Calendar
Network
Feeds
AmyGreer
Spicy lead-in Sandra - and a great follow-up with a substantive post. Congrats on meeting Vinton, too!
Great list. I especially appreciate the organization into 3 distinct categories and the high level of detail.
Danny - Your constructive and reasonable reaction to what looks to have been a knee-jerk response demonstrates an admirable level of leadership and equanimity. For that, thank you.
As to adding nofollow to comments when you can, I'd say go for it. People should be commenting for the sake of adding value to the community rather than looking for those followed links.
This article was Sphunn and went hot last week under a different URL ... http://sphinn.com/story/2572
Thanks for the article - I'm especially intrigued at this statement:
"Recent research indicated that the fastest growth segment was 35+."
I wonder what this means for LinkedIn?
That's a compelling example. I'd be interested in hearing if the traffic levels continue.
Good question, Barry. I remember a previous Sphinn discussion about this same topic. Let's see if Google would answer this one in a one-on-one session ...
I'm interested in finding out what types of questions SEOs would ask Google if given the chance. I'm compiling a list along with my colleague who has the meeting with Google.
Agreed, Tinu - the five new technologies is one worth asking. Thanks, southwestseo.
twdeeter - I've also been wondering when Google is going to heavily work that technology into its algos.
johnandrews, patrickaltoft - those questions were already on my list. :)
Good point, Donna. Curious to see what kind of response that would garner ...
Sebastian - good call on the #2500 ...
Danny - are there plans to eventually customize Sphinn URLs in the way the Title tags are customized?
Does it? Maybe I'm not seeing it. All I see for this page is: http://sphinn.com/story/2500
Excellent post, Tamar. This is the kind of research we need to see more of. Well-organized and thorough. Nicely done.
Saw this in Jill's email this morning - thought it was a great representation of the search community's growing fascination with Sphinn.
Maybe the answer is to have a self-rating system.
For example, when someone posts to Sphinn, they can determine if the story is for "newbies" or more seasoned folks. I think everyone has a sense for whether their posts would fit into the first or second category.
Then a new feed could be created for each type. That way, no one is excluded but there's a filtering mechanism so people don't have to wade through what they don't want to read.
My 2 cents.
Michelle - it makes total sense. I'd hate to see articles lose their categorical relevance (SEO, PPC, SMO, etc) for the sake of an additional level of clarification (e.g. "101", "Basics").
But if what x32v4c says is true about the ability of the software to do this, it doesn't sound hopeful...
Maybe a self-regulating system of encouraging the addition of a phrase like "FOR BEGINNERS" or "101 AUDIENCE" to the beginning of the descriptions would work.
Looking forward to reading it, Michelle! Looks like you've put a lot of work into it. Keep us on the email list. ;-)
I'm curious about where the ethical distinction (in an algorithmic sense) lies between the nefarious sites that buy links for terms they have no business ranking for, versus legitimate businesses who should be ranking for key terms, but aren't - and therefore buy links to bolster their rankings.
It seems to me that if the intention of Google is to produce the most relevant search results then an acknowledgment of such a distinction should be a necessary component of their algorithm.
A point from Aaron's article:
"The cleaner your link profile is the more dirty stuff you can do. The more link equity you have the more pages you can get indexed and the better they will rank. It is all about ratios."
And from what we've seen with large, well-branded company websites, I'd have to agree.
Story: Google Internet Evangelist: "SEO Doesn't Work!"