An exercise to get your site in shape!

Written by Kerri Reeves

Submitting your web site to search engines isrepparttar single-most important step, to bringing in a flood of targeted traffic.

These people are actively seeking you out when they type your keywords into that little search box. Question is "Arerepparttar 128411 keywords they're using, repparttar 128412 same keywords you're using?" and if so, "How relevant are these keywords to what you're selling?"

You see, when you submit your web site to a search engine, some will ask you for a list of keywords *relevant* to your web site.

Other search engines will only send a spider to your site to look at your content. What they do, is take a kind of inventory ofrepparttar 128413 words you use on your main page. Whichever words you use most often on this page,repparttar 128414 spider will assume that's what your site is about and will base your listing on these words.

Then there are those search engines that will base your listing onrepparttar 128415 keyword and description tags withinrepparttar 128416 heading tag of your page.

We are going to focus on gettingrepparttar 128417 right keywords inrepparttar 128418 right places (optimizing) forrepparttar 128419 free-to-get-listed search engines; then we will move on torepparttar 128420 pay-per-click andrepparttar 128421 pay-per- inclusion engines.

Before you begin compiling your list of keywords, you need to do a little bit of research.

Start by putting yourself in your customer's shoes. Pretend that you know nothing about your product or service; this can be very difficult to do. The best way to find out what keywords your customers may use, is to ask them. Using your spouse or your friends as guinea pigs, isrepparttar 128422 easiest way to do this.

Without telling them what your site is about, give them a very vague idea; as most of your customers really don't have any idea that they need your product. For example, you might say, "Honey, if you wanted to make some extra money for Christmas gifts this year, what words would you type in this little box?"

If your spouse hasrepparttar 128423 time and is willing to help you out, ask him/her to go to at least 3 different search engines and conduct at least 3-5 searches, using different keywords and phrases each time. Also, be sure that she/he clicks on a few ofrepparttar 128424 results, but onlyrepparttar 128425 ones she/he feels is relevant her/his search.

Note: Most internet marketers are alone in their work. Meaning, many timesrepparttar 128426 spouse ofrepparttar 128427 marketer usually doesn't know how internet marketing works. (My husband can't even turn on a computer!) Allow your spouse to use any keyword or phrases she/he needs to find what she/he is looking for. There are no wrong answers here and you'll learn a lot more if she/he isn't given a lesson in search engines beforehand.

Where Are Search Engines Going? Paid Inclusion Trend Emerges

Written by Mike Banks Valentine

The Search Engine Strategies conference and show, sponsored by AltaVista, Search Engine Watch and on August 16-17 provided a glimpse of several emerging search trends,repparttar biggest trend is toward "Paid Inclusion." The show, held in San Francisco atrepparttar 128410 Fairmont Hotel on Nob Hill, provided a look at where search is headed.

Paid inclusion isrepparttar 128411 latest of several revenue producing models considered by search engines asrepparttar 128412 cost of indexing a much larger and more complex web increases and advertising revenue declines. Paid inclusion was started quietly by several previously free search engines as a revenue producing move recently.

Virtually everyone scrambled for new business models when banner advertising effectiveness declined steeply in 2001. Search engines had relied heavily on banner advertising to generaterepparttar 128413 only income they were seeing in sparse times. Whenrepparttar 128414 tech economy took a nosedive in 2001,repparttar 128415 justification given by advertising companies for continued banner advertising was now as a "Branding" strategy rather than a sales technique.

To satisfy investor demands for such absurd things as "profit"repparttar 128416 search engines began probing for new cash infusions and realized that they could no longer rely on advertising to support free submissions. Since nobody was looking at banner ads any more (or at least not clicking through) support for free search listing nearly disappeared.

Who benefits from search engines most? Those who receiverepparttar 128417 traffic from searches. Simple. Who should pay for that traffic? Those who gain that traffic. Simple. How do you charge them? Ah! Now things get more complex. wasrepparttar 128418 first to introducerepparttar 128419 novel idea of charging businesses for traffic generation directly with "Keyword Bids" starting at a penny per click-through. Now companies began to bid for top positions knowing that being atrepparttar 128420 top ofrepparttar 128421 list was worth more traffic than being further downrepparttar 128422 page.

Reaction torepparttar 128423 CPC or cost per click model in 1998 was nearly unanimous fromrepparttar 128424 web community, especially while banner advertising revenues were still a viable business model for search engines. It was, "You can't charge for search listings! It'll never fly!" "Searchers won't trustrepparttar 128425 listings they receive on a pay-per-click basis because they are now 'tainted' with commercial results!" At that time, in 1998, nobody believed first, that people would pay for traffic and second, that searchers would trust paid listings.

It very quickly became apparent afterrepparttar 128426 decline in revenue from banner advertising in 2000 andrepparttar 128427 dismal performance of banners in delivering traffic that pay-per-click was actually going to work for GoTo. At that point several new pay for performance models were adopted by start-up PPC search engines, and being first to market withrepparttar 128428 idea, GoTo dominatedrepparttar 128429 crowd.

It was then thatrepparttar 128430 900 pound gorilla, Yahoo stunnedrepparttar 128431 web with a $199 charge for a review of a commercial web site. Wait, not $199 to be listed, but $199 to be LOOKED AT by a reviewer. It was still not a guarantee of inclusion inrepparttar 128432 directory! Search engines started thinking about that and realized that Yahoo hadrepparttar 128433 clout to demand money to be reviewed, not listed, but reviewed.

Whilerepparttar 128434 major search engines stewed onrepparttar 128435 dramatic move by Yahoo, they quickly realized that demanding money to be reviewed would not work for them because they actively sought out sites by sending "spiders" out to "crawl"repparttar 128436 web and index pages. Search engines wanted to be exhaustive in their coverage ofrepparttar 128437 web and catalogrepparttar 128438 entire thing, not justrepparttar 128439 good sites, but ALL of them!

When Google surpassedrepparttar 128440 1 billion page mark they tooted loudly that they had indexed more ofrepparttar 128441 web than anyone else. This was seen as a milestone in search history and becamerepparttar 128442 goal of many ofrepparttar 128443 top search engines. Let's indexrepparttar 128444 entire web! That prospect becomes very expensive for search companies and someone has to pay for it. But how? We can't all become pay-per-click engines if we want to index ALLrepparttar 128445 web, because only a limited number will pay to be listed. So they all stewed about it some more.

Meanwhile, several other directories followedrepparttar 128446 lead of Yahoo and began to charge to be listed. It became accepted at multiple directory sites, notably at LookSmart and NBCi. Several special interest and topical directories had been charging for listings longer, but directories that listed everyone had a harder time justifying those charges. Yahoo can do it becuaserepparttar 128447 entire world knows of Yahoo and wants to be seen there. Vertical portals can charge because they draw a very targeted searcher seeking specific businesses. It's worth paying for that targeted traffic.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use