Q: Manual SE web site submission?
Christopher A Krokos
others don't work at all.
Is it wise to submit the site to more than one website
submission sites and not to kill your indexing efforts?
Regards,
---
Chris
ato_zee
the category - in your case something like art, fine art, galleries
and so on down through the categories, looking all the time
to see if one of the sub categories offers sculpture as a sub
category. You can't have this degree of control with submission
engines.
"Christopher A Krokos" <Kro...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06ajht85u5aadq1or...@4ax.com...
John Buchanan
Absolutely not. I don't personally recommend these submission sites at
all. Most of them are a waste of money. If you do use them and you
were to submit to more than one, then you will be submitting the same
pages through different services to the engines and this could cause
problems for you.
I would recommend either submitting by hand, or use a GOOD submission
software such as CommandoPro.
It'll cost a bit, but in my opinion, its the best piece of submission
software out there.
---
John Buchanan
--------------------
http://www.se-secrets.com
admin@se-secrets NOSPAMFORME .com
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Kookaburra Technology Consulting
I would suggest you to use manual submission. Download for example TopDog
trial from http://www.topdog.com and find in the list of the 262 Search
Engine the ADDURL button which directs you to the page where you can
manually add your URL for each SE.
Kind regards,
Walther van der Pol
Certified Search Engine Specialist
Kookaburra Technology Consulting
www.kookaburra-tc.com.au
in...@kookaburra-tc.com.au
"Christopher A Krokos" <Kro...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06ajht85u5aadq1or...@4ax.com...
Christopher A Krokos
<admin@se-secrets_NOSPAMFORME_.com> wrote:
John,
>Absolutely not. I don't personally recommend these submission sites at
>all. Most of them are a waste of money.[............cut............]
I agree with you 100% and my intention is to make submission manually.
Where should I go to submit manually and for free?
Only one manual submission site or many and where are they?
Regards,
---
Chris
Christopher A Krokos
wrote:
>I prefer to submit manually........
Which submission site or sites should I use?
>.................................In some cases you need to enter
>the category - in your case something like art, fine art, galleries
>and so on down through the categories, looking all the time
>to see if one of the sub categories offers sculpture as a sub
>category. You can't have this degree of control with submission
>engines.
Oh boy! How to find those submission engines and which are the
best one?
Thanks,
---
Chris
Christopher A Krokos
<in...@kookaburra.com.au> wrote:
Hello Walter :-)
>I would suggest you to use manual submission. Download for example TopDog
>trial from http://www.topdog.com and find in the list of the 262 Search
>Engine the ADDURL button which directs you to the page where you can
>manually add your URL for each SE.
Thank you for pointing me into the right direction. Certainly I will
follow your advise.
Is a "trial" version as good as the paid one at topdog.com?
Regards,
---
Christopher A Krokos
Kro...@Yahoo.com
Eric Jarvis
submitting manually means going to each separate search engine
and submitting the site directly to them
this allows you to tailor the submission precisely to the
particular SE...keep a record of where and when you submit the
site
use either http://www.searchenginebase.com or
http://www.searchenginewatch.com to find the SEs
make sure you read each SE's submission policy BEFORE you submit
the site...they are all different
--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Kookaburra Technology Consulting
With the Trial you have only access to 5 Search Engines, but can still use
the addurl feature for all of them.
Regards,
Walther.
"Christopher A Krokos" <Kro...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sp4pht4qtnkhqoilo...@4ax.com...
Christopher A Krokos
<fr...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>submitting manually means going to each separate search engine
>and submitting the site directly to them
Understood, thanks :-) Do they charge a FEE for submitting your
site?
>this allows you to tailor the submission precisely to the
>particular SE...
Understood...
>keep a record of where and when you submit the site
Thanks, I didn't know about keeping the record...
>use either http://www.searchenginebase.com or
>http://www.searchenginewatch.com to find the SEs
Thanks a Million :-)
>make sure you read each SE's submission policy BEFORE
>you submit the site...they are all different
Understood and does it mean that I may submit my site
to SE A,B, and C but because of specific profile of
the site I can't submit to SE D and E?
Thank you,
Eric Jarvis
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:42:36 +0100, Eric Jarvis
> <fr...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >submitting manually means going to each separate search engine
> >and submitting the site directly to them
>
> Understood, thanks :-) Do they charge a FEE for submitting your
> site?
>
I never pay for site submission...I normally work for voluntary
organisations and charities...for a commercial site I'd reckon
paying for Yahoo and Inktomi would be the only ones worth it
>
> >this allows you to tailor the submission precisely to the
> >particular SE...
>
> Understood...
>
> >keep a record of where and when you submit the site
>
> Thanks, I didn't know about keeping the record...
>
no point submitting to the same place twice...and you can query
them if they don't list your site if you have date and time you
submitted
>
> >use either http://www.searchenginebase.com or
> >http://www.searchenginewatch.com to find the SEs
>
> Thanks a Million :-)
>
> >make sure you read each SE's submission policy BEFORE
> >you submit the site...they are all different
>
> Understood and does it mean that I may submit my site
> to SE A,B, and C but because of specific profile of
> the site I can't submit to SE D and E?
>
often...it will often mean you have to submit to a directory
category rather than a database...it may specify exactly how you
need to write your description...a lot of places insist that you
don't use words and phrases like "world's best" or "premier" and
just make a factual description
ato_zee
get some or all of their results from directories. Directories tend
to have a hierachy of categories and human editors, to eliminate
adult content in inappropriate places, for a start. Directories aim
to index quality sites, and rank them by quality, both content and
technical quality. Like conformance with HTML standards, Netscape
as well as IE compatibility, no broken links or missing pages, alt
tags for all images. Producing pages with Front Page, and even
Dreamweaver, can produce seriously sick HTML. Get a good
HTML checker. Then aim to get in DMOZ, Inktomi etc.
DMOZ is www.dmoz.org. Inktomi used to be via www.canada.com
but not sure if you can still get in that way. No search engine wants
complaints from parents, or anyone else for that matter, that their
precious offspring looking for music MP3's has found hard porn,
on line casino's, or whatever. So SE's are increasingly turning to
directories.After the directories, work on the main SE's themselves.
Keeing records as you go. Search for your listing by keywords
after a month, if you can't find yourself, resubmit. After 6 months to
a year if your site is well though out you should see the results of
your efforts. It isn't a quick, easy, or painless process, more a case
of hard slog, and being methodical.
"Christopher A Krokos" <Kro...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:423pht06mfaaesfu0...@4ax.com...
Christopher A Krokos
<fr...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
Eric, thank you for the load of important info again :-)
>I never pay for site submission...I normally work for voluntary
>organisations and charities...for a commercial site I'd reckon
>paying for Yahoo and Inktomi would be the only ones worth it
Understood!
>> >keep a record of where and when you submit the site
>no point submitting to the same place twice...and you can query
>them if they don't list your site if you have date and time you
>submitted
Understood, thank you...
>often...it will often mean you have to submit to a directory
>category rather than a database...it may specify exactly how you
>need to write your description...a lot of places insist that you
>don't use words and phrases like "world's best" or "premier" and
>just make a factual description
Understood :-)
Kind Regards,
Christopher A Krokos
wrote:
>There are search engines and directories. Many search engines
>get some or all of their results from directories. Directories tend
>to have a hierachy of categories and human editors, to eliminate
>adult content in inappropriate places, for a start.
Understood...
>.................................................Directories aim
>to index quality sites, and rank them by quality, both content and
>technical quality. Like conformance with HTML standards, Netscape
>as well as IE compatibility, no broken links or missing pages, alt
>tags for all images.
I don't use Alt Tags at all, don't know how to create them :-)
Q: Where and how to check my site for "quality"?
>......................Producing pages with Front Page, and even
>Dreamweaver, can produce seriously sick HTML. Get a good
>HTML checker.
Now you made me really scare. I produced my site with simple
Microsoft Publisher 2000. How BAD is it???
Any recommendations for one good HTML checker?
>........................Then aim to get in DMOZ, Inktomi etc.
>DMOZ is www.dmoz.org. Inktomi used to be via www.canada.com
>but not sure if you can still get in that way.
Understood...
>..........................................No search engine wants
>complaints from parents, or anyone else for that matter, that their
>precious offspring looking for music MP3's has found hard porn,
>on line casino's, or whatever.
I agree...
>...............................So SE's are increasingly turning to
>directories.After the directories, work on the main SE's themselves.
>Keeing records as you go. Search for your listing by keywords
>after a month, if you can't find yourself, resubmit.
A great point to know...
>..................................................After 6 months to
>a year if your site is well though out you should see the results of
>your efforts. It isn't a quick, easy, or painless process, more a case
>of hard slog, and being methodical.
Well, one would never estimate that SE submission may and will take
as much as 6-12 months.
Thanks a Million :-)
Calum I Mac Leod
<Kro...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 20:30:12 +0100, "ato_zee" <ato...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>I don't use Alt Tags at all, don't know how to create them :-)
Bad, bad Christopher! ;-)
Without Alt attributes (which happen to live in IMG and AREA opening
tags) the user can't use the site properly if he/she doesn't get the
images.
Search engines don't read text in images, so if you have a logo that
says "Christopher's Page" with no alt text then unless you have the
text elsewhere the search engine won't be able to list you under a
search for "Christopher". If you have a link that's just an image
without alt text then imagine how hard it is for a visually impaired
user. If you have a Web site in the UK, US or Australia then you
might worry about the legal problems of excluding blind people.
There are times when you don't need alt text, but you still use the
alt attribute. Why? Because you should let the user know that you've
not forgotten. You can use alt="" for that. eg.
<A href="contact.html">
<IMG src="contact.gif" alt=""><BR>Contact Me
</A>
Anyway, from a search engine point of view alt text is good, but on
some engines you'll be much better off if you also have 'normal' text
with your main words in.
>Q: Where and how to check my site for "quality"?
These two check yout HTML against the SGML or XML rules. The results
should normally be the same, but the first often has better error
messages. The second is run by the people who write the HTML rules.
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/
http://validator.w3.org
This is designed to check for problems with blind or visually impaired
access. Because search engines don't read images, it also helps sport
major errors.
None of these tests tell you everything, and if you're looking to
avoid your site breaking in Web browsers (most of which follow the
standards very poorly), then you'll need to test, and learn the bugs
at css.nu/pointers/bugs.html and http://style.webreview.com
>>......................Producing pages with Front Page, and even
>>Dreamweaver, can produce seriously sick HTML. Get a good
>>HTML checker.
>
>Now you made me really scare. I produced my site with simple
>Microsoft Publisher 2000. How BAD is it???
<snip>
We're in a search engine group, so it's very, very bad. The only
worse things I can think of are Flash and PDF (for Web content, as
opposed to multimedia/print-ready downloads).
You might want to learn some HTML and fix your publisher generaled
(non-)HTML, or you could just learn some HTML and put it together
yourself. You might even find it quicker once you get used to it.
http://www.htmlhelp.com is really good for learning HTML, if it had
been there when I started I could have saved myself a lot of time.
>Well, one would never estimate that SE submission may and will take
>as much as 6-12 months.
I'm afraid so. You should hope to see your first listings much sooner
than that (in some engines), but by the time they've indexed the rest
of your pages and counted a few high quality links you might have
waited that long. (eg. yahoo.com & dmoz.org if you can get in.)
Hope this helps,
Calum
--
Calum I Mac Leod
"[...] they are trying to turn the entire site into the
same format as their power point presentation. This does
not work for the web." - Allan Webber in uk.net.web.authoring
Anthony Butcher
> submitting manually means going to each separate search engine
> and submitting the site directly to them
>
> this allows you to tailor the submission precisely to the
> particular SE...keep a record of where and when you submit the
> site
I know that Top Dog (autosubmitter) keeps this information as well - and can ensure that submissions are not repeated more than once
per month (or week). I presume that other position checkers/submitters do the same, and it's a lot easier than keeping hand written
records ;-)
--
Anthony Butcher
--------------------------------------
Search Engine Warriors
http://www.searchenginewarriors.com
--------------------------------------
mail: to...@searchenginewarriors.com
cyril_the_squirrel
says...
> snip
> Search engines don't read text in images, so if you have a logo that
> says "Christopher's Page" with no alt text then unless you have the
> text elsewhere the search engine won't be able to list you under a
> search for "Christopher". If you have a link that's just an image
> without alt text then imagine how hard it is for a visually impaired
> user. If you have a Web site in the UK, US or Australia then you
> might worry about the legal problems of excluding blind people.
How would a visually impaired person see the alt text if they couldn't
see the picture?
ato_zee
"cyril_the_squirrel" <why_a...@this.pig.sty.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.158926d9d...@news.btinternet.com...
Eric Jarvis
wrote...
> "Eric Jarvis" <fr...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.1586c7f5c...@news.cwcom.net...
>
> > submitting manually means going to each separate search engine
> > and submitting the site directly to them
> >
> > this allows you to tailor the submission precisely to the
> > particular SE...keep a record of where and when you submit the
> > site
>
> I know that Top Dog (autosubmitter) keeps this information as well - and can ensure that submissions are not repeated more than once
> per month (or week). I presume that other position checkers/submitters do the same, and it's a lot easier than keeping hand written
> records ;-)
>
easier yep...but not as flexible...I'm starting to build up a
rather wonderful selection of observations on each SE
OTOH I'm full time on a single site...I have the time to do
this, not everyone will
Eric Jarvis
why_a...@this.pig.sty.co.uk wrote...
text to speech browser
better learn about them...most countries are passing laws that
make it illegal to build commercial or public service sites that
aren't usable by blind visitors
Calum I Mac Leod
wrote:
>"cyril_the_squirrel" <why_a...@this.pig.sty.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MPG.158926d9d...@news.btinternet.com...
>> In article <3b1e63d2....@news.ukgateway.net>, ca...@bordernet.co.uk
>> says...
>> > [...]If you have a link that's just an image without alt text
>> > then imagine how hard it is for a visually impaired user.[...]
>>
>> How would a visually impaired person see the alt text if they couldn't
>> see the picture?
>
>The visually impaired use text to speech.
Yup, and even deaf _and_ blind people can use (expensive) real-time
Braille displays. I've never seen (or felt) one, but it's usually a
row of raised dots that move up and down.
The SEO point, of course, is that if a site is inaccessible to blind
people, it's very likely inaccessible to search engines. There's
little point working on search engine optimisation until you've made
sure that the robots will be able to get to your content at all.
Calum
--
Calum I Mac Leod
"The Semantic Web is an attempt, largely, to map large quantities of
existing data onto a common langauge so that the data can be
analysed in ways never dreamed of by its creators" - Tim BL 1998
cpliu
> There are times when you don't need alt text, but you still use the
> alt attribute. Why? Because you should let the user know that you've
> not forgotten. You can use alt="" for that. eg.
>
> <A href="contact.html">
> <IMG src="contact.gif" alt=""><BR>Contact Me
> </A>
>
have for alt tag? Can you put a paragraph there. For example, if you
have a Flash animation to explain a process, can you put the whole
content into alt so SE can still find the content? Does SE check the
file name at all? So, instead of using chart.swf, will SE look at this
file differently if it's named "xyz_process_chart.swf?" I read in a
book, it's better to name you files meaningfully instead 1, 2, 3, etc...
Thanks for the help,
cpliu
John Buchanan
I'm not aware of any limit to what you can put in an alt tag. I have
seen some pretty huge paragraphs put in them. In general, I would
recommend trying to split the paragraph up between a few alt tags, but
sometimes that may not be possible.
As for the filenames, it won't make a big difference, but it certainly
can't hurt. Some engines will make note of this, and others could care
less.
Hope that helps.
John Buchanan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE INSIDER'S GUIDE TO DOMINATING THE SEARCH ENGINES
http://www.se-secrets.com
Search Engine Bulletin - Free SEO Newsletter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Calum I Mac Leod
<admin@se-NO_SPAM_FOR_MEsecrets.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:16:40 GMT, cpliu <chanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'm pretty new to this game. Sorry if it's too naive. How long can you
>>have for alt tag? Can you put a paragraph there. For example, if you
>>have a Flash animation to explain a process, can you put the whole
>>content into alt so SE can still find the content? Does SE check the
>>file name at all? So, instead of using chart.swf, will SE look at this
>>file differently if it's named "xyz_process_chart.swf?" I read in a
>>book, it's better to name you files meaningfully instead 1, 2, 3, etc...
>
>seen some pretty huge paragraphs put in them.
HTML doesn't seem to have a limit, but I'd be slightly worried about
arousing search engine suspicions. Also, there's no facility to use
paragraphs, headings, images, or links.
>In general, I would
>recommend trying to split the paragraph up between a few alt tags, but
>sometimes that may not be possible.
There's probably a more efficient way. The OBJECT element can have
content. The following depends slightly on how cpliu is linking to
his Flash file from his pages.
Personally I'd use NOEMBED inside OBJECT if I wanted to embed Flash.
The following is a little long (so feel free to skip the rest), but I
thought it might be interesting to see what the vendor tells us.
Although this ostensibly is mostly about HTML, the effect that these
people have had in making large amounts of content inaccessible to
search engines shouldn't be underestimated.
First I found "Using Flash Player on your Web site". It seemed like a
good place to find the best way to bind Flash to HTML. This is from
May 21, 1999. Keep in mind that the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation on 5-May-1999 (there had
been much-discussed working drafts from 03-Feb-1998).
http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/how/shock/wizard/
"...there are several strategies you can use to ensure that visitors
to your Flash sites have a pleasant experience and aren't hampered
by the plug-in process..."
These are:
- Require Flash
- Browser Detection
- Just use GIFs
Needless to say, the content of these is depressing. The "Require
Flash" option tells us "...You only need to author your content
once..." (search engines won't be too impressed), the "Just use GIFs"
approach doesn't mention alt text, and the browser detection tells us
this:
"...The second step determines whether you want to check for Flash
Player on an element-by-element basis or at the front door. Although
many factors are involved, the decision you make depends mainly on
(a) how likely it is that most of your traffic will come in through
the front door, and (b) how likely it is that more than 1percent of
your traffic will be use browsers that support neither JavaScript or
ActiveX (for example, AOL's Macintosh-based browser)..."
Bad, bad bad. Server logs tend to underestimate the likes of AOL,
WebTV and the populous of places like New Zealand (who use compulsory
proxy caches). Googlebot is less than 1% of my hits, but that's no
reason to block it out.
Elsewhere, though, they do tell us how to JavaScript escape the
following:
ALT="Your browser doesn\'t support Flash Player").
;-( Could it be much worse?
They do, eventually come to a sort of compromise.
http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/how/shock/javaplugs/javaplugs05.html
<H3><A HREF="nonflashed.html">See the unFlashed Site</A></H3>
Of course that's hardly best practice from the point of view of
usability or search engine optimisation, but I suppose it's a start.
Looking around further, I find this.
http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/ts/documents/tag_attributes.htm
It was last updated on January 11, 2001. It doesn't mention NOEMBED
or other OBJECT content. It does, however refer to TechNote 4150,
"Flash OBJECT and EMBED Tag Syntax"
http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/ts/documents/tn4150.html
<OBJECT CLASSID="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"
WIDTH="100" HEIGHT="100"
CODEBASE="http://active.macromedia.com/flash5/cabs/
swflash.cab#version=5,0,0,0">
<PARAM NAME="MOVIE" VALUE="moviename.swf">
<PARAM NAME="PLAY" VALUE="true">
<PARAM NAME="LOOP" VALUE="true">
<PARAM NAME="QUALITY" VALUE="high">
<EMBED SRC="moviename.swf" WIDTH="100" HEIGHT="100" PLAY="true"
LOOP="true" QUALITY="high"
PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash">
</EMBED>
</OBJECT>
That was last updated: September 8, 2000, and is bad advice.
Eventually, I found Macromedia's TechNote on alternative content, last
updated July 21, 2000.
http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/ts/documents/alt_tag.htm
"...In some cases, it may be useful to create a single page for a
site, intended to function in all these devices. For instance, the
NOEMBED tag could be used to provide text representations for
browsers which do not support Netscape plug-ins..."
Why just a single page, if the Flash movie is meant to convey a whole
site?
"...Instead of making one page designed to display across various
types of devices, it may be more polite to offer one page optimized
for text, another optimized for small displays and one more page
optimized for spoken delivery..."
They go on to suggest using frames. They may have something that
better reflects their stated aims on usability and accessibility, but
I couldn't find it. Search engine spidering required accessibility,
and SEO is analogous with WWW usability.
It's hardly surprising that so many people put search engine (and
visually impaired) inaccessible content with Macromedia's products
when the accessiblity advice exists in a maze of bad authoring advice.
Even when we do find the token accessibility information, it's
below-par.
Calum
--
Calum I Mac Leod
ALT="Your browser doesn\'t support Flash Player")
- misguided advice from Macromedia