land doesn't capture my attention. Who wouldn't love a post (The Promise & Reality Of Mixing The Social Graph With Search Engines) which kicks off thus:
I'm having a bad day. Aside from my desktop crashing, we get another spate of "let's blame SEO" to start my morning off. Robert Scoble uses that theme as a launching pad for a series of videos on how Facebook potentially could be a killer search engine -- regardless of the fact he seems to have no clue that "social graph" or social networking mixing has been tried and abandoned with search. Having watched his videos, which have sparked much discussion, I'll do some debunking, some educating for those who want more history of what's been done in the area, plus I'll swing around to that New York Times article today that ascribes super-ranking powers to SEO. Plus, I'll use the F-word along the way. I said it was a bad day.
Educational and enjoyable ~ grab a cup of whatever it is you drink, and read.

Labels: , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Still Right After All These Years: Content Is King

Nearly half of Internet users' time online is now spent with content, emarket report says:
Internet users now spend nearly half of their online time visiting content, according to the Online Publishers Association's "Internet Activity Index," conducted by Nielsen//NetRatings.

Time spent with content is up 37% over 2003 levels, the OPA claimed. The Index measures time spent with e-commerce, communications, content and search.

"The index indicates that, over the past four years, the primary role of the Internet has shifted from communications to content," OPA president Pam Horan said in a statement. "[The Internet now handles] traditionally offline activities, such as getting news, finding entertainment information or checking the weather."




Which means that content isn't only king, but vital.

The article continues to say:
The association also noted that search is better than before. This lets consumers find what they are looking for more quickly. That reduces time spent on search and increases the amount of time devoted to other activities.

So although the number of searches overall has boomed, the percentage of time spent on searching is still minimal.

If content is consuming so much of Internet users' time, where does that leave search? For those marketing a retail e-commerce site, search still matters.

The American Marketing Association's "Mplanet" survey ranked the online resource consumers were most likely to use first for product information during last year's holiday season in different retail categories. Search engines (43%) and direct visits to company Web sites (29%) were the sources consumers turned to first for product information, regardless of product category.

Newer types of consumer-generated content, such as online social networks, blogs and chat rooms, were less important as a primary source for finding product information.


While I daresay that search function has improved, I still maintain that unique and decent content is the best way to be found in search results.

Labels: , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Rankings, Smankings? (Part One)

I've never been a huge fan of Alexa, but as it was the only free resource, it was a name and a tool you needed to know about. So here's what I know ~ that I think you should know. *wink*

Alexa admits to problems:
The traffic data are based on the set of toolbars that use Alexa data, which may not be a representative sample of the global Internet population. Known biases include (but are likely not limited to) the following:

* Our users are disproportionately likely to visit sites that are featured on alexa.com such as amazon.com and archive.org, and traffic to these sites may be overcounted.
* The extent to which our sample may overcount or undercount users of the various browsers is unknown. Alexa's sample includes users of Internet Explorer, Firefox and Mozilla browsers. The AOL/Netscape and Opera browser is not supported, which means that sites operated by these companies may be undercounted.
* The extent to which our sample may overcount or undercount users of various operating systems is unknown. Alexa sample includes toolbars built for Windows, Macintosh and Linux.
* The rate of adoption of Alexa software in different parts of the world may vary widely due to advertising locality, language, and other geographic and cultural factors. For example, to some extent the prominence of Chinese sites among our top-ranked sites reflects known high rates of general Internet usage in China, but there may also be a disproportionate number of Chinese Alexa users.
* In some cases traffic data may also be adversely affected by our "site" definitions. With tens of millions of hosts on the Internet, our automated procedures for determining which hosts are serving the "same" content may be incorrect and/or out-of-date. Similarly, the determinations of domains and home pages may not always be accurate. When these determinations change (as they do periodically), there may be sudden artificial changes in the Alexa traffic rankings for some sites as a consequence.
* The Alexa Toolbar turns itself off on secure pages (https:). Sites with secure page views will be under-represented in the Alexa traffic data.

In addition to the biases above, the Alexa user base is only a sample of the Internet population, and sites with relatively low traffic will not be accurately ranked by Alexa due to the statistical limitations of the sample. Alexa's data come from a large sample of several million Alexa Toolbar users; however, this is not large enough to accurately determine the rankings of sites with fewer than roughly 1,000 total monthly visitors. Generally, Traffic Rankings of 100,000+ should be regarded as not reliable because the amount of data we receive is not statistically significant. Conversely, the more traffic a site receives (the closer it gets to the number 1 position), the more reliable its Traffic Ranking becomes.
(And one should note that just a few years ago, on the matter of software adoption, they said this: "The rate of adoption of Alexa software in different parts of the world may vary widely due to advertising locality, language, and other geographic and cultural factors. For example, Korean sites are prominent among our top-ranked sites, but it is unknown to what extent this reflects high rates of general Internet usage in Korea.")

I've got a friend who has had access to Nielsen//NetRatings from time to time, and she swears that once you get into the top 100,000 sites the numbers/rankings are virtually the same. She, and others, call the Top 100,000 The Big Boys.

But what does it all mean? How big is Big?

Alexa's blog explains:
Let's break it down by Alexa's Rankings, starting with the Top 500. Out of a total of 18 million sites to choose from, the Top 500 represent less than .003% of sites. But, as you would expect, these sites get a disproportionate amount of traffic. In fact they get 45% of all traffic. No, that's not a misprint. The odds that any Web surfer in the world is on a Top 500 site at any give time is about 50/50.

Moving down the rankings, if you take Alexa's Top 100,000 sites you'll find that almost 3 out every 4 clicks are spoken for. In other words, almost 75% of all the traffic on the web goes to the sites in the Top 100K list, leaving the remaining 18 million or so sites to fight over the scraps.

Like the distribution of wealth on the planet, the distribution of traffic on the Web is extremely lopsided. The Top 500 are champagne and caviar. Sites 501 - 100,000 are meat and potatoes. The rest are hungry.
These are the sites that Alexa swears it is accurate on.

But is that true?

Alexa, like most things SEO, can be manipulated. I remember back when Backwash.com was pushing for increasing the ranking at Alexa, we were all encouraged to download the toolbar to record our visits to Backwash. Our ranking increased, and miraculously, while the site is at any given moment broken or not even live (likely accounting for the huge decrease in traffic), the site still has a nice Alexa ranking. Why? Well, here I'm going to refer you to Wow My Alexa Ranking is Great! Should I Trust It?.

One thing often overlooked in the Alexa accuracy problem is the bias that's built into their toolbar. Francesco Mapelli says it clearly:
Alexa's stats are based on the data collected by the users that installed the Alexa Toolbar. Fine. But who's intrested in downloading the alexa toolbar? What does the alexa toolbar offers?

* a search field (present in IE and Firefox, and with real search engines)
* popup blocking (present in IE and Firefox)
* traffic report
* site owner info
* related sites ( competitors? )

as you can see, the main features here are useful for webmasters, bloggers, site owners, SEOers etc.

This is not stuff for the average surfer!
It's webmasters jockeying and researching using the Alexa toolbar; not average surfers.

As if this all weren't bad enough, check out We Bought An Alexa Ranking.

Any webmaster who checks their stats (and I don't mean you have to be religious about it like The Whore is) can quickly see if Alexa is at all accurate for their site. In my case, my sites must not swing Asian enough for it's really inaccurate.

So what can you use? Well, I'll get to that soon. I've got to study the info a bit more first.

Labels: , , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

Monday, March 12, 2007

My Tags Are Not Your Tags

Tags or labels, in terms of Folksonomy, are ways to categorize and retrieve information.

Replacing linear outlines, formal directories, and individual static pages on specific topics, tags are ways to organize and present information to readers. For example, this post will be tagged "blogging" and "Internet marketing" (among others I'd imagine ~ for it's not yet finished). By clicking on one (one I assume you are interested in reading more about), you are given a list of all my posts on that topic. If you choose "blogging" you will get all the posts I have tagged thus.

In function, they are searches done by keyword so navigation should be easier ~ especially at blog sites, where information is presented in a linear, often 'backwards.' format. Sure, there will be some overlap between/among tags, but this is much more efficient than asking you to perform a search hoping I've used those words ~ and much more efficient than me having to create a page for each category and listing all the posts on the appropriate pages.

But some complain there is little merit in tagging.

Many will argue that tags are irrelevant because they do not have a controlled or defined vocabulary. It's virtual limitlessness renders the idea obsolete to some. What I call "Internet marketing", another may call by a more specific type of Internet marketing. Some would say "sexy" while others would say "sexuality" etc. With no shared dictionary of typical terms with clearly defined meanings our piles of stuff won't always neatly line up.

These detractors say that that the use of tags involves assumptions on the part of the tag creator (blogger) with the most egregious being that these tags have shared meanings that "all" understand.

While it's true that my words may not be your words, I'll grant that my average reader is intelligent enough to follow along; it's not like I tag my entries about blogging "puppies" and my entries on PR as "kites." I do try to use words that make sense.

What I think these tag nay-sayers are really complaining about is not the reliability of tags in terms of reader usage, but rather of how (not) useful reports of "popular" are. How can you say "sexy stories," "Internet marketing," or "adult DVDs" are popular searches (let alone bid/buy those keywords), if you can't accurately measure them? How can you more effectively appeal to your niche when there are thousands of word combinations or keywords to use?

Tags (or labels) are really keywords after all; keywords of my choosing. Like any other keyword searches, you'll never quite be able to pinpoint what words a person will use ~ not a potential customer at a search engine, not an individual blogger such as myself. You'll have to guess and you'll have to accept. It is this ambiguity which frustrates those who want data.

These data folks are so intently focused on what keywords &/or tags are popular in their market (or in terms of identifying what target market they will pursue), that they, again, overlook the fact that individuals make up 'the market.' And you can't always tell what any given individual will do.

My tags may not be made of the keywords you'd choose ~ you may have to learn my lingo. And when I visit your site, I'll have to learn yours. What's worse for those who want more agreed upon tags and terms is that they too will have to decide what words to use. They will have to think & create their own, not select from a list of approved and defined words. They will be forced to decide what meanings their tags will have ~ and what they are best used for.

Like those who worry that the use of too many tags will ruin search engine ranking, these marketers focus on the things they wish to know, and therefore control, when the reality is they cannot really control their audience anyway. There's no way to force folks into using specific words ~ not in a search engine, not at a blog, and not even for your very own copyrighted product. I know you want to, but you cannot. They will use the words they wish to use.

This is why I (again and again) worry about my reader first, and think about SEO later. I focus on providing the content, letting the words I "speak" speak to my readers. They are there for the spiders, and I'll let the algorithms out and weigh them (that's their job after all). If you place first priority on spiders and search engines, you'll bring readers (customers) to what, exactly? A site with little to offer, that's what. Is that really what you want?

So while my tags may not be perfect, they do serve a purpose for my readers: navigation. If they like what I have to say, they'll be able to 'find more like this' and, I hope, come back again and again. If not, well, no amount of SEO witchery is going to change that.

So my tags may not be your tags in terms of terms. But they are terms you and I can use. And that's what I believe in; helping people find their way, satisfying them with information they want, not satisfying search engine spiders or an SEO directive.

Labels: , , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Where The Links Lead

If a person took the time to read and to post comments at your blog, they likely are part of your target audience and so conversing with them is a matter of great importance; but what they do tells you even more than what they said in their comment. When it comes to blog comments I read them, of course. But I also follow the information they provide.

(Tip: Always use your Blogger or Wordpress ID or fill in the email and URL information so that folks can find/follow you.)

When you post a comment here I want to know more about you, so I'll follow the link. Looking at your blog or website gives me insight into why you believe as you do. And it often leads to interesting things...

A recent example is Urban Iconoclast's comment. From the ID link, I found 'his' blog and several of his blog pals too (many of which discuss marketing, so I urge you to go and link surf).

One hot topic running about nearly as frantic as any blog meme was the topic of Z-List and Z-List 2.0. Like Sugasm the idea of Z-List is to create link swapping hotlists which employs a blog post to send traffic to other blogs. However, unlike Sugasm the list members are not all on a theme. (For evidence thereof see Servant of Chaos, where the Z-List 2.0 is provided, showing that these blogs are not on a theme.) The problem with this is two-fold: Your neither build page rank or other authority with search engines, nor are you offering your readers more of what they are looking for.

As usual, I am more worried about the latter point ~ where you personally direct readers. If someone enters a Z-List member's blog, lord knows where they are sent, what they will find. Yes, you may get more eyeballs to your site, but it's my opinion that you're sending folks away to 'anywhere' just on the premise that you'll get eyeballs sent to you as an 'anything.' It's not targeted traffic. I'm not sure how much use this is unless you are desperate to get someone, anyone, other than your mom and sister to read your blog.

In defense of Z-List, it seems that they are trying to create a system or list from which you can somewhat pick & choose who you link to. However, the problem with selection from the list this way means you are not guaranteed to be selected (linked) yourself ~ and if this is all a crap shoot, then why bother to be on a list? Why not just hand-pick who you want to link to, swap with, and share readers with.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Why You Shouldn't Try To "Beat" Search Engines

This was sent out in the Marketing Whore Newsletter on 2/6/07, so please note that some of the Google numbers may have changed since then... Consider this a free sample, sans the subscribers only offer. Yes, I am whoring the newsletter. I want you to subscribe.

As written in Three Internet Contact Points one of the primary ways for your site to be found is via Internet search engines. The proof of how important search engine traffic lies in the number of articles, websites and software offerings which tell the webmaster how to 'beat the Google algorithm,' 'how to feed search engine spiders,' etc. I'm going to leave all those practices and gadgets to those folks (uh, after I remind you of this bit, Google Problems?) and talk about what I believe.

I believe in content. Write good, decent content and folks will find you in the search engines. It may not seem like it can compete with Mr SEO or some webmaster traffic philosophy, but it not only can ~ it will.

This is because humans use Google and other search engines to find specific information. Keywords and meta tags, once a huge part of how things were at least told to us as the way to be found, really have little practical use. This is why I say so:

Putting keywords such as 'teen sex' into a search engine will get you how many listings? 2,230,000. Do you think a person is going to be satisfied with that result? Nope. They are likely going to modify their search with additional information. They will try "teen sex" education (1,200,000 results), "teen sex" education condoms (158,000 results), "teen sex" education condoms boys stds (31,800 results), "teen sex" education condoms boys stds gym class (998 results), and "teen sex" education condoms boys stds prom (974 results).

They will do this because this helps them more precisely find the information they are looking for. (The same is done with entertainment and can be replicated with searches for "erotic stories," "webcam girls," PSOs etc.) Now the old school webmasters will tell you that this abundance of listings is exactly why you need to worry about Google algorithms, keyword selection (and purchase), and other SEO tricks to get primary placement & high page listings. But really now, who is going to buy all those words and phrases? And if you consider that this is only one search, by one person, can you guess what others you might need to buy? All those words replacing "boys" for "boy's" and for "girls" too. Not to mention "gym class" in quotes, and phy ed etc. Just buying "teen sex" isn't going to be a short-cut either. I could just have easily put in "sex education," "sex practices," "underage," "premarital," "high school" etc. Are you going to correctly guess and buy all those keywords?

One of the main things that webmasters and SEOs fail to understand when they want to 'beat' Google is what Google is trying to do. Google is trying to find the most relevant information that matches the searcher's query. It is trying to use programs to replicate human understanding and searching; they are trying to get the programs/algorithm to interpret what a searcher wants and give it to them. What you say about your site, with keywords and meta tags etc, is not the same as what your site is. You are likely much more (hopefully not less than) what your keywords and meta stuff says you are. Google knows that. This is why keywords are not gold or God or whatever you may have been taught.

In trying to take the search as question and help the person find the answer, Google employs not just what you say about your site, but what you site actually says. In other words, it 'reads' your site. It notes all the words and phrases, topics, image descriptions, tags and labels you have at your site. And, to check how much of an authority you are, it looks to see not only who links to you but for what. If your site is on teen abstinence and another site for parents regarding sex talk with kids links to you, that says more about you being an authority on teen abstinence than 100 different websites talking about you in assorted ways such as your cute puppy pics. Also, as seen with the 'miserable failure' that is George Bush, the words used to link to you are important. So 10 bloggers saying "teen abstinence" as the phrase to link to your site is more powerful than you might have thought.

This was not designed to keep small sites small or make big sites bigger, but is one way for the algorithm to interpret how much authority you do have. It may seem unfair at the onset, like some huge mountain to climb when your competition seems to have all the links placing them high on Google. But you can control these things. You control how much of an authority you are.

First of all, provide great, quality content. Even if you're a membership site selling photos, images, and movie downloads to members use words as much as possible especially on non-password protected pages. This not only makes sense as far as telling the visiting human what they are purchasing, but it tells Google and the other search engines trying to help humans what you are ~ and what you are not.

If folks did little but provide great content, and update frequently, they'd still be found in search engines by the folks who wanted what they have to offer. But you don't need to stop there.

Subscribe to The Marketing Whore Newsletter and find out what you've been missing.

Labels: , , , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

Monday, February 12, 2007

What Am I, Link Bait?

Linkbaiting or link baiting is a term for getting your blog noticed. It's not a very new term. Hell, it's not even a new idea ~ it's marketing folks.

I just love it when folks feel the need to make up new terms for the same old things. Sex by any other name...

To illustrate my point, I direct you to Wikipedia where it lists the types of link bait:

* Informational Hooks - Provide information that a reader may find very useful. Some rare tips and tricks or any personal experience through which readers can benefit.
* News Hooks - Provide fresh information and garner citations and links as the news spreads.
* Humor Hooks - Tell a funny story or a joke. A bizarre picture of your subject or mocking cartoons can also prove to be a link bait.
* Evil Hooks - Saying something unpopular or mean may also yield a lot of attention. Writing about something that is not appealing about a product or a popular blogger. Provide strong reasons for it.
* Tool Hooks - Create some sort of tool that is useful enough that people link to it.

Isn't this just common sense? Write something of interest "so that bloggers and social media users are made aware and can help promote the piece in tandem." It's just plain marketing folks. It's a matter of simply creating quality content, which you know The Whore is in favor of.

But, oh how confusing this is for so many.

Last year BizNicheMedia held a linkbait contest wherein folks were to submit their best link bait ideas. Of the 74 ideas, ranging from serious to mockery with the same run of intelligence, BizNicheMedia selected a winner.

In my opinion the best one was from 'Dictionary' who wrote:

My idea:
Make a product worth linking to.
Contact me for payment details.

Because that kids, is some integrity. Don't focus on gimmicks; do something of quality.

But that was not the winner. They selected the guy in the crowd who sent in this gem:

Boobs
You can't go wrong with boobs.
To paraphrase Howard Stern: "Boobs = links."

Their very selection makes me mistrust them. They went for an obvious traffic getter of sorts, the kind of 'hook' that Wiki didn't expressly list, but completely miss the point of reaching a target market ~ and a product to sell. (I'm rather certain BizNicheMedia doesn't sell breasts.)

Even while they admit their contest itself was linkbait, the winner was a loser. Credibility took a nosedive. Do I have lots of faith in this site, this company? No, I do not. Would I even consider going to them for whatever it is that they do? Nope. (But then, to be fair, after considerable poking about I have no idea what the hell they are doing there. Truly. I am confused.)

Their attempts at linkbaiting give marketing a bad name. (No, I'm not trying to use the 'Evil Hook' here.)

But on to something positive to learn from.

Internet guru Eric Ward also wrote this piece on linkbaiting from an SEO point of view. When it comes to SEO you know I primarily focus on providing content which gives you not just the keywords you want but the target audience too (or at least you should know this after last week's newsletter). But no matter, this is relevant for a few reasons.

While Eric doesn't reference the same contest, it seems rather clear that his points mirror my thoughts. Hype for hype's sake, linkbaiting or link whoring, no matter how much traffic you think it brings you, well, it just isn't all it's made out to be. Especially if you ignore your audience along the way.

Likely Eric and I started thinking about linkbaiting for different reasons. We have different audiences, keywords, and sometimes seemingly very different philosophies. Funny how we end up in the same place though, huh?

Which brings me to the other reason I mentioned Eric and SEO...

It's never wise to ignore the other camp. (It's also never wise to ignore Eric). Sometimes they can point to a worthy trick or two, othertimes you discover you are talking about the same thing afterall.

Here are a few of the other camp locations to read at:

PageTraffic Blog
Search Engine Land
SearchNewz

Labels: , , , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site

Tuesday, January 2, 2007

Google Problems?

Often the new adult webmaster thinks that since their site hasn't shown up in Google, it's because Google dislikes adult entertainment.

Google isn't a prude. So content is not your problem. Likely you have a technology issue.

Google uses spiders to search-out sites & pages & bring those finding in as results for the surfer. If you site navigation/design uses some of the following 'tricks,' you may be smashing those useful spiders...

Frames
First of all, let me say 'ugh.' Frames are so passe ~ so 1990's, they belong on VH1s 'I love the 90's' to be mocked right along side Tanya Harding.

But honestly, it's not that Google just thinks they are 'ugly,' there are practical reasons for the search engine slight.

With frames, one of the hated features of frames, a person cannot bookmark a specific page ~ at least not as easily as non-frame pages. This conceptual design also makes the spider's work more difficult. Google will find your site, but may not return the ideal page, or it may give the page, without the frames, causing a lack of navigation.

Gracie suggests you just get rid of frames altogether, as soon as possible. Not just for Google, but for your site visitors.

Flash or Image Created Sites
Flash is a huge, showy way of creating pretty websites and entry pages ~ but a real waste of money in my opinion. The same is true of websites designed with nothing but a composite of images. Quite often both of these techniques are used to look impressive and preserve the integrity of special fonts which web browsers cannot read, but as they are all images and no text, search engines do not see them.

Sure, they look nice, but who is going to find you to see them?

JavaScript
JavaScript has traditionally been used in shopping cart systems and other 'high tech' sites for rollover menu images, visitor tracking, and other reasons, but JavaScript cannot be read by Google or other search engine spiders. (Using JavaScript for link swaps and links pages also virtually nullifies search engine spider abilities to use links for ranking too.)

Many Internet users have JavaScript disabled, and those with PDAs & other tech gadgets which have limited or no JavaScript capability means the use of JavaScript should be seriously considered for a number of other reasons as well.

AJAX
AJAX stands for Asynchronous JavaScript And XML, which means many of the problems with JavaScript will apply.

Dynamically Generated Pages
While Google is able to index dynamically generated pages, this configuration gives a spider too many options, which can cause crashes ~ site crashes. Google, therefore, has limited the number of dynamic pages they will search & index. It's a safety precaution.

A word on the above site design/code issues for those who do not create their own websites. If you hired a web designer or plan on doing so, tell your designer your concerns. A nifty tool to help with code problems, as well as pages or documents on your site which are not linked, is YourAmigo Spider Linker.

A good rule of thumb for avoiding all of the above issues is to remember all pages must have HTML for search engines to find read them.

Doorway Pages
I know these were 'big' back in the day, but most search engines, and most definitely Google, dislikes the hell out of 'em.

Surfers hate doorway pages, which 'promise' content, but just hook & jerk a surfer into a place they don't want to be, or offer nothing in the way of content. So Google wishes to avoid sending their surfers to doorways or splash screens.

Just don't do them. Not only do you risk problems with Google, but you alienate your potential customers.

Other Class-less Cheats
These are sure to get you banned or bumped from most search engines. (I can't believe anyone actually employs these tactics anymore, but...)

* Do not use small or hidden text. (Spamming)

* Do not use popular keywords in your tags or text if they have nothing to do with your site's content. (Stuffing/Spamming)

* Do not participate in link farms ~ A directory with actual content, such as reviews, a few articles etc, those are OK, but auto-generated link sites are bad news.

If you play 'clean,' yes, your 'dirty' site will still get listed.

More Reading:

BoingBoing has an update of a snafu which may be fixed, but contains some generally useful info for bloggers regarding Google.

Labels: , , , , ,


Grab The Bookmarketer For Your Site