Re: Structuring informational content for commercial site

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:01:12 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
<jaggillarfotboll@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"Carol W" <from_you@xxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
>news:7ak3p1p5nceuo63uuehrk5hm6fhdj95s82@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:32:10 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
>> <jaggillarfotboll@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>[cut]
>
>> >> > I think that Yahoo, for example, does a better job than Google
>> >>
>> >> At what?
>> >
>> >At giving a better rank to pages which have high valuable content.
>> >As we are talking about Sweden, you may try and search for
>> >"la Svezia" at Yahoo, Altavista and Lycos...
>>
>> I don't totally agree with "at giving better rank to pages which have
>> high valuable content, and I have sites/pages that rank well in Yahoo
>> (and their now-network of search sites). For example: Yahoo is easily
>> influenced by keyword density and if you repeat "la Svenzia" enough
>> times - or overly enough times - then, yes, you will rank well at
>> Yahoo. I have have seen some sites' information pages get beat out -
>> on Yahoo - by a page that is merely repeating the search phrase (but
>> not sharing any content about that thought/phrase - just repeating
>> it).
>
>
>My page is not merely repeating the search phrase.....

I didn't say your page did.

I was talking about keyword density - and how some people achieve
keyword density (without talking about the subject but just repeating
popular keywords often enough in _what_ contents are in the page).

>Do you understand Italian?

No.

[snip]
>> It is easier to rank higher at Yahoo as they lean more to on-page
>> touches with link popularity as the main off-page thought they look
>> at. Google's algorithem seems to prefer a bit more of a blend of
>> on-page with off-page touches.
>
>
>
>It is not easier at all.

I felt it was easier to rank high on Yahoo, In fact, the day Yahoo
rolled out their new search engine - I ranked higher on them than I
did at Google (at that time). Google just took me a little while
longer in some of the phrases I wanted to place for.

>
>> >> Yahoo accounts for less than 1/4 the number of visitors that google
>> >> sends me per day. Until it sends me more visitors, i won't be
>interested
>> >> in it.
>> >
>> >
>> >That can also depend on the rank which you have at Yahoo for different
>> >search terms, cannot it?
>> >
>> >> > [cut]
>> >> > > You will cut your own throat with google if you change the links
>too
>> >> > > often. Readers will also become angry -- they will go to the page
>> >> > > because google tells them there is a red widget on the page -- but
>> >> > > when they get there you will have updated red widgets right off the
>> >> > > page and they will leave in disgust.
>> >> >
>> >> > That would be Google´s fault not mine.
>> >>
>> >> No. That would be your fault for not understanding that google does not
>> >> update immediately in lve time.
>>
>> And, remember, Yahoo updates their index (and cache) more slowly than
>> Google.
>
>
>Yes, but Yahoo seems to have the ability to cache the important pages so
>that changes do not affect much what they had indexed.

At one time, in Yahoo's cache, they reflected pages from my site that
were over a year old - despite that those pages had undergone a
massive redesign (twice) and many had their contents changed (say like
the index page that I remove older article links and replaced iwth
newer ones periodically). I also can wait anywhere up to 6 months for
Yahoo to list new content pages on my sites.

>Moreover I try and redirect pages when I change the URL.

Redirect is a good thing to do when changing names/file locations.
Thank goodness that Yahoo now recognizes 301 redirect, huh?

>Google seems to have the ability to save page
[snip]

No search engine is perfect. Some handle some things better than
others but none are perfect since they are operated by scripts.

>[cut]
>
>> >You see, I had very good rankings at Google some years ago but I cannot
>say
>> >that it sent me many customers at that time either...
>>
>> Google is not going to send customers to a site - it will send trafic
>> though, but it is up to the site/site owner on getting those eyeballs
>> sent over their way to turn into sales.
>>
>> Perhaps, in the past, your content was not effective enough to turn
>> eyeballs into customers - but you have improved that content in the
>> meantime to improves sales thoughts.
>
>
>This a possibility but another possibility would be that Google´s users
>are not my target group
>They are mostly only interested to read information.
>This could be interesting if they were willing to buy the information I
>provide.
>Do you think they would?

Since you have a lot of content/information pages - with a commerical
goal tied in - Cat and you hve a bit more in common than you and I do.
My sites contents would roughly break down to 98% text/content and 2%
affiliate links shared.

Cat has already shared, though, she is (financially) delighted with
the traffic Google sends her way - given the #of unique visitors she
gets per day, sure - some will be there only to read the information
provided on the site but some are willing to spend if the site woos
them into buying.

If you are having probs turning some eyeballs into sales, then that is
not Google's or any other SE's fault. The SE only helps in sending
interested traffic to sites, once they send traffic to the site then
it is up to that site, and its contents, to get some of those eyeballs
to turn into customers or clientele.

<bad analogy>
If I put out a sign in front of the toll plazas with my home address
and stating that I offered free drinks and reasonable priced meals - I
imagine that I would get a nice nimber of folks showing up only for
the free drinks but not paying out a dime on food ... so I can't blame
the toll plaza for only sending me folks interested in the freebies,
they let the traffic through to get my address - and now it falls on
my shoulders to figure out a way to try to turn some of the freebie
drinkers into willing to buy some of the food offered as well.
</bad analogy>

>> >Perhaps there are some people ( I do not know how many) who think that
>top
>> >positions are too much affected by advertising on Google
>> > in terms of links, for example..
>>
>> Generally I hear people, site owners mainly, groaning about their
>> sites slipping in rankings after an algo-change/update or another site
>> ranking better than their's (with the other site always sub-par
>> somehow).
>
>
>I also talk to people I meet.. you know...and try to remember what they
>say...You think of what site owners say and I think about what users say...
>and it impressed me what a person told me once on that subject...

Thing is, though, Google is still the more popular search engine in
use on the Web. That may change in a few years - I mean, after all
Google took the crown from someone else and so there may be a day when
another search engine takes the crown from Google.

There are some people who don't like Google - for whatever reason -
yet majority of the folks who get their sites to place fairly decently
in Google state that, according to their log files, Google sends them
most traffic (and sales if they are a commercial site).

For whatever reason, seems that more people use Google at the moment.

>>
>>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> > I do not understand, yet, whether you do not like
>> >> > subsubdirectories, though...
>> >>
>> >> Gnerally, do not, unless the items are in "deep storage," not
>> >> commercial pages. We have a large archive of stored usenet posts about
>> >> magic that are arrayed in subdirectories, but that is not a commercial
>> >> site per se. See:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.arcane-archive.org
>> >>
>> >> where you will find tons of gross URLs like:
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>http://www.arcane-archive.org/occultism/magic/spells/blessing-an-object-1.p
>hp
>> >
>> >Italy is divided in Regions and in each Region there are one (in the case
>of
>> >Valle D´Aosta) or several provinces.
>> >In every Province there are several Communes
>> >Sweden is also divided in several län and there are several Communes in
>> >them...
>> >It is easier to present such a content by using subsubdirectories and
>> >perhaps even subsubsubsubdirectories..
>> >Moreover, I offer different services and wares on my website, so that´s
>> >another reason why I think it is suitable to
>> >use different levels in the structure and not just have a top-level
>website.
>> >At the beginning I thought that it would be better to do as you suggest
>but
>> >the site became larger and larger...
>
>
>
>> Although sub-directories can be great at divvying up content files -
>> keep an eye on how deeply of a site tree you create. 1 to 2 levels
>> from the root/top level can be ok but when you go deeper than that
>> then it may take longer for the spider to go through those lower level
>> pages.
>
>
>You seem to have different ideas from some other partecipant in
>alt.html.....

Perhaps that is because this isn't alt.html? Although I would think
that some regulars in alt.html woudl not advise seeing how deeply
layered, through the use of subdirectories, one can make their site -
even if just for user's ease and not taking into consideration search
engine spiders.

But then some of them don't advise using https:// for informational
pages and you insisted it was better to serve up your informational
pages as https://.

>You both may have reasons for that...
>but in the end, it is not worth to change the structure the whole time
>either and
>every site has different needs, depending for example from their complexity
>Italy is divided in regions, provinces, Communes and some cities like Rome
>are so large that they may be divided in different parts too.
>1 or 2 levels seems to be little in this context.

It's your site so you can lay out the items in it however you prefer
or find easier for you to handle. I was merely sharing my thoughts and
opinions in response to your posts.

>
>> Also, Yahoo once mentioned (right after they rolled out their own
>> search) in their guidelines/webmaster help that they knew about some
>> site owners creating subdirectories to try to share more keywords (to
>> influence placement/ranking that way) and that they will remove/not
>> index pages felt to be "subdirectory happy" (for the lack of a better
>> phrase).
>>
>> Carol
>
>Perhaps.
>But administrating the site is at least as important as to be indexed by
>search engines
>regardless of which one.

True, but if you are relying on search engines to help send most of
the traffic, that you need - to convert into sales or whatever - then
you may have to reconsider some previous decisions about how the site
is laid out (content-wise) and such. Particularly if you feel sales
could be better.

Carol
.

Relevant Pages

  • [ot] Debating the size of the Web
    ... week after Yahoo announced at an Internet search engine conference in Santa ... Yahoo company Web log - set off a spat. ... Google questioned the way its rival was counting. ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Structuring informational content for commercial site
    ... >>At giving a better rank to pages which have high valuable content. ... and I have sites/pages that rank well in Yahoo ... Besides this was not the only thing I do not like about Google. ... say...You think of what site owners say and I think about what users say... ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: Structuring informational content for commercial site
    ... >would be good to use subsubdirectories or not as much as it concerns search ... >>> I think that Yahoo, for example, does a better job than Google ... I don't totally agree with "at giving better rank to pages which have ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: very bad ranking in yahoo and MSN
    ... > voila (a French search engine) but nearly nothing from MSN (1/80th the ... > traffic from google) and yahoo. ... there is something wrong with yahoo and MSN. ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: Genealogy less and less popular in the Internet ? Or is Alexa vandalized ?
    ... loads or hits from anyone that does not have Alexa installed. ... I think many users reach the international page of google, ... Yahoo and all of the other search engines rank sites or pages ... the site, the traffic to the site coming from the search engine, the ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)