Calendar
Network
Feeds
iamlost
While it's not 'everything' it is definitely a great primer and reminder.
Besides whatever SE residual value, DMOZ still drives 1.3 to 2-million (Compete and Quantcast variants) worth of traffic monthly.
Indeed, an 'added' value of directory traffic (including BOTW) is that it is NOT SE traffic. Diversification is a good thing.
It could also jump BOTW into the ranks of the big directories, clean up and rehabilitate DMOZ, and provide genuine competition to Yahoo and Business.com. Plus leapfrog JoeAnt.:)
Lot's of upside for BOTW. Depending upon the price.
@0thelisa: the process I see every day with blogs is spreading the same old manure in personally appealling patterns. This one involved the participants actually adding new content to the process. Each of the three was interesting, unique, and able to stand on it's own merits.
But that aside, I believe that Michael wrote a valuable solid article. No lists or cartoons or gossip so naturally not actually sphinning off the shelf.
I found the 'process' interesting and a best use of blogs:
* Jane Copland with a passionate complaint about the vagueness of a common 'answer'.
* Lisa Barone with a lengthy reply illustrating why generalities are likely to remain stock replies - specificity variance.
* Michael Martinez corralling a virtual herd of good content possibilities, halving the distance between general and specific.
A conversation over sites over time. All because someone asked a question. Thanks, Jane.
Further I found Michael's suggestions an excellent primer for clients and reminder for webdevs. Good content is as real and as detailed, as varied and as imaginative as the people creating it.
@tamar: 'but if you were to suggest a social media strategy to a new client, my guess is that you wouldn't tell them to start a forum. You'd tell them to start a blog.'
That perhaps is the difference. The difference between creating and joining.
Blogs are generally focussed on the needs of the one, the blogger, beit a person or corporate entity. They may well be helpful, engaging, and popular but the community, if any, is severely constrained by virtue of being respondents only. A blog is ideal for engaging visitors in a relatively safe environment with minimal effort. Returning visitors are a bonus not a necessity.
A forum is more open in that each member can both initiate conversation and respond. It is highly dependent on some number >1 of direct frequent involvement. It is perhaps the online equivalent/combination of a fraternal lodge/professional association. Creating and maintaining a forum is not a safe minimal effort format for individual or corporate marketing.
However, designating someone(s) to join one or more niche fora and becoming known as helpful is great marketing (Google does this quite effectively). As is creating the more controllable blog(s), corporate or personal (again Google does this well).
Apples and oranges.
It is refreshing to see:
1. a less formal less expensive industry get-to-gether.
2. industry humour that doesn't bite.
Don't forget the (live)blogging...
tamar: I thought you belonged to the Schwag UPS Club - prepaid overnight delivery from all the conferences?
..................................................................
Discrimination is a word with historical bigotry attached which often means that it's use is misunderstood or misapplied.
The webdev conferences (SMX, SES, PubCon, et al) target a specific audience. Most professional organisations have conferences. So do various social and ethnic groups. Some are more exclusionary than others.
BOO! They discriminate. They are in fact communities.
Community - a group sharing common characteristics/interests and viewed/viewing itself as unique in some respect from larger society.
BlogHer is an organisation for women who blog. Not all women. Not even all women who blog. Just those that are interested in participating. And they have a conference. Good for them. I have no idea how open or closed their policies are to non-members, to males, to penguins. It is their community and they get to set their rules within the law.
If they are breaking a law file a complaint. Otherwise wish them well and find yourself a community or three.
Thought provoking article, Bill. Thanks once again.
What I find more distressing in the mall example is not so much the lack of local involvement, though that is sad, but the lack of vision to transform already in the door young visitors into staff, into associated enterprises, into present and future consumers.
They not only are getting bad press, they are alienating their future. Stupid.
There is not only a missing sense of community but a dearth of imagination in many businesses.
Story: Did You Mean Wetbacks?
Being human we have the ability to adapt to the requirements, returns, and suggestions of the Algo. Behold: Homo Algooglian.
Or, contrarywise, to laugh at it.
Note: laughing with it is an early sign of devolution from sapience.
Thanks Donna ... and Julie.
Story: Google's New Fav Icon
rustybrick: No one liked my description above? :(
There is no pun Sphunn in Sphinn today.
Mini-g, the favicon.
That you noted it and related discussions is pure roundtable. That so many folks I admire thought it Sphinn-worthy concerns me. Is it just that iamlost or that rustybrick is so cool?
DanThies: because it is exceeds three bullet points within one screen of skim-by content.
Thank you, Adam. Well done.
Now you know why some people:
* want outsourced SEO kept confidential.
* use companies to front sites in registries, ad/af accounts.
* use companies or fronted sites to market widgets and apps.
* use nicknames and avatars in public if real names are attached to sites, widgets, etc.
* don't share much.
It has nothing to do with 'hats'.
It has much to do with competitive advantage.
And idjits with foot in mouth disease.
Not addressed directly (either by Attributor or SEJ):
* not all ads are delivered by ad servers - of course those numbers would be difficult to track.
* many ad networks have and are opting out of ad servered wares - those numbers are also hard to track.
Or, Google may have 69% of the online ad server market but not of the online ad market.
From the study's conclusions:
* Content is proliferating all over the place - Attributor finds an average of 20 different copies for each article we track.
* There is a lot of money at stake. 64% of the copies have ads on their pages and most republishing is on sites with > 1MM monthly unique users.
* It’s an SEO goldmine. 57% of the copies we find do not link back to the original sites.
Or, scraping is profitable. And widespread.
1. It is Google Analytics. Google openly provides it in exchange for your data.
2. Google can not support opt-in. It would negate their entire business model.
3. I am pleased that some folks take the time to read the fine print. Would that more did.
Why do you (existing GA users) feel comfortable sharing your data with Google for their internal use?
Having already given up half your data privacy, why not waive the rest?
MattMcGee: 2. They can quite easily support opt-in on this data sharing feature. It would not negate any business model whatsoever. All that would be required is to make the almost-hidden text link an equal-sized button next to the "Accept" button. Shouldn't be hard to do, maybe 5 minutes of programming?
Opt-in requires default opt-out. Opt-in would be an explanation with an empty checkbox requiring an action (check-click) to accept. No action equals no acceptance. Proceed unchanged.
Adding an equal sized 'Not Accept' button is not opt-in. It is offering an almost equal choice - a top or left button is slightly statistically weighted. And obviously Google want more than a mild statistical uptake of their new 'benefit'.
Google has built its search business on requiring domains, pages to specifically opt-out of their bots and indexing. And by carefully not discussing the matter unless directly questioned. Why should they approach their data and ad businesses differently? They all overlap and profitably share so nicely.
Jill: "...when 500-750 would do just fine. "
Many bloggers can't seem to write past 250-words. Someone once told them that was the Google content keyword optimal speed limit or something. And then there are the dozen words as 'original' anchor text, add link, and post bloggers.
I am happy when someone just writes originally, thoughtfully, and literately. If they also manage to be clear, concise, and cohesive I have been known to stand and cheer in amazed delight.
Questions asked in thin air: how many of those sphinning this will (1) actually read the linked post and (2) if they do not already, in future, write accordingly? Or will the sphinners be solely those who already generally practice the pointers provided?
mvandemar: 'there goes the neighborhood!'
I agree, imagine bringing in quality, intelligent, capable, dazzlin' nice mods. Absolutely shocking.
Spring is sprung (well the dafs are in bud in my garden) and Cre8 continues to be an organic experience.
I especially appreciate this years new Cre8tive Tomorrow (led by eKstreme) and NonProfits on the Web (led by Bill Slawski and Kim) sub-fora.
Adapting to new environments is an increasingly pertinent ability. On and off-line.
Story: Advances in Crawling the Web
D*mn it, Bill, I'm several recommended papers (plus related research) behind already. Never mind developing associated business and domain plans sparked by your references.
I have rewritten 1.3 Politeness: 'webmasters become easily annoyed when web crawlers slow down their servers, consume too much bandwidth, or simply visit pages with “too much” frequency.'
as:
"web developers suffer recurring headaches when Bill Slawski overloads their minds and diverts their attention by simply uploading valuable information digests and links with “too much” frequency."
It is not simply a SM disconnect. Nor only one way.
There is a significant competive advantage opportunity in their lack. However, how many of us - developers and marketers alike - are discussing joint projects with traditional agencies or talking direct to niche companies?
I do, and I know of others, but generally I read and hear as great a disconnect from developers and online marketers as with the agencies. The difference is that while ad agencies do not 'get' online marketing generally and SMM specifically, most developers and many online marketers don't know how, or what, to sell to big business clients - or their ad agencies.
For example, I recognise relatively few SEM/SMM names at ad agency conventions. Without exception, I have been the first (and usually remain the only) developer to give companies and agencies in my niches tailored online advertising presentations.
Openings like this are rare - try not to waste your competitive advantage.
Did she interview a blogging evangelist (1) for a fair and balanced view, or (2) for linkbait over largely contrived content?
However, the bloggartsphere choir will sing along loudly, I am sure.
aimClear: 13 Indisputable Reasons Why Blogs Killed Conventional Websites?
You write great link bait titles. And tacking a question mark on a bald statement - pure sidestepping genius. If I wore a hat I'd tip it to you. But no Sphinn.
aimClear: 'By not Sphinning, you say "this post is not worthy of dialog'.
Not at all.
Not Sphinning alone can mean many things, i.e. not seen, not personally interesting.
Not Sphinning but commenting may mean several things, in this instance that while not rating a deSphinn it has problems worthy of comment.
I tentatively accept your identification of Suzanne Falter-Barns as 'one of the most respected bloggers in our industry' as I do not know the woman at all. Or did you mean the man she interviewed - Andy Wibbels? Note: I did not know either name previously.
The points she ennumerated were not hers, but his, as she mentioned. Mr. Wibbels has certainly made a niche name for himself and leveraged his accomplishments. That said, being known or popular or published does not make one always right.
Many of the article 'reasons' are exaggerated, contrived, or mis-state the reality of 'blogs' and all other site generation methods - as several people commented. Blog generators are simple and highly useful. They are a possible adjunct to a large site or a whole consideration for a small to medium site. They are not 'a one and only answer'. They are a subset of one answer, the CMS.
In my opinion the article was not bad enough to be deSphunn. However, I saw errors in inference if not in fact and felt they should be noted. I further thought you had done a great title job and felt you deserved a compliment. Not for the link but for your title.
I Sphinn when something is of value to me, true. Expanding my horizon and generating new ideas is my standard. Agreement in whole is rare. Titles are appreciated but it is content that gets Sphunn, or not.
I did not 'shoot the messenger'. I complimented the messenger and shot the message.
SlightlyShadySEO: "I'm sure I'm going to get killllllled on this one."
Just a moment while I load up my potato pistol and water balloons.
I'm off to hunt the elusive SlightyOffWhiteSEO.
This issue - and the SEs' solutions - will become increasingly critical. As duplicate filtering succeeds, and only one instance of that content is ever returned, determining/crediting the original takes on greater value importance. Unfortunately, the SEs do not much weight actual authorship unless hit over the head with a DMCA cudgel.
My auto-response 'Thank You' to Bill for continuing to bring us the future of search as described by patents - in plain language. As always (a couple of years == always in web time, right?) seobythesea sits atop my reading list.
Story: Virality 101
If you've heard of Stanford (the place that spawned Google) and if you know of BJ Fogg (the guy that runs the Captology lab (the intersection of computers and persuasive behaviour) you might just have heard of Yee Lee aka yeeguy (formerly of PayPal, Slide, now at Venrock) who last semester helped teach the FaceBook course at Stanford - and coached development of 'KissMe' and 'Send Hotness' FB apps each of which has exceeded 1 million installs.
If not, well he knows his virality and how to measure it.
Local is the ugly step-child for sure:
To see an entire series of well written Local Search 'expert' interviews complete with observations, opinions, and tips largely ignored indicates many can not see the trees for the forest.
Miriam's Mike Blumenthal interview sphunn-out at 17 (now 7-days ago).
David Mihm interview sphunn-out at 20 (now 3-days ago).
Poor Tim (Local Search Hound) barely sphinning at 5 (now 1.66 days ago).
And now Will Scott sphinning gamely at 7 (now at 2-hours).
Even Rand Fishkin's name can not boost Local Search interest:
Rand's Mike Blumenthal interview sphunn-out at 9 (now 3-days ago).
Is it because it is 'local'?
Because it is 'search', not 'social'?
With authority but without celebrity?
Fascinating lack of interest in a fast growing sector of search and of marketing.
Story: Eisenberg: Everything You Ever Wanted To Know on Conversion