Latest from the Essentee blog
Keywords in the URL or Filename
In a recent You Tube video, Matt Cutts from Google answers the question which is better (by better, we mean which does Google...
In a recent You Tube video, Matt Cutts from Google answers the question which is better (by better, we mean which does Google...
Wednesday, 12 August 2009 14:15
We had a bit of a debate around the office about whether you should use and repeat keywords in your title tag or not. For example: Essentee web design, designs for websites, amazing web design in auckland ...
Remember that the title tag is what appears as the link in search engine results, in browser
Monday, 27 July 2009 07:09
Chitika (makes me want to sing that Abba song), a search advertising business reported that the ad click rate for Google is 0.97%. For Yahoo it's 1.24%.
These are useful figures to have at hand for people who want to know what sort of response level they should be getting for their advertising spend.
It sounds low, but according to Maxum, the average response rate to the old fashion direct-to-your-snail-mailbox marketing is only 2%. Whew - that's a lot of trees.
The average conversion rate for websites
Tuesday, 21 July 2009 11:18
Everyone's talking about Twitter. For a change, this post is not to point out that Twitter does not make money and it's still a mystery to most as to how they plan on doing so. To balance it out, here's some reasons to use Twitter if you're in business.
Sunday, 19 July 2009 12:01
Recently spotted - an ad by a local organisation who were looking for a "website marketer". This person would be responsible for the design and maintenance of the online presence of this particular organisation, as well as the development of 'strategic partnerships' and 'response-driven digital marketing strategy and initiatives'.
Ok - design, maintenance and a strategy. Good to have. Expecting one individual to work on maintenance on one hand and strategy on the other will either present a stretch for someone operating at a maintenance level, or boring and tedious tasks for a strategic operator. But you never know, some people like working at both levels for a bit of variety.
But what inspired this post is the skills/qualifications being sought:
How realistic is it to expect to find someone who (regardless of the level they operate at) has a marketing orientation as well as abilities in all those other areas?. It would be a very rare individual indeed who did all these things well, and you would assume the organisation in questions wants that - as opposed to someone who is rubbish at one or more.
You tend to find these web related skills grouped something like this (if grouped at all, some people are very good at one thing and that's ok too):
The point being, not all together. Of course it depends on what level of 'knowledge of web design and programming' they want.
Why does this happen in the web field? You don't see ads such as this:
Wanted: Experienced test pilot. As well as at least 20 years of commercial airline experience, applicants must also be skilled in designing avionics systems, and have a demonstrated ability to deliver quality in-flight service including the design of refreshment plans and menu's. They also must have a degree in meteorological analysis and forecasting, and impeccable grooming. Ability to land a plane in a river with no loss of life would be considered advantageous.
From a web professional's perspective, this kind of recruitment strategy does not help our industry. If organisations are serious about doing well online, they need to get serious about recruiting the right skills for the job. Like most other business disciplines, there is a range of skills required and if you don't have an organisation big enough to recruit a team with the relevant composite skills then you should probably consider out-sourcing parts or looking at other flexible options to get the skills you need. Otherwise it simply leads to compromise of quality, missed opportunities and stressed, over-stretched employees. Not to mention less than wowed customers.
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 08:37
’Lifestyle Lift’ Will Pay $300,000 in Penalties and Costs to New York State. (Thanks to Matt Cutts for the tweet on this).
A plastic surgery provider was caught (and done) for publishing fake positive consumer reviews online.
Many an ethically challenged marketeer or black-hat SEOer have probably tried this and called it 'smart marketing'. But "Astroturfing" which Wikipedia defines as "formal political advertising or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous grassroots behavior" was described by New York's Attorney General as fraud and illegal - not to mention cynical and manipulative. Go the legislators!!
Apparently the company decided to control negative messages about the company - dooh! How about you improve your product and services instead. And you could be upfront about how you are solving any problems. The cost to the company in terms of negative PR is probably much greater than the 300k fine.
Many businesses publish customer testimonials on their websites, which naturally are going to be positive. If you do this, make sure they are genuine. If you provide a customer forum, accept all comments (barring those that don't comply to standard forum rules) and take the opportunity to show people how you have gone about rectifying any problems or faults. And make sure you use the feedback to improve your products and processes - complaints are a great source of information about what is not working for your customers!
And if you are going to write commentary or product review pieces about your own business - make sure you include and appropriate disclaimer .
There is another side to this of course, and that is negative public outrage and comment stirred up by political parties that exploit citizen ignorance and emotions - but that's a story for another time (and someone else's blog!)
Wednesday, 08 July 2009 23:15
An article on A List Apart about Content Templates elicited an "OMG - yes...". Even the most focused and decision-friendly client can present a massive challenge when it comes to getting them to actually provide the content.
Problems range far and wide:
I'll be adding content templates to my list of 1001 things-to-do-before Monday. Underneath the item 'write a guide on providing good content'.
Wednesday, 08 July 2009 10:00
So, Google has announced it is developing an operating system for personal computers.
I'm all for competition in a market dominated by a product that is sold knowing it does not work as it supposed to and frankly drives me nuts.
But I'm less enthusiastic about a product designed (at least initially) to "to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds".
A hardware/software combo product (like netbooks) that does this for people who only do stuff online is all very well, but Google will need to think deeper if they want to seriously challenge Microsoft's operating systems. Window's may have been designed in an era before the internet, but a lot of things we did then - we still do now. And cloud computing is a) still hotly debated and b) yet to take off.
A great deal of what I do on my PC has nothing to do with the web and I have no desire to have to be online to do it. I want to be an individual - isolated in my cocoon thank you very much.
Maybe doing everything online is the way of the future but I think that future is a way off yet, and it will be one greatly more concerned about security, privacy and individual identity. We may not want to be permanently and inextricably connected as a small cog in a very big system. You could argue that Google's thinking is based on current reality and assumptions that could significantly change.
Guess we'll see...
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 09:52
Today I read a tweet that someone had joined WeFollow. Looked interesting so I checked it out.
What WeFollow does is reasonably self explanatory - according to the page title it's a 'A User Powered Twitter Directory'.
But I'm a bit slow and a bit suspicious so I like to find out more about a service before I sign up for it. But I couldn't find any page or section that described what WeFollow does.
The Terms and Conditions state under the section 'Description of Service' that " Subject to full compliance with the Terms of Use, WeFollow may offer to provide certain services and content, as described more fully on the Site, ("Services"). Ok - so where are they described "more fully'?.
Perhaps someone will find it and tell me where it is, but the point is that it should be easy to find the description of a service.
What was of even more concern was that if you click on 'Add Yourself to WeFollow' Twitter asks for permission to access and update your data and a friendly reminder to "ensure you trust this website with your information before proceeding". I question anyones ability to do that without knowing exactly what the site does and doesn't do - as stated by the provider.
WeFollow was developed by Kevin Rose who was involved in starting up Digg. I only know this from reading an article on CNET - which I searched for to find out what WeFollow was and how it worked. Helpfully, the article also told me what you have to do to add yourself.
WeFollow will probably be picked up by a lot of Twitter users, particularly those that have been around for a while. But if Twitter goes main-stream (assuming it will) application developers will have to do better if they want to attract late or cautious adopters. Or they risk being overtaken by those that do the basics better.
These kinds of omissions aren't uncommon, so in fairness WeFollow aren't alone. In fact many web sites fail to provide a clear description of who they are and what they do. So, we'd recommend the following for all web sites and services:
Monday, 29 June 2009 11:07
Google's informal motto - "Don't be Evil" is reflected in the principals behind Google's page ranking in that they actively try and penalise websites that engage in less-than-ethical practises to get their site's listed on the front page of search results. One reason why you shouldn't employ them - it's hard to become un-blacklisted.
Black Hat SEO are techniques used to improve search engine results page (SERP) performance in an unethical way. Unethical because they break search engine rules and create poor user experiences. While not 'illegal', these techniques are frowned on by search engines and the SEO community. Although they work in the short term, if you are contemplating paying someone to improve your SERP ranking and they employ any of these techniques you risk getting your site de-listed. Also, the results are not sustainable so you're likely wasting your money anyway.
These techniques include:
Maybe not black hat, but of dubious value is submission to "100's" or even "1000's" of directories.
There are people (supposed SEO experts) who will dazzle you with a high Google ranking in "just 45 minutes" or similar - and it can be done. But ultimately its not sustainable and hard to fix if you get banned - Google represents nearly 70% of search engine usage so it would not be a trivial matter if they dumped your site off their lists.
Good SEO takes time and effort to do and to get results.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 18:33
According to a poll by Smashing Magazine, 63% of the people polled never or very rarely subscribe to email newsletters.
Judging by the comments about Twitter in particular, I'd suggest that this is going to emerge as the preferred way to receive news and updates as more and more people start using Twitter.
