Comments for The BitWorm SEO Blog

Comment on 8 Reasons The Motorola Droid Will Fail by admin

admin — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:49:47 +0000

This is published in most media articles covering the Motorola Droid release. Verizon has “new and improved” data plans for their new “high end” smart phones. You could not get a new Droid and use it on your current plan.

Comment on 8 Reasons The Motorola Droid Will Fail by Jake

Jake — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:38:49 +0000

I pay $25 per month at Verizon for UNLIMITED data. Where do you get your information?!

Comment on Simple Lucene Example by Sakhi

Sakhi — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 05:15:47 +0000

I have used the API and available .dll file in .NET environment.
On my local pc everything is running fine but when I posted the indexed folder under the bin directory of website (shared hosting) then IndexSearcher started throwing the error “The type initializer for ‘Lucene.Net.Store.FSDirectory’ threw an exception”
Please Note:
Indexing is done offline on my PC and I just want the indexer to search the indexed stuff on the web. The Path is causing issues.
Can you provide which path I have to use? I am not sure if I require some additional permissions to give to ASPNET user and that may not be possible on shared-hosting.

Thanks in anticipation.
Regards

Comment on Multi-Field Lucene Example by Veeresh

Veeresh — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:40:07 +0000

Thanks you so much. It is really helpful article and I wanted this to search for an item that may exist multiple colums in a database. One improper approach here is, it requires to provide multiple or copy of keywords for all colums to be searched in it. Like this:
String fields[] = {”color”,”details”};
String keywords[] = {”white”,”white”};

This could have been made to provide single keyword over multiple fields, but unfortunately it is not possible. Anyway its ok and serves better

Thank you!

- Veeresh

Comment on Is Microsoft Live Search stuffing our log files? by A Site Admin

A Site Admin — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:29:21 +0000

I suspect there’s a simple explanation for all this … just follow the money.

I think M$ is trying to convince people that their live.search.com is sending you all kinds of visitors … and, of course, that means you should be advertising with them.

It’s possible that search.live.com is not only showing people the search hits BUT also visits (at least) some (large!) number of pages in that list.

E.G., when I look at the referrers for the last 3 days for one of our sites, I see entries like:
- 10 hits : http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=license
- 1 hit : http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=licenses
- 1 hit : http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=upgrades
- 7 hits : http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=contacts
… and on and on.

So, if they’re hitting our pages for these kind of search terms, you can imagine that they’re hitting hundreds of thousands of pages — possibly for each person’s search.

That way it looks like there are “sooooo many people” visiting your site because they’ve used search.live.com … and, of course, that’d mean you really should be advertising with them.

When all this started, we suddenly saw referrals go from about 3% of the number of Google search referrals to more than the number of Google-search referrals … all within a few days. Analyzing the resulting traffic from these referrals makes it fairly obvious that they’re not real people visiting.

In the end, I just attribute this to the normal kind of business behavior that’s consistent for Microsoft. What sleazebags!

Comment on Is the code validation factor…valid? by Leila

Leila — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:46:41 +0000

Good post.

Comment on Optimize for the Human Algorithm with Friendly URLs by SEO Team Reading List 9.17.08 » (EMP) E-Marketing Performance

SEO Team Reading List 9.17.08 » (EMP) E-Marketing Performance — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:24:02 +0000

[...] Optimize for the Human Algorithm with Friendly URLs [...]

Comment on Mine your Keywords Report - Take Immediate Action by The BitWorm Search Blog » Friendly URLs - The human algorithm

The BitWorm Search Blog » Friendly URLs - The human algorithm — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:55:16 +0000

[...] http://www.bitworm.com/search/2008/long-tail-keywords/ [...]

Comment on Is the code validation factor…valid? by SEOBandy

SEOBandy — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:42:21 +0000

oops I meant on webmaster central.. very tired! lol

Comment on Is the code validation factor…valid? by SEOBandy

SEOBandy — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:30:47 +0000

Thank you bitworm - when writing the article I realize I left out your reasoning which is very important as well. Thank for the clarification I probably should have come to as a conclusion, but overlooked. Yes, sites that are compliant will render properly in all browsers, thus increasing the user experience. I agree and wish to take it one step further.

BUT wait.. interesting.. Google seemed to have updated their guidelines today (though I have not been there in a while, so maybe the date of Sept 5 is for some other changes - however!…

“Step 1: Ensure browser compatibility by focusing on accessibility
The same techniques that make your site more accessible to search engines, such as static HTML versus fancy features like AJAX, often help your site’s compatibility on various browsers and numerous browser versions. Simpler HTML is often more easily cross-compatible than the latest techniques.

Step 2: Consider validating your code
If your code passes validation, you’ve eliminated one potential issue in browser compatibility. With validated code, you won’t need to rely on each browsers’ error handling technique. There’s a greater chance that your code will function across different browsers, and it’s easier to debug potential problems.”

Seems to support your idea…
and the one step further..
If you take the 90-95% of sites on the net that do not worry about code compliance (a stat we have because we do accessibility) and you suddenly lower their rank because of this, how do they make it up? PPC! Lots and lots and lots of PPC. It would be a brilliant monetization plan. The guidelines have always said make your site compliant and accessible. It would not be new, so would not be much anyone could say should they start weighting for it..

Now to add something to the discussion.. go to the Google Accessible Index… these sites are not compliant sites, but cleanly coded sites.. your thoughts? It says for the disabled, but I can assure these sites are not.

Seems they would go hand in hand.. a test index for testing compliant code..

But as I keep saying I could be wrong
Thanks again though for your thoughtful post!! I appreciate the insight!
And thank you for noticing I was just making observations from experience - that is where testing begins and that is all I was stating.

Hope you have a good day!
Smiles!