22 replies to this topic

[zzmac]

Hi all,

I'm guessing no, but can adding an RSS News feed to a website help rankings? If so, how?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

[1dmf]

I guess it's a bit like a newsletter, it won't necessarily bring someone to your site initially (unless you publish it on the web also) , but it helps bring them back, adding stickability and re-visitability to your site.

RSS feed burners might publish it and you could get others offering your RSS feed on their website bringing in new visitors that way, though the RSS XML file is indexed by G! , I've never seen it bring in any visitors direct from G! only from our articles themselves.

What you have to ask yourself is do you have content for an RSS newsfeed, and would it be offering a valuable service / unique content to your visitor.

If you can answer yes, then add one, it won't hurt , but you must be willing to spend the time adding new content and keeping it up-to-date.

here is an example of how we run our RSS , which actually was what I am currently working on (our latest article) when I saw this post

http://www.independe...rk-articles.xml

Edited by 1dmf, 28 January 2009 - 01:00 PM.

[bwelford]

By having an RSS news feed you will be picked up by Google Blogsearch and that may bring you additional traffic. Since your news feed will be similar to the original content, you can't expect it to add anything to the regular search and in fact it's probably better to block it via your robots.txt file to avoid confusing the algorithms.

[1dmf]

in fact it's probably better to block it via your robots.txt file to avoid confusing the algorithms

Can you elaborate on this please.

How do you mean confuse the Algo? , the RSS only contains a snippet of the actual article, would it not just follow the link, see its already indexed the page and move on?

how does allowing G! to index the xml file mess things up, all help understanding this is appreciated.

[bwelford]

I believe very strongly, 1dmf, in having full posts within the RSS news feed. This helps those who use aggregators such as Bloglines or Google Reader and wish to read only that.

It also gives more content for Google Blogsearch to identify what the content was and the posts should therefore be more visible. It thus becomes an exact duplicate of the blog post content.

[1dmf]

Should articles and blogs posts be treated diffrently?

It's the same with a news feed isn't it, you don't get the full story in the RSS feed, you get the headline and a snippet with a link to the full article.

Is this not the correct way to run an RSS feed?

[Jill]

Is this not the correct way to run an RSS feed?

Some do it that way and others have the entire article in the feed, as Barry mentioned.

[1dmf]

Is there a right way or wrong way Jill?

Or put it another way, what's best for SEO ?

And should I then block the xml file in the robots.txt file?

[Jill]

Or put it another way, what's best for SEO ?

Neither has anything to do with SEO. It's a marketing decision based on whether you prefer that people have to click through to your site to read the entire article (so you can get them to other things there) or whether your comfortable providing them with the entire article so they don't have to click through.

[1dmf]

Doesn't that start falling into the category of reverse psycology.

Giving people the whole thing without forcing them to visit your site, but that in itself, if they like what they read, means out of curiosity or intrest to learn more end up visiting your site all by themselves.

Is it a moral or perspective point of view or simply marketing tactics??

[Randy]

Dunno 1dmf.

But if it's supposed to be a marketing tactic it's probably not going to work to drive traffic to the site. If the articles in the rss feed answer people's questions they're not going to go any farther than that most times. Certainly less than if you gave them a paragraph or so that drew them in and had them wanting more.

[Jill]

Is it a moral or perspective point of view or simply marketing tactics??

IMO, it's a marketing tactic.

[bwelford]

I think it's usually better to give people what they want, rather than forcing them to do something that may irritate them. I guess that's marketing.

[1dmf]

hmm, perspectives from both sides of the fence.

I perceived things as Randy says, which is how i currently run our RSS feed.

I'm not sure how offering a headline and then expecting the user to click a link to the full article is going to iritate them, infact if they get irritated that easily for no real reason, i'm not sure I want them requesting our services, in the Financial sector, a complaint can end up costing thousands, not just in compensation but regulatory fines as well.

It seems as though the consumer , not only can't be arsed to go down the shops any more, but having to click a mouse button that one more time is getting too much for them! When's it gonna end?

[Anthony Hereld]

I disagree with Jill.

I won't say that very often, because I know she is highly respected in this industry, and I'm just the new kid on the block. Here is a good link that explains RSS and SEO: www.stephanspencer.com/search-engines/rss-and-seo-implications-for-search-marketers pretty well, and echos my own sentiments on using your RSS feed for search optimization.