Navigation help and link exchange page

[Momo]

I am going to make this a two-part post.

First, I just made a new link exchange page on my site, so If anyone would like, you can exchange links with me for free. The address is http://www.themotec.com/Links.html; all you have to do is click the "add link" link at the bottom.

Also, what do you think about the navigation on that page & the rest of the site? I have gotten a lot of feedback about design, which I am working on to improve, but whan about navigation? I tried to make it as easy as possible, with a site map and return links to each pervious page. What do you think?

[Proteus]

before adding links to your directory, I suggest you to check the info in this post:

http://forum.statcounter.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2816

[Momo]

You mean about google missing pages called links.*?

It would be hard for me to change that, since I am not using SSI yet, I would have to change all the navbars manually*. I could remake the page to "bank.html" or I could just give it a random name.

But I have to change the copyright text soon, so I might be able to.

Not everyone uses google, though. My rankings there have fallen, and now I am also getting many visitors from yahoo. Yahoo seems to have indexed my links page.

[robinev]

I wouldn't spend much time trying to handle the "links" page myth, because it's mostly just that. I've yet to see evidence that Google devalues pages called "links.html". There is, on the other hand, considerable evidence that they treat such pages as they do anything else.

[webado]

I wouldn't spend much time trying to handle the "links" page myth, because it's mostly just that. I've yet to see evidence that Google devalues pages called "links.html". There is, on the other hand, considerable evidence that they treat such pages as they do anything else.
I think that they disregard obviously reciprocal links. So link farms are pretty much out.

[trackerm]

Just call it "sex.html" and you'll get lots of hits.

Mark

[Momo]

Lol! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm now going to worry too much about it right now. I already got two link exchanges today.

Yahoo indexes all pages and doesn't disregared link pages either. And how can you prove that google does?

[robinev]

[I think that they disregard obviously reciprocal links. So link farms are pretty much out.
There is considerable speculation about that on SEO sites like WebProWorld. If it matters, it would affect only PageRank score.

But I find it's useful to list reciprocal links to sites that are closely related in subject and audience to my site. I figure readers of my site deserve links that are closely related to the site they're looking at.

Some folks at the SEO sites argue that Google (at least) is able to determine relevancy of a link and will give greater rank to relevant links (whether or not they're reciprocated). I'm not convinced that they can do that, but they might get to that point in the future.

[Momo]

Interesting. About the link relevancy, maybe Google would follow the link and then look at the content/PageRank of the target? That is, if they really look for relevancy in the first place. They certainly find relevant links for their ads. I used a free forum service before (Now I have MySQL so I have my own) and once I started posting about cameras and photography, such ads came up. Before that, there were ads for forums and phpbb becuase those were basically the only words on the page.

[trackerm]

Relevancy may be a key.
On Yahoo search my site gets into a yahoo directory. This then gets me links into a number of spam business directories within that category. Some of these then get listed in Google. I feel this may be part of the reason I pick up a good page ranking from Google 5/10
The other links I have are only to other same or similar category websites or same industry websites.
I certainly am not looking for reciprocal links from outside my industry as I prefer to have as few irrelevant hits as possible. This allows me to better determine where my hits are coming from. Pretty important when I don’t pay for Statcounter!

(that’s why I don’t put my website on here)

Mark

[Momo]

See, I have a multi-purpose site, so I can basically link to anywhere for now. It is just my personal site with many topics. However, I mostly focus on the photography section, and there, links are only related to photography. I am soon starting www.mosphotos.com, and there, all links will be in the same category, just like on your site, as you said.

For my site, I am getting a variety of keywords that bring(gave) a hit(s):

Palm tungsten t3 review, Pentax Lenses, Casio EDB-300 watch, motec. There are also many others.

Though all my site sections get visited, though, the most popular is the photography section, which has a great deal of content. (As I mentioned earlier)

[robinev]

...if they really look for relevancy in the first place. They certainly find relevant links for their ads.

There's always that "if" when trying to figure out how a search engine does what it does.

You make a good point about AdWords. Google certainly has the technology to in place to identify likely subjects of a page. Whether they use that in any way for their indexing is one of the many great unknowns.

But if they are using it, it could explain why some folks became convinced -- despite evidence to the contrary -- that they devalue pages called "links.*". If they give greater value to relevant links, then a page of unrelated url's without other text could confuse the algorithms used to determine a page's subject.

But in any case, a good approach is always to think first about a site's visitors rather than making a site for search engines.

[Momo]

Yeah. I will focus on my content/design/navigation first, then worry about search engines. I am starting http://www.mosphotos.com, and am planning a better design. But the content is apprecieated, so I'm happy.

[Proteus]

But in any case, a good approach is always to think first about a site's visitors rather than making a site for search engines.

That's the first command when you do a website. And I will always support that.

[Arne]

But in any case, a good approach is always to think first about a site's visitors rather than making a site for search engines.
That's the first command when you do a website. And I will always support that.

There is nothing that exclude one of those just by thinking about the other. On the contary, what's good for search engines can be good also for visitors if you do it right. And the visitors need to find the site before they can be able to see it. :wink:

BTW, Happy New Year to you all! 8)

[JWJ]

I have read much in this forum about targetting the right visitors, or creating content for search engines, and often the insinuation is that the two concepts are not compatible.

Just as a matter of general interest I'd like to throw in my own experience. My site is primarily watercolours and therefore is light on text and search engine content. I have done something about that recently and it is helping. However, I deliberatley expanded my site with trivia in an attempt to attract a larger audience. Now, I am intrigued to discover from my stats that some 45% of all visitors arrive by doing a search for 'ponderables'.

Sadly, a lot of them move on quite quickly, but a few browse into my watercolour pages, and those are visitors that I would not otherwise have had. :)

For what it's worth. :)

[robinev]

There is nothing that exclude one of those just by thinking about the other. On the contary, what's good for search engines can be good also for visitors if you do it right.

Good point, Arne. But the problem comes with that "if you do it right" phrase.

I think I have a site that's good for our specialized visitors and it's certainly good for search engines if judged from its prominent place in SERPs (search engine report pages) for likely keywords. (And that placement is not accidental.)

But my point is still to think first about visitors. Build the content that will appeal to them and only then tweak pages for search engines. (That's an order of priority, but not necessarily the order in which things are done. For instance, a page's url is very important to some search engines. It's worthwhile to figure out a good one early on.) Tweak pages that exist for your visitors, but don't design a page mainly for the search engines.

It can be daunting for someone new to the process to keep a handle on all of the aspects of creating a good site. The fact is that most of the current search engines are so good at balancing their indexes that someone who had never heard of "search engine optimization" could still do well in searches. (Unless, of course, the site is selling V1agr4 or s0ft tabsof something or another.)

And happy New Year to all, especially the Aussies who are already in 2005.

[Arne]

There is nothing that exclude one of those just by thinking about the other. On the contary, what's good for search engines can be good also for visitors if you do it right.

Good point, Arne. But the problem comes with that "if you do it right" phrase.

I don't see that as a big problem really. Just publishing content in HTML that is of interest for the visitors, is also of "interest" for the SE's! That is simply because it's the visitors who use the keewords, and that's what SE try to find! Just read John's own experience :wink:

One example how to do it the wrong way, is if you do it with flash only. Flash sites is fascinating for the visitors, but there is nothing for the SE's to find. SE's like Google can find flash sites, but that's very limited and only if the visitor especially search for *.swf files. Not even main pages on the Macromedia site are flash only :wink:

3 hours and 20 minutes left of this year! 8)

[robinev]

Just publishing content in HTML that is of interest for the visitors, is also of "interest" for the SE's!
Yes, as I said "most of the current search engines are so good at balancing their indexes that someone who had never heard of "search engine optimization" could still do well in searches."
The priority should be the site's visitors since focusing on their needs will usually create content that can be indexed by the SEs. (Unless, as you say, the designer makes the too-common rookie mistake of overusing Flash.)

Learning about SEO is worthwhile for any site since a few tweaks can move a page's position on search results. But it should be a tweak to a page that exists for the sake of users.

[trackerm]

targetting the right visitors, or creating content for search engines,

My site is primarily watercolours .....I deliberatley expanded my site with trivia in an attempt to attract a larger audience.

Hi John :)

You have expanded into an area which go Against your target audience!
You website is about watercolours... that’s art. why would someone interested in art want to look at trivia? Unless its art trivia (of course).
I think you would be much better served by expanding into that will attract your target audience: art history, watercolour technique essays, watercolour galleries, famous watercolours, stolen famous water colours, local galleries, local exhibitions etc etc.


this way when someone, for example, googles 'Monet flowers' they may end up on your website.

Your links will be to other watercolour sites, forums, galleries etc.

All the best.

Mark

[trackerm]

BTW just before the yanks slag my spelling, the civilised way to write colour is colour, not color.

:)

Mark
PS Did Monet do watercolours? Did he do 'Flowers'? is he a boy or is Claude a French girls name?

[motorwatchercounter]

Hi Mark,

Happy new year (after a few VB's).

Relevant links are the key. All, now, need to be the same. Your titile, tags, content and links need to have the same content. We already know that search engines can take dynamic site content and provide adsence to match. Other companies have already jumped on the band wagon for dynamic linking. Given the potental scope for the net there is no need "cater" for people to add any word to only one of these criteria. so if the titile is buns, and the content has a rich keyword (3% to 9% of the word buns) but links do not , then the word buns are diluted in the overall scheme.

Having no links and key rich buns is OK but relevant only otherwise is could be negitive.

:lol:

EDIT - I have been to monet's garden. Superb. Stayed in Vernon (the other side of the Seine). Normally go there on the way back from watching 24 hours Le Mans (Motorbikes). The team I follow is Phase1 http://www.phaseone.co.uk I once rode all the way back from the Bol dor (in the south of france) non stop except fuel 900 miles. Averaging about 130 Mph (alleged) and having to stop for fuel evey 99 miles (at that speed and having to wait an hour for the ferry) I Left the south of france at 4 pm and was at home at 6 am. As a football fan (real football) West Ham is my team.

Colour is for writing Color is for coding.

:lol:

[webado]

Interesting. How to explain Monet through motorbikes. Fascinating, really. :lol:

And color is the Canadian spelling according to MS Word's dictionary :lol:

Colour is defines as a British variant of color http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=colour

Which all brings me to an explanation of the theory of relativity - however I cannot post it here as it is, let's say, a little too colo(u)rful :lol:

Oh, yes, Happy New Year from Montreal too.

[motorwatchercounter]

Colour is defines as a British variant of color http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=colour

Whooo. Hold on. There are only variants of English. British is a variant and so are all the others. One unique (English) and all, other, variants.

You can't have a replica superseding the original. That is like Bill Gates discovering E=mc2 because he wrote it in html.

:wink:

[webado]

Colour is defines as a British variant of color http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=colour

Whooo. Hold on. There are only variants of English. British is a variant and so are all the others. One unique (English) and all, other, variants.

You can't have a replica superseding the original. That is like Bill Gates discovering E=mc2 because he wrote it in html.

:wink:
Hey, I'm only repeating what the online dictionary says. For the theory of relativity explained for the masses well, maybe I'll PM it to you one of these days. :lol:

[motorwatchercounter]

Hey, I'm only repeating what the online dictionary says. For the theory of relativity explained for the masses well, maybe I'll PM it to you one of these days. :lol:

I know it by heart (purist version). I also have a thing for the periodic table. Heavy to light Light to dark. Only a woman could have organised things better.

:lol:

[webado]

Hey, I'm only repeating what the online dictionary says. For the theory of relativity explained for the masses well, maybe I'll PM it to you one of these days. :lol:

I know it by heart (purist version). I also have a thing for the periodic table. Heavy to light Light to dark. Only a woman could have organised things better.

:lol:
Yes, I know how that works. Dark clothes make one appear lighter :lol:

[motorwatchercounter]

???

Don't you mean wear vertical stripes as they complement. Don't wear horizontal as they might not compliment your shape.

The worst thing is US and UK sizes are different (not sure about Canada) A girl can lose a size going from the UK to the USA but a girl coming over here will put on a size. Shoes are different too.

Even worse a US gallon is different to a UK gallon.

[JWJ]

You have expanded into an area which go Against your target audience!
You website is about watercolours... that’s art. why would someone interested in art want to look at trivia? Unless its art trivia (of course).
I think you would be much better served by expanding into that will attract your target audience: art history, watercolour technique essays, watercolour galleries, famous watercolours, stolen famous water colours, local galleries, local exhibitions etc etc.
Mark, I have considered this often. I guess one of the problems of having a small personal site is that I don't really have a "target audience" as such. Yes, I want feedback on my watercolours, but basically I just want visitors. At this time I only achieve 40 visits per day on average and three quarters of them are not interested in painting.

There are very many watercolour/art sites out there and most of them done by professionals. I think I would find it very hard to pinch some of their traffic, and I am very reluctant to 'let go' of the audience I am finding. That said, I can see the merit in your suggestions and perhaps I need to develop the site gradually along that route by adding in more art content but not necessarily removing the other stuff just yet.

Thanks for your thoughts

[JWJ]

Colour is defines as a British variant of color http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=colour

Whooo. Hold on. There are only variants of English. British is a variant and so are all the others. One unique (English) and all, other, variants.

My take on this is simple. I'm quite happy about the different spellings of words like colour and favourite, and I take my hat off to the Americans and the Canadians. They use our language as best they can, but when they find a word they can't spell at least they put their own name on it. :wink:

[webado]

My take on this is simple. I'm quite happy about the different spellings of words like colour and favourite, and I take my hat off to the Americans and the Canadians. They use our language as best they can, but when they find a word they can't spell at least they put their own name on it. :wink:
LOL! :lol:

[trackerm]

perhaps I need to develop the site gradually along that route by adding in more art content but not necessarily removing the other stuff just yet.


Hi John,

I agree with you that you doon't need to remove content. Thats the beauty of website that they can grow and grow. Plus u wont lose your current audience.

All the best,

Mark

[Momo]

Same with me. I've just been adding and adding content, and I have barely removed any. I still focus most on photography, though.