I’ll sort any issue with the feed as it comes up.

Getting ready to pull this blog out of mothballs.

I’m quick with the off-button on my speakers, but it did take me a couple of seconds to get it.  Too late, though, the damage was done.  She’s probably scarred for life, she’ll never use Onebox.   Of course I’m joking about that, but it is a horrible noise and voice and it did scare her and she did cry.

The point, though, is that web designers put so little thought into their sites.  Exactly what does Onebox think that their flash intro does to enhance their customer experience?  I’d really like to know that.  And, exactly who are these idiot designers that think that flash has to have stupid music, and why do they drill it down your throat instead of asking first?

So, if you’re developing a site now, forget the flash with the stupid sounds.  If you have a site that does this, remove the flash.  It really sucks.  You don’t need it.  It annoys people.  It makes babies cry.

Lidia Davis – born February 22, 2007

If you change the “right” to “left” it should be obvious what that will do for you.

You can alter the placement by changing the numbers.

http://webmasters.meetup.com/99/calendar/5403723/

When:

Thursday, February 15, 2007, 6:30 PM 20070215T233000Z

Where:

O’Naturals
149 Great Rd
Acton , MA 01720
9782660222

• Info/Map

I checked, and we don’t even have a Constitutional ammendment that guarantees the SEO right to a link from Wikipedia.

Actually, I think I have a clue. It’s not very complicated. SEOs think that Wikipedia is great because of how many people have linked to Wikipedia. Everyone else thinks Wikipedia is great because of its content.

It’s the old Links vs. Content debate.

The problem there is that the links are not vetted through an editorial process. The whole point of nofollow is exactly this. Google states it quite clearly, use nofollow “anywhere that users can add links by themselves.” (*)

Now, let’s see. Can users add links by themselves at Wikipedia? Oh, my gosh, yes they can!

“But if an editor/volunteer ads a legitimate external source, it should pass on the PR value.” (*) Should it? Well, only if you turn the reason nofollow came into being on its head. That’s the exact opposite of what nofollow is meant.

Could there be a process where certain links are vetted, and thus have the nofollow removed? Sure there could. But, then that wouldn’t be any link randomly added by whomever, whenever, and however they wanted. Wikipedia would need to make a strong process to ensure the quality, and evenhandedness of that, because SEOs would surely give it a prompt ass-humping if it wasn’t.

But, the larger question is should Wikipedia even be in the business of deciding which links are to pass editorial review? I don’t see how that would enhance the Wikipedia. The links already appear for users, and to me that’s good enough for their purposes. Why, exactly, should the Wikipedia be in the business of helping random websites improve their search engine rankings?

In the end, this controversy just serves to give us people interested in these esoteric things something to blog about.

I often get asked for advice on someone’s website. Mostly from people I don’t even know. Most of the time, if I take the time to give a decent suggestion or two, I’m left with a feeling of frustration. It’s like when my five-year-old son is jumping on the furniture, and I tell him not to do it, and five minutes later, he’s jumping on the furniture again. That kind of frustration.

And, it’s not always that the person I’m advising isn’t listening or understanding, sometimes they successfully impliment my advice. It’s that I’m taking time out of my day to help them, and rarely even get as much as a “thanks”, no follow up to let me know how it worked out for them, no nothing. But, usually the advice falls on dead ears, because most of what I suggest takes time and effort.

I’ve been going to the SEO Meetup, which is held monthly in Arlington (a suburb of Boston) ever since I met Brian at Pubcon in Boston last year.  Every month he invites someone to join the group, to have their website be the focus of a brainstorming session on how to market it better.  Last month, I left the meeting perfectly frustrated.

Here’s one example.  One of the websites reviewed was called Foodler.   It’s a really neat service, which allows people to order takeout from the web.  They have a good number of restaurants in their inventory, including some that I’ve eaten in.  The owner of the site rightly wanted to know how to expand the reach of his marketing.  I do think he really needs to gain traction, because this is an idea that someone could easily encroach upon.

I mentioned to him that I thought he’d get a lot of benefit if he got some of the popular local bloggers to mention his site.  Perhaps giving them a free dinner would help getting them familiar with the service.  I’m not the one who coined the word ‘Sneezers‘ but  I think that local-focused bloggers are clearly in that group, and having them adopt his service would pay huge dividends.

I was stunned with the reply.  He asked “where do I find popular bloggers?”  I stumbled on that, I wasn’t expecting it.  Someone mentioned the Universal Hub, which is exactly the kind of blog I meant.   Next, I mentioned that I had posted a link to the blogs I read in the Meetup’s forum.  His response to that was something like “how do I know the blogs you read are the important ones?”

Luckily, the conversation turned away from blogs at that point.  I’m probably too easily frustrated.  Asking me how to find popular blogs is kind of like asking me how to walk.

So, should I, and others in similar situations stop giving out free advice?  No, not really.  I’ve been on the receiving end of good advice far too often to say something as short-sighted as that.

Should I get better at deciding who to give free advice to?  Yea, I’ve been working on that.  A couple years back, I had a problem with people constantly asking me to help code their website.   Because I’m a Sitepoint Advisor, people assume I’m a top-level coder.  I’m not.

Should Brian stop inviting people to our SEO Meetup to get free advice on their website?  Maybe.  Not once have I heard back from any of the people who were lucky enough to have the group giving them free advice on their website marketing.  Not one.  But I do think he should expect more of them.  Perhaps the next one needs to buy us dinner and drinks.  Instead of sitting at Panera with a cup of coffee and bowl of soup, the next one treats the group to dinner at John Harvard’s.

And a bit of advice for the people lucky enough to make it to Jeremy Schoemaker’s Meetup.  Be good to him.  Make him want to do it again with you next month.

His example search, for “minus 30” shows a thread at Sitepoint in the top result.   So, I’m loving it!

It’s a new twist on the text links marketplace.  Actually, it simplifies things very much.  It’s $20 for a link.  No monthly fee.  No guessing at a link’s worth according to its PageRank.  Just $20.

For a publisher, it’s attractive because you have another outlet to have advertising sold for your site.  It’s simple, you place the link, collect the money and you’re done with it.

For an advertiser, it’s attractive because you get your link within the text, you pay only once, and it’s cheap.

It’s definately worth keeping an eye on this service.  http://contextual.v7n.com/