"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dkiijd$1lah$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> __/ [Dan V.] on Saturday 05 November 2005 15:00 \__
>
>> I am attempting to rate search engine optimization tasks (internet
>> marketing) in general in order of most effective.
>> And then what % of time and money should be spent on each item. Please
>> feel free to add or delete and please rate them if you have a few
>> minutes.
>> If that is too generic for you, how about choosing an industry like (web
>> design).
>>
>> My first draft:
>>
>> What works best list for SEO (in order of priority):
>> ------------------------------
>> -link building
>> -text in incoming links
>> -building content
>> -sponsored search results
>> -Internal descriptive text linking
>> -pay per click advertising (contextual based advertising) like Google
>> Adwords
>> -Paid inclusion
>> -SEO page optimization (descriptive headers, sub headers, page Titles)
>> -having a blog
>> -Text Navigation (with each page having it's own context link e.g.: Home
>> >
>> Services > Web Design FAQ
>> -Site map page
>> -contributing to forums
>> -writing articles
>> -banner ads on other sites
>> -submitting to directories
>> -domain name itself
>> -words per page
>> -keyword density
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Where should the most time be spent on?
>> -----------------------------------------
>> -Link building -30%
>> -building content - 20%
>> -Pay per click 10%
>> etc...?
>>
>>
>> Where should the most money be spent on?
>> -------------------------------------------
>> ...
>>
>> Thanks I look forward to seeing the results!
>> Dan V.
>
> They are all factors to consider, no doubt. However, to rank them or embed
> them in a priority list, you will have to quantify them.
>
> Example:
>
> "link building" > having a blog (where '>' means "greater impact than")
>
> What link? How many links? Is anchor text (text in incoming links) not a
> subset of that? It's a trade-off where the investment (time) per reward
> ratio is the only means by which you can ever quantify.
>
> The model you look at should be more complex. It should be drawn as a
> graph perhaps. Here is one possibly way of categorising those points:
>
>
> -Links
> * incoming
> o text in incming links
> o link impact (e.g. PageRank & number of links in page)
> * outgoing
> o internal descriptive text linking
>
> -Building content
> * SEO page optimization (also helps users)
> o text navigation
> o site map page
> * having a blog (or under "Links")
> * contributing to forums
> * writing articles
>
> -Promotion/marketing
> * sponsored search results
> * paid inclusion
> o submitting to directories
> o banner ads on other sites
> * pay per click advertising
>
> -SEO-specifics
> *domain name itself
> *words per page
> *keyword density
>
>
> I didn't spend much effort on this, but I think you ought to make this hi-
> erarchical and hence better-structured. There is also repeatability of
> points, which rather than contribute, might confuse the reader and add
> clutter. People are good at remembering lists of at most 7 items. Use lev-
> elling to make the points more 'digestable'.
>
> Hope it helps,
>
> Roy
Excellent points Roy! As you can see I am very new to this and it is more
organized.
I guess I should also put submitting to free directories under Promotion.
Is it not implicit that a has greater impact then b when you have an ordered
list of priorities?
You could prioritise cateogories first, then rank sub points in each
category, and lastly, what I proposed, is just ranking every point.
Or am I missing something?
|
|
