Posted by great scott!
So you’ve got this great content with lots of links pointing to it, but now you have a new version, or there’s an update of the product, or it’s an annual content piece…how do you keep all of those links, make sure users get to the relevant version, and keep the old stuff archived? What to do, what to do?
Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by rebecca
A couple months ago my boyfriend (Manstery Guest) wrote an article called called 10 Fictional Diners We Want to Eat At and posted it on the food site he manages for the Village Voice. The article didn’t quite make it on some of the major social news sites, but it does receive a small amount of traffic via StumbleUpon (it has a one star rating and a couple of reviews). Yesterday someone alerted him to another site that had posted the exact same article in its entirety. This site was receiving a ton of traffic from Reddit and StumbleUpon for an article that was stolen from another site. There wasn’t even a mention of credit to the original source or a link back to Daily Fork. It was a rip off, pure and simple.
Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: unranked [?]
Majestic SEO just released free graphs tracking link growth rates, which can be used to compare the overall link profile of competing sites, and how they are growing month to month
Popularity: unranked [?]
Some media executives are bitching about Google ranking blogs and sites not controlled by the mainstream media. Of course Google has been tilting their algorithms in the direction of brands, and even includes trusted news partners directly in the search results for recent news items. But that is not enough to make bloated media companies profitable.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Sarah Bird, Esquire
May It Please the Mozzers,
Legal Monday is here again. This week’s post is part practical guide and part cybernag. Remember the post I wrote encouraging you to register your copyright back in December 2007? I bet you haven’t done it yet. Am I right? I thought so.
Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by randfish
Let’s try a little excercise…
Common features of spam domains include:
Long domain names .info, .cc, .us and other cheap, easy to grab TLDs Short registration period (1 year, maybe 2) High ratio of ad blocks to content Javascript redirects from initial landing pages Use of common, high-commercial value spam keywords like “mortgage,” “poker,” “texas hold ‘em,” “porn,” “student credit cards,” and related terms Many links to other low quality, spam sites Few links to high quality, trusted sites High keyword frequencies and keyword densities Small amounts of unique content Very few direct visits Very few links sent out in (non-spam) email to the site Registered to people/entities not associated with trusted sites Not frequently registered with services like Yahoo! Site Explorer, Google Webmaster Central or Live Webmaster Tools Rarely have short, high value domain names Often contain many keyword-stuffed subdomains More likely to have longer domain names More likely to contain multiple hyphens in the domain name Less likely to have links from trusted sources Less likely to have SSL Security certificates Less likely to be in directories like DMOZ, Yahoo!, Librarian’s Internet Index, etc. Unlikely to have any significant quantity of branded searches Unlikely to be bookmarked in services like My Yahoo!, Del.icio.us, Faves.com, etc. Unilkely to get featured in social voting sites like Digg, Reddit, Yahoo! Buzz, StumbleUpon, etc. Unlikely to have channels on YouTube, communities on Facebook or links from Wikipedia Unlikely to be mentioned on major news sites (either with or without link attribution) Unlikely to register with Google/Yahoo!/MSN Local Services Unlikely to have a legitimate physical address/phone number on the website Likely to have the domain associated with emails on blacklists Often contain a large number of snippets of “duplicate” content found elsewhere on the web Unlikely to contain unique content in the form of PDFs, PPTs, XLSs, DOCs, etc. Frequently feature commercially focused content Many levels of links away from highly trusted websites Rarely contain privacy policy and copyright notice pages Rarely listed in Better Business Bureau’s Online Directory Rarely contains high grade level text content (as measured by metrics like Fleisch-Kincaid Reading Level) Rarely have small snippets of text quoted on other websites and pages Cloaking based on user-agent or IP address is common Rarely contain paid analytics tracking software Rarely have online or offline marketing campaigns Rarely have affilliate link programs pointing to them Less likely to have .com or .org extensions Almost never have .mil, .edu or .gov extensions Rarely have links from domains with .edu or .gov extensions Almost never have links from domains with .mil extensions Rarely receive high quantities of monthly visits Rarely have visits lasting longer than 30 seconds Rarely have visitors bookmarking their domains in the browser Unlikely to buy significant quantities of PPC ad traffic Rarely have banner ad media buys Likely to have links to a significant portion of the sites and pages that link to themExtremely unlikely to be mentioned or linked-to in scientific research papers Unlikely to use expensive web technologies (Microsoft Server & Coding Products that Require a Licensing Fee) Likely to be registered by parties who own a very large number of domains Unlikely to attract significant return trafficMore likely to contain malware, viruses or spyware (or any automated downloads)
Popularity: unranked [?]
Select Distribution
I recently mentioned the Sigur Rós Hiema video, which was featured on the YouTube homepage for a day and probably got about a million pageviews. An SEO Book reader named Satish discovered that after the video built up a lot of viral media and link exposure the video was set to private mode.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Sarah Bird, Esquire
May It Please the Mozzers,
It’s just another manic Monday at the Mozzplex. You know what that means. Legal Monday!
One of the most common problems facing anyone who publishes content online is copyright infringement. It’s happened to me. It’s happened to you. And it’ll probably happen to this post too. (Oh, the irony!)
Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: unranked [?]
The web levels the playing field, allowing individuals to compete with larger corporations, largely through the smaller players making dirt public and launching viral marketing campaigns around issues. Because there is a publisher publishing every opinion and angle, it is easy to discount just about everything, especially attempts for new market participants to become remarkable.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by great scott!
This week, Rand discusses various methods of Content Categorization. Placing some time and effort into your info architecture can make a huge difference in both rankings and user experience. As we’ve said many, many times, a flat site architecture (four clicks max!) is one of the keys to getting spidered and indexed properly. Perhaps more importantly, a well-planned content layout will better enable you to control the flow of internal link juice, thereby helping to avoid keyword cannibalization and make sure your strongest pages rank for your highest value keywords.
Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: unranked [?]
