This is practically a step by step way to promote your new sites. I mean, it’s like a recipe it’s so simple. And of course you can vary it using sources you find on your own. But seriously - brilliant.
I’m so definitely going to do this with some of my new sites.

This is practically a step by step way to promote your new sites. I mean, it’s like a recipe it’s so simple. And of course you can vary it using sources you find on your own. But seriously - brilliant.

I’m so definitely going to do this with some of my new sites.

They said paid links weren’t a problem as long as they didn’t violate other good linking practices. That makes sense, since Google really has no way of knowing that someone hasn’t paid me (or promised me something) to write this very post.Now they’re saying not only will they be cracking down on those godless link [...]

They said paid links weren’t a problem as long as they didn’t violate other good linking practices. That makes sense, since Google really has no way of knowing that someone hasn’t paid me (or promised me something) to write this very post.Now they’re saying not only will they be cracking down on those godless link sellers, they also invite webmasters to turn each other in. Google says it’s not fair to visitors who may not realize links are paid.

Now, honestly, this is just so bone-headed my guess is it’s some kind of scare tactic. My guess is they feel that services like TextLinkAds are in danger of kicking Google’s ass by using Google’s PR system against them - if Google assumes, as I do, that people who buy text link ads use pagerank as a guide. But let’s consider the amazing levels of hypocrisy in all this:

• The most deceptive ad currently available for your website is Google’s AdSense link format. People blend those right in so they look like the site menu. How many visitors do you suppose find themselves on some other site entirely, thinking they were clicking an inteneral link?
• If people are buying text ads in order to get pagerank… well, let’s remember a time pagerank didn’t exist. What did people buy for back then? Relevant links. And remind me once again where people get pagerank. Would it be… relevant links? For the most part, at least.
• Google advises using no-follow to correct this situation. Hmm. I thought they didn’t want our links out disguised so that visitors couldn’t tell which links had our trust and which ones were "just ads"? Wouldn’t the solution in that case be to avoid no-follow tags, so webmasters are forced to link to site outright, or not?
• And Google’s solution is for us to out each other if we think maybe a link is paid? Awesome - I’m going to go make a list of all my niche competitors and tell Google they’re all selling paid links, I just knowz it.

Seriously. I don’t even find this plausible. I think people should stop worrying. Google pulls these scare tactic stunts once in a while, and then it never happens. Will they crack down on truly sleazy hidden links that take people to porn sites? Hey, I hope so. But all paid links? It doesn’t make sense. The only way to tell a good link from a bad one is to judge its relevancy. If they’re relevant, visitors won’t care if they’re paid and neither should Google.

I’m trying out Qumana, a desktop application to let you blog offline, save and publish posts, ping who you want and switch between blogs quickly and easily. The text box is WYSIWYG, so you can copy something with links and formatting and it’ll show up in the box just like it looked at the source. [...]

I’m trying out Qumana, a desktop application to let you blog offline, save and publish posts, ping who you want and switch between blogs quickly and easily. The text box is WYSIWYG, so you can copy something with links and formatting and it’ll show up in the box just like it looked at the source.

The setup is crazy-easy - you just plug in the site URL and your name and user password, and it figures out all your categories and everything else it needs.

Also works with Blogger and a ton of the social type sites.

I read a very detailed and thoughtful article about Brian Turner’s experience with ReviewMe - as an advertiser, not a publisher.
If I try to sum up what he said, I’ll probably accidentally misrepresent, so let me just say what impressions I retained from reading it.
If the advertiser puts in some work - i.e., giving [...]

I read a very detailed and thoughtful article about Brian Turner’s experience with ReviewMe - as an advertiser, not a publisher.

If I try to sum up what he said, I’ll probably accidentally misrepresent, so let me just say what impressions I retained from reading it.

If the advertiser puts in some work - i.e., giving people a specific bit of linkbait to review, like a contest or something - it can be good. But for simple hands-free site promotion, advertisers can get better inbounds for less through other methods like buying links.

I wonder how this compares with PayPerPost, the setup of which really encourages advertisers to think about what they want bloggers to cover and steer them in a direction. PPP is generally much cheaper, too.

Out of the box, WordPress is pretty decent for SEO. But there’s so much more you can do to get the advantage.
Template Tips:

Find templates that put the sidebar code after the content code. Look at the source code of your template. You want as little code as possible between the bots and the content. Is [...]

Out of the box, WordPress is pretty decent for SEO. But there’s so much more you can do to get the advantage.

Template Tips:

• Find templates that put the sidebar code after the content code. Look at the source code of your template. You want as little code as possible between the bots and the content. Is the code for the stuff in your sidebars (categories, blogroll, etc.) before or after the content of the top article? You want it to come after. If your template doesn’t do this, find another one. (It doesn’t matter where the sidebars are located on the page visually - you can have three of them on the left, and still have them loading AFTER the content.)
• Does your source code have a lot of java above the content? I know there are ways to get the java to load separately, but I haven’t figured them out and no one seems to be publishing their methods. So for now, consider very carefully which java-loading plugins are worth taking up that space. Also, some fancy template designers load a bunch of java effects into their templates. You want to avoid this stuff, generally. (It can be done right, but I wouldn’t expect that from free template designers.)

Plugin Tips

• Permalink Redirect - I installed this on several blogs and watched Google index a slew of new pages within days. It kills the possibility of Google finding two versions of the same page, differentiated only by the slash at the end being there or not, which helps with dupe content. Also has some other effects I haven’t played with but are probably valuable.
• Rewrite Titles - Puts your blog’s name at the end of the article title instead of the other way around. Makes your indexed pages in Google look more distinct.
• Custom Query String - lets you set different values for how many excerpts you want to show up on various types of pages (archives, search results, etc.). This way you can have your front page show, say, 4 full articles while your archive pages show excerpts from 10 or 15.

Other:

• Do make your archives show excerpts only. Some people think even the front page should have excerpts only, so that’s something to consider, too. But definitely make your archives excerpt only. And your search results and so on.
• Include a sitemap for visitors (I use Dagon’s plugin to make mine) and another one for bots. I’m honestly not convinced Google’s sitemap plugin makes a big difference, but I don’t see how it can hurt, either.

Here’s a way to get your blogs a little extra notice - maybe even a lot.
Blogger’s Choice Awards
Whether you win or not, it should bring some new traffic.

Here’s a way to get your blogs a little extra notice - maybe even a lot.

Blogger’s Choice Awards

Whether you win or not, it should bring some new traffic.