From: sitepronews.com

Currently in twitter you can post tweets and respond to tweets with the goal of developing a dialogue. The point is to be able to introduce yourself and make your services and products known to your target audience. The chances that your message will actually be read by your [...]

Post from: SiteProNews: Webmaster News & Resources

Advanced Twitter Use - Setup Your Twitter & Automate Your Message 

Read Original: http://www.sitepronews.com/2009/04/29/advanced-twitter-use-setup-your-twitter-automate-your-message /

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: searchenginewatch.com

Google has made some clarifications to its AdSense Program Policies. Straight from the horses mouth (aka the Inside AdSense blog), here they are:

• Google brand violations: This policy has always existed in our Terms and Conditions, but we’ve now brought it directly to the ‘Ad Placement’ section of the program policies page so that it’s easier to find. According to this policy, we don’t allow ads or search boxes to be placed on pages which misuse Google logos, trademarks, or other brand features in the page content or URL, and which could mislead users into thinking the page is associated with Google.
• Deceptive implementations: We’ve clarified this policy a bit in the ‘Encouraging Clicks’ section of the program policies - ads may not be formatted in a way that makes them indistinguishable from other content on the page where they appear.
• Ad placement in emails and email programs: This updated policy clarifies that Google ads , search boxes, and search results may not be placed in emails, as well as alongside emails.
• Other Google products’ policies: With this new policy, publishers aren’t permitted to place ads, search boxes, or search results on, within, or alongside other Google products in a way that violates the policies of that other product or service. For instance, this would include placing ads on sites which allow users to download YouTube videos, which isn’t permitted by the YouTube Terms of Service.

What do you think of the changes? Let us know in the comments section below.

Related Reading:

Google AdSense Says Goodbye to YouTube Video Feature

Google AdSense Releases News Widget

AdSense Publisher Sues Google - And Wins

Google AdSense Allows Feed Ad Review

Read Original: http://feeds.searchenginewatch.com/~r/sewblog/~3/Macfp4Sxnog/090429-113847

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: sitepronews.com

If you want an effective method of getting targeted traffic to your website, then writing articles and publishing them is the way to do it. This method is also very cost effective way to driving traffic to your web site. Article marketing is a great way of letting people know more about you [...]

Post from: SiteProNews: Webmaster News & Resources

How To Write An Article With A Powerful Title So You Get A Flood Of Traffic To Your Website

Read Original: http://www.sitepronews.com/2009/04/29/how-to-write-an-article-with-a-powerful-title-so-you-get-a-flood-of-traffic-to-your-website/

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: sitepronews.com

Keywords are ground zero. They are essential to your online success. You must get your keywords right or it’s game over before you even get started. Mainly because keywords are the most important element of your online marketing.
It can’t be emphasized enough, especially to beginning online webmasters or marketers, choosing the right profitable keywords will [...]

Post from: SiteProNews: Webmaster News & Resources

Keyword Strategies: Increase Your Keyword Rankings

Read Original: http://www.sitepronews.com/2009/04/29/keyword-strategies-increase-your-keyword-rankings/

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: highrankings.com

Nothing major to report this time around. Just been putting my head down and working hard to keep afloat during this irksome recession. Hope you’re all doing well and figuring out your own ways to stay ahead of the game.

Read Original: http://www.highrankings.com/wrapup255

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: highrankings.com

Forum moderator Randy has some interesting observations regarding Google Labs’ ‘Similar Images’ program.

Read Original: http://www.highrankings.com/similar-images

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: highrankings.com

I’ve spent the last few weeks reviewing scads of websites for our new SEO Website Review clients and have noticed a lot of interesting things in the process.

Read Original: http://www.highrankings.com/seo-focus

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: google.com

Posted by countrystarr

This post was originally in YOUmoz, and was promoted to the main blog because it provides great value and interest to our community. The author’s views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of SEOmoz, Inc.

Getting your website listed in the DMOZ directory in anything less than geologic time frames is next to impossible.  Most SEOs submit their sites and then forget about ever getting listed.  However, there is a way to guarantee that your site will be included in the DMOZ directory quickly: become a DMOZ editor for the category in which you have applied to have your website listed.

Applying to become a DMOZ editor is easy.  Getting accepted is a little bit harder, but definitely doable.  The first step is to find the category that best describes your website.  At the bottom of that category you will see a link that says “Volunteer to edit this category."  This will take you to the next page which gives you tips and advice on applying to become an editor.  Read this page!  At the bottom of the page click on the button that says “Proceed” to go to the actual application.

DMOZ will only approve you to edit one category at a time.  After you become an editor, you can apply to edit other categories.  Whether or not you get accepted to edit other categories depends on your body of work up until that time as an editor.  That is why it is a good idea, even after you are approved as an editor, to carefully follow the editorial guidelines on websites you approve to be in the directory.  If you have multiple websites waiting to be approved by DMOZ editors, I recommend applying to edit in the category for which your most important site is waiting.  Do a good job editing in that category and it will be easy for you to be approved to edit other categories.

It is best to start with a smaller category.  Usually less than 100 listings in a category will give you an excellent chance of being accepted.

The actual application is where you need to be careful and do a little homework.  Here you will be asked to provide the usual (your name, username, password, email address, etc.).

Further down the application page you will find four boxes to input information.  Doing a good job filling out these four boxes is critical to your application.  As you fill them out, make sure your punctuation, grammar, and spelling are all correct.  I’ll list each box one by one and my suggestions for the best way to fill them out.

• What is your internet experience?  Enter a laundry list here (CSS, HTML, Drupal, PHP/mySQL, etc.).  You don’t need to elaborate much.  I would not put that you are an SEO.  You want to show DMOZ that you actually care about the integrity of the directory.  If whoever reviews your application thinks that you are trying to become an editor just to manipulate search results, they may not approve you.

• Why are you interested in becoming an editor for the ODP?  You want to be careful here.  You need to be honest in your application; however, there may be such a thing here as too much honesty.  For example, you would not want to put something like “I’m applying because I want to get my website www.xyz.com listed in the directory."  Instead, talk about how important it is to the internet community that only websites with high quality content be listed in the directory.  Even though algorithms are getting better all the time, there is still no substitute for human review by a trusted reviewer to identify quality websites, etc.

• Explain your interest in the subject category.  Think of all the relevant experience you have had in the category and then paint that experience in the best light possible.  For example, if the category is Kobe Bryant (taxonomy: Sports: Basketball: Professional: NBA: Players: B: Bryant, Kobe) you would explain how you follow Kobe’s statistics and are familiar with his career and then list some relevant details/examples (his drafting from high school to the Lakers, his NBA championships, Olympic appearances, etc.).

• Sties with which you are associated.  It is important to be honest here.  Some application reviewers can be very thorough and will often find out if you try to mislead them.  There is no conflict of interest for you to edit categories in which you may also have eligible sites.  You can even approve your own sites, just as long as you follow the editorial guidelines.

The total time to get this far is probably 1 or 2 hours carefully reading the submission and editorial guidelines, and then about 30  minutes to fill out the four boxes.  I recommend copying and pasting all of your responses into a Word document.  There is a good chance that you will be rejected on your first application.  If you are denied the first time, your initial applications is not saved anywhere and you will have to create a new application from scratch.  By saving all of your responses it will be easier to re-do a new application later and cut and paste those responses back in the application (provided it wasn’t those responses that kept you from getting accepted in the first place).

The last part of the application is also very important.  Here, you need to suggest three sites that are not listed in the directory, but that you would include in the directory if you were an editor for the category for which you are applying to edit.  This is where you have to do a little homework.  Here are the steps I recommend to finding good sites:

1. Do Google/Yahoo searches for relevant sites.  Make sure the sites are not affiliate sites or are not  duplicate content sites.  Also, strictly re-seller sites with little original content will not work.  I recommend making a list of 5 or 10 candidate sites and then working down from there.  Make sure the sites have original quality content.

2. Find the best three and then check the DMOZ directory to make sure they are not already listed.  It can be a challenge to find good sites that are not already listed.  Always check, because rest assured, your application reviewer will and he/she will deny your application if you have suggested a site that is already listed.  Type in the URL without http:// or www prefixes (e.g., google.com) in the DMOZ search box to check if the website is already in the directory.

3. After you have found three candidate sites that meet the editorial guidelines and are not already in the directory, write a simple title and description.  Do not use words such as “quality” or “best” in the description.  The DMOZ editorial guidelines give examples of the best way to write titles and descriptions.  Make sure and follow those guidelines carefully or your application will be denied.

This part of the application can take about an hour or more.  The hardest part is finding good quality original websites that are not already listed.  I would not use your own website as an example of one of the three.  While I do not know for sure if this would be cause for denial of your application, I just think it is bad form.

Submit your application and follow the instructions (you have to reply to an email to complete your application).

The DMOZ editors who review applications typically have very fast turnaround times.  When I first applied to be an editor (and on subsequent re-applications) and when I have applied for new categories the reviewers usually get back to me within 24 hours with their decision.  Plan on your application being denied the first couple of times.  Most of the time, the person who reviews your application will give you good feedback as to why your application was denied.  It is easy to make the changes and then re-apply.

When I first applied, it took me three times to finally get accepted to edit my first category.  Once I became an editor, my eyes were opened!  I went into the category and there were 69 submissions waiting to be reviewed, including my previous submission (the category only had 49 listed websites).  It was obvious that an editor had not looked at that category in a long time.  Especially in commercial product categories, there is little incentive for editors to approve other websites.  If an editor is editing a commercial product category and that editor also has a website listed in that category, it is unlikely that he/she will be excited about approving their potential competitors.  That is why some categories NEVER get new sites listed and updated in them.

In that list of unreviewed websites you will probably see your past submissions, as well as those you suggested to be included when you made your application. 

I recommend that you go through the list of applicants and find some good websites to list in your category, even if they might potentially be your competitors.  This will show the DMOZ muckety mucks that you did not abuse your editorial discretion and it will make it easier for you to get approved for other categories in the future.  Then, of course, go in and list yours as well.  When you do this, the websites becomes listed and immediately active in the directory.

The total time to become a DMOZ editor, from beginning to end, is probably 3 or 4 hours.  To apply for new categories is usually 1 hour or less since you already tackled the learning curve.

Is it worth it?  Who knows.... I guess it all depends on what a link from DMOZ is worth!  That is a question for another post.

Do you like this post? Yes No

Read Original: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/seomoz/~3/0GsdXOxKHVY/want-to-get-listed-in-dmoz-become-an-editor

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: google.com

If you had a little business in a little town, there was a natural limit to your growth. You hit a limit on strangers (no people left to pitch), some became friends, some became customers and you then went delivered as much as you could to this core audience. Every day wasn’t spent trying to get bigger.

There’s no limit now. No limit to how many clicks, readers, followers and friends you can acquire.

I don’t think this new mindset is better. It shortchanges the customers you have now (screw them, if they can’t take a joke, we’ll just replace them!) and worse, it means you’re never done. Instead of getting better, you focus obsessively on getting bigger.

You’re at a conference, talking to someone who matters to you. Over their shoulder, you see a new, bigger, better networking possibility. So you scamper away. It’s about getting bigger.

Compared to what? You’re never going to be the biggest, so it seems like being better is a reasonable alternative.

The problem with getting bigger is that getting bigger costs you. Not just in time and money, but in focus and standards and principles. Moving your way to the biggest part of the curve means appealing to an ever broader audience, becoming (by definition) more average.

More, more, more is rarely the mantra of a successful person.

There are certainly some businesses and some projects that don’t work unless they’re huge, but in your case, I’m not sure that’s true. Big enough is big enough, biggest isn’t necessary.

Read Original: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/sethsmainblog/~3/3vejKVw7pUo/infinitythey-keep-making-more-of-it.html

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: sitepronews.com

Are your search engine rankings depending too much on one page (like your homepage) or one sub folder of your website? If so, here are a few tips to spread the link flow around to hedge your SEO efforts. Chances are, unless you are employing a tiered SEO strategy that you are overly dependent on [...]

Post from: SiteProNews: Webmaster News & Resources

SEO Dependency - Do Your Rankings Rely Too Much on The Home Page?

Read Original: http://www.sitepronews.com/2009/04/29/seo-dependency-do-your-rankings-rely-too-much-on-the-home-page/

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: typepad.com

Read Original: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/04/might-as-well-panic.html

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: google.com

Posted by randfish

Last week I gave the keynote presentation at SMX Munich, Lessons Learned Building an Index of the WWW. In that presentation, I shared a great deal of data from our web index as well as some SEO tips based on our experience replicating many search engine activities (crawling, indexing, building a link graph, de-duplication, canonicalization, etc.). In this blog post, I’d like to first announce that Linkscape’s new index, with crawl data from late March to early April (& upon which these data points are calculated), is now live - check it out here - and second, to share the charts, graphs and tips from my presentation.

The Linkscape Index

First off, some basic points about Linkscape’s index:

• The crawl is intended to imitate what major search engines crawl and keep in their index. Talking to lots of folks from the engines who do this work, we’ve heard that while tens or hundreds of billions of pages are crawled, there are only “~5-10 billion pages worth keeping in a main index.”
• Linkscape is a crawler-built index, meaning it uses a seed set and crawls outward via links to discover new URLs.
• The index currently biases towards pages with external links, meaning we don’t crawl as deeply as the major engines do, but we try to crawl very broadly (to reach as many well-connected pages and unique domains as possible)
• The crawlers and data sources we currently employ all respect robots.txt

The Web’s Structure

As we crawl, we see some well-known structural pieces making up the web:

Linkscape, as well as numerous academic sources (and, almost certainly, the major search engines), collect and store data about three types of structural components - pages, subdomains and root domains. Link & content metrics, along with crawl parameters and query-independent ranking factors are stored about each of these.

Linkscape also sees a view of the web that most IR students will be familiar with:

As others have noted in the past, the web’s link structure tends to look a bit like a bowtie, with a large number of tightly linked, well connected pages in the center and outliers on the borders with few incoming/outbound links. Linkscape does a relatively good job with the center and the linked-to edge (with few/no outbounds), but struggles more on pages with no incoming links (as these are difficult to discover and often not worthwhile keeping in an index).

Index Statistics

We’ve found these data points fascinating and I’m excited to be able to share many of them for the first time. While Linkscape is not as comprehensive as Yahoo!/Google, it’s far closer to a representation than a sample size. Our latest index update currently contains:

• 44,410,893,857 (44 Billion) pages
• 230,211,915 (230 Million) subdomains
• 54,712,427 (54 Million) root domains
• 474,779,069,489 (474 Billion) links

For this index, the following data pieces apply:

* Note that for the link distribution chart, this refers to “external, juice-passing links” which excludes links from the same subdomain to itself as well as links on pages with the meta nofollow or those that employ rel=nofollow.

* Note that for the root domains linking chart, this refers only to pages/sites receiving links from unique root domains. For example, with www.seomoz.org, we’d only receive one “linking root domain” from searchengineland.com, even though that site links to ours on many unique pages. Likewise, with links we receive from About.com and their numerous subdomains - in total, it’s only one counted “unique root domain.”

* Not surprisingly, most links on the web are incestual to some degree, and thus come from internal links (those on the same subdomain as the target), same IP address (where multiple sites from the same owner are hosted), same root domain and the same c-block of IP addresses. If we can see these relationships with Linkscape, it follows that the search engines have an easy time of it as well - and these links are almost certainly not passing the same kind of value that external links from unique root domains, IP-addresses and C-blocks would.

Some interesting data points on the above:

• 2.7% of all links on the web are nofollowed
• 73% of those are internal (so nofollow is actually far more popular as a link sculpting tool than a spam prevention device)
• 3 billion out of our 475 billion links (~0.6%) were found in noscript tags - while the engines recommend against this and talk about it as a spam tactic, we suspect that many of these are, in fact, legitimate uses and probably do get counted (due to their value in content discovery).
• 165,638,731 links (0.034%) aren’t visible on the page (they’re hidden off screen using CSS or other tactics). Again, given the numbers, we wonder whether all of these are spam and whether they’re all discounted by the engines.
• This is our first index supporting the canonical URL tag, and so far we’ve seen just north of 16 million pages employing the parameter. While this is still a drop in the bucket on a global web scale, we’ll be watching closely for how much support it generates over the months to come.

Search Engine & Linkscape Metrics

Like the search engines, we calculate a number of metrics on the pages, subdomains and root domains in our index to help uncover spam and sort by popularity & trustworthiness. The following are distributions of the metrics we currently employ:

* mozRank is our calculation of raw link popularity. Like Google’s PageRank, Yahoo!’s WebRank and Live’s StaticRank, it’s a recursive algorithm that counts links as votes and treats links from more popular pages as more important. We’ve found that while it’s useful for discovering which pages to crawl and index, it’s a poor measure of true importance and has signifcant noise.

* Domain mozRank is calculated in the same fashion as page-level mozRank, but on the domain-level link graph. Thus, it only takes into account unique links that exist from one root domain to another and is agnostic as to whether a site has 1, 100 or 1,000 links to another. We’ve found this metric exceptionally valuable for identifying the popularity and importance of a root domain - on the subdomain link graph, it’s more susceptible to manipulation and spam.

* mozTrust, which we also calculate on both the domain and page level link graphs, has proven highly effective as a spam identifier (particularly in combination with mozRank - the difference between the two is an excellent predictor of manipulative linking). mozTrust relies on the same intuition as Yahoo!’s TrustRank, running a recursive algorithm that passes juice down from trusted seed URLs/domains.

Measuring Correlation

Possibly the most interesting data I shared from an SEO application standpoint was around our research into the correlation of individual metrics to search engine rankings. Our own Ben Hendrickson has been doing significant data gathering and analysis, trying to answer the question,

How well does any single metric predict higher rankings?

His early results are enlightening:

In this chart, Ben’s showing that no metric is particularly good at predicting rankings by itself, but if you had to use something, the number of root domains linking to a URL and that URL’s mozRank are both just above the 95% confidence interval. Note that such classic SEO metrics as Yahoo! link counts and Alexa.com counts (which are included in many toolbars and appear in many SEO reports) are very nearly worthless.

The results are much better (though still not excellent) when we instead ask what metrics correlate with ranking 10 positions higher (essentially, what’s the difference between page 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, etc). Here, Ben shows that while only a single metric is above the 95% confidence interval (domains linking to a URL), there are several that are 20%+ better than random guessing.

Perhaps the most surprising result of this (for me, at least), was the data showing that Google’s link counts actually do have a correlation with rankings, suggesting that they’re not completely random (even though they might feel that way given their small sample size).

Out of all the metrics, it’s little surprise that # of linking root domains is a favorite (we use it, for example, to sort our Top 500 list). It’s one of the most difficult metrics to manipulate effectively and has high correlation with trust, importance and search engine rankings.

Top Tips for SEOs

Based on the work we do crawling and building an index, and the struggles we’ve encountered (and seen the engines similarly encounter), we’ve crafted a few short tips. While some of these are obvious and well known, they still pay to keep in mind as high-level recommendations we feel confident the search engines would support:

1. Don’t rely on the search engine to canonicalize anything for you.
2. Focus on link acquisition from a diverse number of root domains, not neccessarily high PageRank pages, or those with high link counts.
3. Make smart, usable, short URLs. They’re far easier to process and have a much better correlation with useful, unique content an engine would want to keep in its index.
4. If you want to earn lots of links, building a distributed content widget/badge/link that users embed in their sites/pages is an incredibly effective strategy. Just look at how many of the top pages on the web achieved that position employing this strategy.
5. Don’t rely on PageRank of link counts as accurate assessments of ranking potential. According to our data, they’re not high signal or high rankings correlation metrics.
6. The social web is rising, as are those employing it effectively (again, check out the top sites list for evidence).
7.  Don’t be afraid to use nofollow internally as it’s clearly not an outlier on the web. However, do be cautious with its use - you can seriously screw things up if you make mistakes on that front.
8. Keep content on a single subdomain and root domain wherever possible. The metrics of that domain will go a long way to make that content visible and ranking-worthy.
9. Avoid doing “strange” things from a technical and link acquisition perspective. The former makes you harder to crawl, process and index while the latter makes you stand out as possible spam/manipulation.

We hope you enjoy this data - please feel free to share - and enjoy using the new Linkscape index. Again, I’d like to give my congratulations and thanks to both Ben & Nick, who’ve done a tremendous job with Linkscape. If you have questions, please leave them in the comments and they should be able to provide answers and direction.

p.s. For those keeping track, this index update was almost exactly a month from our last one, and our goal is to maintain approximately 3-4 week intervals between updates for the foreseeable future. We’re also doing a lot to improve the quality and focus of our index to capture more good stuff and deep stuff on mid-size and large domains (and less spam). We’d appreciate it if those of you who are producing lots of spam would help us out by ceasing to earn links from trustworthy, respectable sites and pages - thanks!

Do you like this post? Yes No

Read Original: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/seomoz/~3/aBimZ336-lQ/lessons-learned-building-an-index-of-the-www

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: searchenginewatch.com

Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Microsoft Chief Research and Strategy Officer have been named to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The council is comprised of scientists and engineers who will advise President and Vice President on policy involving science, technology, and innovation.

“This council represents leaders from many scientific disciplines who will bring a diversity of experience and views,” said President Obama. “I will charge PCAST with advising me about national strategies to nurture and sustain a culture of scientific innovation.”

Schmidt and Mundie join the following members named to PCAST:

• John Holdren, serving as co-chair of PCAST, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Eric Lander, serving as a co-chair of PCAST, Director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and Professor of Biology at MIT, Professor of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School and member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research
• Harold Varmus, serving as co-chair of PCAST, President and CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
• Rosina Bierbaum, Dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan
• Christine Cassel, President and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine
• Christopher Chyba, Professor of Astrophysical Sciences and International Affairs at Princeton University and a member of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences
• S. James Gates Jr., John S. Toll Professor of Physics and Director of the Center for String and Particle Theory at the University of Maryland
• Shirley Ann Jackson, President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and former Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1995-1999)
• Richard Levin, President of Yale University
• Chad Mirkin, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Chemistry, and Medicine at Northwestern University, and Director of Northwestern’s International Institute of Nanotechnology
• Mario Molina, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego and the Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, as well as Director of the Mario Molina Center for Energy and Environment in Mexico City
• Ernest J. Moniz, Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, Director of the Energy Initiative, and Director of the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment at MIT
• William Press, Professor of Computer Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin
• Maxine Savitz, vice-president of the National Academy of Engineering, retired general manager of Technology Partnerships at Honeywell, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Conservation in the US Department of Energy
• Barbara Schaal is Professor of Biology at Washington University in St Louis and Vice President of the National Academy of Sciences
• Daniel Schrag, Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
• David E. Shaw, chief scientist of D. E. Shaw Research, LLC, fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and serves on the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National Academies
• Ahmed Zewail, Professor of Chemistry and Physics at Caltech and Director of the Physical Biology Center

Related Reading:

Google, Microsoft Higher Ups Dish Out the Dough for Obama Inauguration

Google and the Obama Administration

Obama Aide: Broadband Portion of Stimulus Package for Timely Needs, Not Overall Goals

Obama to Nominate Former IAC Executive as FCC Chairman

Read Original: http://feeds.searchenginewatch.com/~r/sewblog/~3/_Vt8AWo3Tto/090428-120727

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: searchenginewatch.com

“Google for Advertisers” is a brand new site from the search engine giant, and as the title suggests, it’s all about information for advertisers. Specifically, there are four primary things advertisers can do and learn on the site, per the Inside AdWords blog:

1. Read up on our various media platforms. Get descriptions of Google’s ad platforms and all of the supporting tools.


2. Take a ride on ‘The Marketing Cycle.’ Learn how Google’s solutions can be applied across the stages of an advertising campaign, including strategy, creative, media deployment, measurement and optimization.


3. Stick it to a marketing objective. Google created a fictional marketing example (Pet Stick) to demonstrate how their tools work to solve specific goals.


4. Build your personal ‘toolkit.’ When browsing the site, save Google tools that interest you by adding them to an online toolkit. It makes it easy to go back to them and share them with your colleagues.

What do you think about the new Google for Advertisers? Leave a comment below and let us know.

Related Reading:

Google AdWords to Update Conversion Metrics in New Interface

Google AdWords Brings Rich Media and Video Templates to Display Ad Builder

Google AdWords Offers New Postpay Payment Method

Google Launches Two New TV Ads Reporting Features

Read Original: http://feeds.searchenginewatch.com/~r/sewblog/~3/7zrYvhiHJMw/090428-111229

Permalink /// Comments (0)

From: sitepronews.com

If you’re obsessive about SEO you likely already have a domain name that contains one relevant keyword, an entire keyword phrase or even a targeted search term. This is a great practice if you have a website that is highly targeted to one topic or set of keywords, but there is a lot more you [...]

Post from: SiteProNews: Webmaster News & Resources

Search Engine Optimizing your Wordpress installation

Read Original: http://www.sitepronews.com/2009/04/28/search-engine-optimizing-your-wordpress-installation/

Permalink /// Comments (0)

Page 3 of 23 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »