Published: Nov 13, 2007 - 08:11 am
Story Found By: aimClear 1552 Days ago
Category: Link Building
8 Comments
8 Comments
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
Nice and simple explanation about why to link internally. I like it!
Ironically, I cut my feeds from full to partial and my subscriber count went up AND my reach showed quite a bit of growth.Its been good for my site to move to partial.Relevant or not, but still, my 2 cents.link building is essential for any blog (unless youre already famous)
Couple of pointers:1. Full feeds means that no one needs to visit your website. No traffic = no monetisation. 2. Links from duplicate sources have very little if any link value.2c.
Couple of other pointers:1. Full feeds are more convenient. Some people including myself dont subscribe to partial feeds just because of this fact.2. No traffic = no monetisation isnt necessarily true. If youre trying to get people to buy your products buy following a link inside your post, then full feeds would bring you more conversions than partial feeds because more people see it.3. Partial feeds do increase user engagement as comments are not regularly part of the feed.
Im saying Im a publisher and my main monetisation method is to get visitors to the site to click on ads.If I provide full feeds, then I provide no reason for subscribers to ever visit my site.Of course, if someone is monetising their site mainly via aff links in posts on a blog, then sure, thatll probably work fine.I guess it depends on the business model and targeting.However, the point remains, that if you provide full feeds, you disincentivise visitors to bother visiting your site, which could certainly be disadvantageous in a number of ways.2c.
Im glad this post stimulated such a cool thread...very interesting stuff.
"However, the point remains, that if you provide full feeds, you disincentivise visitors to bother visiting your site, which could certainly be disadvantageous in a number of ways."My point remains as well. If you provide partial feeds, you disincentivise visitors to bother even subscribing to your feed, which certainly is disadvantageous in all ways. This argument has been going on forever and there isnt a clear answer.I think Bill was trying to make a point about using internal linking effectively on your blog, and wasnt necessarily arguing full feeds vs partial feeds.
I may be an exotic blogger, but probably other folks pick links ("copy link location") from full content feeds too. Also, I usually dont share items from partial feeds (of course GoogleReader pages are nofollowed, but a few bloggers use sidebar widgets that output clean links).