i-Marketingconsulting’s Blog – Marketing Digital Internacional

Entradas clasificadas como ‘Posicionamiento SEO/SEM’

Google mejora sus resultados en Estados Unidos!!

Diciembre 27, 2007 · Dejar un comentario

La empresa Hitwise, da a luz unos resultados que no me esperaba. Pensaba que en USA, el uso de Google esta estancado, y por lo visto no es así. Sino os lo veis claro, leer este artícula

Fuente : Hitwise

Google Received 64 Percent of U.S. Searches in October

Dominance continues with a six percent increase over last year

NEW YORK, NY – November 19, 2007 - Hitwise, the leading online competitive intelligence service, today announced that Google accounted for 64.49 percent of all U.S. Searches in the four weeks ending October 27, 2007. Yahoo! Search, MSN Search and Ask.com each received 21.65, 7.42 and 4.76 percent respectively. The remaining 49 search engines in the Hitwise Search Engine Analysis Tool accounted for 1.68 percent of U.S. searches.

Percentage of U.S. Searches Among Leading Search Engine Providers

 

Oct.-07

Sept.-07

Oct.-06

www.google.com

64.49%

63.55%

60.94%

search.yahoo.com

21.65%

22.55%

22.34%

search.msn.com

7.42%*

7.83%*

10.72%*

www.ask.com

4.76%

4.32%

4.34%

Note: Data is based on four week rolling periods (ending Oct. 27, 2007, Sept. 29, 2007, Oct. 28, 2006) from the Hitwise sample of 10 million US Internet users.

* – includes executed searches on Live.com and MSN Search.

Google an Increasing Source of Traffic to Key Industries

Search engines continue to be the primary way Internet users navigate to key industry categories. Comparing October 2007 to October 2006, the Travel, Entertainment and Business and Finance categories showed double digit increases in their share of traffic coming directly from search engines.

U.S. Category Upstream Traffic from Search Engines and Google – October 2007

Category

Percent of Category Traffic from Search Engines, Oct-07

Percent Change in Share of Traffic From Search Engines, Oct-07 – Oct-06

Percent of Category Traffic from Google, Oct-07

 
Health and Medical

45.14%

4%

29.08%

 
Travel

32.58%

12%

21.31%

 
Shopping and Classifieds

25.80%

1.9%

16.01%

 
News and Media

21.03%

7%

13.41%

 
Entertainment

21.69%

15%

12.93%

 
Business and Finance

17.02%

19%

10.36%

 
All figures are based on U.S. data from the Hitwise sample of 10 million Internet users.

Source: Hitwise

Blogged with Flock

Tags: ,

Categorías: Posicionamiento SEO/SEM

Google mejora sus resultados en Estados Unidos!!

Diciembre 27, 2007 · Dejar un comentario

La empresa Hitwise, da a luz unos resultados que no me esperaba. Pensaba que en USA, el uso de Google esta estancado, y por lo visto no es así. Sino os lo veis claro, leer este artícula

Fuente : Hitwise

Google Received 64 Percent of U.S. Searches in October

Dominance continues with a six percent increase over last year

NEW YORK, NY – November 19, 2007 - Hitwise, the leading online competitive intelligence service, today announced that Google accounted for 64.49 percent of all U.S. Searches in the four weeks ending October 27, 2007. Yahoo! Search, MSN Search and Ask.com each received 21.65, 7.42 and 4.76 percent respectively. The remaining 49 search engines in the Hitwise Search Engine Analysis Tool accounted for 1.68 percent of U.S. searches. 

Percentage of U.S. Searches Among Leading Search Engine Providers

Oct.-07

Sept.-07

Oct.-06

www.google.com

64.49%

63.55%

60.94%

search.yahoo.com

21.65%

22.55%

22.34%

search.msn.com

7.42%*

7.83%*

10.72%*

www.ask.com

4.76%

4.32%

4.34%

Note: Data is based on four week rolling periods (ending Oct. 27, 2007, Sept. 29, 2007, Oct. 28, 2006) from the Hitwise sample of 10 million US Internet users.

* – includes executed searches on Live.com and MSN Search.

Google an Increasing Source of Traffic to Key Industries

Search engines continue to be the primary way Internet users navigate to key industry categories.  Comparing October 2007 to October 2006, the Travel, Entertainment and Business and Finance categories showed double digit increases in their share of traffic coming directly from search engines.

U.S. Category Upstream Traffic from Search Engines and Google – October 2007

Category

Percent of Category Traffic from Search Engines, Oct-07

Percent Change in Share of Traffic From Search Engines, Oct-07 – Oct-06

Percent of Category Traffic from Google, Oct-07

Percent Change in Share of Traffic From Google, Oct-07 – Oct-06

Health and Medical

45.14%

4%

29.08%

6.17%

Travel

32.58%

12%

21.31%

23.54%

Shopping and Classifieds

25.80%

1.9%

16.01%

6.52%

News and Media

21.03%

7%

13.41%

11.01%

Entertainment

21.69%

15%

12.93%

16.17%

Business and Finance

17.02%

19%

10.36%

30.81%

All figures are based on U.S. data from the Hitwise sample of 10 million Internet users.

Source: Hitwise

Blogged with Flock

Tags: ,

Categorías: Posicionamiento SEO/SEM

Nuestro blog continua pero en nuestra web.

Diciembre 20, 2007 · Comentarios desactivados

Podeis seguir viendo nuestro blog en www.i-marketingconsulting.com/wordpress
Ahora hemos instalado wordpress en nuestro servidor, para poder optimizar el blog.

Saludos,

Xavier Rivera
CEO i-Marketing Consulting.

Categorías: Bienvenidos · Eventos - Jornadas · Marketing Digital Internacional · Posicionamiento SEO/SEM · web 2.0

¿Dónde pongo mis palabras clave ?

Diciembre 18, 2007 · Dejar un comentario

Des de i-Marketing Consulting, ayudamos a empresas a mejorar su posicionamiento mediente la buena elección de palabras clave a posicionar y sobretodo sabiendo donde colocar estas palabras clave en la web de la empresa.
En esta artículo podeis ver muy claramente como poner vuestras palabras clave en vuestra web, para mejorar vuestro posicionamiento, y si no mejora, ya sabes a quién acudir ;-) .

fuente: www.seomoz.com – Posted by randfish on Mon (12/17/07)

Keyword Usage & Targeting

Keywords are fundamental to the search process - they are the building blocks of language and of search. In fact, the entire science of information retrieval (including web-based search engines like Google) is based on keywords. As the engines crawl and index the contents of pages around the web, they keep track of those pages in keyword-based indices. Thus, rather than storing 25 billion web pages all in one database (which would get pretty big), the engines have millions and millions of smaller databases, each centered on a particular keyword term or phrase. This makes it much faster for the engines to retrieve the data they need in a mere fraction of a second.

Search Engine Database Retrieval Process

Obviously, if you want your page to have a chance of being listed in the search results for “dog,” it’s extremely wise to make sure the word “dog” is part of the indexable content of your document.

Kewyords also dominate our search intent and interaction with the engines. For example, a common search query pattern might go something like this:

Running Shoes Search Process

When a search is performed, the engine knows which pages to retrieve based on the words entered into the search box. Other data, such as the order of the words (“running shoes” vs. “shoes running”), spelling, punctuation and capitalization of those terms provide additional information that the engines can use to help retrieve the right pages and rank them.

For obvious reasons, search engines meaure the ways keywords are used on pages to help determine the “relevance” of a particular document to a query. One of the best ways to “optimize” a page’s rankings is, therefore, to ensure that keywords are prominently used in titles, text and meta data.

The Myth of Keyword Density

Whenever the topic of keyword usage and search engines come together, a natural tendency to use the phrase “keyword density” seems to arise. This is tragic. Keyword density is, without question, NOT a part of modern web search engine ranking algorithms for the simple reason that it provides far worse results than many other, more advanced methods of keyword analysis. Rather than cover this logical fallacy in depth in this guide, I’ll simply reference Dr. Edel Garcia seminal work on the topic – The Keyword Density of Non-Sense.

The notion of keyword density values predates all commercial search engines and the Internet and can hardly be considered an IR concept. What is worse, KD plays no role on how commercial search engines process text, index documents or assign weights to terms. Why then many optimizers still believe in KD values? The answer is simple: misinformation

If two documents, D1 and D2, consist of 1000 terms (l = 1000) and repeat a term 20 times (tf = 20), then a keyword density analyzer will tell you that for both documents KD = 20/1000 = 0.020 (or 2%) for that term. Identical values are obtained when tf = 10 and l = 500. Evidently, a keyword density analyzer does not establishes which document is more relevant. A density analysis or KD ratio tells us nothing about:

  1. the relative distance between keywords in documents (proximity)
  2. where in a document the terms occur (distribution)
  3. the co-citation frequency between terms (co-occurrence)
  4. the main theme, topic, and sub-topics (on-topic issues) of the documents

Thus, KD is divorced from content quality, semantics and relevacy.

Dr. Garcia’s background in information retrieval and his mathematical proofs should debunk any notion that keyword density can be used to help “optimize” a page for better rankings. However, this same document illustrates the unfortunate truth about keyword optimization – without access to a global index of web pages (to calculate term weight) and a representative corpus of the Internet’s collected documents (to help build a semantic library), we have little chance to create formulas that would be helpful for true optimization.

However, keyword usage and targeting are only a small part of the search engines’ ranking algorithms (as we’ve discussed in Section I: Retrieval & Rankings), and we can still leverage some effective “best practices” for keyword usage to help make pages that are very close to “optimized.” Here at SEOmoz, we engage in a lot of testing and get to see a huge number of search results and shifts based on keyword usage tactics. When we work with our clients, this is the process we recommend:

  1. Use the keyword in the title tag at least once, and possibly twice (or as a variation) if it makes sense and sounds good (this is subjective, but necessary). Try to keep the keyword as close to the beginning of the title tag as possible.  More detail on title tags follows later in this section.
  2. Once in the H1 header tag of the page.
  3. At least 3X in the body copy on the page (sometimes a few more times if there’s a lot of text content). You may find additional value in adding the keyword more than 3X, but in our experience, adding more instances of a term or phrase tends to have little to no impact on rankings. 
  4. At least once in bold. You can use either the <strong> or <b> tag as search engines consider them equivalent (note: at this time we’ve only actually tested Google for the <b> vs. <strong> equivalency).
  5. At least once in the alt attribute of an image on the page. This not only helps with web search, but also image search, which can sometimes bring valuable traffic.
  6. Once in the URL. Additional rules for URLs and keywords are discussed later on in this section.
  7. At least once (sometimes 2X when it makes sense) in the meta description tag. Note that the meta description tag does NOT get used by the engines for rankings, but rather helps to attract clicks by searchers from the results page (as it is the ”snippet” of text used by the search engines. 
  8. Generally not in link anchor text on the page itself, pointing to other pages on your site or different domains (this is a bit complex – see this blog post for details).

An optimal page for the phrase “running shoes” would thus look something like:

Sample Page Targeting the Phrase "Running Shoes"

Keyword usage is NOT an exact science, and it is certainly valuable to engage in testing, tweaking and experimentation on your own sites and pages. Just keep in mind that user experience shoud never be sacrificed for the sake of optimization – search engines want the same things as humans, and generally speaking, if your page can earn one or two extra links by providing great content, this will far outweigh any benefit from stuffing an extra keyword repetition. SEOmoz’s Term Targeting tool is designed to help accomplish precisely this feat and provides a grade to indicate how well (or poorly) a particular page is following the above suggestions.

As you perform keyword targeting, remember that search engines have advanced semantic analysis abilities – this means that they can not only detect whether your page has the right keywords on it, but whether that page is actually targeting the proper subject(s). Thus, embedding keywords as we’ve described above with perfect precision on a page that’s actually about laser hair removal is going to be immediately apparent to the search engines. Instead of merely inserting keywords on a page and expecting rankings, make sure that the document itself contains high quality content describing or on the topic of your keyword of choice.


In the next installment, I’ll finish up the basics of search-engine friendly design and cover:

  • Titles, URLs, Meta Data and Semantic Markup
  • Information Architecture
  • Canonicalization and Duplicate Versions of Content
  • Redirection, Hosting & Server Issues

Blogged with Flock

Tags:

Categorías: Posicionamiento SEO/SEM

SEO 2.0, vamos más allá de Google, por favor!

Diciembre 15, 2007 · Dejar un comentario

Con nuestros clientes intentamos recomendarles que apuesten por el SEO 2.0, en otras palabras en el posicionamiento social en Internet.
Creo interesante este artículo como buena fuente de comparación.

fuente: http://seo2.0.onreact.com/seo-vs-seo-20-top-15-differences
SEO 2.0 | SEO vs SEO 2.0: Top 15 Differences

SEO SEO 2.0
Link building, manually adding them, submitting static websites to directories, link exchange, paying for links Getting links, enhancing it by certain actions like blogging, writing pillar content, creating link bait, socializing
On site optimization for spiders: example repetitive page titles concentrating (solely) on keywords On site optimization for users. Example: Kick ass post titles
Competition: You compete with others to be on the first page/in the Google top 10 for keywords Cooperation: You cooperate with each other submitting fellow bloggers to social media or voting for them, you link to them
Barter: You give me link and only then I will give you one Giving: I link you regardless whether you link back, but in most cases you will, more than once
Hiding: We’re not doing SEO, we can’t show our client list publicly, impersonal SEO company Being open: Welcome our new client xyz, we are proud to work together with them, Rand Fishkin and his team
keywords tags
Optimization for links Optimization for traffic
clicks, pageviews, visits conversions, ROI, branding
DMOZ del.icio.us
Main traffic sources: Google, Yahoo, MSN Main traffic sources: StumbleUpon, Niche social news sites, Blogs
one way communication dialog, conversation
top down bottom up
undemocratic, who pays most is on top democratic, who responds to popular demand is on top
50% automated 10% automated
technocratic emotional

Blogged with Flock

Tags:

Categorías: Posicionamiento SEO/SEM · web 2.0

Técnicas para el posicionamiento en buscadores no muy recomendables…

Diciembre 14, 2007 · Dejar un comentario

Fuente :http://www.weblinx.biz/seo_techniques.htm

SEO techniques

When you take out a search engine optimisation campaign the thing you need to take into consideration is the SEO techniques that are going to be used for the optimisation of your website.

Many internet marketing companies use unethical SEO techniques with their search engine optimisation campaigns.

You have to be careful that you choose a search engine optimisation company who uses ethical and successful SEO techniques in their work.

SEO Techniques – Unethical

There are many unethical SEO techniques which SEO companies or an advertising company may use in their work which do not deliver the results anticipated at the time you purchase a company website design search engine optimisation.

You need to be careful that the company you choose does not advertise by using any unethical SEO techniques, as this can limit the potential of your internet advertising campaign.

SEO techniques which are deemed unethical include meta-tag spamming, title spamming, hidden text, NOSCRIPT content spamming and doorway and gateway pages.

These are the SEO techniques you should look to stay away from when proceeding with online media solutions.

Unethical SEO Techniques – Meta-tag Spamming

Meta-tag spam is one of the unethical SEO techniques some internet marketing companies use.

Meta-tags are html content search engine spiders use to quickly reference the content of your web page.

What some companies do is spam the meta-tags “keyword” element with a long list of repeated search terms, they also then repeat this list in the “description” element of the meta-tags.

This is unethical form of SEO techniques as the correct way to use meta-tags is to place relevant keywords and a description about the web page itself in the meta-tags.

Unethical SEO Techniques – Title Spamming

 Title spamming is also amongst the list of SEO techniques deemed unethical by internet marketing companies.

As with meta-tags some website design search engine optimisation companies place a long list of keywords in the title tags of the pages.

The correct way to use the title tags is to place a descriptive brief in the title tag relevant to the web page itself.

These have to be done properly because it is through title tags that search engine spiders identify your web pages and what they relate to.

Unethical SEO Techniques – Hidden Text

Another one of the unethical SEO
techniques is hidden text when carrying out company website optimisation.

Hidden text is when you try to place a long list of keywords on the page and style them with a Cascading Style Sheet (CSS Style) to be “invisible” or blended into the web page.

This technique is useless as search engine spiders recognise that you have tried to hide the content and can penalise your site for it.

Our SEO Consultancy team recommend strongly that you stay away from using hidden text on the pages as it can seriously de-value the other SEO techniques which may have been employed on your company website for your search engine optimisation campaign.

Unethical SEO Techniques – NOSCRIPT Spamming

NOSCRIPT, when abused, is another one of the undesirable and unethical SEO techniques which may be used in your SEO promotion campaign.

The NOSCRIPT is content which is not visible on the web page when viewed in a browser, but is visible to the search engine spiders.

When used correctly, NOSCRIPT can be beneficial to your company website.

Our SEO Consultancy advise that if you do decide to use NOSCRIPT content that you do not spam the content with loads of keywords continuously repeated.

Unethical SEO Techniques – Doorway and Gateway Pages

The use of doorway or gateway pages are another form of undesirable SEO techniques for company website optimisation.

There are pages that are created to redirect to your homepage once clicked on.

This is done via a meta-tag redirect script.

This is mainly done by companies selling sex toys and Viagra.

They optimise doorway or gateway pages for high searched terms, for example “cheap computers”, then once the pages are clicked on you are redirected to their website.

Tags:

Categorías: Posicionamiento SEO/SEM

Ya se qué es Google Local, pero ¿cómo me posiciono primero ?

Diciembre 13, 2007 · Dejar un comentario

Muchos de nuestros clientes nos piden estar en Google Local, y eso es tarea senzilla, pero una vez apareces en Google local/maps a medida que otras empresas también aparecen, ya que también luchar para estar los primeros.
En este artículo podeis ver algunas reflexiones sobre este tema.

fuente: http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/
10 Likely Elements of Google’s Local Search Algorithm

submit_url = “http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/10-likely-elements-of-googles-local-search-algorithm/519/”;
Google Maps logoSeveral of us have been involved in a lot of discussion about why the same search produces different results between Google Maps and Google.com.

The recent expansion of the Google Maps Onebox on Google.com makes local search optimization much more important than it was before this new display was implemented widely on Google.com. Now, whether you have a web site or not, a business that Google ranks highly in Google Maps can get dramatic exposure thanks to last month’s change. How dramatic? Well, according to Bill Tancer’s Hitwise data, Google.com gets about 100x more traffic than Google Maps. So, yeah, this can be huge for some small businesses.

The inevitable question, then — and the one several of us have been discussing — is what makes the Google Maps algorithm different from Google.com? Google Maps has a unique set of data to draw from. Here’s a semi-educated guess — but a guess, at best — at some of the factors that might make up the Google Maps algorithm. (These are not necessarily listed in order of importance.)

1. Use of Google’s Local Business Center (LBC)

Local search requires structured data to be effective. Google needs to be able to match the business to a location. By submitting a business listing, you’re giving Google the data confirmation it needs to make the association between your business and your place on the map.

2. Availability/Trust of other business data

If the business is not participating directly with Google’s LBC, does it have listings in the other major business databases like Acxiom, Amacai/Localeze, and infoUSA? If so, and if the listings are the same from one database to the next, Google may be able to assign more trust to the business and its location. Listings in Internet Yellow Pages (IYP) providers such as Superpages and YellowPages.com might be used for a similar purpose.

3. A Business Web Site

Having a web site is not a requirement to being found in Google Maps (or Yahoo! Local, for that matter). However, having a web site, and having pages that are properly optimized for local search terms (keyword and location) would most surely be a factor in the local search algorithm. Taking steps to make your page(s) more local should be part of a business’s local SEO effort.

4. Listings in 2nd-tier Local Directories

I use the term “2nd tier” because I’m putting yellow pages on the top level of trusted local directories. Very slightly below them, I think, would be sites such as CitySearch, Yelp, InsiderPages, and the like. I’ve seen Yelp data cited an inordinate amount of times in Google Maps in recent days for a variety of local business listings. It seems logical to suggest that both the business data and the user reviews on sites like these would be impacting the local search algorithm. (More on reviews in a moment.)

5. Listings in Vertical Directories

For some queries, Google Maps pulls data from verticals such as TripAdvisor, ChefMoz, Gayot.com, Fodors, Travelocity, Wcities.com, Frommers, HotelGuide.net, and so on…. These sites are often being used for reviews that Google shows, but also for secondary business data such as Payments Accepted, Directions, Price Range, Checkout Time, etc.

6. References from other Web sites

Citations and links from other web sites that include the business name and location would, in theory, be helpful in ranking for local search terms. This might include references from Chamber of Commerce-style sites, Visitor Bureau-style sites, city/town directories, and even school web sites, not to mention the local categories of DMOZ, Yahoo Directory, and the like.

7. Reviews

It’s hard to get a handle on the impact of user reviews in the algorithm. In many searches, a 4-star rated business will be listed higher than a 5-star business. In some searches (see below), a business with no reviews will be listed above a 5-star rated business. That speaks to the fact that reviews can be “gamed,” though I would still suggest strongly that both quantity and quality of reviews are part of the algorithm.

8. Proximity to location

Not too long ago, this was a prime factor in many local search algorithms. A local search SERP used to show listings based on proximity by default. That’s not the case anymore, but for any location-based search, it still has to play some part in the algorithm.

9. Location Prominence and User Query

Full credit for this goes to Bill Slawski of SEO by the Sea, who wrote about location prominence in relation to the search query a user enters. In a nutshell, a Google patent application Bill analyzed reveals that some local queries are said to apply to a smaller geographic area than other queries. To borrow an example Bill has used, someone searching for car dealers may be more willing to consider businesses over a 30-40 mile area than someone looking for pizza. The algorithm, if this patent is in use, would take user queries into account as it determines how big an area to include in the results. (Bill, did I get that right?)

10. Use of other Google services

No, not the dreaded Google rewards AdWords customers with higher rankings conspiracy; that’s not what I’m suggesting. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest a business that uses Google Checkout, for example, gets found easier in local search (yet). There is the possibility, though, that the use of a Google Maps service — such as coupons — could play a small factor in the local search algorithm. Coupons are too new, and may not have wide enough adoption to say for sure one way or another. More research would need to be done.

To underscore the difficulty of de-constructing a local search algorithm, where keywords and anchor text aren’t nearly enough to determine relevance, let’s look at a not-too-competitive search: dry cleaners in san jose. Since there’s not a ton of data to dig through, it’s easier to spot differences between the results we get back.

Google Maps Onebox - dry cleaners san jose

Listing “A” — The one dry cleaner with a web site gets the top listing. The web site has a PR=1, but is not especially optimized for local search aside from internal anchor text that says “San Jose, California” pointing to a page that holds a Mapquest map and little more. Google’s info. about the business shows data from Acxiom (Allpages.com), Yelp, Citysearch, Superpages.com, and others — a nice variety of external references for such a small business. This business has no reviews, and doesn’t appear to have submitted to Google’s LBC. It’s further from the San Jose city center than listing B, and about the same distance as listing C.

Listing “B” — This business, like listing C below it, does not have a web site. It also doesn’t appear to have submitted to Google’s LBC. It’s closer to the city center than listings A and C, and also has a 5-star review from Yelp. Neither listing A nor listing C has any reviews. It has fewer 3rd-party web references than listing A, but more than listing C.

Listing “C” — This business is the only one that is using Google’s LBC. The business has no reviews, but is using the LBC to offer a coupon. The only 3rd-party web reference Google shows is an Acxiom listing on AllPages.com. It’s about the same distance away from the city center as listing A, but further away than listing B.

What’s interesting to note here is that the SERPs below this Google Maps display are filled with directory sites such as Citysearch, Yelp, InsiderPages, and even Yahoo Local. No actual dry cleaner has the juice to outrank deep pages on these sites. Listing B is the only one of our three that appears in the Yahoo Local Top 10 — it’s the first dry cleaner listed, and has a 5-star review.

Conclusion

Traditional search is keyword-based and the algorithms center mainly on the keyword: where and how often it appears in the page title, on-page text, inbound anchor links, etc. Local search is a different ballgame because geography gets thrown into the mix, and geographic data is spread out far and wide on the web. The fact that most small businesses haven’t done anything to confirm their online data only makes local search harder to get right … and makes the algorithm that much harder to de-construct.

Blogged with Flock

Categorías: Posicionamiento SEO/SEM

Publicidad en los pdfs ??? Interesante

Diciembre 3, 2007 · Dejar un comentario

Os dejo este artículo de seowatch.com.

Advertisers on Yahoo’s Content Match network may soon see their ads appearing alongside Adobe PDF (portable document format) documents. In a new deal with Adobe, Yahoo will begin testing a program that will allow publishers to monetize PDFs with with contextually targeted text ads. The program, dubbed Ads for Adobe PDF, displays contextual ads in a side panel of Adobe Reader and Adobe Acrobat when a user views the PDF.

PDFs will be added to the Content Match inventory, with no plans yet to allow advertisers to opt-out. But Josh Jacobs, VP for publisher solutions at Yahoo, told ClickZ News that Yahoo will consider allowing advertisers to opt out of the format or to specifically target readers of PDF documents.

“A big goal of the beta program for both of us is to gain more insight into how users are engaging with this,” said Jacobs. “We’ll continue to look at whether there are other types of creative and ad placements that make sense.”

Blogged with Flock

Tags:

Categorías: Posicionamiento SEO/SEM

77 formas de aumentar las visitas a su sitio web.

Noviembre 29, 2007 · Dejar un comentario

consejos por :Allan Gardyne de AssociatePrograms.com
Consejo de tráfico #1 – Alta calidad, contenido único.
· Consejo de tráfico #2 – Siga añadiendo contenido.
· Consejo de tráfico #3 – Nombre de dominio recordable.
· Consejo de tráfico #4 – Compre el nombre de dominio equivocado.
· Consejo de tráfico #5 – Nombre de dominio fácil de leer.
· Consejo de tráfico #6 – Palabras clave en ficheros de imágenes.
· Consejo de tráfico #7 – Investigación seria de palabras clave.
· Consejo de tráfico #8 – Mejore los títulos de las páginas.
· Consejo de tráfico #9 – SEO orgánico.
· Consejo de tráfico #10 – Envíe a directorios.
· Consejo de tráfico #11 – Envíe a directorios de nichos.
· Consejo de tráfico #12 – Distribución de artículos.
· Consejo de tráfico #13 – Escriba artículos para otros sitios.
· Consejo de tráfico #14 – Envíe artículos a boletines.
· Consejo de tráfico #15 – Envíe consejos a blogs.
· Consejo de tráfico #16 – Palabras clave en perfiles online.
· Consejo de tráfico #17 – Enlaces unidireccionales.
· Consejo de tráfico #18 – Invite a otros a publicar contenido.
· Consejo de tráfico #19 – Publicación de boletín.
· Consejo de tráfico #20 – Directorios de boletines.
· Consejo de tráfico #21 – Publique un mini-curso.
· Consejo de tráfico #22 – Escriba testimonios.
· Consejo de tráfico #23
– Sea útil en los foros.
· Consejo de tráfico #24 – Ponga anuncios gratis en foros.
· Consejo de tráfico #25 – Sea útil en listas de discusión.
· Consejo de tráfico #26 – Notas de prensa ricas en palabras clave.
· Consejo de tráfico #27 – Cree un blog vivo.
· Consejo de tráfico #28 – RSS feeds en su blog.
· Consejo de tráfico #29 – RSS para el email.
· Consejo de tráfico #30 – Elimine los enlaces rotos.
· Consejo de tráfico #31 – Podcasting.
· Consejo de tráfico #32 – Use un hospedaje fiable.
· Consejo de tráfico #33 – Retuerza los enlaces internos.
· Consejo de tráfico #34 – Persiga nuevas modas y temas calientes.
· Consejo de tráfico #35 – Persiga nuevos programas de afiliados.
· Consejo de tráfico #36 – Analice sus logs.
· Consejo de tráfico #37 – Hágase socio de asociaciones de negocios.
· Consejo de tráfico #38 – Añada un foro a su sitio.
· Consejo de tráfico #39 – Escriba informes gratis o libros blancos.
· Consejo de tráfico #40 – Escriba informes customizables.
· Consejo de tráfico #41 – Envíe a directorios de ebooks.
· Consejo de tráfico #42 – Ofrézcase como columnista.
· Consejo de tráfico #43 – Ofrézcase a moderar parte de un foro.
· Consejo de tráfico #44 – Haga algo gracioso.
· Consejo de tráfico #45 – Sea estrafalario o controvertido.
· Consejo de tráfico #46 – Etiquete (tag) su blog.
· Consejo de tráfico #47 – Sitios web de periódicos.
· Consejo de tráfico #48 – Suba y etiquete (tag) sus fotos.
· Consejo de tráfico #49 – Use montajes.
· Consejo de tráfico #50 Cree “cebo para enlaces” deliberadamente.
· Consejo de tráfico #51 – Sindique su material.
· Consejo de tráfico #52 – Posiciónese como experto.
· Consejo de tráfico #53 – Cree un perfil en Amazon.com.
· Consejo de tráfico #54 – Combine JV’s con captura de email.
· Consejo de tráfico #55 – Intente la publicidad offline.
· Consejo de tráfico #56 – Ponga un enlace en Yahoo! Answers.
· Consejo de tráfico #57 – Consiga enlaces de eBay.
· Consejo de tráfico #58 – Consiga enlaces de AdSense.
· Consejo de tráfico #59 – Añada comentarios útiles en los blogs.
· Consejo de tráfico #60 – Añada contenido que enganche.
· Consejo de tráfico #61 – Añada a su sitio anuncios clasificados.
· Consejo de tráfico #62 Redes sociales. Bookmarking social.
· Consejo de tráfico #63 – Cree su propio club de fans.
· Consejo de tráfico #64 – Anuncios PPC efectivos.
· Consejo de tráfico #65 – Compre anuncios en boletines.
· Consejo de tráfico #66 – Compre enlaces de texto – ¡con cuidado!
· Consejo de tráfico #67 – Anúnciese en sitios menos obvios.
· Consejo de tráfico #68 – Cree software gratuito.
· Consejo de tráfico #69 – Cree software descargable.
· Consejo de tráfico #70 – Consiga publicidad para su software.
· Consejo de tráfico #71 – Cree un video gracioso.
· Consejo de tráfico #72 – Use una presentación de firma.
· Consejo de tráfico #73 – Piense en viral.
· Consejo de tráfico #74 – Email página a un amigo.
· Consejo de tráfico #75 – Añadir a favoritos.
· Consejo de tráfico #76
– Comience un programa de afiliados.
· Consejo de tráfico #77 – Páginas acerca de nosotros.

Categorías: Posicionamiento SEO/SEM
Etiquetado:

Tendencias sobre la publicidad online

Noviembre 29, 2007 · Dejar un comentario

Por : James Watt :Internet Marketing Specialist

Social networking may not fit into “search engien marketing”, however it is becoming a huge factor in online advertising. With Facebook and Myspace offering demographically targeted advertising platforms, companies will soon have more options for spending their online advertising dollars.

Google is certainly taking note of this trend with the acquisition of YouTube and the deal to advertising on MySpace as is MSN with their investment in Facebook.

There are huge privacy issues with this demographic future. Nonetheless, the ability to advertising directly to your target market is a force. The future? I see a combination of search engine marketing with social network demographic targeting. Meaning rather than just advertising to someone who searches for “blue widgets” or advertising to everyone who is male age 25 – 30 who likes golf, show your ads to every male age 25 – 30 who likes golf and searches for “blue widgets”. This micro targeting would provide the ideal situation for those concerned with ROI….and who isn’t?

MSN tried this model, but seemed to lack the data and ability. Google is collecting a lot of data about its huge user base and I am sure this will eventually be reflected within their PPC model.

Links:

Blogged with Flock

Tags:

Categorías: Posicionamiento SEO/SEM