Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
This Week's High Rankings Advisor 080
Posted 03 December 2003 - 11:27 PM
~~~IN TODAY'S ADVISOR~~~
----> Just Say No to Algorithm Chasing
*Search Engine Marketing:
----> Newbie SEO Questions
*This Week's Sponsors:
----> Nitty-gritty of Writing for the Search Engines
----> Buyers' Guide to Search Engine Optimization Firms
----> Have I Been Penalized?
*Stuff You Might Like:
----> Nitty-gritty SEO Writing Teleseminar
*High Rankings Forum Thread of the Week:
----> Job Description for an SEO Copywriter
*This Week's Sound Advice:
----> Are Cutting Edge Designs Killing Your Rankings?
----> Chicago SES Next Week
Comments? Questions? Post 'em here!
Posted 03 December 2003 - 11:58 PM
Not too many unsubs -- yet!
Posted 04 December 2003 - 01:16 AM
I think you said some good things, but you probably overstated some. But if people didn't get what you were on about before, what chance do they have this time??
Posted 04 December 2003 - 08:31 AM
Got 2 more fan mails this morning and only one that wasn't so nice. Actually, that one was fine. Was just someone upset by their loss of rankings. They didn't call me names or anything like the other ones!
Posted 04 December 2003 - 08:52 AM
Posted 04 December 2003 - 09:59 AM
Seriously, I completely one hundred percent agree in what you're saying Jill. Even though I'm not prone to fan mail I figured I'd throw in my
Hopefully, people will get the message and start producing sites that are unique, quality and reflective of their business rather than what they think is popular...[hopeful wishing, maybe, but then again I'm an unrelenting optimist]
Posted 04 December 2003 - 11:09 AM
It's all about credibility. And fake credibility (as in reciprocal
linking schemes) is finally a thing of the past.
I wish that were true.
I am still trying to figure out how one particular site with 95% junk reciprocal links is in the top 10 in a pretty competitive SERP.
Posted 04 December 2003 - 11:10 AM
This is the kind of stuff I deal with every week!
Posted 04 December 2003 - 11:25 AM
Well, shizzle my izzle, whaz up wid dat?
Another guy was upset because I put two spaces after my periods, and I used the non-word "cuz."
Posted 04 December 2003 - 11:37 AM
"argumentum ad hominem" It's pretty common, unfortunately.
You: You took that cookie
Him: I did not - you lie
You: Here is a picture of you taking the cookie
Him: Yeah, well you were wrong about something last week and admitted it.
You: Here is a picture of you taking the cookie...
Him: And the picture isn't totally in focus, and only an idiot would use a Canon instead of a Nikon.
When you start looking for it, you'll see it everywhere. It's so common than a lot of courthouse rules are designed just to deal with it.
On the other hand, some people just live to nitpick.
Posted 04 December 2003 - 12:07 PM
"But I still love the newsletter."
Posted 04 December 2003 - 12:15 PM
I give your intro a !
Posted 04 December 2003 - 12:39 PM
I will complain, though, that I didn't like seeing:
While I certainly agree that it's not the end of the world, alt attributes are the easiest thing to fix and make a huge difference to disabled users who depend on screen readers. I would hate it if anyone misconstrued your comment to mean it was something to be lax on (which I realize was not your point). Many accessibility experts would also want to make the distinction between "describing the image" (which is more what the longdesc attribute is for) and creating a textual equivalent. If your Blue Bell Construction logo is on every page, you don't have to say "our round logo with blue bells and red stripes"; you should just say "Blue Bell Construction." If the text equivalent is nothing, use that: 'alt=""'
If you're not using the alt attribute within your image tags, it's most definitely not the end of the world;
But I still love the newsletter.
Posted 04 December 2003 - 12:54 PM
Jbelle, actually, I believe there are many times where you wouldn't want the alt attribute to be used precisely because there ARE disabled users. Is it necessary for them to hear a description of every graphic that they can't see? If the graphics are just there for the look of the site, I would think it would be better for the text reader to just skip it all together.
But an SEO might stuff it full of keywords and the poor disabled person would have to keep listening to those keywords. (I'm guilty of doing this in years past, but I'm reformed!)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users