Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Purveyor of Impossible Dreams

    To see the full post, click the ">" arrow just above the "The second I read...."at the end. For some reason the quote system is set up to make you click to view.
  3. In all my commenting I don't think that I've ever referenced Bret Victor, which is an astounding oversight as he's had an immense influence on my thinking and on my sites. Off hand I can't think of anyone else whose CV is headed by two such mindblowing testimonials: The second I read was How Many Households, 2011. And I literally gorged myself after that. And went back to make notes and reread and to digest. Ever since.
  4. Thanks to everyone for your insights. I really was confounded when I saw the pages and how many links they contained. They are intended to do what Stock described, which is to present a lot of topics and when a user finds one, they click and go. From a SEO perspective, I was simply perplexed. From a UX one, concerned because of the length of pages, number of links, navigation and IA structural issues and conversions side of things. There is one main CTA located at the very top of the page to a free download. Since it appears on most of the other pages, it is likely ignored and seen as a distraction when faced with so many embedded text links to information. A user on a mission need only to scan, find and go. The pages are not designed to help with scanning but that's another UX hit. The pages that go off-site without any warning are trouble. The majority of page links go somewhere inside the site, but the URL structure and breadcrumb navigation do not follow along logically. There is no way back other than using the browser back button and that's a UX no no. With so many links on the page, the user knows there is more info to be mined there but if they leave there is no promise of returning without the potential of clicking extra pages to find their way back and then reorient themselves to where they were. For mobile, the situation is incredibly difficult because not only are the pages long with so many links but there is a sidebar with more links. Yes, people will scroll but only if there is a promise of finding what they need. If there are distractions along the way, they may get sidetracked and what happens after that is anyone's guess. From a UX perspective, guessing is bad. The design should be based on target user behavior and knowing how to keep them on the page/site. I just couldn't fathom so many links
  5. How many in-site links can one page have?

    I'd be interested in knowing some of the data for frequency of clicks on links in the "Middle" of the page. The top and the bottom of any page are easy to find. It's the stuff in the middle of a long page that can be tricky to get to. These pages also sound like they have a different purpose than many pages - and so they are a bit different. A page like this is designed to have the user pick a broad topic, and then they look through the page to find something in that topic that is of interest to them. On pages like this - longer is better. The more things you can present, the more likely someone is to find something that piques their interest. For pages where someone already knows what they want to know - the long pages with a bunch of info becomes cumbersome. QFT
  6. Yesterday
  7. How many in-site links can one page have?

    EGOL is correct in that if the visitor has reason to read/scroll content long pages are not a hindrance, not even on mobile although they may benefit from some redesign thought à la Grumpus; that popular topic links tend to maximise their location; and that a whack of on-page links done with (business/visitor not pseudo-SEO) purpose is absolutely fine and pretty much always has been. I touched, albeit somewhat differently, on this back in 2007 with I'm Just A Lonely Page with the bit about 'Rotate Stock' wherein the stock is items/links being moved for freshness and shifting click patterns. The number of links on a page has never really been a visitor problem, assuming the page is designed/optimised for humans, but a SE aka Google one. And with G the number has long not been a constraint either. It is the practice of stuffing links in nav drop downs, footers, repetitive in content mimicking keyword stuffing, etc. ad nauseum that is the 'real' link number problem. As is often the case, it is not so much 'what' but 'how' that is critical.
  8. I started the site that I spend most of my time on about 13 years ago. It had one article when it went live. For a couple years, every article was linked to from the homepage. The longer the homepage became the more time people spent on the website. Today the site is way too big to put everything on the homepage. And, now it has grown to the point that the homepage and some of the category pages have way over 100 links on them. On the homepage and most of the category pages, each link has an image, an anchor text, and a one sentence description. People do scroll all the way down and click items in the bottom row. A few years ago, Donna created a content manager for me that kept track of how often each link was clicked. Then cron jobs, which ran several times per day, would rearrange the pages and move more frequently clicked links up one position. With that system, you can add new content, improved content, or seasonal content, to the top and allow it to float or sink according to its popularity. On those dynamic pages with over 100 links, a popular link can be placed at the bottom of the page and it will be up to the top within a week or so, depending upon its popularity. So, we can use weighting factors to make individual items more or less buoyant, depending upon how much promotion we want them to have. Why? You can place a popular item in the bottom row and it will get hammered. So, I do know for a fact that lots of people will scroll all the way down a really deep page and click stuff at the bottom. I suspect that browse depth depends upon the type of website, how enthusiastic visitors are about the information, how well the people who run the site present the content. If you have a news site, a system like described above might make sense. New stuff is added to the top and it floats of sinks depending upon its popularity and depending upon how heavily new stuff is piled on. Also, without a system as described above, the number of links on a page can become almost irrelevant if the links are organized properly. Let's imagine that you have a website about widgets from different countries, and also imagine that widgets are made from brass, wood, stone, and plastic. Your widgets page could have four columns, one for each material that the widgets are made from and the countries in alphabetical order in each column. Four different materials, each from about 150 countries -- that's six hundred links on that page and people will happily scroll down to click the Zambia links if they want them. Again, popular stuff at the bottom of a deep page will get hammered if people want it.
  9. How many in-site links can one page have?

    Yikes. But I'm not surprised. In spite of how the internet has changed over the years, the train of thought and trends to solutions haven't really changed. For primary navigation, it is driven by the "4 clicks and they are gone" theory. The solution for many (and often this is marketing people using old school SEO tactics) is to just make sure that no page is more than a click or two away. That sounds great on paper except that if you have all that crap the user has to sift through to figure out where the next thing they want to see is - they aren't making clicks because they can't decide which of the 3,000 presented clicks is going to get them where they want to go. Then, we have the "long copy" theory. Back in the day, the idea was that one really long page of copy will convert better than if it is broken up into several pages. On desktops, you have a lot of screen space, and a keyboard or mouse that you can use to scroll exactly one screen at a time. With the cell phone boom, people are swiping fingers. If they are looking for some spec info on a page and that page is 12 scrolls away at some point on a super long all-inclusive page, they are going to have to do a lot of work just to find it on the page, not to mention the hell they went through just to get to the page through the mega menu. It may still work in some regards if you are writing persuasive copy, but information needs to be broken down into smaller bits. If I want specs, I want a page that gives me the specs right there, easy to find. I've had a few sites that I've been working on which have fallen victim to these things over the years. On some we've broken out the info so each product has a specifics "Overview", "Technical Specs", "Photos/Videos" etc pages. On a few others, we've kept the pages bigger, but have named anchors and secondary on-page navigation so that once you get to the page, you can see links to our various informational categories. You click, but don't change pages, and it takes you right to the info you need - no swipe swipe swipe swipe until you (hopefully) get to that section on the page. It's too early to tell which of these methods performs better. I suspect that splitting to different pages is probably better for SEO by a slight margin since Google can then easily send them to the right info when they do a specific search like "Widget Technical Specs" - I've got a page for that. I suspect that for the user, the one page may be better if only because they don't have to wait for page loads on slower data connections. Once the page is loaded, it's loaded and you just use the jump menus (at the top of the page and between each section) to hop around to what you want. Thank goodness for sites with 329 links on a page though.... they keep us working, sure enough. lol G.
  10. Last week
  11. Ok...I got the link count. There are 329 internal links and 37 outbound links. On one page.
  12. Xenu. Not sure how well it will do with WP type links where the link and parms are parsed by a rewrite engine.
  13. Maybe we should all go back to brick and mortar using real money (bypass the greedy banks) and real people ( many jobs ). maybe not
  14. Wow. So I'll leave what I'm looking at (a few pages with about 60 links inside that go to pages inside the website) to the SEO. From a user experience perspective it is mind boggling to see them all and scroll forever and see more. They are inserted to instruct. The pain point from my side of the mountain is that once the user clicks on one of the links, there is no navigation assistance back other than the browser back button. The breadcrumb is tracking categories and the URL doesn't include either the category or the previous location from where they came. It reminds me of the old days when the standard practice was putting every link to everywhere on the homepage.
  15. Nice work by Ian Carroll. I would have been fooled by the green text. ... but I think that anyone can get a security certificate and those who issue them do very little to determine, and probably have no ability to determine, if the security certificate is issued to a criminal person, criminal company or even to a dog.
  16. How many in-site links can one page have?

    Back in the day, it was a maximum number in the 20's. Twenty seven pops into my head, but I have no idea why, and it's not a particularly logical number, so I'm not sure if that is correct. There was also a limit in the size of pages that would be indexed. Once it was over a certain number of kB, Google stopped grabbing it and anything below that wasn't used by SEO. Today, things are a little different - and probably around 2004 or so is when it started. Google tried to understand various common elements on a page - like your global navigation - to better evaluate links. Afterall, a link in your global nav that links to another page doesn't really show any context between the page you're on and the page in the nav. It's there because you think it's an important page, but it's not there because this is related to that in any particular way. Now, there are several different ways to differentiate a contextual link and navigational links. The Wordpress themes that I use make use of the "role" attribute and "nav" tag. [example] You can also use Schema tags to declare this - and in the future I expect that this method will become the primary standard. [information] There is a lot more you can do with the schema markup such as indicating various accessibility features, give signals as to what's on the other side of the link (e.g. giving an audience rating to indicate NSFW content on a site that is predominantly SFW) It can even suggest that the link is relevant now but may expire and become irrelevant on a certain date such as for an event, or something like that. Here is an example of a whole page with schema microdata, attributes, etc: https://gist.github.com/MilanAryal/ee861d7a065cc05868d9 I'm really only now starting to edit my themes and adding hooks to leverage this stuff on my client sites. And I only do it in areas that it's foolproof and doesn't take a lot of human interaction. As we know, with Google it's often better to not do it at all than it is to do it wrong. So anyway - the point of all of this is that this surely makes the question have a lot more fluid answer. Navigation elements are links, but they aren't the same as another contextual link. Links in an <aside> block serve a different purpose than links in the articleBody which is different from links in the comments block. All links are not created equal, and serve many different purposes. This doesn't suggest that navigation links are discounted - they just show a different contextual relationship between this page and that page than a link within the body of an article or a link within an aside block or a div with a "complimentary" role. This is why I have been trying to convince my broker clients that a primary navigation (navigation that is the same on every single page on a site and leads to the key sections of the site) and secondary (complimentary) navigation which then shows links to pages deeper or laterally in the same section are really the way to go. It is also why I've been trying to convince the usability folks that (in spite of rumors to the contrary) sidebars are not dead. Sidebars in the way they've been used in the past are certainly dead, but in the new age of structured data, they are alive and well. Honestly, I suspect that most of the experts truly in the know who are suggesting that we ditch sidebars are doing so not so much because sidebars are dead, but because (as I mentioned above) it's better to not do it than to do it improperly. Doing it properly takes a level of learning that most people I encounter who do all this for a living don't even begin to comprehend - yet. If anything is dead (or soon will be) it's the massive global navigation mega menus that litter the web nowadays - the ones that list every page on a site from every page on a site and that take a user 10 minutes just to navigate the navigation and figure out where they need to go. And for google, this is almost certainly dead. Sure, a mega menu that links to every page serves as a nice means of discovering pages, but beyond that you get no context. These links are almost certainly discounted to a level of "almost worthless" in terms of the things we commonly think about when discussing the value of links in SEO. Pro Tips: Most of these elements are designed and being actively developed for accessibility options - do indicate to various devices exactly what the various elements are there for and what they do. The fact that Google can leverage these to improve their SERPs is a byproduct of the fact that these are designed for sending signals to machines - something that Google just happens to be. Anything you see out there that is designed to help machines figure things out is potentially something that Google will attempt to leverage in some way. For example, if you have your company info marked up properly on your contact or about page and list your hours, you can then edit your web site to make changes to those hours and your Google Local listing will update accordingly on the next crawl. (Assuming, of course, you've established that this is the web site for that Google Local listing). You can even add and update your holiday hours on the site or say that you will be closed from now until January 4th for a family emergency or whatnot. In Summary: If you're not using various elements on your site to indicate what a link is doing and giving it context, then Google doesn't really have a lot of choice but to treat all links on a page as equal. (This isn't exactly true because you can find some posts from me back as far as 2004 or so where Google was discovering navigational elements by comparing HTML blocks across multiple pages on a site and learning that a block of links that appears on every page is surely your main menu). But if you are sending signals as to purpose and context, then you can not only will more links be counted and provide SEO value, but they will be counted in a way that means something more than just "Here's a link." How many will it count? My guess is that it will count every link that it can leverage to give context to something else. G. P.S. I haven't had time to stop in over the recent weeks (and maybe even months?) New design looks good! And it makes good use of role, and other elements described above.
  17. Oops. There is always a dark side and, too often, it is painful. Ian Carroll (@iangcarroll) incorporated 'Stripe, Inc.' in Kentucky (Stripe, Inc. the payment processor is registered in Delaware) and then purchased an extended validation certificate. On opening the following linked page take a look at the little green padlock, the green 'Stripe, Inc' (Safari) or 'Stripe, Inc (US)' (FF, Chrome) and the URL (FF, Chrome; not shown at all in Safari) at the top of the open browser window, consider the dark side implications, and then read the article: Extended Validation Is Broken
  18. How many in-site links can one page have?

    At one time eons ago there was a limit, if I remember correctly ~200, that Google stopped at; however that is long long ago gone and for all practical purposes consider there being no limit to the length of a page or the number of links therein. I note that there probably still is an upper bound but not one one is likely to meet. HOWEVER * simplistically, a page only has a certain SE value set (all hail the descendants of PR) and each link transmits an ?equivalent? portion of that value to it's linked destination page. The more links the less absolute value each link passes. Example: if a page has a value of 10 and five links then each provides a value of 2 to it's destination; if 10, 1. Note: this applies to all links, both internal and external. Note: I placed '?' around equivalent above as it is possible that different link categories are valued differently, i.e. main navigation, main content, etc. * subsequent links to the same off page destination likely still evaporate their value rather than pass it. Note: there are many possible values a SE may be wont to pass, not just PR or it's equivalent, and each may be passed differently. As an alternate question to the number of links within a page might I suggest the number of angels on the head of a pin?
  19. How many links are allowed on one web page? Is there a limit? I'm referring to links that take users to other pages within the website rather than off site. Is there a tool that counts how many links are on each page and even better, displays each URL?
  20. After expanding their character count, now Twitter is starting discussion threads. Info and demo here...Nice Threads
  21. I have been using it since the initial posting. Not recommended. Yesterday, 11-Dec-2017, I made a DNS IP address change for a domain and quad9 still pointed to the old hosting IP four hours later. Today it is flipping between the two IPs. Used nslookup to test so no influence from my DNS cache. Google's gets it consistently right. Sorry IBM. Thumbs down. I sent their quad9 support an email. Nothing.
  22. Earlier
  23. On the day that these forums were restored and up and running after being moved to a new server and the software upgraded, I was next in the succession of folks to be recognized by Barry's series. Kim Krause Berg - The Search Community Honors You Today, Ammon Johns, who for years was a co-Admin here at the forums (along with Bill Slawski), is being recognized for his contributions to the SEO industry. Ammon Johns - The Search Community Honors You Me and Germaniac, my buddy.
  24. Here's a kicker. I went to that link (General Data Protection Regulation) and, on the landing page, Privacy Badger reports 9 potential trackers: 3 which were blocked completely (red), 2 google ones for which it let only the cookie through (yellow), and 5 in the green. What's that saying about doctors healing?
  25. If you just want the Boolean new/repeat signal, a cookie is fine. It's not personal - there is no ID! - so that's that. But if you want to have a notion of a user and track them over time to provide real-time personalization, you're now in the realm of the GDPR and ePR. Of course without knowing specifically what you're trying to do, I can't offer (m)any pointers. P
  26. There are two types of personalisation. The first one, which every 'alternative' such as your linked example I've read tackles, is a general or aggregated grouping, version of personalisation. It is more persona-isation than personalisation. And I do use it, extensively, for a decade now. Note: the wisdom of crowds is popular wisdom, which could be considered an oxymoron; yes, I know the book separates wise from irrational crowds/groups - the first, IMO, are unicorns. The first is relatively simple and comparatively simple. The second is not. The second one, is to identify a particular visitor as new or repeat. This one is the kicker. If you can point me to a method that does not require (1) registration, (2) cookies or similar tags, and (3) is, statistically, both highly sensitive and highly specific, I am most^n interested. It is an intriguing situation: I have no interest in personally identifying a particular visitor yet I have great interest in recognising them. And associating prior site behaviours with them. Note: refer to The Living Adapting Site, Cre8, October 2015, for a simplified walk through description. It's not that I can't keep doing what I do and, I believe, satisfy a GDPR audit, rather that how I'm doing what I'm doing is not how most/all others are doing and so is not expressly addressed. Once again iamlost: an edge case, an outlier. Yes, my law-type-person is on the job, however, I do like to know outcomes going into meetings. I have just suffered through the China regulation changes (to good result, phew) to go directly (do not pass Go, do pay your law-type person) to this EU one... I'm too bloody old for all this stress; for heaven's sake! I went into webdev to get away from it! In the spirit of the season: bah humbug! Bah Humbug!! BAH HUMBUG!!!
  1. Load more activity