Webmaster and search engine tips
The Natural Value
Money is a commodity. It is a step-up from barter, but all trade is ultimately barter.
Paper is not a commodity. Therefore, paper is not money. Rather, it is a substitute for money.
In the early days of gold and silver coins, there was a cost to carry, trade, and deliver. This was because of the weight and security of the coinage.
With the advent of paper contracts, it was no longer necessary to carry money when you need to conduct a transaction. This primarily benefitted sea merchants, who may not get paid until a cargo is picked up and delivered. The contract allowed them to acquire the cargo, sell it, and pay at a later date.
These merchant contracts eventually developed into money substitutes. Thus, we see it's natural evolution into the bank note of today.
Money is a commodity. It is a step-up from barter, but all trade is ultimately barter.
Paper is not a commodity. Therefore, paper is not money. Rather, it is a substitute for money.
In the early days of gold and silver coins, there was a cost to carry, trade, and deliver. This was because of the weight and security of the coinage.
With the advent of paper contracts, it was no longer necessary to carry money when you need to conduct a transaction. This primarily benefitted sea merchants, who may not get paid until a cargo is picked up and delivered. The contract allowed them to acquire the cargo, sell it, and pay at a later date.
These merchant contracts eventually developed into money substitutes. Thus, we see it's natural evolution into the bank note of today.
posted by 27/03/10 11:22 AM Comments (0)
Domain age for a site
Consider this comment:
-- I think the age/quality of links a site has is the most important factor, not domain age. I've used domains registered/parked continuously since 1996 and other brand-spanking new ones. The old domains have the same starting period as the new ones (unless the old domains have inbound links). --
My experience is contrary. I believe domain age clearly plays a role. Just registering and/or parking a domain is not enough.
It certainly has been an easier experience ranking an aged domain versus a new one. Site content, and its links over time mean everything.
Regarding timing, if a site doesn't rank after the year measured from its first backlink, something is wrong. Good sites emerge far faster than that.
Consider this comment:
-- I think the age/quality of links a site has is the most important factor, not domain age. I've used domains registered/parked continuously since 1996 and other brand-spanking new ones. The old domains have the same starting period as the new ones (unless the old domains have inbound links). --
My experience is contrary. I believe domain age clearly plays a role. Just registering and/or parking a domain is not enough.
It certainly has been an easier experience ranking an aged domain versus a new one. Site content, and its links over time mean everything.
Regarding timing, if a site doesn't rank after the year measured from its first backlink, something is wrong. Good sites emerge far faster than that.
posted by 15/05/07 3:03 AM Comments (0)
are web phones the way of the future
I had phones with WAP web browsers since they were first available, yet never really used them. The main problem was the extreme sluggishness of the connection.
After just upgrading to an EVDO phone (LG VX9900), for the first time, this looks usable. Sites show fast. (Similar speeds are in the coming for GSM users - EVDO is for CDMA networks - like Sprint & Verizon in the U.S.)
I don't see screen size as being a serious limitation. Sites simply need to be designed specifically for mobile use.
For example - while not a web site, but a carrier-provided service - Verizon's Navigator service is a good example of what to do with a tiny screen. It's a navigation service using the phone's built-in GPS-A receiver. It requires assistance from the carrier. The phone has a cheesy, minimal GPS receiver. The carrier combines info from the GPS receiver on the phone with location info from their tower, and compuing power from the carrier. I found it quite usable.
As far as the display issue, my phone has two displays. There is a small external display, and a larger one when you open the clamshell. There is an alphanumeric keyboard when opening the clamshell. Navigator knows which display is in use. It tailors it's graphics to the screen you are using. It's perfectly practical for navigation using only the tiny outside display. This is because they only display large arrow graphics.
It's important, IMO, to distinguish between phones with a browser and smart phones. The latter is basically a PDA with a phone built-in. They're becoming popular status symbols. However, you have to laugh at the housewives talking on these bulky monsters at the supermarket. These things look incredibly silly when using them to talk. :)
Smart phones give you a great deal of versatility. They let you choose to install an alternative browser.
The bulk of the market is and continues to be "unsmart" phones. Increasingly, these have a fixed web browser built-in, whether the user wants it or not. This is a large untapped market, IMO. Millions with browsers they never use.
These browsers are now pretty capable, when accessing a web site designed for mobile use. There may be a huge opportunity coming with sites which are compelling enough to get people to open their browser.
I had phones with WAP web browsers since they were first available, yet never really used them. The main problem was the extreme sluggishness of the connection.
After just upgrading to an EVDO phone (LG VX9900), for the first time, this looks usable. Sites show fast. (Similar speeds are in the coming for GSM users - EVDO is for CDMA networks - like Sprint & Verizon in the U.S.)
I don't see screen size as being a serious limitation. Sites simply need to be designed specifically for mobile use.
For example - while not a web site, but a carrier-provided service - Verizon's Navigator service is a good example of what to do with a tiny screen. It's a navigation service using the phone's built-in GPS-A receiver. It requires assistance from the carrier. The phone has a cheesy, minimal GPS receiver. The carrier combines info from the GPS receiver on the phone with location info from their tower, and compuing power from the carrier. I found it quite usable.
As far as the display issue, my phone has two displays. There is a small external display, and a larger one when you open the clamshell. There is an alphanumeric keyboard when opening the clamshell. Navigator knows which display is in use. It tailors it's graphics to the screen you are using. It's perfectly practical for navigation using only the tiny outside display. This is because they only display large arrow graphics.
It's important, IMO, to distinguish between phones with a browser and smart phones. The latter is basically a PDA with a phone built-in. They're becoming popular status symbols. However, you have to laugh at the housewives talking on these bulky monsters at the supermarket. These things look incredibly silly when using them to talk. :)
Smart phones give you a great deal of versatility. They let you choose to install an alternative browser.
The bulk of the market is and continues to be "unsmart" phones. Increasingly, these have a fixed web browser built-in, whether the user wants it or not. This is a large untapped market, IMO. Millions with browsers they never use.
These browsers are now pretty capable, when accessing a web site designed for mobile use. There may be a huge opportunity coming with sites which are compelling enough to get people to open their browser.
posted by 18/03/07 10:15 AM Comments (0)
thoughts on the pirate culture
Everyone wants something for nothing. As far as anything digitized, the internet is an ideal medium for granting their wish. What's interesting is some of the TV networks have stopped trying to turn the tide and instead make their programs available, including the ads.
It isn't surprising television executives are less protective of content. To them, the shows are just a hook to reel in the audiences which produce their advertising revenues. TV networks function like many websites. At first glance and with a change in attitude, there really isn't a reason why the music and movie industries - porn too - couldn't go the same route.
One potential problem is the diversity of the 'net. A popular TV show has an audience of 10+ million people for every episode. So they don't all remain glued to the screen through all the ads. Besides that, for around 20% of the time, that audience is exposed to revenue-earning ads and station promos.
This is the context within which a production company approaches a network with an idea. If the execs like it, in one way or another, the network foots the production costs. What would happen if instead of a major network with 10 million viewers, "TV" shows had to be made for 1,000 websites with 10,000 visitors each?
The problems are even more acute for those who cannot embed the revenue-earning element into their product. A pop song lasts 2 or 3 minutes: the idea of a 30-second commercial in the middle is ludicrous. So would the music industry, like those trying to sell still porn images, have to create some kind of stream with the ads embedded between each song or pic?
The hard fact is internet advertising is not terribly effective. No one would turn down the $1 million a year Pirate Bay is reputedly making. However, even if that claim is accurate, it is taking over 1 million visitors per day to generate that sum. If PB were to buy or even just host the content they use to pull in visitors, their bottom line would look entirely different.
There is yet another issue facing online adult content. While giving it away to attract visitors is certainly possible, what then would do you sell? Most non-adult products and services won't come near the industry. If all you had to promote was dating sites and sex toys, the future would be very bleak.
In the Chinese sense of the word, the next 20 years or so will be "interesting" and it seems to me that everyone except - possibly - the TV industry is between a rock and a hard place. Anti-piracy efforts are expensive and ultimately counter-productive. However, so long as the latest rock band has a CD or a pornstar has a DVD free of ads for the bricks-and-mortar markets, those versions will find their way online. Regardless of how enlightened the producers become in making their products available online cheaply and easily by legitimate means.
So if the pundits are right - and there is no reason to believe they will not be - file-sharing will become increasingly popular. How is that trend monetized? Not to the petty extent which allows a kid to buy a new motorcycle, but in corporate terms. And, if it cannot be monetized to fully replace the billions of dollars these industries are losing to piracy, who will be making movies, records and adult content in 20 years time?
Everyone wants something for nothing. As far as anything digitized, the internet is an ideal medium for granting their wish. What's interesting is some of the TV networks have stopped trying to turn the tide and instead make their programs available, including the ads.
It isn't surprising television executives are less protective of content. To them, the shows are just a hook to reel in the audiences which produce their advertising revenues. TV networks function like many websites. At first glance and with a change in attitude, there really isn't a reason why the music and movie industries - porn too - couldn't go the same route.
One potential problem is the diversity of the 'net. A popular TV show has an audience of 10+ million people for every episode. So they don't all remain glued to the screen through all the ads. Besides that, for around 20% of the time, that audience is exposed to revenue-earning ads and station promos.
This is the context within which a production company approaches a network with an idea. If the execs like it, in one way or another, the network foots the production costs. What would happen if instead of a major network with 10 million viewers, "TV" shows had to be made for 1,000 websites with 10,000 visitors each?
The problems are even more acute for those who cannot embed the revenue-earning element into their product. A pop song lasts 2 or 3 minutes: the idea of a 30-second commercial in the middle is ludicrous. So would the music industry, like those trying to sell still porn images, have to create some kind of stream with the ads embedded between each song or pic?
The hard fact is internet advertising is not terribly effective. No one would turn down the $1 million a year Pirate Bay is reputedly making. However, even if that claim is accurate, it is taking over 1 million visitors per day to generate that sum. If PB were to buy or even just host the content they use to pull in visitors, their bottom line would look entirely different.
There is yet another issue facing online adult content. While giving it away to attract visitors is certainly possible, what then would do you sell? Most non-adult products and services won't come near the industry. If all you had to promote was dating sites and sex toys, the future would be very bleak.
In the Chinese sense of the word, the next 20 years or so will be "interesting" and it seems to me that everyone except - possibly - the TV industry is between a rock and a hard place. Anti-piracy efforts are expensive and ultimately counter-productive. However, so long as the latest rock band has a CD or a pornstar has a DVD free of ads for the bricks-and-mortar markets, those versions will find their way online. Regardless of how enlightened the producers become in making their products available online cheaply and easily by legitimate means.
So if the pundits are right - and there is no reason to believe they will not be - file-sharing will become increasingly popular. How is that trend monetized? Not to the petty extent which allows a kid to buy a new motorcycle, but in corporate terms. And, if it cannot be monetized to fully replace the billions of dollars these industries are losing to piracy, who will be making movies, records and adult content in 20 years time?
posted by 25/02/07 1:39 AM Comments (0)
Valuing a generic term + city name
Size of city and demographics.
State and demographics.
Popularity-demand for service.
Competitiveness of marketing efforts.
Enduser value of converted sales lead.
Evidence of type-in traffic for domain.
Trends where people are searching for X. (3 online leads 2001, 15 in 2006)
Easy to read billboard domain?
I suspect that in the near future local businesses will be grimmacing about how they failed to secure the localized version of the "generic reference to their service", just like people today regret how they didn't register CityHotel or Hotel.tld.
The most realistic valuation model for type-in traffic isn't the PPC revenue model. That only makes sense if one is forever going to rely on a parked PPC valuation model. Even that model doesn't make sense in that it assumed that the domain is forever bound to the limits of traffic from type-in action.
The most robust valuation model for many domains, especially professional service domains, is the 'converted lead' model of value. Why? If you get the type-in traffic from the professional service domain then you get the first crack and likely best chance to convert the leads. (You also don't pay for all those leads that don't convert, like PPC leads. ;)
I find it a fair inference, based upon my own direct experience, people who type-in generic 'subject matter domains' are often people very focused on getting x-service in y-city/state. In other words, when it comes to direct navigators, your website has to un-sell the lead to not convert it.
The converted lead model of valuation is just beginning to be sorted out. In retrospect, I think the will prove to be the most robust model for valuing type-in traffic.
If someone converts 3 leads a year that yield a net income of $2,000 then spending $15-20,000.00 for a domain that will likely continue to produce such leads for the indefinite future will - in retrospect - likely look like a bargain.
A 3-4 multiple doesn't seem that far removed from a realistic enduser value to lock in a reliable referral stream.
How can I say this with any confidence? Allow me to offer a bit of history and personal experience.
What first got me started in the domain realm in 1998 was the fact that my local yellowpages was charging me $15,000.00 a year for ads, My ad was one amongst many in a very competitive local advertising space (read lots of $15,000+/year ads). The ads were fast becomming a barely a break even proposition, with my ad rep each year selling me some new advertising angle 'so I could remain competitive' . . and he could sell more ads and make a bigger commission.
I eventually did the math and determined one could buy quite a few domain names and host quite a few websites for that cost.
Would you believe I was anxious - and, to the man, my peers considered my actions ill-advised? To give up my yellowpage advertising? Absurd! Dangerous! Risky! No guarantees! No kidding. LOL, all the way to the bank. ;)
It might take some nerve to take the plunge since the valuation model is far greater than the 'cost of the domain model (circa 1999) but then again, I acquired some domains in 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 - even 2005-2006 - most people - the vast majority of people - never would have paid as much as I paid for them . . and right now many of those domains are recouping the investment cost within 1-2 years on PPC alone.
Buying real estate is about caculating future reality, risk and reward. What may seem like an expense today may seem like a bargain in a few years. You have to think through these issues in some detail. For instance, what happens when, in a few years, local PPC costs start to skyrocket as everyone starts catching on to local search?
A great deal of what has been going on in the domain space has always been speculative and has required measures of vision, courage, ability to absorb risk and a sense of judgment about market direction. In 2001-2003, when many were declaring the WWW an over-hyped wannabe and domainers were cashing out I was buying. It wasn't easy, seeing a generally negative marketplace consensus - in part confirmed by domain valuations at the time - but I was confident. Then along came the direct navigation domain parking PPC model for the domain holding masses. Voila! Instant tightly focused miniwebsites that made money, 24/7/365. Who woulda thunk?
You may have to bite down hard before ponying up a sum such as I mentioned and will only know relief, if ever, in a few years. Then again, if you pick the right domain, relief may come in only a year or two. It may well be the case by chosing this model, as one channel amongst many, you're able to sustain business in the future.
Did I ever tell you the story about the domain that made me $140,000+ . . .? To borrow from my favorite accordian playing icon of stand-up comedy, Judy Tenuta: "It could happen . . " In my case it did.
Size of city and demographics.
State and demographics.
Popularity-demand for service.
Competitiveness of marketing efforts.
Enduser value of converted sales lead.
Evidence of type-in traffic for domain.
Trends where people are searching for X. (3 online leads 2001, 15 in 2006)
Easy to read billboard domain?
I suspect that in the near future local businesses will be grimmacing about how they failed to secure the localized version of the "generic reference to their service", just like people today regret how they didn't register CityHotel or Hotel.tld.
The most realistic valuation model for type-in traffic isn't the PPC revenue model. That only makes sense if one is forever going to rely on a parked PPC valuation model. Even that model doesn't make sense in that it assumed that the domain is forever bound to the limits of traffic from type-in action.
The most robust valuation model for many domains, especially professional service domains, is the 'converted lead' model of value. Why? If you get the type-in traffic from the professional service domain then you get the first crack and likely best chance to convert the leads. (You also don't pay for all those leads that don't convert, like PPC leads. ;)
I find it a fair inference, based upon my own direct experience, people who type-in generic 'subject matter domains' are often people very focused on getting x-service in y-city/state. In other words, when it comes to direct navigators, your website has to un-sell the lead to not convert it.
The converted lead model of valuation is just beginning to be sorted out. In retrospect, I think the will prove to be the most robust model for valuing type-in traffic.
If someone converts 3 leads a year that yield a net income of $2,000 then spending $15-20,000.00 for a domain that will likely continue to produce such leads for the indefinite future will - in retrospect - likely look like a bargain.
A 3-4 multiple doesn't seem that far removed from a realistic enduser value to lock in a reliable referral stream.
How can I say this with any confidence? Allow me to offer a bit of history and personal experience.
What first got me started in the domain realm in 1998 was the fact that my local yellowpages was charging me $15,000.00 a year for ads, My ad was one amongst many in a very competitive local advertising space (read lots of $15,000+/year ads). The ads were fast becomming a barely a break even proposition, with my ad rep each year selling me some new advertising angle 'so I could remain competitive' . . and he could sell more ads and make a bigger commission.
I eventually did the math and determined one could buy quite a few domain names and host quite a few websites for that cost.
Would you believe I was anxious - and, to the man, my peers considered my actions ill-advised? To give up my yellowpage advertising? Absurd! Dangerous! Risky! No guarantees! No kidding. LOL, all the way to the bank. ;)
It might take some nerve to take the plunge since the valuation model is far greater than the 'cost of the domain model (circa 1999) but then again, I acquired some domains in 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 - even 2005-2006 - most people - the vast majority of people - never would have paid as much as I paid for them . . and right now many of those domains are recouping the investment cost within 1-2 years on PPC alone.
Buying real estate is about caculating future reality, risk and reward. What may seem like an expense today may seem like a bargain in a few years. You have to think through these issues in some detail. For instance, what happens when, in a few years, local PPC costs start to skyrocket as everyone starts catching on to local search?
A great deal of what has been going on in the domain space has always been speculative and has required measures of vision, courage, ability to absorb risk and a sense of judgment about market direction. In 2001-2003, when many were declaring the WWW an over-hyped wannabe and domainers were cashing out I was buying. It wasn't easy, seeing a generally negative marketplace consensus - in part confirmed by domain valuations at the time - but I was confident. Then along came the direct navigation domain parking PPC model for the domain holding masses. Voila! Instant tightly focused miniwebsites that made money, 24/7/365. Who woulda thunk?
You may have to bite down hard before ponying up a sum such as I mentioned and will only know relief, if ever, in a few years. Then again, if you pick the right domain, relief may come in only a year or two. It may well be the case by chosing this model, as one channel amongst many, you're able to sustain business in the future.
Did I ever tell you the story about the domain that made me $140,000+ . . .? To borrow from my favorite accordian playing icon of stand-up comedy, Judy Tenuta: "It could happen . . " In my case it did.
posted by 18/01/07 10:13 AM Comments (0)
What if you buy someone's name as a domain name?
Is there a future in doing this?
Many have sought to buy vanity domains. As the internet ages, people simply adjust to what is available, as has already happened twice.
In the early days of the net, some people and personalities bought their given names: firstname.com.
After the firstnames were exhausted, around '96, everyone decided to take lastname.com (or lastname.org, being non-commercial). This was common enough some entrepreneurs began buying common lastname.com's including .org's. Next, they tried to sell sub-domains.
Free Myspace HTML Codes
BigFinder
Whore Me generator
Myspace Layout generator
Pioneer
The lastnames were gone (or squatted) by, let's say, 2003. Suddenly, everyone decides firstnamelastname.com (including the .org) was the ideal vanity domain. There goes the hopeful sub-domain vendors). That's where things are today.
Bar Graph
Graphs
Headlines
Report
Tree MDI
It's so difficult to guess what the next fashion is. Yet is there a doubt this same process is going to repeat again and again. It seems, the fashionable style for a vanity domain is made more specific until they become available for the reg fee?
Is there a future in doing this?
Many have sought to buy vanity domains. As the internet ages, people simply adjust to what is available, as has already happened twice.
In the early days of the net, some people and personalities bought their given names: firstname.com.
After the firstnames were exhausted, around '96, everyone decided to take lastname.com (or lastname.org, being non-commercial). This was common enough some entrepreneurs began buying common lastname.com's including .org's. Next, they tried to sell sub-domains.
Free Myspace HTML Codes
BigFinder
Whore Me generator
Myspace Layout generator
Pioneer
The lastnames were gone (or squatted) by, let's say, 2003. Suddenly, everyone decides firstnamelastname.com (including the .org) was the ideal vanity domain. There goes the hopeful sub-domain vendors). That's where things are today.
Bar Graph
Graphs
Headlines
Report
Tree MDI
It's so difficult to guess what the next fashion is. Yet is there a doubt this same process is going to repeat again and again. It seems, the fashionable style for a vanity domain is made more specific until they become available for the reg fee?
posted by 11/10/06 4:11 PM Comments (0)
use those text links
Over the past few years, I've done quite a few site reviews. I use a scoring system. It is based on years of experience and following topics found at webmaster communities.
I start with a Franklin T. On the left, I list positive items. On the right, I list negative items. Using this list, I tally a quality score.
For each positive, a point is added. For each negative, a point is deducted. Text navigation is at the top of my list.
If there is graphic navigation, a point is deducted. If alt attributes are missing, another point is deducted. If title attributes are unused on linked navigation images, another point is deducted. If there alt and title attributes are there, a point is added for each. However, a point is deducted if they are not mirrors of the graphic elements.
Bar Graphs
Headlines
Pioneer Report
Tree Controls
Internal anchor text is an area where you really need to focus your efforts. It's like "providing links to your own website". They have power. It is lots when used properly.
43 things
43 people
Profile Heaven
Mister Me
The one thing that really powers internal anchor text is the site architecture. I've found it very helpful to have a visual map of linking structure to determine the path a spider make take when reaching one of my sites. Brett's topic on pyramids comes to mind.
Overlapping Text Generators
Myspace Generators
Text Generators
Myspace Text Generators
Plain text will trump whatever may be in an image. It always has and I think it always will. You can make a graphic link usable and accessible, but it will never carry the same weight as an actual text link. Look at it this way, if you were a spider, which of the two scenarios provides you the shortest and most succinct description of the link you are following?
Scrollbar Generators
Myspace Scrollbar Generators
Myspace Scrollbars
Scrollbar Myspace Generators
Over the past few years, I've done quite a few site reviews. I use a scoring system. It is based on years of experience and following topics found at webmaster communities.
I start with a Franklin T. On the left, I list positive items. On the right, I list negative items. Using this list, I tally a quality score.
For each positive, a point is added. For each negative, a point is deducted. Text navigation is at the top of my list.
If there is graphic navigation, a point is deducted. If alt attributes are missing, another point is deducted. If title attributes are unused on linked navigation images, another point is deducted. If there alt and title attributes are there, a point is added for each. However, a point is deducted if they are not mirrors of the graphic elements.
Bar Graphs
Headlines
Pioneer Report
Tree Controls
Internal anchor text is an area where you really need to focus your efforts. It's like "providing links to your own website". They have power. It is lots when used properly.
43 things
43 people
Profile Heaven
Mister Me
The one thing that really powers internal anchor text is the site architecture. I've found it very helpful to have a visual map of linking structure to determine the path a spider make take when reaching one of my sites. Brett's topic on pyramids comes to mind.
Overlapping Text Generators
Myspace Generators
Text Generators
Myspace Text Generators
Plain text will trump whatever may be in an image. It always has and I think it always will. You can make a graphic link usable and accessible, but it will never carry the same weight as an actual text link. Look at it this way, if you were a spider, which of the two scenarios provides you the shortest and most succinct description of the link you are following?
Scrollbar Generators
Myspace Scrollbar Generators
Myspace Scrollbars
Scrollbar Myspace Generators
posted by 19/09/06 11:14 PM Comments (0)
