Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. cre8pc

    cre8pc

    Admin - Top Level


    • Points

      15

    • Content count

      12,561


  2. iamlost

    iamlost

    Admin - Top Level


    • Points

      7

    • Content count

      5,107


  3. bobbb

    bobbb

    250 Posts Club


    • Points

      4

    • Content count

      3,218


  4. glyn

    glyn

    1000 Post Club


    • Points

      3

    • Content count

      3,122



Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 11/18/2017 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    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
  2. 1 point
    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
  3. 1 point
    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.
  4. 1 point
    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.
  5. 1 point
    Careful... Before I go off on this, let me say that the copyright statement on your site is virtually useless because almost no one does it properly. So, no matter what, it's not really going to be enough to establish copyright in any court. That said, the main reason to update your copyright date to the current year is so that when a user scrolls down to find out if the site is regularly updated, it's got the current year. A copyright that is 5 years old doesn't give much confidence that the information being presented is still valid - even though technically, a 5 year old copyright on a site that hasn't been changed in 5 years IS likely to be accurate. Okay. That out of the way... Be careful if you really want to do it right. If your site has a line that reads, "Copyright 2014 My Website - All Rights Reserved" and I download a copy of your site. Then 2015 comes around, and you change it to read "Copyright 2015 My Web Site - All Rights Reserved" - you've opened yourself up to troubles. Your site suggests your copyright is from 2015, and the copy I have says it's from 2014. My copy is BEFORE yours, so therefore, I could (theoretically) make a case that I have the copyright and YOU stole it from me. If that tagline was all there was involved, I'd win. My date is before yours. Plain and simple. A copyright date is the FIRST date of publication, not the current. Web sites are a little different because they are updated frequently. Your tagline should read "Copyright 2001-2015 - All Rights Reserved" with the 2001 being the first year you opened. A line like this indicates that the site has had revisions during EVERY year in between 2001 and 2015, too, though. If you only update every other year, for example, it should read "Copyright 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 [etc] - All rights reserved". The copyright legend should only include years where things have actually changed on your site. In theory, you shouldn't change the date line in your site until after you've made some sort of change to the copy. If you go in today and change the date, but haven't changed any copy, exactly what are you claiming right to? You already claimed right to what's there. Again, none of it "really" matters because no one does it right, and most people don't even bother filing even a poor man's copyright for their site content. BUT... if you want to do it right, DO NOT just change the year to the current year. No matter what, copyrights aren't about being current, it's about "who did it FIRST" - and your first year in the copyright line is far more important than your second year. Unless your web site is less than 1 year old, there NEEDS to be two years. The "First" year (the most important) and the "Last Year Changes/Revisions were made". Be careful, too, if you happen to have older things on a newer site. Maybe you created a new site to feature articles you wrote back in the 1990's. If you have a web site copyright that says the current year, and then you publish an article from 1992, you have copy on there that is from BEFORE the date of your copyright claim - thus that article is technically not copyrighted (at least by any claim you've made). If you have older things like this, you need to adjust your site copyright line to include the year of the first bit of copy you want to claim rights on - OR, just put "This article is copyright 1992" on that specific page. It's not about getting your copyright to the "current' year. Remember that. G.
×