Buying Text-Link Ads

Written by Dane Lyons

It is widely agreed that SEM (search engine marketing) is one of today’s most cost efficient and effective methods of marketing a web site. One ofrepparttar most important aspects of SEM is obtaining link popularity. For example, if you expect to rank high in Google forrepparttar 136268 search term “search engine optimization” it is important to have other sites link to you with “search engine optimization” withinrepparttar 136269 text ofrepparttar 136270 link. This is called anchor text. Generallyrepparttar 136271 more sites linking to you with your target keyword withinrepparttar 136272 anchor textrepparttar 136273 better. However, it should be noted that not all links are of equal value. There are two primary factors to consider when assessingrepparttar 136274 value of a link.

1. Link Weight An established site that has already obtained a fair amount of link popularity is generally a more valuable location to park your link. The Google Page Rank is a general assessment ofrepparttar 136275 link popularity of any given page. If a page has PR5 it is considered to have above average link popularity. For each 1 point increase in PRrepparttar 136276 link popularity is increased by about 7-10 times. So a PR6 link should theoretically be as valuable as 7-10 PR5 links but there is more torepparttar 136277 story. The weight of a page is distributed evenly to each link withinrepparttar 136278 page. Lets say we have two PR5 pages. One page has a total of 10 links,repparttar 136279 other has only one link. In this case it is about 10 times as valuable ,weight wise, to park your link onrepparttar 136280 page with only 1 link. It should also be noted that a PR6 page with 10 links is roughly equal to a PR5 page with only 1 link. Many webmasters only take into accountrepparttar 136281 link weight when purchasing a text link. Link weight in itself is not worth much. Link weight when combined with link relevance is another story entirely.

2. Link Relevance Link relevance is fairly straight forward in principle. It is more valuable to park your link on a site that is relevant torepparttar 136282 search term you are optimizing for than one that is not. Large search engines closely guard their ranking algorithm for determining link relevance and placement. People have been able to reverse engineerrepparttar 136283 PR equation but for something with as many factors as placement and relevance it is next to impossible. Therefore we can only speculate as to which terms are close in relevance and which are not. My opinion onrepparttar 136284 subject is you can’t go wrong with a page that is optimized forrepparttar 136285 exact term or even slight variations ofrepparttar 136286 term you are optimizing for. However, if you are considering optimizing for a term like “xbox” and you find a site to host your link that is optimized for “games” there is risk in believing these terms are relevant. Of course it can be inferred that these terms are relevant. After all, xbox is a major gaming platform but we have no idea how close in relevancerepparttar 136287 search engines consider these terms to be. To be safe value exact terms and variations ofrepparttar 136288 term to be highly relevant. All other terms within an industry such as items, buzz words…should be considered relevant. All other terms should be considered non-relevant.

Why Yahoo and the like are a waste of money

Written by Adrian Calow

It must be some sort of status symbol. Why else would anyone payrepparttar best part of $300 to get (a chance of being) listed?

I can here them now, sat somewhere in a wine bar. “Of course, one simply MUST be in Yahoo.” Everyone nodding in agreement. One poor guy shuffles his feet and stares at his shoes. “Please don’t ask me, please don’t ask me” he’s thinking to himself. “I couldn’t barerepparttar 119402 humiliation. I’ll lie, that’s it, and I’ll say we’re in!”

Now don’t get me wrong. If you are a large company then $300 is a drop inrepparttar 119403 ocean but forrepparttar 119404 average net entrepreneur it’s a waste of money.

Why? Because ofrepparttar 119405 competition. Here’s an example.

Let’s do a search at Yahoo for submission services. 335 results are showing. The person wanting this type of service looks atrepparttar 119406 first. While he’s reading their pitch, inrepparttar 119407 back of his mind he knows full well he’s spoilt for choice!

He stops reading and gives it a quick skim over then heads forrepparttar 119408 bottom line. Then he’s hitting that back button and clicking onrepparttar 119409 second inrepparttar 119410 list. He doesrepparttar 119411 same again and again and again!

Now I know that most people are not going to look at all 335 but when search engine experts tell you that you must be inrepparttar 119412 top 30 to get a hit. That’s exactly what they mean, a hit! They don’t mean a sale.

I would expect a reasonable service offered at a reasonable price and showing aroundrepparttar 119413 20 to 30 mark is going to be much more likely to getrepparttar 119414 sale thanrepparttar 119415 sites inrepparttar 119416 first 10.

Byrepparttar 119417 timerepparttar 119418 person gets torepparttar 119419 20’s and because they are merely skimmingrepparttar 119420 pages they have probably decided that once you’ve seen one submission services website, you’ve seen them all.

They will mentally deciderepparttar 119421 next one they come across that’s within their budget will do.

Net entrepreneurs rely on impulse buying butrepparttar 119422 search engines remove that fromrepparttar 119423 buyer by giving them sometimes thousands of options.

As webmasters we are constantly told traffic is king. When I meet othersrepparttar 119424 first question is nearly always “so how many hits are you getting?” followed by “how much are you making?”

Surely it should berepparttar 119425 other way around. Some months ago I received one of my favourite newsletters. In it was a small 3-line advert for some software that created e-books and allowed people to customizerepparttar 119426 book with their own links.

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