__/ [ Hymer ] on Saturday 04 March 2006 20:02 \__
>>> Hi Roy,
>>> So trying to so something with delicious or flickr would be a waste of
>>> from an SEO viewpoint. Too bad. Right?
>> Yes. They will let nothing 'leak' due to personal motives and the threat
>> incentive for spamming. GeoURL (several of them) might be the exception,
>> well as Web directories if you quality for inclusion.
>>> Getting more specific on the other two questions, I have added content
>>> my blog on my landing pages. These are two methods that give titles of
>>> current news articles from the blog. One is a PHP script which you can
>>> in the left boxes on a page optimized for "user interface design" at:
>>> http://www.usernomics.com/user-interface-design.html .
>>> The second is right on the blog on the right side which is a Feedburner
>>> script which can be seen at:
>>> http://www.usernomics.com/news/user-interface-design-news.html .
>>> While I do rank in the top 5 on Google, do you think either of these are
>>> helping to show new content each day? Do you see a preference between the
>>> Thanks a lot,
>> I get no response (very slow) from the second among the two URL's. I can
>> the outcome of the PHP script on the left. It should be crawled and add to
>> relevance. It also gives the illusion of being dynamic, which helps human
>> visitors. 'Fresh' content is important, if easily achieved.
>> [meanwhile, second URL has loaded up fully...]
>> The second method is less transparent to the human visitor, but it's
>> subjective. Either way, keep employing both unless your intention is to
>> the best of the two (or more) and embed it in both sections/sites.
>> Nice sites, by the way. I will probably re-visit.
> Thanks Roy. Hummmm, the scripts loaded immediately for me. Perhaps
> Feedburner was having a problem.
That seems unlikely, so maybe it's worth measuring performance (without
geographical proximity). See how long it takes page assessment tools to
respond, by requesting that they fetch the URL in its entirety. A few hours
ago, all sites bound to host seemed to have suffered from a DNS
inconsistency, which made the sites inaccessible in some parts of the world.
*sigh* Bad timing. Especially because I have a traffic surge (
> So you think that both options would be read as content by the search
> engines? I know the first one would be good but I thought the small
> Feedburner method might not be readable by the search engines.
> Actually, I am just advertising a second blog (Ergonomics In The News) with
> that Feedburner script. It is attractive and does not take much space. But
> on the main landing pages (not the blog), the primary purpose is new
> content even though it is duplicating titles from the blog. I also have it
> on every page of the main site and hope the duplication is not viewed
> negatively by search engines.
I wish I could refute, but there is no value in mirroring. Au contraire.
> You think I should go as is? Feedburner on the blog for size and the larger
> one on the main site for content?
> Thanks Again Roy,
It seems fine as it is. Always ask yourself, however:
* Do I add original content to the Web?
* Does it benefit the visitor?
* Is my site penetrable to search engines and is reflected onto SE's in the
same way as human visitors?
Hope it helps,
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:40am up 4 days 3:18, 13 users, load average: 1.12, 0.89, 0.66
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms